6 September 2013

Think very hard about your Senate vote

| johnboy
Join the conversation
128
senate

We’re not in the business of telling our readers how to vote.

But we do share information which may colour that decision.

Canberra voters can usually be taken for granted to deliver one Liberal Senator and two Labor MP’s and one Labor Senator.

But with Tony Abbott so far ahead in this race that he’s putting policy lead in his saddlebag just to carry it over the line you all need to at least consider your Senate vote. (The strange birth and death of the internet filter being an illuminating case in point.)

If the ACT were to reject Zed Seselja in favour of Simon Sheikh it would very likely rob the Coalition of control in the Senate.

This website asks exactly one thing of Candidates for elections. That they take the time to answer ten questions put by our readers.

You can see the answers from candidates of all hues who respect you enough to have done so.

According to Google we had 173,287 unique visitors in the last month, almost all of them from the ACT.

screenshot

A candidate that does not take the opportunity to address, in as much length and detail as they choose, this audience is, in my opinion, treating the ACT electorate with contempt.

And remember, voting for a minor party will not waste your vote in Australia.

The Canberra Times has a much more long winded editorial on the subject if you’d like more detail:

The upper-house election gives Canberrans another opportunity to disrupt political norms. Psephologist Malcolm Mackerras said last month that a Senate vote in the ACT might be ”the most valuable vote in the country”; the only ballot that has the potential to prevent Mr Abbott from wielding complete power. At the same time, Canberrans will lose an experienced senator and proud advocate for the ACT, Gary Humphries, who was defeated in a messy and controversial preselection. He was the only Liberal to vote against the Howard government on a party-mandated ballot (on the matter of same-sex civil unions), because he refused to violate the ACT’s rights.

With Senator Humphries’s departure, Canberrans now have the perfect opportunity to break up the ACT’s cosy Labor-Liberal duopoly in the upper house, and in doing so place a cautionary brake on a likely Abbott government. A lack of a Senate majority is no barrier to good government; indeed, Mr Abbott must embrace compromise if he is to lead well.

Join the conversation

128
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

Robertson said :

Ah you have to laugh…

Darkfalz said :

Robertson said :

Darkfalz said :

You can find studies to support anything you believe in.

Except climate change denial – there are no studies that give any support for that, just cranky rants by loons and paid disinformation from political lobbies.

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

You want a study to prove the climate isn’t changing?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eR98YdEn

…and he provides the Daily Mail.

Any idea what a “study” is, Darkfalz?

Hint: Science isn’t advanced by tabloid rags.

This is the final word on global warming/climate change or whatever the lefties are calling it this week. Other intellectuals such as Alan Jones have also exposed the climate change hoax:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ice_grows_in_arctic_which_the_abc_warned_would_be_ice_free/

Climate change ended last Saturday, it is now time to put it behind us and concentrate on restoring the jobs lost because of Labor and The Greens taking it seriously. Putting climate change behind us will lower electricity bills by scrapping so-called renewable energy and expanding coal mining. We have plenty of coal to last hundreds of years.

Thankfully our children have not been brainwashed beyond mental recovery and we can reflect on just how badly we were conned by the loony left and their moronic cargo culting and gravy trainism.

johnboy said :

Alright Darkfalz,

Like every under-socialised nutcase you’re badly offtopic because your deranged mind conflates every issue with the only issues you’ve been doing selective reading on.

If you wish to be heard further I suggest you remain on the topics at hand.

I’m sure there are plenty of nutcase sites for you to be in furious agreement with your fellow mental patients.

Just another example of the liberal-media conspiracy to silence people who are just trying to communicate the truth about global warming.

Nah, jks, it needed to be done 😀

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd4:57 pm 10 Sep 13

johnboy said :

Alright Darkfalz,

Like every under-socialised nutcase you’re badly offtopic because your deranged mind conflates every issue with the only issues you’ve been doing selective reading on.

If you wish to be heard further I suggest you remain on the topics at hand.

I’m sure there are plenty of nutcase sites for you to be in furious agreement with your fellow mental patients.

Thank you.

Ah you have to laugh…

Darkfalz said :

Robertson said :

Darkfalz said :

You can find studies to support anything you believe in.

Except climate change denial – there are no studies that give any support for that, just cranky rants by loons and paid disinformation from political lobbies.

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

You want a study to prove the climate isn’t changing?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eR98YdEn

…and he provides the Daily Mail.

Any idea what a “study” is, Darkfalz?

Hint: Science isn’t advanced by tabloid rags.

The Senate deserves the Mully.

Grail said :

Matt_Watts said :

I’m sorry I don’t fawn over your comments as much as you’d like, yet I already covered this and, you’re right, it’s there for all to see. I clearly stated that being “in the tent” allows for better communication.

Being “in the tent” (i.e.: having Liberal reps and senators) doesn’t enhance communication, it means we have no voice in a party which prohibits crossing the floor. To get better communication, we’d have to kick both Liberal and Labor out by hair-thin margins. At that point, both major parties would be paying us so much attention that we’d probably be having too much communication!

Matt_Watts said :

Whilst the intent to govern for *all* Australians exists, not having any ACT representation in the Australian Government would clearly hamper the effectiveness of decisions. It’s common sense. Stop inventing conspiracies.

Who had more power when Stephen Fielding was the “+1 person” the Government needed to get majority: the party or the independent?

Being a Liberal candidate I can understand that you have an unusually skewed view of the world due to the gravitational lensing of your own ego, but at some point you have to acknowledge that marginal seats get more communication from Government, and independents that are required to form Government get much more decision making power than the homogenous blue-tied masses of The Party.

The Liberal party generally does allow crossing the floor; the obvious exemption to that is cabinet (or shadow cabinet) solidarity. Don’t forget, Gary Humphries crossed the floor in support of the ACT’s right to pass its own legislation.

The ALP automatically kicks out any MP or Senator who crosses the floor.

There might be a tendency for parties to pay more attention to marginal seats… surely you’re not suggesting the Liberal hold on the Senate seat is safe…?!

Darkfalz said :

Since you asked for it though:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

Interesting article; they don’t go into too much detail about how they corrected for confounding variables. One of the clearest things that stands out is that the children of wealthy parents do better as adults than those from poor parents. In this study the hetro still living together group is the richest and the lesbian couples are the poorest; unsurprisingly these are the two extreme groups in terms of outcomes as adults.

Robertson said :

Darkfalz said :

You can find studies to support anything you believe in.

Except climate change denial – there are no studies that give any support for that, just cranky rants by loons and paid disinformation from political lobbies.

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

You want a study to prove the climate isn’t changing? I agree, there is no such study. The argument is over whether it is man made, and how man-made it is, and what will happen to the planet as a result.

And you believe the billions in grants for various studies and research don’t motivate the warmists?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eR98YdEn

Here are the ice caps that Gore said would be gone by 2013, for example. I don’t mind the studies into it, even if they are clearly motivated by the dollar. But can they at least stop with the alarmist nonsense as well as blaming weather events that have been common for the duration of human history on the planet on AGW?

Alright Darkfalz,

Like every under-socialised nutcase you’re badly offtopic because your deranged mind conflates every issue with the only issues you’ve been doing selective reading on.

If you wish to be heard further I suggest you remain on the topics at hand.

I’m sure there are plenty of nutcase sites for you to be in furious agreement with your fellow mental patients.

Darkfalz said :

You can find studies to support anything you believe in.

Except climate change denial – there are no studies that give any support for that, just cranky rants by loons and paid disinformation from political lobbies.

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

Stevian said :

Do you have any evidence for that assertion, not anecdotes, evidence

You can find studies to support anything you believe in. This is especially true of this debate, where candidates are found advertising in LGBT literature leading to obvious cherry picking. Notice they tend to focus on children of lesbian parents, who were able to select the sperm they wanted (from what I’ve seen mostly from successful, high IQ Northern Europeans).

For this reason I don’t put much faith in these studies, for or against. I put more faith in evolution and biology and human nature, the desire to protect your progeny and see it flourish. Of course, where children are born out of trysts and poor relationships, the results are likely to be poor for the children, even though their parents are obviously not gay. This is the entire point behind strengthening the institution of marriage rather than undermining it.

Since you asked for it though:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

Darkfalz said :

BimboGeek said :

The only way marriage equality could threaten your traditional hetero marriage is if you really want to be married but you have secret yearnings for the company of other men. So you settled for a traditional marriage with a woman you kind of get along with but who doesn’t turn you on in the way you wish, and you don’t want to be tempted to the dark side…

Trite. Maybe it’s not about me? I want to preserve the encouragement (not enforcement) of the best working model for the upbringing of children, namely with their mum and dad. That’s all it is. I respect the opinions of those looking for a change, and a further weakening of the traditional family unit, but I don’t agree with it.

Do you have any evidence for that assertion, not anecdotes, evidence

DrKoresh said :

Darkfalz in the closet? Never!

When you run out of things to say, try the “you must be gay yourself” approach. Which is, of course, denigrating the very thing you’re trying to promote as normal and healthy.

