Finally, a REAL alternative in politics

[FungalFractoids]

Senator Milat

Updated: 07:25, Wednesday October 24, 2007

From the election campaign's left field, comes news that serial killer Ivan Milat's sister-in-law is seeking a seat in the halls of government on a pro-gun law reform platform.

Lisa is married to Ivan Milat's brother, Wally, and has put herself forward as a Senate candidate as a member of the Liberty and Democracy Party.

Lisa Milat says measures to obtain a firearm should be relaxed, and that to own a rifle you shouldn't have to have a licence.

She's told the Nine Network's A Current Affair she is very new to politics, but has declared discussion about brother-in-law Ivan, is off the agenda.

Lisa Milat says there are many more policies the party wants to put forward, including moves to allow euthanasia.

http://www2.skynews.com.au/news/article.aspx?id=196723

Can this election get any weirder?

Edited October 24, 2007 by FungalFractoids

[shruman]

ROFLMAO

[FungalFractoids]

Well, I guess if all those poor backpackers had been carrying weapons none of that unfortunate business would ever have happened

[The Dude]

Not a fan of independents in general, they take away needed votes from parties that actually matter, those bieng the major two and 3rdly the greens have a better chance of having a voice if people vote for all their representatives that form a party together that has some kind of power as opposed to everyone voting for their individual independents that have no party with which to have a voice. I'm not too savvy on aussie politics, but this seems to be the case that independents and people that vote for them, don't really have a say anyway and it is a wasted vote, apart from the whole showing the major parties that you don't like them thing, but you do that by voting greens that have an actual party and through numbers (as opposed to individuals) can maybe create change.

If I lived in the USA I'd be using my right to bear arms and start a revolution already. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and not to generalise and slander a whole nation... but maybe americans are violent people? their political history shows as much, im sure theres a carry on effect when your leaders and role models are gunning down the whole planet, no suprise the population follows their footsteps. If half the population is armed no amount of policing can hold back a revolution.

Point is its not the right to bear arms that kills people, it's the people themselves, having said that, owning a gun means you're going to use it - it only has one use. All I'm saying is a bit of security might not be a bad idea, god knows i don't trust our overseers to keep me secure when its security from those thugs that i need really.

[Torsten]

Not a fan of independents in general, they take away needed votes from parties that actually matter

That's what the major parties want you to think. Firstly, you can always put your preferences wherever you want. Secondly, most independents have preference deals with major parties of the most closely associated ideology. There is no such thing as a wasted vote unless you do it wrong.

[incognito]

thank fuk u guys r here to teach me how to vote, i really have no idea what im doing when i vote. but im gonna make an effort to vote concioussly and well informed this year!

[FungalFractoids]

^^ Take Bob Brown's advice- start at the bottom with the party you LEAST want to get into power... I'd recommend putting the Aus Democrats somewhere near the top of your ticket, depending on your preferences I'd put them or the greens first and second, then work your way down adding the major parties where you think they should go.

Torsten- Spot on, good post.

Duderino- Here in Aus we are unique in that you can vote for minor parties thanks to preferences- the scenario you are outlining is more of a problem for America.

As for the LDP, after a quick google i know a bit more about them. They are spruiking the US style big 'L' libertarian philosophy. Many of their individyual liberty policies are actually quite attractive (pro euthenasia, drug law reform, legalised prostitution and adult pornograpy) but their economic policies are off-the-wall free-market lunacy... Certainly, I think if such a party garnered a percent or two of the electorate i think it could be very positive for Australian politics overall, even if i would never vote for them personally.

http://www.ldp.org.au/

[nabraxas]

There is no such thing as a wasted vote unless you do it wrong.

if you vote for the losing party your vote wasn't wasted because it gave legitamacy to the whole democratic process.

everything that the government does is sanctioned by the fact that it fairly won a democratic election & therefore has been given the right to govern by the will ov the people.

the government can engage in an illegal war, extinguish workers rights, cut civil liberties etc, because they won an election, &, even if you didn't vote for them, you gave them that right by supporting the process.

[Monk]

Holy crap, Duder! Don't take this the wrong way, but that's some of the funniest shit I've heard lately. "Not to generalize about and slander a whole nation... [but I'm gonna do it anyway.]" That's classic...and true But it's not the violence of my fellow Americans that scares me, as nearly all human civilizations to date have been at least as violent. It's the way they pretend that they're not violent by keeping a degree or two of separation between themselves and the acts of violence. It make much greater levels of destruction possible 'cuz the blood isn't literally on their own hands or seen with their own eyes. Sick, sick, sick, but not uniquely American. Not defending the way, just broadening the view.

