The Federal Erection

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:58 am

Well its topical I guess...

I came across this vid today, got to be one of the best pieces of propganda ive seen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptccZze7VxQ&eurl

Fing funny communist manefesto for the one rudd

As a typically green voter with labor prefereences, I found this article interesting

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/t ... 62380.html

"One of the central issues in this election campaign is what Kevin Rudd would be like as prime minister. Much of John Howard's campaigning is directed towards convincing us that, once he'd won, Rudd's me-tooing would stop and the real man would be revealed.

But here's the funny thing: what Liberal supporters fear, many Labor supporters hope for. They hope that once he'd won, Rudd's me-tooing would stop and the closet socialist â€” any kind of socialist â€” would be revealed.

The theory is that, to make himself a small target, to evade being wedged and avoid being engulfed by controversy, Rudd is having to pay lip-service to a lot of stuff he doesn't really believe in. It's the price of winning office from a "clever politician" such as Howard. But that price is getting higher as each day passes and Rudd shows no reluctance to pay it...."

Are people switching off from the whole thing, given the year of campaigning to date?? Im finding myself a bit too interested, reading hun opinion pieces and letters to try and get a barometer for "middle australia" and how they will vote - so many poeple seem so fickle in thier choices.

Heres another nice clip from the chaser rudds "economic conservative" ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB3Hlv7rg1M

any other good political clips?

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:46 am

could have added others to the poll i guess, like not voting, not decided... oh well

Blaxter · Post by **Blaxter** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:03 am

FoundationStepper wrote:could have added others to the poll i guess, like not voting, not decided... oh well

What about the Anarchist massif?

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:32 am

i nearly put that in, next to not voting

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:46 am

Im interested in the democrats - i know they seem to be a spent force but it appears thier policies have a left leaning that appeals to me but are still pragamatic and dont have the nuts qualities that the greens are prone to.

I wasnt in australia in the time when they acutally has a "solid" representation so i dont know much about them

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:58 am

Greens in shock landslide MB.com victory.

Blaxter · Post by **Blaxter** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:01 am

I can has a laugh at the title of this thread.

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:17 pm

i still dont understand the voting system here.
ive only been able to vote the last two times...and ive voted green.

i was told years ago that if you vote greens you 'waste' your vote as they just go towards the preferences of one of the other major parties.

i dont want howard.
i dont want ruddie.

so, one of them is gonna end up getting in. not greens.
do i just vote for the least annoying one? confused yankee kitty.

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:24 pm

True Kitty... but that only happens AFTER the Greens don't win the set... they then go to whichever party the Greens nominate (and you'd think they'd select a party with a similar vision to theirs).

If the Greens happen to poll the most votes for your seat - then they win, no question.

Post by **huge** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:27 pm

bunch of hippies!

Sustain · Post by **Sustain** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:41 pm

kittty, your green vote is NOT wasted!

In the senate; each state votes for eight senators. So, each canditate only needs around 13% of the vote state wide to win a 6 year term!) This is why all the greens in paliament are senators.

In the house of reps; yes it's true that in most electorates it is unlikely that the greens will win, but your vote isn't wasted because it is passed onto your next preferred party (this is the basis behind preferrential voting).

Furthermore, voting green isn't just about winning seats.. it is about sending a message. More green votes shows other political parties and lobby groups that greens are emerging as a powerful political force... therefore the other parties will hopefully swing toward green policies in an effort to appease the green vote.

isn't politics exciting?

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:41 pm

sorry direkt but that makes no sense to me at all.

so huge > who are you voting for then? which baboon?

Sustain · Post by **Sustain** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:45 pm

they put the votes in piles according to first preferences...
then they pick up all the small piles, leaving the two biggest (lets say coalition and labor).
the small piles are then placed on either the labor pile or the coalition pile, according to preference. the biggest pile then wins!
so if you vote green and it isn't in one of the biggest piles, your vote then goes to either labor or the coalition, depending on who you have put down as your preference

does that make sense?

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:52 pm

thanks sustain, kind of, so do you know which side your vote will go if it doesnt make the final big piles?
is that relative to what area you in, like are some greens on the side of labour, some liberal?

and this is numbering the fifty candidates under the line right?

so for example, if you wanted to vote green, but REALLY did NOT want howard to get back in,
what would one vote?

voting noob.