BimboGeek said :

The only way marriage equality could threaten your traditional hetero marriage is if you really want to be married but you have secret yearnings for the company of other men. So you settled for a traditional marriage with a woman you kind of get along with but who doesn’t turn you on in the way you wish, and you don’t want to be tempted to the dark side…

Trite. Maybe it’s not about me? I want to preserve the encouragement (not enforcement) of the best working model for the upbringing of children, namely with their mum and dad. That’s all it is. I respect the opinions of those looking for a change, and a further weakening of the traditional family unit, but I don’t agree with it.

watto23 said :

Hang on thats exactly what i’m saying. You’d be upset if the muslims had there way, but apparently its ok for catholics (and other religions of similar beliefs) to have there way.

With one major difference. Marriage has been this way since our country and democracy began. I want to keep it, you want to change it. I want to keep what works within the overall context of the family and society.

They were only altered when certain activists began contesting what was previously thought, for over a century, common sense.

I will also say if it indeed the law gets overturned some day, while I will reserve my own private opinion of what constitutes a marriage, I wouldn’t openly campaign to have it taken away from people once achieved.

BimboGeek said :

The only way marriage equality could threaten your traditional hetero marriage is if you really want to be married but you have secret yearnings for the company of other men. So you settled for a traditional marriage with a woman you kind of get along with but who doesn’t turn you on in the way you wish, and you don’t want to be tempted to the dark side…

Darkfalz in the closet? Never!

Matt_Watts said :

I’m sorry I don’t fawn over your comments as much as you’d like, yet I already covered this and, you’re right, it’s there for all to see. I clearly stated that being “in the tent” allows for better communication.

Being “in the tent” (i.e.: having Liberal reps and senators) doesn’t enhance communication, it means we have no voice in a party which prohibits crossing the floor. To get better communication, we’d have to kick both Liberal and Labor out by hair-thin margins. At that point, both major parties would be paying us so much attention that we’d probably be having too much communication!

Matt_Watts said :

Whilst the intent to govern for *all* Australians exists, not having any ACT representation in the Australian Government would clearly hamper the effectiveness of decisions. It’s common sense. Stop inventing conspiracies.

Who had more power when Stephen Fielding was the “+1 person” the Government needed to get majority: the party or the independent?

Being a Liberal candidate I can understand that you have an unusually skewed view of the world due to the gravitational lensing of your own ego, but at some point you have to acknowledge that marginal seats get more communication from Government, and independents that are required to form Government get much more decision making power than the homogenous blue-tied masses of The Party.

The only way marriage equality could threaten your traditional hetero marriage is if you really want to be married but you have secret yearnings for the company of other men. So you settled for a traditional marriage with a woman you kind of get along with but who doesn’t turn you on in the way you wish, and you don’t want to be tempted to the dark side…

Darkfalz said :

watto23 said :

Apparently according to DarkFalz, that gay marriage ruins the family unit of a man, a woman and children…. yet we are still awaiting how gay marriage affects this, because right now, legally gay people can have children and live together. Just like straight couples don’t have to get married and have children, or single people raise children, some with the help of their parents/siblings. He has some bee in his bonnet and would rather the country became a society of intolerant people quite happy to see others suffer.

Again, disagreeing with someone’s desire to change the law does make one “intolerant” of them.

Do you believe in what Muslims believe? Would you be okay with having Sharia or Sharia type laws introduced here? No? So you’re happy for me to call you a Muslim hating bigot then?

This is essentially the same guilt inducing argument many of you gay marriage proponents are running. I suggest you give it a rest. And if you really think gays who are unable to get a marriage certificate are “suffering” I suggest you look at how they are treated in many parts of the world.

Hang on thats exactly what i’m saying. You’d be upset if the muslims had there way, but apparently its ok for catholics (and other religions of similar beliefs) to have there way. Again there is absolutely no difference to you, if you had gay neighbours who were married or who were not. That is the point, there is NO difference to you other than it violating your own beliefs. Sharia law however could influence you and thus is a different issue.

I’m extremely open minded traveller who has seen some of these places in the world. Trust me Australia isn’t always better…. That said, what happens if allowing gay marriage is used as a trade to get rid of the carbon tax by minor parties…. Now that would be interesting!

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

– Why would Canberra need a Liberal representative ‘at the table’ to get it?
– If we don’t have a Liberal representative ‘at the table’, in what way will our representation be less than ‘better’, and why is this OK?

I know you’re replying to someone else, but as the Canberra Times said, it’s not so much the idea that having greater Liberal representation in Canberra would help gain favour with a federal Liberal government, it’s that once the Labor party, or any party, is taking your vote for granted – they’ll take liberties with it, as particularly this last Labor government did (with seeming impunity).

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Open and accountable discourse was precisely what I was doing.

No. I know Libs like to rewrite history, but here’s what you really did. It’s on the public record, so you can check for yourself:

– dismissed my views out-of-hand because I have an ‘anti-Liberal bias’
– followed up with a ‘whatever’.

What you didn’t do was address the issues I raised. Here, I’ll raise them more slowly, and break them into obvious parts so you can think them through in order:

– What is ‘better representation’, according to the now Liberal government?
– Why would Canberra need a Liberal representative ‘at the table’ to get it?
– If we don’t have a Liberal representative ‘at the table’, in what way will our representation be less than ‘better’, and why is this OK?
– How does this align with Tony Abbott’s claims that a Liberal government will govern for all Australians? Because I missed the bit where he said ‘…though of course, if you have a seat at our table, you’ll get better government than if you don’t.’

I’m sorry I don’t fawn over your comments as much as you’d like, yet I already covered this and, you’re right, it’s there for all to see. I clearly stated that being “in the tent” allows for better communication. Whilst the intent to govern for *all* Australians exists, not having any ACT representation in the Australian Government would clearly hamper the effectiveness of decisions. It’s common sense. Stop inventing conspiracies.

Woody Mann-Caruso12:53 pm 09 Sep 13

Open and accountable discourse was precisely what I was doing.

No. I know Libs like to rewrite history, but here’s what you really did. It’s on the public record, so you can check for yourself:

– dismissed my views out-of-hand because I have an ‘anti-Liberal bias’
– followed up with a ‘whatever’.

What you didn’t do was address the issues I raised. Here, I’ll raise them more slowly, and break them into obvious parts so you can think them through in order:

– What is ‘better representation’, according to the now Liberal government?
– Why would Canberra need a Liberal representative ‘at the table’ to get it?
– If we don’t have a Liberal representative ‘at the table’, in what way will our representation be less than ‘better’, and why is this OK?
– How does this align with Tony Abbott’s claims that a Liberal government will govern for all Australians? Because I missed the bit where he said ‘…though of course, if you have a seat at our table, you’ll get better government than if you don’t.’

Darkfalz said :

Again, disagreeing with someone’s desire to change the law does make one “intolerant” of them.

Glad we agree 🙂

watto23 said :

Apparently according to DarkFalz, that gay marriage ruins the family unit of a man, a woman and children…. yet we are still awaiting how gay marriage affects this, because right now, legally gay people can have children and live together. Just like straight couples don’t have to get married and have children, or single people raise children, some with the help of their parents/siblings. He has some bee in his bonnet and would rather the country became a society of intolerant people quite happy to see others suffer.

Again, disagreeing with someone’s desire to change the law does make one “intolerant” of them.

Do you believe in what Muslims believe? Would you be okay with having Sharia or Sharia type laws introduced here? No? So you’re happy for me to call you a Muslim hating bigot then?

This is essentially the same guilt inducing argument many of you gay marriage proponents are running. I suggest you give it a rest. And if you really think gays who are unable to get a marriage certificate are “suffering” I suggest you look at how they are treated in many parts of the world.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Whatever.

Thanks Matt. Exactly the kind of open and accountable discourse I’ve come to expect from the Libs.

Open and accountable discourse was precisely what I was doing. The fact you keep petulantly skewing my responses only serves to diminish your reputation.

housebound said :

Whether or not the Libs sneezed in our direction this time around is another question entirely.

The Liberals are going to sneeze in our direction and Canberra is definitely going to catch a cold.

simsim said :

Darkfalz said :

7captains said :

Meanwhile over the border there are 232 votes that separate the ALP (Mike Kelly) and LNP (Peter Hendy).

Pre and postal tend to favour coalition so hopefully Mike “Sandy Mountains” Kelly will be history.

Impressed that Greens vote dropped ~6% in Canberra. Some hope for the city after all. But I guess when Labor take up their pet causes of gay marriage and global warming, there’s not much room left for them (and doubly good, because Labor are also punished for this idiocy).

In July this year, the Queen signed off on gay Marriage in the UK. THE QUEEN. Are you suggesting the Queen is an idiot? And how quickly would you like your treason trial to take place?

Apparently according to DarkFalz, that gay marriage ruins the family unit of a man, a woman and children…. yet we are still awaiting how gay marriage affects this, because right now, legally gay people can have children and live together. Just like straight couples don’t have to get married and have children, or single people raise children, some with the help of their parents/siblings. He has some bee in his bonnet and would rather the country became a society of intolerant people quite happy to see others suffer.

simsim said :

Darkfalz said :

7captains said :

Meanwhile over the border there are 232 votes that separate the ALP (Mike Kelly) and LNP (Peter Hendy).