I generally agree with the rest of what you said as well, except the part about a gun having only one use. There are clearly several uses: intimidation, homicide, suicide, pistol-whipping, fenestration, throwing (if empty,) opening closed doors etc. Furthermore, most of these techniques can be used on various animate and inanimate beings. You see, guns offer a world of possibilities

Oh yeah, about voting...your system of "preference deals" between parties sounds interesting. To translate this into American political terms, does this mean that if I had voted for a genius like Ralph Nader, my vote could have been transfered to Al Gore if they had such a deal? That's what it sounds like.

[Kenny Blister]

Hi FM

The voter decides their preferences on the day. If the individual gives first preference to a minor party, or even first, second and third preferences to minor parties, the major party that is given the next preference by that individual essentially receives a vote.

I think there is a scheme whereby a party receives funding for every first preference vote that they receive.

The deal that is struck between parties in regards to preferences is one which decides who goes where on each party's how to vote cards that they give out as you walk into the voting booths.

[FungalFractoids]

The deal that is struck between parties in regards to preferences is one which decides who goes where on each party's how to vote cards that they give out as you walk into the voting booths.

If you vote above the line on the Senate ticket, then your preferences get passed out according to the various aprties deals.

Edited October 25, 2007 by FungalFractoids

[The Dude]

Unless your voting above the line on the Senate ticket, then your preferences get passed out according to the various aprties deals.

Aha.. so you really have no say in the lower house ordering of your OWN preferences but must go with the party's agreement? I thought you could literally vote for every one in the upper and lower by numbering them all if you want. Ah anyway see that's the thing i'm showing just how much of a stoner I am, I've already voted in ...one election I believe, one federal and one state actually... i think

so I should already know all this stuff, I even did the whole listing one by one of preferences, (not the huge one tho) Still for some reason I was of the thinking that say you voted for an independent there was no way of him getting into power anyway so you'd be hoping he has preferences for greens or labor according tot heir own agreements, and thats what shits me is parties like family first that people would vote for on account of how john howard doesn't care about families, only to have their vote be re-directed to the libnerals because they're unsure (as I am) of how to sort out this preferences thing, so you Always do have the choice of where your vote goes?

you could vote say for the gun-toting independent and then for the greens etc..., just to see how far this gun-love stems in Australia they might win , much like Hanson was an experiment to gauge the racism of australia, only to have her hardline racist attitude mimicked by the government to get the xenophobic vote.

I'm onto these major parties piggybacking off of the little guys and this family first stuff is some sly re-directing of honest, albeit miseducated peoples votes when they think they're helping kick howard out.

Edited October 25, 2007 by El Duderino

[FungalFractoids]

^^ Nah, you were right, if you vote below the line then you have to put a number in every box- ie. you select your preferences. Alternatively, you can vote above the line and let your party decide the preferences on your behalf, I think it was something they did to make it a bit easier because some senate tickets are literally the size of a small tablecloth.

*edit* Just re-read my original post that you quoted, I can see why you are confused. I meant to say unless you vote BELOW the line... Fixed now for accuracy

Edited October 25, 2007 by FungalFractoids

[Kenny Blister]

I thought it was changed so that there was no redirecting of votes if you vote above the line on the Senate ticket? Or not, maybe that just came up in conversation recently.

One year in NSW, before you had the option of voting above or below the line, there were 90 boxes to fill

I think they changed it soon after that.

[apothecary]

If all politicians were independent everything would be better, they'd be too busy bickering amongst themselves for much less power per head than fucking with us!

"Divided we fall" applies to them too

[FungalFractoids]

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/...line-guide.html

[Kenny Blister]

Ahh, thanks

As for other voting alternatives, read the following for a bit of a laugh...

Beyond Quah: four other weirdos to vote for

[FungalFractoids]

Good shit

Labor finalises preference deal with Greens

Dewi Cooke

November 3, 2007 - 1:38PM

The Labor party has finalised its preference deal with the Greens.

Under the terms of the agreement, Labor votes will flow to the Greens in the Senate and the Greens will preference the ALP in the house of representatives everywhere except Tasmania.

One Nation, Citizens Electoral Council and Pauline Hanson will all be preferenced last on Labor ballot papers where candidates from those parties are running.

"Federal Labor has made these preference agreements only on the basis that they do not, in any way, influence or change Labor policy," Labor campaign spokesperson Penny Wong said in a statement.

The preference swap comes after the Greens and the Democrats did a deal for the Senate in an effort for minor parties to regain control of the upper house.

The Age