Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you meant the two-party preferred vote in the first place why didn't you specify it? Yep, you're either a moron or a liar.
oh and again, what kind of a stupid fool would think i wasnt talking about the two party vote?
its like someone saying: wow - kevin rudd and the coalition both had 41% of people vote for them - how rigged is it that rudd won!
retard.
you just cannot stand the thought that you have lost, and you're beloved labor party are the only ones who have been corrupt enough to stay in power with a minority of the vote.
"after the flow of preferences from the nationals.... "
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you saying the National Party gave preferences to themselves? Sounds like you admitting the Nationals rigged the elections of 1983 and 1986.
it was the labor party in 1950 after they introduced the gerrymander that were able to win the election with just 48.5% of the vote to the coaltions 51.5%
you know what the funny thing is? people think the gerrymander is dead and gone but thats a load of crap - labor could have lost with less then 48% of the vote in the 2009 election and they still would have won.
"you know what the funny thing is? people think the gerrymander is dead and gone but thats a load of crap"
Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The electoral boundaries are drawn by the Electoral Commission of Queensland (ECQ). Under current legislation to work for the ECQ you cannot be actively involved in partisan politics. Hence the ECQ is independent.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You LNP dudes keep cracking me up with your redneck opinions.
Those who are actively involved in partisan politics are not considered for employment in the ECQ.
"why the hell else do you think the LNP needed 53.2% of the vote to win the last elections?"
The figure you cited is from a poll calculator that uses a uniform swing. A uniform swing is an unrealistic assumption since the swing varies from seat to seat.
well guess what? a disproportionate amount of the boundary changes favoured the ALP.
it is not a fair system where labor could have won with that many votes - its exactly like the days when they were openly rigging it and stayed in power with just 48% of the vote.
"it was the labor party in 1950 after they introduced the gerrymander"
The Nationals made the gerrymander worse. They introduced rural electoral zones. In those zones a vote was worth twice as much as a vote in South-east Queensland.
Thank goodness Queensland's electoral boundaries are now drawn with the one vote-one value rule. Now a vote in South-east Queensland is worth the same as the rest of Queensland.
actually it was the labor party who introduced the rural electoral votes - you know why? because once upon a time they used to be supported by the workers out in the country.
the liberals polled 14.9% of the vote in 1983 and 16.5% of the vote in 1986 and every single commentator said it was remarkable how the flow of preferences went so uniformly to the national party. so yes, the national party won the elections through preferences and defections from the liberal party.
so again you are proved wrong.
all you do is lie and tell half truths and each time i expose all your lies for what they are.
preferences uniformly to the national party from the liberals, that and with defections from the liberal party was enough for the national party to win office in their own right.
so the national party won the election with the majority support. you lose again, because we all know that the labor party is the only party to rule queensland with a minority of the vote.
Youre saying that the Nationals won two-party preferred in 1983 and 1986 with Liberal preferences. Well duh! This also contradicts the last part of your comment:
that the labor party is the only party to rule queensland with a minority of the vote.
hey i thought labor got rid of the gerrymander! how come they managed to win the 1995 queensland election with just 46.7% of the vote? they got a majority of 1, which they lost in a a by-election later on but that is just rediculous! 53.3% to the coaltion, that should have been a landslide if labor hadnt been so corrupt and perverted the system.
you're a hypcrite - you say that the coalition has held power with a minority of the vote yet it was LABOR who have won two elections with a minority
"how come they managed to win the 1995 queensland election with just 46.7% of the vote?"
Did it ever occur to you that the Coalition (now LNP) suck at campaigning in marginal seats? While Labor focused their campaigning on marginal seats the Coalition spent way too much time campaigning in their safe seats (i.e. preached to the converted).
"hey i thought labor got rid of the gerrymander!"