Pre and postal tend to favour coalition so hopefully Mike “Sandy Mountains” Kelly will be history.

Impressed that Greens vote dropped ~6% in Canberra. Some hope for the city after all. But I guess when Labor take up their pet causes of gay marriage and global warming, there’s not much room left for them (and doubly good, because Labor are also punished for this idiocy).

In July this year, the Queen signed off on gay Marriage in the UK. THE QUEEN. Are you suggesting the Queen is an idiot? And how quickly would you like your treason trial to take place?

So what. Sir John Kerr in 1976 signed off on gay law reform in the ACT. Sir Walter Campbell (appointed by Joh) signed off on gay law reform in Qld in 1990. The Queen or GG must sign off on every bill returned from the parliament otherwise they are sacked. That’s what happens in Australia and in the UK it certainly wouldn’t be a good look for the Queen not to sign off on a government bill. The doctrine of the separation of powers holds the democratically elected parliament and prime minister as the legislators and the monarchy is a figurehead or a rubber stamp, if you like. That’s why the Queen and the GG and state governors here open the parliament by reading speeches saying “My government will do such and such”.

simsim said :

In July this year, the Queen signed off on gay Marriage in the UK. THE QUEEN. Are you suggesting the Queen is an idiot? And how quickly would you like your treason trial to take place?

There were many protests. This law was passed without it being part of the platform in the previous election, which is not on. I would hate to see it snuck through here in the same way.

Darkfalz said :

BimboGeek said :

Do they count the above-the-line votes first? They are predicting Zed to beat Simon by less than 0.01 quota when it comes down to the final two for the second spot, and apparently the animal justice preferences are just enough to make the difference, but maybe it could change if there’s a big number of below-the-line votes?

They will flow preferences one by one until someone achieves a quota. Zed has just got over the line on second preferences, but it’s all he needed.

We won’t know until later this week. As a below-the-line, minor-party voter, my vote hasn’t even been counted yet.

But the more I think about it, the least-bad result for the ACT would be for Zed to squeak in by, say, 20 votes. I can’t think of any other way to make our new masters think of us as anything other than a leftie electorate not worth even a sneeze come the next election. (Whether or not the Libs sneezed in our direction this time around is another question entirely.)

The way things are shaping up, a choice of Zed/Sheikh won’t change the outcome at all. Despite the Greens’ promises/threats of total devastation if a liberal is elected, the balance of power in the Senate will be not be held by the Greens alone, but by the ALP, Greens and others. It’s a pity we didn’t have enough collective intelligence to do that, or god forbid, vote someone, anyone, other than the safe-sitting MPs into the reps.

Darkfalz said :

7captains said :

Meanwhile over the border there are 232 votes that separate the ALP (Mike Kelly) and LNP (Peter Hendy).

Pre and postal tend to favour coalition so hopefully Mike “Sandy Mountains” Kelly will be history.

Impressed that Greens vote dropped ~6% in Canberra. Some hope for the city after all. But I guess when Labor take up their pet causes of gay marriage and global warming, there’s not much room left for them (and doubly good, because Labor are also punished for this idiocy).

In July this year, the Queen signed off on gay Marriage in the UK. THE QUEEN. Are you suggesting the Queen is an idiot? And how quickly would you like your treason trial to take place?

7captains said :

Meanwhile over the border there are 232 votes that separate the ALP (Mike Kelly) and LNP (Peter Hendy).

Pre and postal tend to favour coalition so hopefully Mike “Sandy Mountains” Kelly will be history.

Impressed that Greens vote dropped ~6% in Canberra. Some hope for the city after all. But I guess when Labor take up their pet causes of gay marriage and global warming, there’s not much room left for them (and doubly good, because Labor are also punished for this idiocy).

Meanwhile over the border there are 232 votes that separate the ALP (Mike Kelly) and LNP (Peter Hendy).

Darkfalz said :

BimboGeek said :

Do they count the above-the-line votes first? They are predicting Zed to beat Simon by less than 0.01 quota when it comes down to the final two for the second spot, and apparently the animal justice preferences are just enough to make the difference, but maybe it could change if there’s a big number of below-the-line votes?

They will flow preferences one by one until someone achieves a quota. Zed has just got over the line on second preferences, but it’s all he needed.

The interim preference distribution has him only achieving a quota at the exclusion of the Bullet Train for Australia lead candidate, when it’s just Zed and Simon remaining in the count. That means that it’s not just second preferences, but also a lot of much lower (21st, 22nd, 23rd) preferences that Zed is relying on. I’m not saying this to be pedantic, but because I think it illustrates the point that in the Senate, every preference can count, not just the first few.

Woody Mann-Caruso9:30 am 08 Sep 13

Whatever.

Thanks Matt. Exactly the kind of open and accountable discourse I’ve come to expect from the Libs.

BimboGeek said :

Do they count the above-the-line votes first? They are predicting Zed to beat Simon by less than 0.01 quota when it comes down to the final two for the second spot, and apparently the animal justice preferences are just enough to make the difference, but maybe it could change if there’s a big number of below-the-line votes?

The initial indicative count is of all ballot papers, but they only count the “1” preferences whether above or below the line.

A full preference distribution isn’t done until the AEC data-enters every single below-the-line ballot paper, which won’t happen until sometime during the week.

It looks like if they had of had the Animal Justice Party prefs, the Greens actually would have beaten Zed. I bet Mayor Rattenbury is feeling pretty special right about now! Hahaha!

Thankfully that’s all done with. Now can we ship Simon Shiek back to wherever he came before he parachuted into Canberra?

BimboGeek said :

Do they count the above-the-line votes first? They are predicting Zed to beat Simon by less than 0.01 quota when it comes down to the final two for the second spot, and apparently the animal justice preferences are just enough to make the difference, but maybe it could change if there’s a big number of below-the-line votes?

That is not quite how it works. What happens is every party has a ticket that instructs how the votes are distributed if someone votes above the line. So what they do is count all the below the line 1 votes and add the above the line 1 votes as per the ticket. So in the case of the Liberals an above the line vote is the same as a 1 below the line for Zed.

To be elected they need to get a quota which is about 53000 votes in the ACT. Once someone has a quota that person is elected and then their votes are disturbed according to preferences, but these votes are not full value but have a percentage basis based on how much over the quota the person received.

Now whilst as of now it is showing Kate Lundy and old mate Zed as being elected, it is worth nothing that the pre-pole and postal votes have not be counted. So really the final outcome won’t be known until all those votes are also counted and factored in especially as the gap between Zed and the greens is not very big.

milkman said :

I like how you pretended you would actually vote liberal.

I voted Liberal when I lived in Sydney in 1995 as I happened to like John Fahey, they lost of course.

I also voted Liberal in the ACT election in 1998.

This time around your right I wouldn’t vote the Liberals, they have had 3 years to show my good cause to change and they didn’t and as far as I am concerned Labor (contracy to the 6 years of chaos line the libs were pushing did a good job). They got us through the GFC without the pain the rest of the developed world went through, with only a minor debit in the grand scheme of things. The last parliament despite being minority was one of the most active in Australia’s history in terms of bills presented and passed. So hardly chaos, except at leadership level. My feeling is Rudd should have pissed off for good after being rolled by Gillard, however with a choice between Rudd and Abbott, there was no way in the world I was going to vote for Lee and hence help make Abbott PM.

With Zed in particular I dislike the man profusly, so my vote yesterday in the Senate didn’t got to Labor it went to the greens instead, and I see they stand a chance, with pre-pole voting of rolling Zed for the 2nd Senate seat in the ACT. Wouldn’t have got that if I had of voted Labor, and no didn’t get the green idea from reading the riot act either.

Clearly others don’t share my view and like it or not that is democracy in action. I accept the peoples vote, but heaven help this country is all I can see. Welcome to 1950 white Australia where men are men and women know their places, and gays can go to hell.

breda said :

I would rather 2 Labor, or 2 Coalition, senators than even a quarter of a Green. And one of those two options is a long way from ideal for me.

If you are a Labor supporter, thank the Greens for undermining the current government’s credibility with the public and stirring up internal divisions in the ALP. If you are a Coalition supporter – well, no explanation is necessary.

Or put another way, if you are a Greens supporter, you can thank the ALP for your reduced vote because you have been tarnished with the ALP brush (do I need to mention Obeid?). Those who lie with dogs catch fleas.

ALP will look for anyone to blame but themselves. There has been virtually no swing to the Liberals, but there has been a substantial swing against Labor (and the Greens). But at time of writing the Greens vote is still higher than the 2007 election, so the increase at the 2010 election has not been completely reversed. I suspect (and yes I am a member) that the trend is still upwards, we have just got to a point where it is no longer a steady increase. It will have interruptions.

Pre-polling results will be interesting, as early pre-polls may work in Labor’s favour (as they got more and more disorganised in the last few days).

IP

BimboGeek said :

Do they count the above-the-line votes first? They are predicting Zed to beat Simon by less than 0.01 quota when it comes down to the final two for the second spot, and apparently the animal justice preferences are just enough to make the difference, but maybe it could change if there’s a big number of below-the-line votes?

They will flow preferences one by one until someone achieves a quota. Zed has just got over the line on second preferences, but it’s all he needed.