Sustain · Post by **Sustain** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:01 pm

The House of Representatives (the one with johnny) and the Senate (with bob) have different voting systems.

In the House of Reps, you will have about 6 candidates on the ballot. You must number every candidate according to your preference.

Eg.
1. Green
2. Hashish coalition
3. Labor
4. Liberal
5. Family first

So... if green are not in the two big piles your vote would go to the bone-thugs-n-harmony-lovin-sittin-on-the-couch-all-day-hashish guys. but they're not really gonna be in a big pile are they? so, your vote would then go to labor.

In the senate, there are about 50 candidates. So you have two options.. you could number every bloody candidate according to preference, but you would have to number ALL of them... one to fifty. If you only numbered one to ten your vote would be invalid and not counted.

Or... (this is much easier). There is a box for each party at the top of the page. If you place the number 1 in the Greens box, the rest of your preferences will then flow to whoever the greens have nominated. If it came down to it, your vote would always flow to Labor over Liberal, because that is what the greens have nominated to the electoral commission. This is called voting 'above the line'.

Perhaps a little long winded, but hope that's clear?

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:11 pm

yes. thankyou.

so is that why most peeps in the poll here are voting green, casue if they dont get in, at least howard wont?

grooki · Post by **grooki** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:19 pm

lol we have a nest of Greens here!

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:20 pm

thanks a bunch sustain, nobody seems to be able to make it clear, but you have!

i was gonna copy my housemates vote hehehhe

retzie · Post by **retzie** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:37 pm

ghetto kitty wrote:so is that why most peeps in the poll here are voting green, casue if they dont get in, at least howard wont?

Yup - voting Green with Labor preferences is my way of saying "I don't want Howard to win, but I think Labor needs a kick up the arse on various issues, so they're not getting my unequivocal support." Avoids the "If I vote Green, there is one less vote against Liberal" conundrum. Mind you, given the number of people now doing this, there is half a chance of a Green in the lower house, which would be rad.

It upsets me how misleading all the media talk of 'preference flow' is. All it means (for house of reps) is what is printed on the how to vote cards - we can preference whoever we like! For the senate, yes party preferences affect your vote if you vote above the line, but you can always direct preferences exactly as you wish by voting below the line. 'Tis not that hard to tell people

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:43 pm

the australian voting system is FUCKEN CONFUSING!!

instead of 'drugs are bad mkay" glossy twenty page pamphlets gonig out to every household

there should be a document gonig out that is unbiased that >

1) states the early registration date and states the importance of voting
(especially targeted at young people)
2) explains the break down of voting above/below the line
3) explains the goverment system in general, for all our recent citizens and new voters.

Lephrenic · Post by **Lephrenic** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:48 pm

Yes there should. But then Howard wouldn't win, would he?

Post by **system** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:49 pm

and the american system is less confusing?

retzie · Post by **retzie** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:53 pm

ghetto kitty wrote:the australian voting system is FUCKEN CONFUSING!!

instead of 'drugs are bad mkay" glossy twenty page pamphlets gonig out to every household

there should be a document gonig out that is unbiased that >

1) states the early registration date and states the importance of voting
(especially targeted at young people)
2) explains the break down of voting above/below the line
3) explains the goverment system in general, for all our recent citizens and new voters.

Even better, I think it is much more important that we institute and advertise a citizenship test

I'm guessing I'm not the only one here who's happy to (try to) answer any more questions anyone has. I want everyone's vote to go where they want it!

system wrote:and the american system is less confusing?

Less confusing. Also less fair

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:55 pm

retzie wrote:
system wrote:t;]and the american system is less confusing?
Less confusing. Also less fair

true!

i was to young to vote when i lived in the states system, but im gonig to try and vote from here next time as a citizen of the US.

Sustain · Post by **Sustain** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:05 pm

the australian electoral system itself is hardly 'fair'.. the senate in particular

NSW has around 5.5 million ppl, but gets the same amount of senate seats as Tassie with its 1 million ppl.. Should a Tasmanian vote be worth five times that of someone from NSW. No! It should only be worth twice as much (you know, cos of the heads thing).