ECQ has a political neutrality test when hiring staff. Hence seat boundaries are drawn independently
so when the coalition wins an election with a majority of the vote, its a gerrymander, but when labor does its because they "campaign better in marginal seats"
thats a load of crap. there is no way in hell you can win an election with just 46% of the vote without rigging it.
do you know what the leader of the labor party said when they were in opposition and blamed the supposed gerrymander? he said that when labor took power they would change the system to ensure that they would not be in power for just three years, but at least 33.
that is what labor has done - it still influences the decisions of the ECQ.
lol i still cant get over how deeply in denial you are. you cannot win an election with such a small minority without a great deal of corruption. its never happened before.
no, because the labor party are the only political party that has managed to win an election with less then 50% of the two party vote. that is how bad the gerrymander was under them.
you see, as much as you may try to fix the facts, the coaltion and then the national party had the support of MORE PEOPLE then labor had for every single election they won.
yes but the people will lose their voice on local issues as public servants will be employed to fill the void of managing the local areas. Amd please dont say its because they're "pruning back the deadwood" because there will be just as many people employed to manage the council but they will not be voted into office. its a stunt by labor to gain hold of yet another big burocrasy & 2 take public attention away from the public health crisis
Most of the amalgamations will happen on Eastern Queensland. Why? Well, the eastern part of Queensland has a population more mobile that the western part. Hence there's needs to be less bureaucracy in Eastern Queensland.
You mean it has nothing to do with labor's unpopularity in these communities and creating a power-base in Brisbane where only candiates backed by the major parties will have the resources to run for office??? The Queensland labor government just doesn't seem to care about what the people in these
communities think about the amalgimations - as public outcry & the results of the reforendum's sugggest. That doesn't seem like democracy to me, just an arrogant labor government which thinks it can do what it likes. At least if the nationals are elected they'll hold a reforendum on the issue & ask the people in these communities whether they want their LOCAL councils back which labor so callously took from them
Speaking of democracy, when the National Party were in power for 30 years they made the rural vote twice (sometimes three times) as valuable as the city vote. This allowed the Nationals to stay in power even when their vote fell below 35%.
oh The lack of a state upper house (since its abolition in 1922) allowed executive decisions to be swiftly implemented, yet also meant there were no "checks and balances" applied to the decisions of the lower house. thanks for voting that in labor
It's not Labor's fault that in 2001 the Liberal and National Parties ran against each other in some seats. In the next two elections the Coalition parties didn't run against each other in the same seats and Labor still won. Just shows how badly the Coalition are doing.
Finally, optional preferential voting is more democratic than compulsory preferences. A voter can give preferences but CANNOT BE FORCED TO.
the national party vote kept power even tho their vote fell belonw 35%????
i looked up the voting. ever heard of a thing called the coalition? the libs had 20% of the vote back then, so in coaliton they still kicked their socialist asses
The amalgamations were recommended by the Local Government Reform Commission. Of the seven commissioners three worked for the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). To work for the AEC you cannot be actively involved in partisan politics. Only two of them were Labor. One was a NATIONAL (Di McCauley) and the other was a LIBERAL (Bob Quinn).
fascist dictatorships derived its power from dissolving local councils - it robs the local people of their voice. its just another example of labor bully-boy tactics
Sh!t poem.
DrIdaho 3 years ago
the electoral malapportionment system was originally introduced by the Labor Party in 1949 as an overt electoral fix
religiousfear 3 years ago
The National Party made malapportionment worse.
DrIdaho 2 years ago
actually they didnt, the coalition vote always exceeded 50% but labor was able to stay in power even when their vote was in the low 40% range.
liber8me 2 years ago
the coalition vote always exceeded 50%
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In 1972 the Coalition got 43% of the vote and they won 47 seats (out of 82). In 1969 the Coalition got 45% of the votes and won 45 seats (out of 78).
I could give more examples but Im running out of room to type. The Coalition vote didnt always exceed 50%.
You LNP dudes have your heads in the sand! Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DrIdaho 2 years ago
i meant the two party preferred you idiot.
1969 coalition: 52.3%
1972: 50.8%
you lose yet again. as i said, the vote never dipped below 50%.
you're a liar and a fool.
i guess its you who has your head in the sand.
liber8me 2 years ago
Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"i meant the two party preferred you idiot"
You did not specify that. So you must be the idiot (and/or liar).
DrIdaho 2 years ago
of course i meant that.
thats like me saying that rudd won the 2007 election with just 41% of the vote because you dont take greens preferences into account.
yet again you lose. i love beating you guys in arguments. all you do is lie and twist the facts and its amusing to call you out
liber8me 2 years ago
"of course i meant that."
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you meant the two-party preferred vote in the first place why didn't you specify it? Yep, you're either a moron or a liar.