Don’t blame me, I voted for Steve.

Do they count the above-the-line votes first? They are predicting Zed to beat Simon by less than 0.01 quota when it comes down to the final two for the second spot, and apparently the animal justice preferences are just enough to make the difference, but maybe it could change if there’s a big number of below-the-line votes?

We now have the slogan of the Labor territory government for the next ACT Legislative Assembly elections: “Don’t blame us, it’s the Federal Government’s fault.”

Looks like the Senate is going to come down to below-the-line votes. The Bullet Trainers seem to have pulled votes from Labor, Liberal and Greens.

Darkfalz said :

Looks like Libs get their quota, just, after Rise Up and Animal Justice prefs. Very close though. Surprised Labor has no surplus preferences.

Sex Party coming 4th. Ok, that gets zip and way behind the greens in 3rd. But way ahead of Rise Up Australia (which, come to think of it, could be a name for the Sex Party as well)

Deref said :

Well said, Spades. Australian elections are becoming increasingly presidential in style – largely, I suspect, as a result of the media’s laziness. It’s much easier to focus on and write about the foibles of individual party leaders than it is to analyse policy, and it’s much easier to consume their pre-digested pap than it is to do your own investigation and analysis.

They say that we get the government we deserve; it looks as if they may be right.

Is it laziness? Or is it because it produces better ratings/sells more newspapers/gets more mouse clicks than talking about real policy?

Looks like Libs get their quota, just, after Rise Up and Animal Justice prefs. Very close though. Surprised Labor has no surplus preferences.

JC said :

Matt_Watts said :

Whatever. I could write anything right now and you’d find a way to spin selective quotes (albeit unsuccessfully) because what I post doesn’t fit within the narrative you’re trying to peddle.

That could be said of you and the Liberal party (and Labor party in fairness) too.

I said this to you (and Alistair Coe) at the ACT election and I will say it here. I am not too happy with either the current ACT Government or Federal Government, however having the Liberals tell me why I should NOT vote Labor, rather than why I should vote for the Liberals is not the way to get my vote.

Now yeah you will probably go on about all the scare campaign Labor have run, to me I ignore that that shit from both sides, in the Federal election what I have seen and heard from the Liberals in regards to policy are slogans. Right your lot are going to create a stonger economy, a bit of an explanation of how wouldn’t go astray. You are going to stop the boats, again how and more to the point why when Australia has a moral obligation under the refugee convention. You are going to do this, do that but how and how are you going to pay for it.

So big fail, so I will continue to vote Labor.

PS You weren’t with Zed visiting Dunlop on last Sunday were you? If so I am disappointed you, or who ever it was that came to my place didn’t send him down for a frank and open chat with me. Though doubt he could have said anything of any substance anyway, isn’t that a directive from Liberal Party HQ. Keep your mouths shut and you will get it, say something and you might be seen for the frauds you really are. It seems to be working in Western Sydney with just Abbott talking, and repeating the same lines over and over and over, and not taking or answering any questions on notice.

Heaven help us come tomorrow.

I like how you pretended you would actually vote liberal.

Innovation said :

It doesn’t seem to really matter what your traditional voting behaviour is, placing Liberals or Labor as low on the list as you can stomach seems to be the best strategic approach for the ACT.

Done! Minor parties lead the charge on my ballot papers.

I love election sausages! Tastes like democracy, only they leave you feeling satisfied and don’t leave quite such a bitter taste in your mouth.

Having spent most of my voting life in the electorate of Fraser, and wasting my vote by voting the same way as everyone else….it’s great to know that finally my vote will count in Eden Monaro.

No doubt Hendy will get in tonight- but sooo good to know that voting labour will ensure that Peter Hendy doesn’t take his job for granted.

Shame and ironic that you’ve got Mike Kelly for labour that needs to really work for his electorate, and then you’ve got Andrew Leigh who takes it as an opportunity to write a book during his time. Yeah he really fights for the issues facing his electorate like job losses- lucky for him he can blame the libs bc those job losses/ efficiency dividends have been happening since he got in anyway. Andrew Leigh= the lucky candidate with 100% job security representing your issues in the inner north.

Agree with a previous poster that seats like Fraser really need to become marginal so that whoever gets in truly represents it’s electorate…

DrKoresh said :

Who’s voted already? I need to wake up the missus so we can go down and I can haz sausages.

Hurry up! I was all sizzled and cakestalled out by 9:15!

Who’s voted already? I need to wake up the missus so we can go down and I can haz sausages.

spades said :

I think the vast majority of over opinionated voters have complicated it for themselves. My stance is to focus on the party, not overwhelmingly on the individual. Individuals are members of a party for a reason.

As much as everyone loves to bash Tony or Rudd, at the end of the day they’re members of their respective parties. Unless you love daytime drama, just visit party websites, brush up on Australian political history and make up your mind.

I’ve never really assessed candidates as individuals, just parties as a whole… unless of course they are independents.

Well said, Spades. Australian elections are becoming increasingly presidential in style – largely, I suspect, as a result of the media’s laziness. It’s much easier to focus on and write about the foibles of individual party leaders than it is to analyse policy, and it’s much easier to consume their pre-digested pap than it is to do your own investigation and analysis.

They say that we get the government we deserve; it looks as if they may be right.

Matt_Watts said :

Whatever. I could write anything right now and you’d find a way to spin selective quotes (albeit unsuccessfully) because what I post doesn’t fit within the narrative you’re trying to peddle.

That could be said of you and the Liberal party (and Labor party in fairness) too.

I said this to you (and Alistair Coe) at the ACT election and I will say it here. I am not too happy with either the current ACT Government or Federal Government, however having the Liberals tell me why I should NOT vote Labor, rather than why I should vote for the Liberals is not the way to get my vote.

Now yeah you will probably go on about all the scare campaign Labor have run, to me I ignore that that shit from both sides, in the Federal election what I have seen and heard from the Liberals in regards to policy are slogans. Right your lot are going to create a stonger economy, a bit of an explanation of how wouldn’t go astray. You are going to stop the boats, again how and more to the point why when Australia has a moral obligation under the refugee convention. You are going to do this, do that but how and how are you going to pay for it.

So big fail, so I will continue to vote Labor.

PS You weren’t with Zed visiting Dunlop on last Sunday were you? If so I am disappointed you, or who ever it was that came to my place didn’t send him down for a frank and open chat with me. Though doubt he could have said anything of any substance anyway, isn’t that a directive from Liberal Party HQ. Keep your mouths shut and you will get it, say something and you might be seen for the frauds you really are. It seems to be working in Western Sydney with just Abbott talking, and repeating the same lines over and over and over, and not taking or answering any questions on notice.

Heaven help us come tomorrow.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

If you really believe I’d make a thinly-veiled threat, you don’t remember that I’ve been one of the most open and blunt candidates to be subject to RiotACT scrutiny.

Doesn’t get much more blunt than this, I guess:

it’s beneficial to have a seat at the table so the concerns of the community can be better represented.

Not at the table, by which I mean my table? Then you can go f*&^ yourself – or at least, you certainly shouldn’t expect ‘better’ representation, whatever that is. We save that for our own.

That about the size of it? Because you’ve gone to great pains to say it several different ways, and it keeps coming out the same.

Whatever. I could write anything right now and you’d find a way to spin selective quotes (albeit unsuccessfully) because what I post doesn’t fit within the narrative you’re trying to peddle.

Robertson said :

He’s mad – who would be stupid enough to vote for joblessness and plummeting property values?

Plummeting property values will be the cloud’s silver lining.

LSWCHP said :

Deref said :

The “I have a constitutional right to bear arms” is less prevalent but it exists.

I’ve owned and used firearms for 34 years. I’ve known hundreds of lawful firearms owners, and I read widely on firearms issues in Australia. In all that time I have never heard or read a single person get us confused with the yanks and claim to have a constitutional right to bear arms in Australia.

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I would think that mistake is “virtually non-existent” rather than “less prevalent”.

Personally, I think the Americans should institute the right to arm bears. It’d sure make bear hunters think twice if the bears could shoot back. 🙂

How about the Yanks look at the origins of their “right to bear arms” law and only allow muzzle loading muskets. After all, that’s what was circulating when they drafted the 2nd amendment…

Woody Mann-Caruso9:58 pm 06 Sep 13

If you really believe I’d make a thinly-veiled threat, you don’t remember that I’ve been one of the most open and blunt candidates to be subject to RiotACT scrutiny.

Doesn’t get much more blunt than this, I guess:

it’s beneficial to have a seat at the table so the concerns of the community can be better represented.

Not at the table, by which I mean my table? Then you can go f*&^ yourself – or at least, you certainly shouldn’t expect ‘better’ representation, whatever that is. We save that for our own.

That about the size of it? Because you’ve gone to great pains to say it several different ways, and it keeps coming out the same.

Deref said :

The “I have a constitutional right to bear arms” is less prevalent but it exists.

I’ve owned and used firearms for 34 years. I’ve known hundreds of lawful firearms owners, and I read widely on firearms issues in Australia. In all that time I have never heard or read a single person get us confused with the yanks and claim to have a constitutional right to bear arms in Australia.