Preferences can be fucked too! Last election the Greens got around 10% of Victorian senate votes, but it was Family First with its 2% of primary votes that got a seat, because of preference flows! From the bloody Labor party!

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:07 pm

family first makes me so so angry.

ShiKung · Post by **ShiKung** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:08 pm

Bring in MMP!! Its the best voting system there is. I reckon they could bring it in for the lower house easily and still retain the Senate voting system.

With MMP every Australian would have a more direct route to changing politics, and getting a clearer voice!

I'm truely voting for the first time this year, it wasnt until I went to Canberra I had any idea how any of it worked properly. Im looking forward to it!

nic · Post by **nic** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:18 pm

There is not much choice really, hardly any of the current politicians / parties (except Bob Brown) at the moment have any vision, strength or charisma.

All of them are pissweak, purely reactive, flip flopping, all smiling all dancing watered down excuses for leaders.

Fucking sick of half baked mass appeal policies supposedly based whatever the flavour of the day is on teh front page of The Australian.

Another thing that gets me is the continual stripping back of general education and social services.

In a supposed time of excellent economic circumstances there is less and less emphasis on improving existing services and facilities for people who need it.

Less pure economic growth focused policy is needed to balance things out for people who haven't benefited from the current boom.

TOTAL CIRCUS
(vote green - keep the cunts grounded)

retzie · Post by **retzie** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:21 pm

Sustain wrote:the australian electoral system itself is hardly 'fair'.. the senate in particular

I only meant relatively. It certainly ain't perfect.

The Family First senate debarcle is a glowing advertisement for researching / doing your own preferences. Hopefully, making people aware of this is one potentially good thing to come out of it all.

Proportional representation would farken rock (this is MMP, no?)

nic wrote:(vote green - keep the cunts grounded)

Word.

Smile on Impact · Post by **Smile on Impact** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:22 pm

ghetto kitty wrote:yes. thankyou.

so is that why most peeps in the poll here are voting green, casue if they dont get in, at least howard wont?

Fingers crossed for waking up on the 25th to a Labor government with the Greens at balance of power in the Senate !!

Boooyah !

and if you like the green's policies, join.. It's like 60bucks or sumthin.
http://greens.org.au/Join

I'm a member, and I'm cool

Blaxter · Post by **Blaxter** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:32 pm

ShiKung wrote:Bring in MMP!! Its the best voting system there is. I reckon they could bring it in for the lower house easily and still retain the Senate voting system.

With MMP every Australian would have a more direct route to changing politics, and getting a clearer voice!

I'm truely voting for the first time this year, it wasnt until I went to Canberra I had any idea how any of it worked properly. Im looking forward to it!

Sell Out!

kronz · Post by **kronz** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:35 pm

I think there need to be another section to the poll

"I'm a Kiwi and i cant vote"

Blaxter · Post by **Blaxter** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:42 pm

And another section.

I'm a raver, wheres the pingaz?

nic · Post by **nic** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:43 pm

gimme gimme gimme

ShiKung · Post by **ShiKung** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:58 pm

retzie wrote:
Proportional representation would farken rock (this is MMP, no?)

Yeah Mixed Member Proportional

You get to vote for which individual MP you want in Parliament for your area and you vote for what party you want to represent you.

Once every electorate has figured out who they want to represent them the rest of the seat are distributed to the percentage of the Party votes every party has achieved.

The best bit is that to get represented in Parliament you need only 5% of the Party vote or a representative voted into an Electorate.

Thats how the Green Party got seats in Parlaiment and since they had a swaying vote got the government to conduct a Health Study on Cannabis Reform and to study Genetic Engineerign of crops.

But the main thing wasnt really Political, it came from everyone actually feeling like what they had to say actually mattered at the end of the day.

5% is nothing

C.I.A. · Post by **C.I.A.** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:18 pm

you missed grey power.

I didn't fight in 2 world wars and Nam to have some jumped-up youngster tell me that Florence Bungle borrowed my hedge trimmers and she hasn't returned them and it has been two whole weeks. And I was discussing this with Dot over one of her lovely lemon sponges and she told me that she was at Florence's house and she saw the hedge trimmers and that Florence had left them outside!! They'll be rusted up if I get them back at all. In my day we made jam out of carrots and pained lines up the back of our legs because all of our stocking rations were sent to the generals in the army.

same o · Post by **same o** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:44 pm

to all the people who would vote for greens but say it is a waste i have one thing to say, it aint a waste to vote for the greens because for each vote they get, the more funding they get..
but ultimatley unless u live in the moreland area (that seat has a few times almost gone to the greens, but that was in state elections) ur vote will probably go to labor..