DrIdaho 2 years ago
you're an idiot. of course i meant the two-party vote. thats what our electoral system is - based on two dominant parties.
you just didnt like it because you like twisting the facts.
LABOR PARTY - THE ONLY ONES WHO WERE ABLE TO STAY IN POWER WITH 48% OF THE VOTE THANKS TO THE GERRYMANDER.
liber8me 2 years ago
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're the idiot because you didn't bother to specify that you were referring to the two-party preferred vote.
DrIdaho 2 years ago
ah, its so satisfying to beat you yet again in a debate.
labor is the only political party that has been able to rule in queensland with a minority of the vote.
liber8me 2 years ago
oh and again, what kind of a stupid fool would think i wasnt talking about the two party vote?
its like someone saying: wow - kevin rudd and the coalition both had 41% of people vote for them - how rigged is it that rudd won!
retard.
you just cannot stand the thought that you have lost, and you're beloved labor party are the only ones who have been corrupt enough to stay in power with a minority of the vote.
liber8me 2 years ago
the labor party vote in 1983 was 44% and in 1986 it was 41.3%.
after the flow of preferences from the nationals the labor party failed miserably.
yet again i come back to my point - the labor party is the only party to ever govern queensland with minority support.
liber8me 2 years ago
"after the flow of preferences from the nationals.... "
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you saying the National Party gave preferences to themselves? Sounds like you admitting the Nationals rigged the elections of 1983 and 1986.
DrIdaho 2 years ago
i meant the two party preferred you idiot.
as i said, the vote never dipped below 50%.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1953: Coalition's two-party preferred vote was 45.8%
1956: Coalition's two-party preferred vote was 48.4%
1989: Coalition's two-party preferred vote was 45.7%
1992: Coalition's two-party preferred vote was 46.2%
Youre the idiot (if youre not a liar).
DrIdaho 2 years ago
those are all elections that the coalition lost.
so what are you trying to prove?
the coalition won every election from 1957-86 and between labor and the coalition, the coalition vote exceeded 50%.
it was only the labor party that won elections thanks to their gerrymander with a vote of under 50%
liber8me 2 years ago
it was the labor party in 1950 after they introduced the gerrymander that were able to win the election with just 48.5% of the vote to the coaltions 51.5%
you know what the funny thing is? people think the gerrymander is dead and gone but thats a load of crap - labor could have lost with less then 48% of the vote in the 2009 election and they still would have won.
liber8me 2 years ago
"you know what the funny thing is? people think the gerrymander is dead and gone but thats a load of crap"
Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The electoral boundaries are drawn by the Electoral Commission of Queensland (ECQ). Under current legislation to work for the ECQ you cannot be actively involved in partisan politics. Hence the ECQ is independent.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You LNP dudes keep cracking me up with your redneck opinions.
DrIdaho 2 years ago
yes, and that was my point, the corruption in queensland has reached the point where the ECQ is controlled by the labor party.
why the hell else do you think the LNP needed 53.2% of the vote to win the last elections?
the zoning ALWAYS FAVOURS LABOR.
liber8me 2 years ago
Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You really are a redneck idiot!
Those who are actively involved in partisan politics are not considered for employment in the ECQ.
"why the hell else do you think the LNP needed 53.2% of the vote to win the last elections?"
The figure you cited is from a poll calculator that uses a uniform swing. A uniform swing is an unrealistic assumption since the swing varies from seat to seat.
You're funny, in the tragic sense :)
DrIdaho 2 years ago
well guess what? a disproportionate amount of the boundary changes favoured the ALP.
it is not a fair system where labor could have won with that many votes - its exactly like the days when they were openly rigging it and stayed in power with just 48% of the vote.
liber8me 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1983: Nationals got 38.9% of votes; 41 seats (out of 82). That's 50% of seats with less than 40% of the vote.
1986: Nationals got 39.6% of votes; 49 seats (out of 89). That's 55% of seats with less than 40% of votes.
I deliberately left these figures out previously just to see what ridiculous responses you would come up with
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You proved yet again you're a moronic redneck.
DrIdaho 2 years ago
"it was the labor party in 1950 after they introduced the gerrymander"
The Nationals made the gerrymander worse. They introduced rural electoral zones. In those zones a vote was worth twice as much as a vote in South-east Queensland.
Thank goodness Queensland's electoral boundaries are now drawn with the one vote-one value rule. Now a vote in South-east Queensland is worth the same as the rest of Queensland.