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I would think that mistake is “virtually non-existent” rather than “less prevalent”.

Personally, I think the Americans should institute the right to arm bears. It’d sure make bear hunters think twice if the bears could shoot back. 🙂

johnboy said :

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/liberal-hopes-of-avoiding-senate-deadlock-within-grasp/story-fn9qr68y-1226710957864

Well OK maybe we have different meanings of ‘control’.

I wouldn’t consider the Greens not having the balance of power to mean that Abbott has control of the Senate. As your link says, at absolute best the LNP are going to need three or four minor party votes to get anything through. I personally think that they won’t get that and the Greens will still hold the balance. Extremely complex preference deals seem to be the confusing factor.

What about Tom Sefton . can he knock Zed off ?

teddyhb said :

PantsMan said :

The public service is so full of waste.

Ceasing paying someone to attend a building to do nothing all day is a job produced somewhere else in the economy.

Problem being that natural attrition isnt going to get rid of the seat warmers. Natural attrition will get rid of retirees and those able to get a job somewhere else. Why would someone who is paid to do nothing all day go get a job where they would have to work?

As well, the age profile is probably higher than in the mid 90’s so the first out the door are likely to be the effective or high performing, cashed up, imminent retirees (or former retirees now on contract) who will likely leave town when their package arrives (or contract ends).

The problem with either Government is that there are too many public servants who are not properly managed, or are over paid for the work that they do, while others work their butts off. Arbitrary attrition rates don’t fix this. Efficiency dividends could fix this if it was easier to hire, demote and fire (cue everyone complaining about bullying, inefficient managers, loss of appeal rights etc).

I think the vast majority of over opinionated voters have complicated it for themselves. My stance is to focus on the party, not overwhelmingly on the individual. Individuals are members of a party for a reason.

As much as everyone loves to bash Tony or Rudd, at the end of the day they’re members of their respective parties. Unless you love daytime drama, just visit party websites, brush up on Australian political history and make up your mind.

I’ve never really assessed candidates as individuals, just parties as a whole… unless of course they are independents.

PantsMan said :

Ceasing paying someone to attend a building to do nothing all day is a job produced somewhere else in the economy.

How does that little bit of logic work?

switch said :

davo101 said :

Yawn; I do find this particular meme to be the most tiresome of those in the Australian electoral world.

Nah, I think the one where a new incoming government complains “there’s even less in the till than we feared!” is worse.

Hmm…you’re right…that one is annoying. Perhaps we should start a book on how long till each promise is jettisoned?

PantsMan said :

The public service is so full of waste.

Ceasing paying someone to attend a building to do nothing all day is a job produced somewhere else in the economy.

Problem being that natural attrition isnt going to get rid of the seat warmers. Natural attrition will get rid of retirees and those able to get a job somewhere else. Why would someone who is paid to do nothing all day go get a job where they would have to work?

ML-585 said :

Bullshit!

A lost job is a lost job.

The public service is so full of waste.

Ceasing paying someone to attend a building to do nothing all day is a job produced somewhere else in the economy.

As a Liberal voter I’m disappointed that no Liberal candidates have answered the questions from Riot ACT readers. Reading the responses from candidates of other parties has helped me decide how to flow my preferences. My guess is that Zed and/or the party president decided that they didn’t want him answering, so none of the other candidates were allowed to answer even if they wanted to. As candidates at last year’s ACT election you’d have to asume the other candidates are working on improving their profiles for the next ACT election in the likely event that they don’t get elected tomorrow, and opening up here is a way to do that.

Given that Zed didn’t even know about the Coalition’s plans to increase the efficiency dividend I wonder how effective he will be if he gets the Senate spot. There’s also the way that he challenged Gary Humphries which I’ve heard described by other Liberal voters in unflattering terms. If he couldn’t stay in the Assembly to represent the people of Tuggeranong, then he should have gone for the seat of Canberra. At least that way he would have been trying to win a new seat rather than fighting with another Liberal for an existing one.

I’ll be voting under the line for Merinda Nash, the number 2 Liberal, with both Zed and the Greens near the end with the exact order still to be determined. Merinda is a business owner with more life experience and real world skills than Zed and I think she’d make a better Senator. If people are planning on voting Liberal in the Senate, but have reservations about Zed, I’d suggest voting under the line with Merinda ahead of Zed, then they can still preference him ahead of the Greens if they so desire.

Matt_Watts said :

OK, let’s look at it a different way…

The Australian Parliament has representatives from all over this country. It is not one, large proportional representation electorate; there are many electorates based on regions and population. I don’t know many who are calling for the abolition of region-based electorates.

Why are our electorates based on regions? It is so the Australian Parliament has representation from all over this country, and (especially with regard to the same number of Senators for each state) to ensure the decisions made by representatives of one particular area do not disproportionately and adversely impact other regions. I see this as one of our system’s benefits.

Many can argue the party-based system has changed things, and they’d be right; political parties nonetheless have their own regional peccadilloes.

In any event, in my view, we can extrapolate from that benefit the fact any government would be improved by as broad a regional representation as possible. For example, imagine if a government didn’t have any representation from Tasmania; I suspect those citizens would have a harder time having their voice heard by government simply as a result of not having the same level of access to the leadership group.

It has nothing to do with shady deals, but everything to do with practicality.

I won’t be voting Liberal for that reason. I will vote for the Liberals because in my personal view they are more aligned to my beliefs than any other party, despite elements of their platform with which I disagree.

Nonetheless, in a post regarding the factors to consider in this election, I submit that having a seat at the government’s table is one aspect undecided voters should consider.

Interesting you pick the most overly represented state in the senate for your example.

Quite frankly, I’ve resigned myself to knowing that in all likelihood Abbot will win tomorrow, and apart from riling up blinkered lib supporters like yourself there is little point in my actually worrying about whom I vote for, esp as we’re a safe seat.

If I really wanted my vote to matter tomorrow I’d have moved across the border to QBN.

Be careful with your minor parties. The minor party alliance will see votes for progressive (idiot) parties going to conservatives. A vote for the Animal Justive Party in the ACT is a vote straight to the liberals.

davo101 said :

Yawn; I do find this particular meme to be the most tiresome of those in the Australian electoral world.

Nah, I think the one where a new incoming government complains “there’s even less in the till than we feared!” is worse.

johnboy said :

Not at all what I said guys.

As I understand it even Labor voters might want to think about voting for minor parties before directing preferences to Labor.

Labor is guaranteed one ACT Senate seat and would be very unlikely to get a second seat. Therefore, I think preferences from surplus Labor votes are apportioned (based on the percentage excess) towards other preferences. Placing Labor further down your order of preferences means that your whole vote, instead of just a portion, is counted before Labor might actually need it.

People have suggested here and in previous threads that voting Liberal ensures that the ACT has representation in the likely next Government. Having a balance of power seat, even if it’s Greens, is more likely to ensure that we have a better say. As well, as JB has pointed out elsewhere, if the Libs lose their Senate seat they are much more likely to treat the ACT better even during the upcoming Government in the hope that they can win that seat back at the next election.

It doesn’t seem to really matter what your traditional voting behaviour is, placing Liberals or Labor as low on the list as you can stomach seems to be the best strategic approach for the ACT.

Darkfalz said :

Canberra times have endorsed Abbott. I don’t like Zed. I voted for Nash. But having senate deadlock (as we could over the chief issue of this election, the carbon tax) is almost as bad as a hung parliament. Putting a moron like Shiekh in there, a serial liar and activist who operates outside the real world, what good will that do? Canberra Times made a good point too – that is, having 2 safe Labor protected seats in Canberra is not good for us, and as a result, Gillard, Rudd, Swan and Wong made public sector cuts too whenever they needed to doctor up their own budgets. It’s sort of like how the Democrats in the US essentially stopped doing anything for certain groups because they know they can take their vote for granted. Think hard about your votes tomorrow and send Andrew Leigh and Gai a lesson that they can’t take your vote for Granted.

The Carbon tax is the chief issue? Does anyone actually think that but Tony and his parrots (or budgies, as the case may be)? The Carbon tax is almost never mentioned in the political discussions I’ve had this election.

harvyk1 said :

Matt_Watts said :

Not at all what I said. Please read it again. It is a matter of practicality; the impact of decisions. For example, the Liberals are promising to reduce the APS through natural attrition rather than retrenchment. I note Labor is acting as if there is no difference between the two options, yet I disagree. Further, Labor has not ruled out retrenchment.

Not what you said, but it’s certainly implied…
How else is someone suppose to take the words

Matt_Watts said :

It does mean, however, that the lines of communication are more open because of a greater alignment in objectives. When it comes to making decisions (which, I might add, don’t always need to go through parliament), it’s better to be in the decision-making room rather than to be in a position of having to respond after the fact.

To me that basically says that if you don’t vote for us, you don’t have a hope in getting real representation, since the bulk of the decision making will be done in the back rooms and not out on the floor of parliament.

Now I won’t say that there may not be advantages to having a representative in the party room of the majority party, given the representative can put forward their view to how the party representatives votes, however any decision which is likely to really positively or negatively affect us still needs to get through parliament.