Post by **huge** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:49 pm

based on this poll id say Petey is going to win.

Post by **breaksRbest** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:59 pm

I'm gonna have to re-read how the voting works (Thanks for putting that up)

all a bit confusing

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:17 pm

FoundationStepper wrote:The Federal Erection

bit of maturity please Mr Stepper

Blaxter · Post by **Blaxter** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:19 pm

should be the Ferral Erection.

Sustain · Post by **Sustain** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:32 pm

can we get a liberal!?

anybets the person voting for an independent in the poll is a dubstep dj voting for the marijuana party

Post by **fooishbar** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:54 pm

FoundationStepper wrote:Im interested in the democrats - i know they seem to be a spent force but it appears thier policies have a left leaning that appeals to me but are still pragamatic and dont have the nuts qualities that the greens are prone to.

I wasnt in australia in the time when they acutally has a "solid" representation so i dont know much about them

i was just taking the piss. will actually be voting for greens.

PahMaLa · Post by **PahMaLa** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:57 pm

I can't vote. I isn't Oz-tralian

SoulWhiteMan · Post by **SoulWhiteMan** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:19 pm

C.I.A. wrote:you missed grey power.

I didn't fight in 2 world wars and Nam to have some jumped-up youngster tell me that Florence Bungle borrowed my hedge trimmers and she hasn't returned them and it has been two whole weeks. And I was discussing this with Dot over one of her lovely lemon sponges and she told me that she was at Florence's house and she saw the hedge trimmers and that Florence had left them outside!! They'll be rusted up if I get them back at all. In my day we made jam out of carrots and pained lines up the back of our legs because all of our stocking rations were sent to the generals in the army.

Anzac,

Bradman,

Mateship

Egalitarian

we were alright

when we was all white

SoulWhiteMan · Post by **SoulWhiteMan** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:24 pm

Code: Select all

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s4Ic3RqPIJo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s4Ic3RqPIJo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

someone fix this for me plz i cants embeds teh vids

Post by **fooishbar** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:41 pm

SoulWhiteMan wrote:

Code: Select all

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s4Ic3RqPIJo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s4Ic3RqPIJo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

someone fix this for me plz i cants embeds teh vids

you can't embed in mbc, you have to link.

Lephrenic · Post by **Lephrenic** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:42 am

FoundationStepper wrote:Im interested in the democrats - i know they seem to be a spent force but it appears thier policies have a left leaning that appeals to me but are still pragamatic and dont have the nuts qualities that the greens are prone to.

I wasnt in australia in the time when they acutally has a "solid" representation so i dont know much about them

To fill you in on one of the Democrats defining moments, they fought tooth and nail to give us the G.S.T. when it was so close to being blocked by the Senate. No one thought it was going to get through, but the likes of Meg Lees (at the time, one of Howard's best buddies) made sure it did.

I'm very glad some the worst of them have gone, but still I wouldn't bother with them.

Remember, in terms of left/right wing, Democrats are very centre. Left of Liberals, right of Labour. I.M.O. the last thing we need is more consensus. Some of their policies look good on paper, but I just don't trust them. Sorry.

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:26 am

Special Hegg wrote:Remember, in terms of left/right wing, Democrats are very centre. Left of Liberals, right of Labour. I.M.O. the last thing we need is more consensus. Some of their policies look good on paper, but I just don't trust them. Sorry.

Don't apologise, I don't trust ANY of the promises polly's make right before an election. The number of policies that actually come to fruition must be in the single figures, surely.

Thanks for all the background guys. I've been voting for over 10 years and have never really understood much of it. It was always something I was going to look into later, like darning socks.

Lazy

This thread's spurning me into akshon

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:01 pm

Sustain wrote: ]anybets the person voting for an independent in the poll is a dubstep dj voting for the marijuana party

hahaha word.

Melbourne Beats

The Federal Erection

Who are you voting for in the senate?

The Federal Erection

Re: The Federal Erection