DrIdaho 2 years ago
actually it was the labor party who introduced the rural electoral votes - you know why? because once upon a time they used to be supported by the workers out in the country.
liber8me 2 years ago
lol you're the idiot who thinks its proof that they nats were rigging the election system by quoting statistics of elections they LOST!
look up the ABC electoral website - it goes back to 1950, and look at the vote.
every election they won the labor party always had less of the vote.
you lose again.
liber8me 2 years ago
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1983: Nationals got 38.9% of votes; 41 seats (out of 82). That's 50% of seats with less than 40% of the vote.
1986: Nationals got 39.6% of votes; 49 seats (out of 89). That's 55% of seats with less than 40% of votes.
You really are a moronic redneck.
DrIdaho 2 years ago
the liberals polled 14.9% of the vote in 1983 and 16.5% of the vote in 1986 and every single commentator said it was remarkable how the flow of preferences went so uniformly to the national party. so yes, the national party won the elections through preferences and defections from the liberal party.
so again you are proved wrong.
all you do is lie and tell half truths and each time i expose all your lies for what they are.
liber8me 2 years ago
obviously i meant the liberals.
preferences uniformly to the national party from the liberals, that and with defections from the liberal party was enough for the national party to win office in their own right.
so the national party won the election with the majority support. you lose again, because we all know that the labor party is the only party to rule queensland with a minority of the vote.
liber8me 2 years ago
preferences uniformly to the national party from the liberals
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Youre saying that the Nationals won two-party preferred in 1983 and 1986 with Liberal preferences. Well duh! This also contradicts the last part of your comment:
that the labor party is the only party to rule queensland with a minority of the vote.
DrIdaho 2 years ago
Speaking of winning two-party preferred with preferences:
Labor has won two-party preferred with preferences in recent elections.
2001 election: Labors two-party preferred, 60%
2004 election: Labors two-party preferred, 59%
1992: Labors two-party preferred vote was 53.8%
1989: Labors two-party preferred vote was 54.2%
DrIdaho 2 years ago
hey i thought labor got rid of the gerrymander! how come they managed to win the 1995 queensland election with just 46.7% of the vote? they got a majority of 1, which they lost in a a by-election later on but that is just rediculous! 53.3% to the coaltion, that should have been a landslide if labor hadnt been so corrupt and perverted the system.
you're a hypcrite - you say that the coalition has held power with a minority of the vote yet it was LABOR who have won two elections with a minority
liber8me 2 years ago
"how come they managed to win the 1995 queensland election with just 46.7% of the vote?"
Did it ever occur to you that the Coalition (now LNP) suck at campaigning in marginal seats? While Labor focused their campaigning on marginal seats the Coalition spent way too much time campaigning in their safe seats (i.e. preached to the converted).
"hey i thought labor got rid of the gerrymander!"
ECQ has a political neutrality test when hiring staff. Hence seat boundaries are drawn independently
DrIdaho 2 years ago
LMAO!!! hahahaha
so when the coalition wins an election with a majority of the vote, its a gerrymander, but when labor does its because they "campaign better in marginal seats"
thats a load of crap. there is no way in hell you can win an election with just 46% of the vote without rigging it.
liber8me 2 years ago
i meant when labor wins an election with a minority of the vote - a very small minority, its because they just did better in marginal seats eh? lol
what a load of rubbish. labor has always been able to manage the electoral boundaries so that the coalition need a rediculous % of the vote to win.
labor doesnt give a shit about what people want, theyre so corrupt they want to govern with no-ones consent but their own
liber8me 2 years ago
do you know what the leader of the labor party said when they were in opposition and blamed the supposed gerrymander? he said that when labor took power they would change the system to ensure that they would not be in power for just three years, but at least 33.
that is what labor has done - it still influences the decisions of the ECQ.
liber8me 2 years ago
lol i still cant get over how deeply in denial you are. you cannot win an election with such a small minority without a great deal of corruption. its never happened before.
liber8me 2 years ago
no, because the labor party are the only political party that has managed to win an election with less then 50% of the two party vote. that is how bad the gerrymander was under them.
you see, as much as you may try to fix the facts, the coaltion and then the national party had the support of MORE PEOPLE then labor had for every single election they won.