Quite frankly I simply see you perpetuating the general untruths (I won’t quite call them lies) about our election and government process which makes people think they are voting for Rudd or Abbot tomorrow. What is worse is you come across as a person who probably does now better (unless you’ve been drinking the kool-aid yourself).

OK, let’s look at it a different way…

The Australian Parliament has representatives from all over this country. It is not one, large proportional representation electorate; there are many electorates based on regions and population. I don’t know many who are calling for the abolition of region-based electorates.

Why are our electorates based on regions? It is so the Australian Parliament has representation from all over this country, and (especially with regard to the same number of Senators for each state) to ensure the decisions made by representatives of one particular area do not disproportionately and adversely impact other regions. I see this as one of our system’s benefits.

Many can argue the party-based system has changed things, and they’d be right; political parties nonetheless have their own regional peccadilloes.

In any event, in my view, we can extrapolate from that benefit the fact any government would be improved by as broad a regional representation as possible. For example, imagine if a government didn’t have any representation from Tasmania; I suspect those citizens would have a harder time having their voice heard by government simply as a result of not having the same level of access to the leadership group.

It has nothing to do with shady deals, but everything to do with practicality.

I won’t be voting Liberal for that reason. I will vote for the Liberals because in my personal view they are more aligned to my beliefs than any other party, despite elements of their platform with which I disagree.

Nonetheless, in a post regarding the factors to consider in this election, I submit that having a seat at the government’s table is one aspect undecided voters should consider.

So the Liberals want to sack 10, 12, 20000 public servants, but they’ll do it nicely (in the form of natural attrition).

Bullshit!

A lost job is a lost job. Even if all the victims are those who were going to retire, it’s still 10, 12 or 20000 unemployed persons who may have otherwise filled those vacancies.

Matt_Watts said :

For example, the Liberals are promising to reduce the APS through natural attrition rather than retrenchment.

Snigger. I suppose it does all depend upon your definition of “natural”. Some how I doubt they’ll meet their targets by hoping there are enough 54-11’s around.

Good work getting the message out johnboy! I’ve got faith in my fellow Canberrans to make the right choice.

chewy14 said :

This is the exact reason why I’ve previously suggested tactical voting to make both Canberra and Fraser marginal seats. The Labor party currently take us a given and the Libs know they can’t win so don’t try.

I’d love it if we where a marginal seat, both sides would then think twice about “slashing the public service” as a way of winning seats.

The only problem is then that would involve voting for libs, and that then increases the risk that we’ll end up with Abbot.

Matt_Watts said :

Not at all what I said. Please read it again. It is a matter of practicality; the impact of decisions. For example, the Liberals are promising to reduce the APS through natural attrition rather than retrenchment. I note Labor is acting as if there is no difference between the two options, yet I disagree. Further, Labor has not ruled out retrenchment.

Not what you said, but it’s certainly implied…
How else is someone suppose to take the words

Matt_Watts said :

It does mean, however, that the lines of communication are more open because of a greater alignment in objectives. When it comes to making decisions (which, I might add, don’t always need to go through parliament), it’s better to be in the decision-making room rather than to be in a position of having to respond after the fact.

To me that basically says that if you don’t vote for us, you don’t have a hope in getting real representation, since the bulk of the decision making will be done in the back rooms and not out on the floor of parliament.

Now I won’t say that there may not be advantages to having a representative in the party room of the majority party, given the representative can put forward their view to how the party representatives votes, however any decision which is likely to really positively or negatively affect us still needs to get through parliament.

Quite frankly I simply see you perpetuating the general untruths (I won’t quite call them lies) about our election and government process which makes people think they are voting for Rudd or Abbot tomorrow. What is worse is you come across as a person who probably does now better (unless you’ve been drinking the kool-aid yourself).

CraigT said :

Garbage.

Canberra will be much better if if it makes Zed’s seat as precarious as possible.

The way to make the Libs’ pay attention is to make them fight for the seat instead of taking it for granted.

And I must say, Matt Watts’ is very brazen showing up here to defend the Party that has vowed to cause around 20,000 of us to lose our jobs and bring on a local recession.

How anybody in Canberra can shamelessly support the Liberals and their miserable schemes is beyond me.

This is the exact reason why I’ve previously suggested tactical voting to make both Canberra and Fraser marginal seats. The Labor party currently take us a given and the Libs know they can’t win so don’t try.

“If the ACT were to reject Zed Seselja in favour of Simon Sheikh it would very likely rob the Coalition of control in the Senate”

C’mon, this is complete bunkum. Abbott has zero chance of gaining control of the senate based on all recent polling, Zed or no.

It’s disingenuous to try and lean people to Sheikh based on that.

harvyk1 said :

Matt_Watts said :

If you really believe I’d make a thinly-veiled threat, you don’t remember that I’ve been one of the most open and blunt candidates to be subject to RiotACT scrutiny. I suspect your overblown comment is made out of an anti-Liberal position rather than any genuine consideration of what I said.

For the others reading this, I’ll elaborate. As Gary Humphries has said, it’s beneficial to have a seat at the table so the concerns of the community can be better represented. That’s not to say the Coalition, if it were to win, would ignore Canberra if there are no Liberals elected in this jurisdiction. It does mean, however, that the lines of communication are more open because of a greater alignment in objectives. When it comes to making decisions (which, I might add, don’t always need to go through parliament), it’s better to be in the decision-making room rather than to be in a position of having to respond after the fact.

So in other words you are saying the libs love doing party room deals, and thus the only way to get a look in in such deals is by voting for the “right” guy?

Doesn’t sound very democratic to me.

Not at all what I said. Please read it again. It is a matter of practicality; the impact of decisions. For example, the Liberals are promising to reduce the APS through natural attrition rather than retrenchment. I note Labor is acting as if there is no difference between the two options, yet I disagree. Further, Labor has not ruled out retrenchment.

CraigT said :

Canberra will be much better if it makes Zed’s seat as precarious as possible.

Don’t stop there, better yet make all four positions marginal.

CraigT said :

Matt_Watts said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

do Canberrans want to be the only jurisdiction to not have representation within the government of the day?

Why, Matt? What exactly do you think might happen if that was the case? Because it sounds like you’re making a thinly-veiled threat against Canberra voters that if they’re not with your lot, you’ll make it your business to ignore their interests, if not do them harm.

If you really believe I’d make a thinly-veiled threat, you don’t remember that I’ve been one of the most open and blunt candidates to be subject to RiotACT scrutiny. I suspect your overblown comment is made out of an anti-Liberal position rather than any genuine consideration of what I said.

For the others reading this, I’ll elaborate. As Gary Humphries has said, it’s beneficial to have a seat at the table so the concerns of the community can be better represented. That’s not to say the Coalition, if it were to win, would ignore Canberra if there are no Liberals elected in this jurisdiction. It does mean, however, that the lines of communication are more open because of a greater alignment in objectives. When it comes to making decisions (which, I might add, don’t always need to go through parliament), it’s better to be in the decision-making room rather than to be in a position of having to respond after the fact.

Garbage.

Canberra will be much better if if it makes Zed’s seat as precarious as possible.

The way to make the Libs’ pay attention is to make them fight for the seat instead of taking it for granted.

And I must say, Matt Watts’ is very brazen showing up here to defend the Party that has vowed to cause around 20,000 of us to lose our jobs and bring on a local recession.

How anybody in Canberra can shamelessly support the Liberals and their miserable schemes is beyond me.

At least the Libs are upfront with their plans regarding the APS, which is more than can be said for the ALP.

Matt_Watts said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

do Canberrans want to be the only jurisdiction to not have representation within the government of the day?

Why, Matt? What exactly do you think might happen if that was the case? Because it sounds like you’re making a thinly-veiled threat against Canberra voters that if they’re not with your lot, you’ll make it your business to ignore their interests, if not do them harm.

If you really believe I’d make a thinly-veiled threat, you don’t remember that I’ve been one of the most open and blunt candidates to be subject to RiotACT scrutiny. I suspect your overblown comment is made out of an anti-Liberal position rather than any genuine consideration of what I said.

For the others reading this, I’ll elaborate. As Gary Humphries has said, it’s beneficial to have a seat at the table so the concerns of the community can be better represented. That’s not to say the Coalition, if it were to win, would ignore Canberra if there are no Liberals elected in this jurisdiction. It does mean, however, that the lines of communication are more open because of a greater alignment in objectives. When it comes to making decisions (which, I might add, don’t always need to go through parliament), it’s better to be in the decision-making room rather than to be in a position of having to respond after the fact.

By that logic, all electorates should switch their votes over to the coalition due to needing ‘a seat at the table’. As much as you’d like that for the party you have interests in, How would that be good for the democratic processes? Where would the benefit be for the coalition to have control over both houses?

“Pretty please, we swear we won’t abuse it!”

Minor parties (despite Abbott declaring ‘no more minor parties’ involved in government) and healthy oppositions are a necessity. I honestly hope that there are more minor parties taking a chomp out of the two large parties representations.That is the healthiest thing for the Australian political system.

Matt_Watts said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

do Canberrans want to be the only jurisdiction to not have representation within the government of the day?

Why, Matt? What exactly do you think might happen if that was the case? Because it sounds like you’re making a thinly-veiled threat against Canberra voters that if they’re not with your lot, you’ll make it your business to ignore their interests, if not do them harm.

If you really believe I’d make a thinly-veiled threat, you don’t remember that I’ve been one of the most open and blunt candidates to be subject to RiotACT scrutiny. I suspect your overblown comment is made out of an anti-Liberal position rather than any genuine consideration of what I said.

For the others reading this, I’ll elaborate. As Gary Humphries has said, it’s beneficial to have a seat at the table so the concerns of the community can be better represented. That’s not to say the Coalition, if it were to win, would ignore Canberra if there are no Liberals elected in this jurisdiction. It does mean, however, that the lines of communication are more open because of a greater alignment in objectives. When it comes to making decisions (which, I might add, don’t always need to go through parliament), it’s better to be in the decision-making room rather than to be in a position of having to respond after the fact.

Garbage.

Canberra will be much better if if it makes Zed’s seat as precarious as possible.

The way to make the Libs’ pay attention is to make them fight for the seat instead of taking it for granted.

And I must say, Matt Watts’ is very brazen showing up here to defend the Party that has vowed to cause around 20,000 of us to lose our jobs and bring on a local recession.

How anybody in Canberra can shamelessly support the Liberals and their miserable schemes is beyond me.

Matt_Watts said :

If you really believe I’d make a thinly-veiled threat, you don’t remember that I’ve been one of the most open and blunt candidates to be subject to RiotACT scrutiny. I suspect your overblown comment is made out of an anti-Liberal position rather than any genuine consideration of what I said.

For the others reading this, I’ll elaborate. As Gary Humphries has said, it’s beneficial to have a seat at the table so the concerns of the community can be better represented. That’s not to say the Coalition, if it were to win, would ignore Canberra if there are no Liberals elected in this jurisdiction. It does mean, however, that the lines of communication are more open because of a greater alignment in objectives. When it comes to making decisions (which, I might add, don’t always need to go through parliament), it’s better to be in the decision-making room rather than to be in a position of having to respond after the fact.

So in other words you are saying the libs love doing party room deals, and thus the only way to get a look in in such deals is by voting for the “right” guy?

Doesn’t sound very democratic to me.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

do Canberrans want to be the only jurisdiction to not have representation within the government of the day?

Why, Matt? What exactly do you think might happen if that was the case? Because it sounds like you’re making a thinly-veiled threat against Canberra voters that if they’re not with your lot, you’ll make it your business to ignore their interests, if not do them harm.

If you really believe I’d make a thinly-veiled threat, you don’t remember that I’ve been one of the most open and blunt candidates to be subject to RiotACT scrutiny. I suspect your overblown comment is made out of an anti-Liberal position rather than any genuine consideration of what I said.

For the others reading this, I’ll elaborate. As Gary Humphries has said, it’s beneficial to have a seat at the table so the concerns of the community can be better represented. That’s not to say the Coalition, if it were to win, would ignore Canberra if there are no Liberals elected in this jurisdiction. It does mean, however, that the lines of communication are more open because of a greater alignment in objectives. When it comes to making decisions (which, I might add, don’t always need to go through parliament), it’s better to be in the decision-making room rather than to be in a position of having to respond after the fact.

Canberra times have endorsed Abbott. I don’t like Zed. I voted for Nash. But having senate deadlock (as we could over the chief issue of this election, the carbon tax) is almost as bad as a hung parliament. Putting a moron like Shiekh in there, a serial liar and activist who operates outside the real world, what good will that do? Canberra Times made a good point too – that is, having 2 safe Labor protected seats in Canberra is not good for us, and as a result, Gillard, Rudd, Swan and Wong made public sector cuts too whenever they needed to doctor up their own budgets. It’s sort of like how the Democrats in the US essentially stopped doing anything for certain groups because they know they can take their vote for granted. Think hard about your votes tomorrow and send Andrew Leigh and Gai a lesson that they can’t take your vote for Granted.

Matt_Watts said :

One other thing to consider is that, given the likelihood of a Coalition government (albeit not guaranteed), do Canberrans want to be the only jurisdiction to not have representation within the government of the day?

WTF? It’s not going to make a iota of a difference either way.

Matt_Watts said :

I can also assure you Zed does not take this election for granted.

Yawn; I do find this particular meme to be the most tiresome of those in the Australian electoral world. The result of this election was obvious in 2010 and only growing more so over time.

Some aspects will be amusing.

Matt_Watts said :

johnboy said :

So where are Zed’s Questionnaire answers then Matt?

And you don’t think winning back that senate seat once lost will be a bit of a priority to Liberal strategists next time around?

You know very well that I have paid attention to the RiotACT over multiple elections. Zed and I haven’t discussed the RiotACT, though, so I can’t speak on his behalf on the matter of the questionnaire.

What I do know is that Zed has been out doorknocking houses and meeting people at shopping centres throughout the campaign. Sure, with the birth of his and Ros’ newborn Zed took a little time out from the campaign, yet that’s to be expected!

Winning a Senate seat in the ACT is already a priority for the Liberals. You’re suggesting it would be a greater priority at the next election if the Liberals lost it this year, yet that leaves potentially three years of being outside the tent, so to speak.

The Canberra Times this morning rued the the fact the House of Reps seats were safely ALP. To that I say vote for Elizabeth Lee in Fraser and Tom Sefton in Canberra!

Being outside the tent doesn’t bother too many people. Despite the coalition grumblings many liberal seats got NBN. My issue is Zed, moved ACT electorates to try and win the ACT government and it nearly worked. So he gave up on that idea and decided to take the relatively safe senate seat from another hard working liberal member. So far all I’m seeing is Zed does what he wants for his own personal gains. If it was Gary Humphries running there’d be no talk of the greens getting that senate seat. However Zed as a politician has screwed alot of people over for his own gain.

As a swinging voter, I’d like the margins in Canberra to get narrower, so i may vote Liberal higher than Labor in the seat Canberra, then for the Senate vote liberals second last, with rise up a deserved last spot for there racist and narrow minded views.

So if you know Zed, perhaps you should tell him this is what people are upset about, especially those in Tuggeranong who elected him for the ACT government, only to be given a lesser candidate instead, whose seat may have instead gone to labor or greens.

But please don’t tell me having a local member in the government of the day is better than not, I’ve never ever seen this as a difference maker in Canberra, even when we had a liberal member with the 3 electorates for 1 term.

Just vote for Palmer’s United Party and get on with it.

The way Zed got into the senate race was shady as all get out and divided his own supporters in such a polarising way, There are a lot less liberal volunteers this election. I could not in good conscience reward screw the screw over of Gary Humphries with a vote.

Zed is shady as all get out, will jump ship for a bigger pay ticket in a second and I’m not surprised he won’t pony up a answer to the questionnaire. Some of his good Christian values answers would have people running.

I took great pleasure in listing him as number 27 on my ballot. I hear many are doing the same. Will smile most satisfactorily (don’t care if that’s a real word or not) if he doesn’t get in.

I would rather 2 Labor, or 2 Coalition, senators than even a quarter of a Green. And one of those two options is a long way from ideal for me.

If you are a Labor supporter, thank the Greens for undermining the current government’s credibility with the public and stirring up internal divisions in the ALP. If you are a Coalition supporter – well, no explanation is necessary.

Woody Mann-Caruso12:08 pm 06 Sep 13

do Canberrans want to be the only jurisdiction to not have representation within the government of the day?

Why, Matt? What exactly do you think might happen if that was the case? Because it sounds like you’re making a thinly-veiled threat against Canberra voters that if they’re not with your lot, you’ll make it your business to ignore their interests, if not do them harm.

Matt_Watts said :

The Canberra Times this morning rued the the fact the House of Reps seats were safely ALP. To that I say vote for Elizabeth Lee in Fraser and Tom Sefton in Canberra!

Why should I vote for them? Gee if only there was a 10 question form they could fill in so I knew where they stood on certain issues…

I vote for a very thick hard mandate.

farout said :

If the Libs win, they will implement their policies. The members for Canberra and Fraser will do bugger all or help or hinder.

What do you mean if the libs win? Sadly it seems to be a pretty sure thing.

The problem is we’re “Canberra”, aka the root of all evil in Australia. We have some of the lowest amounts of representation in Australia (we get 2 senators, Tassie with it’s population of not much more get 12), and our main employer / user of private enterprise services here is the public service, indistinguishable from “Dr Evil’s Evil Empire” in the minds of the average aussie bogan voter.

It’s not so much that our representatives won’t try and help us, it’s more they can’t because we only have 2 of them and parties don’t want to be seen helping “Canberra” because you could just imagine the Daily Tele’s headline the next day.

neanderthalsis11:29 am 06 Sep 13

Robertson said :

And Johnboy is worried that Canberrans will vote Liberal?!?!

He’s mad – who would be stupid enough to vote for joblessness and plummeting property values?

Those who regularly see the departmental waste and the dead wood occupying positions at all levels in the APS and those who would like to see a cheaper housing market in the ACT seem to fit the bill.

And let us not forget the ongoing impact of the efficiency dividend. 7 000 or so jobs gone under Labor with another 5 000 to go after the latest increase. No one seems to want to Rudd proof the Senate.

johnboy said :

So where are Zed’s Questionnaire answers then Matt?