liber8me 2 years ago
shut up who the hell r u
if youre going to insult a political party use your head
dont stoop to petty insults otherwise ur as bad as them
liber8me 3 years ago
yes but the people will lose their voice on local issues as public servants will be employed to fill the void of managing the local areas. Amd please dont say its because they're "pruning back the deadwood" because there will be just as many people employed to manage the council but they will not be voted into office. its a stunt by labor to gain hold of yet another big burocrasy & 2 take public attention away from the public health crisis
vachesainte 4 years ago
Most of the amalgamations will happen on Eastern Queensland. Why? Well, the eastern part of Queensland has a population more mobile that the western part. Hence there's needs to be less bureaucracy in Eastern Queensland.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
You mean it has nothing to do with labor's unpopularity in these communities and creating a power-base in Brisbane where only candiates backed by the major parties will have the resources to run for office??? The Queensland labor government just doesn't seem to care about what the people in these
vachesainte 4 years ago
communities think about the amalgimations - as public outcry & the results of the reforendum's sugggest. That doesn't seem like democracy to me, just an arrogant labor government which thinks it can do what it likes. At least if the nationals are elected they'll hold a reforendum on the issue & ask the people in these communities whether they want their LOCAL councils back which labor so callously took from them
vachesainte 4 years ago
The changes aren't constitutional. They're LEGISLATIVE.
Speaking of democracy, when the National Party were in power for 30 years they made the rural vote twice (sometimes three times) as valuable as the city vote. This allowed the Nationals to stay in power even when their vote fell below 35%.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
you know it was only until the last few years that the labor party won power with a majority over 50%
liber8me 3 years ago
by the way you are such a damn hypocrite! do you know who introducted the rural vote? the labor party did in 1949
liber8me 3 years ago
oh The lack of a state upper house (since its abolition in 1922) allowed executive decisions to be swiftly implemented, yet also meant there were no "checks and balances" applied to the decisions of the lower house. thanks for voting that in labor
liber8me 3 years ago
The National Party had many opportunities to bring back the upper house when they were in power for 30 years. So what are you complaining about?
DrIdaho 3 years ago
no its labor that should be complaining since this is what allowed the nationals in the joe years to pass so many laws through
liber8me 3 years ago
optional preferential voting allows Labor to win 66 per cent of the seats on the back of 47 per cent of the vote. labor isnt very fair either is it?
liber8me 3 years ago
It's not Labor's fault that in 2001 the Liberal and National Parties ran against each other in some seats. In the next two elections the Coalition parties didn't run against each other in the same seats and Labor still won. Just shows how badly the Coalition are doing.
Finally, optional preferential voting is more democratic than compulsory preferences. A voter can give preferences but CANNOT BE FORCED TO.
DrIdaho 3 years ago
Also, if conservative voters really wanted to vote out Labor in 2001 they would have preferenced BOTH Coalition parties, BUT THEY DIDN'T.
DrIdaho 3 years ago
yep i totally trust a political party that made it legal to LIE to parliament
liber8me 3 years ago
Politicians of all political stripes are funny with the truth.
Anyway, what does your last comment got to do with optional preferential voting?
DrIdaho 3 years ago
the national party vote kept power even tho their vote fell belonw 35%????
i looked up the voting. ever heard of a thing called the coalition? the libs had 20% of the vote back then, so in coaliton they still kicked their socialist asses
liber8me 3 years ago
Asses? In Australia you're supposed to say "arses".
DrIdaho 2 years ago
The amalgamations were recommended by the Local Government Reform Commission. Of the seven commissioners three worked for the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). To work for the AEC you cannot be actively involved in partisan politics. Only two of them were Labor. One was a NATIONAL (Di McCauley) and the other was a LIBERAL (Bob Quinn).
DrIdaho 4 years ago
i cant believe you're supporting a government that actually made it legal to lie to the parliament.
liber8me 3 years ago
Politicians from all parties are funny with the truth. Politicians who say otherwise are in denial or delusional.
DrIdaho 3 years ago
how many political parties have made it legal to lie to parliament?
liber8me 3 years ago
fascist dictatorships derived its power from dissolving local councils - it robs the local people of their voice. its just another example of labor bully-boy tactics
vachesainte 4 years ago
There will still be local councils. Local politicians next year still have to be elected.
DrIdaho 4 years ago