And you don’t think winning back that senate seat once lost will be a bit of a priority to Liberal strategists next time around?

You know very well that I have paid attention to the RiotACT over multiple elections. Zed and I haven’t discussed the RiotACT, though, so I can’t speak on his behalf on the matter of the questionnaire.

What I do know is that Zed has been out doorknocking houses and meeting people at shopping centres throughout the campaign. Sure, with the birth of his and Ros’ newborn Zed took a little time out from the campaign, yet that’s to be expected!

Winning a Senate seat in the ACT is already a priority for the Liberals. You’re suggesting it would be a greater priority at the next election if the Liberals lost it this year, yet that leaves potentially three years of being outside the tent, so to speak.

The Canberra Times this morning rued the the fact the House of Reps seats were safely ALP. To that I say vote for Elizabeth Lee in Fraser and Tom Sefton in Canberra!

Beau Locks said :

I accept that Tony Abbott will be PM come Sunday morn. Labor certainly deserve to lose, but I don’t know that we deserve an Abbott guvman. I read thru the Tory ‘costings’. Not very many harsh cuts, aside from ganking Ausaid, considering it’s a ‘budget emergency’. Lots of spending, in fact. I reckon they’ve gone all Keynsian with stimulus measures for the construction industry, much like the ALP did in 2009, which everyone else in the world thought was a good idea, but which they opposed. (I note Joseph Stiglitz writ a great article about just this in the SMH the other day, basically saying Aussies are fools for whinging about our economy, and that any government cuts in the current environment are mad.)

The difference between 2009 and the 2014 stimulus spending is that none of this largesse will be lavished upon the good folk of Canberra. The only mention of the ACT that I saw in their ‘costings’ is that they’ll scrap the pokies trial.

Normally there’s some benefit to living in a marginal seat, which the second Senate spot in C Town clearly is, but it seems, much like Zedwit, that the Tories have just taken the ACT for granted, yet again. I will be ecstatic if Zed fails to get in. Good luck Simon Sheikh.

The Greens are saying that the Coalition’s paid parental leave scheme is too generous, too expensive, and needs to be reigned in, and they are also promising a greater cut to the company tax rate than the Coalition. Not to mention the Coalition has rejected an efficient market based policy for dealing with climate change in favor of a bureaucracy heavy, inefficient, “direct action” policy.

It’s certainly a bizarre state of affairs when the left wing minority party is more fiscally conservative, free market and lower taxing than the supposedly small government conservative party.

Matt_Watts said :

One other thing to consider is that, given the likelihood of a Coalition government (albeit not guaranteed), do Canberrans want to be the only jurisdiction to not have representation within the government of the day?

I can also assure you Zed does not take this election for granted.

(I declare my bias as a Liberal.)

But we will have representation in the government of the day.

The fact that people are aligned to certain political parties is convention only and form no actual real part in how our government works. (You are not voting for Rudd or Abbot tomorrow, you are simply voting for a person, and that person will decide if they want to vote for Rudd / Abbot or a 3rd person to be PM)

Besides becoming a seat which can no longer be taken for granted is probably one of the best things which could happen to us. Marginal seats are always given much higher priority from both sides than so called safe seats, simply because both sides want to attracts votes. Safe seats there is no point in giving the good stuff because it’s unlikely to change votes enough from one guy and give them to the other to make a difference.

Long-time minor party voter here (ie anyone but Lab-Lib-Grn). Think of it as getting double the value out of your votes: your first preference directs the money and the cudos (and your actual policy preference, not that any of the parties really care about that). In a marginal electorate, your final preference could influence the outcome.

Three out of four ‘seats’ are safe Labor here (two Reps, one of the Senate seats). Whether the Liberal’s ‘seat’ is safe or marginal will be known on Saturday night. The Greens say it is safe and act as if it is marginal. The Libs say it is marginal (when they say anything at all) and act as if it is safe. Someone is going to be sadly disappointed tomorrow night.

If the Greens got in, would we get interest in the form of Commonwealth investment? Not in this Liberal Government (but we wouldn’t anyway – so no change). But would Labor, when it returns to power, ever see any point in ‘investing’ for an outcome it already has?

Every day on Riotact is an education.

As a result of this thread I learnt a new word and will try to work it into general conversation.

‘Psephologist’ – a sociologist who studies election trends.

Thanks Riotact!

Holden Caulfield11:12 am 06 Sep 13

johnboy said :

So where are Zed’s Questionnaire answers then Matt?

And you don’t think winning back that senate seat once lost will be a bit of a priority to Liberal strategists next time around?

He’s taking the James Hird approach…

“But, but, but I’m a father, so that means I’m a good bloke and you all love me!”

Robertson said :

Let me get this straight – the Liberals have announced that they will sack 12,000 people in the ACT, which will obviously lead to a local recession with matching job losses in the private sector.

And Johnboy is worried that Canberrans will vote Liberal?!?!

He’s mad – who would be stupid enough to vote for joblessness and plummeting property values?

If the Libs win, they will implement their policies. The members for Canberra and Fraser will do bugger all or help or hinder.

Holden Caulfield11:10 am 06 Sep 13

I no longer have to think hard about my senate vote. I already did that many months ago.

Robertson said :

Let me get this straight – the Liberals have announced that they will sack 12,000 people in the ACT, which will obviously lead to a local recession with matching job losses in the private sector.

And Johnboy is worried that Canberrans will vote Liberal?!?!

He’s mad – who would be stupid enough to vote for joblessness and plummeting property values?

At least the Libs are heading to an election with this as part of their platform. Labor is cutting APS jobs without telling us how or how many.

One other thing to consider is that, given the likelihood of a Coalition government (albeit not guaranteed), do Canberrans want to be the only jurisdiction to not have representation within the government of the day?

I can also assure you Zed does not take this election for granted.

(I declare my bias as a Liberal.)

So where are Zed’s Questionnaire answers then Matt?

And you don’t think winning back that senate seat once lost will be a bit of a priority to Liberal strategists next time around?

johnboy said :

Another worry is the rumbling about “mandate”.

Yes – I’ve been hearing that – dodgy, dodgy, dodgy…

On the other hand, we all know that if Tony Abbott gets in, that will prove that Climate science really is crap.

johnboy said :

Another worry is the rumbling about “mandate”.

I do enjoy hollow arguments. Every single member elected to parliament has a mandate and everyone’s mandate is equal.

Let me get this straight – the Liberals have announced that they will sack 12,000 people in the ACT, which will obviously lead to a local recession with matching job losses in the private sector.

And Johnboy is worried that Canberrans will vote Liberal?!?!

He’s mad – who would be stupid enough to vote for joblessness and plummeting property values?

Well Zed obviously thinks he can mail this one in.

I accept that Tony Abbott will be PM come Sunday morn. Labor certainly deserve to lose, but I don’t know that we deserve an Abbott guvman. I read thru the Tory ‘costings’. Not very many harsh cuts, aside from ganking Ausaid, considering it’s a ‘budget emergency’. Lots of spending, in fact. I reckon they’ve gone all Keynsian with stimulus measures for the construction industry, much like the ALP did in 2009, which everyone else in the world thought was a good idea, but which they opposed. (I note Joseph Stiglitz writ a great article about just this in the SMH the other day, basically saying Aussies are fools for whinging about our economy, and that any government cuts in the current environment are mad.)

The difference between 2009 and the 2014 stimulus spending is that none of this largesse will be lavished upon the good folk of Canberra. The only mention of the ACT that I saw in their ‘costings’ is that they’ll scrap the pokies trial.

Normally there’s some benefit to living in a marginal seat, which the second Senate spot in C Town clearly is, but it seems, much like Zedwit, that the Tories have just taken the ACT for granted, yet again. I will be ecstatic if Zed fails to get in. Good luck Simon Sheikh.

A wholly numbered ballot is a vote hardly wasted.

Another worry is the rumbling about “mandate”.

Tony Abbott has a mandate to not be Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd, and that’s about it.

“And remember, voting for a minor party will not waste your vote in Australia.”

Thanks for the timely reminder, JB.

It’s quite frightening how many US memes get adopted by ignorant Australians. The “I x and I vote” is one, as was the situation a few years ago that had Australians dialling the US emergency number. The “I have a constitutional right to bear arms” is less prevalent but it exists.

thebrownstreak6910:38 am 06 Sep 13

johnboy said :

Not at all what I said guys.

“If the ACT were to reject Zed Seselja in favour of Simon Sheikh it would very likely rob the Coalition of control in the Senate.”

I’d say you’re pretty concerned about the Libs getting control of the Senate. I’m prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt by thinking you’d be saying the same thing if Labor was in this position.

Encouraging people to vote for the watermelons? Happening on this site?
Surely you jest…

Seriously, the last thing we need is another socialist, progress halting, social engineering hippy with ANY power. Though thankfully, many people are starting to see through the greens/reds. I’m hoping they are stomped into irrelevance in this election.

Hardly think about your senate vote. Gotcha.

thebrownstreak6910:22 am 06 Sep 13

In other words, don’t vote for the evil Liberal party!

Not at all what I said guys.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.