Let me be as clear as I can. The current system defrauds the voter. The Australian constitution states the voter shall only vote once See section 30 " but in the choosing of members each elector shall vote only once" NOW again I ask what is the legal definition of the word Vote? VOTES are not ballot papers, one can not count ballot papers and claim they are counting votes! Until someone clearly states the legal definition of the word vote, no more discussion will be entered into!
Fine then that simply proves that is what the true majority wanted, and that is how it should be, with the fraud removed then whoever campaigns hardest wins.
Bullsh1T many One Nation seats were won on primary vote. and consider the fact that Pauline Hanson in the Federal Election got almost double the primary vote of Liberal or National it was a combined effort from Labor Liberal and National preferences to beat Pauline Hanson in 1998.
You don't seem to understand what preferential voting is.
Preferential voting is a form of RUN-OFF VOTING. In run-off voting the two most popular candidates (the two with the highest number of votes) go to a run-off if the leading candidate fails to get more than 50% of the vote.
Preferential voting is INSTANT RUN-OFF VOTING because the run-off occurs shortly after the first vote.
The only way to vote is first past the post as all voting in Australia was until 1918. Then you have a fair system, the winner will be the candidate who wore out the most shoe leather. In Australia we have neither free or fair elections. If the people ever get close to a full distribution of preferences, you will see the major parties run to court at full speed to get the system changed to first past the post.
First-past-the-post would actually give the major parties the advantage. With this voting method cynical voters who are tempted to vote for an independent or minor party are discouraged from voting for them because there no point in voting for someone who will not win.
With preferences cynical voters are encouraged to vote for independents or minor parties since their vote won't be wasted when their most preferred candidate is eliminated.
Are you saying that cynical voters can vote say Labor or Liberal and their preferences will count is that what you are saying? If it is you are wrong DEAD WRONG! Because the preferences of the major parties are not allowed to be distributed in 99% of the seats. First past the post will place everyone on the same level, everyone will only win if they campaign hard enough. As it is now Labor and Liberal don't have to campaign at all and one of the 2 parties will take Government!
I WAS NEVER referring to cynical voters who vote for Labor or Liberal.
I was referring to cynical voters who vote for minor parties and independents. Cynical voters who vote for minor parties and independents have more power under preferential voting because their vote IS NOT WASTED when their preferred candidate is eliminated.
If all preferences were distributed then there would be more Independents and minor parties in power, however that is not how the count works, the count gives all the preferences from the minor parties to the major parties and nothing from the major parties to the minor parties or independents, would you stay in a poker game once you discovered the dealer was dealing from the bottom of the deck. First past the post gives everyone the same chance.
Yet Bull again, if First past the post was returned it would mean whoever campaigned the best and got the most votes would win, as it was designed to be and WAS in fact. You have failed to explain the legal definition of the word VOTE! You can't can you?
It doesn't make sense to distribute the preferences of major parties immediately. You're saying that a candidate's preferences should flow even if he/she comes second or first. So you're suggesting that less popular candidates should not be eliminated? THAT'S NOT DEMOCRACY.
In a democracy the most popular candidates get elected. The most popular candidates in Australian elections get the highest number of primary votes AND the highest number of preferences from less popular candidates.
That is only true if say Labor or Liberal voters voted for the minor parties as number 2 on the ballot paper however considering that a former Liberal Prime Minister once suggested that the 2 parties join to keep out One Nation, then it would not work out that way if the Liberal voter voted Labor 2 and vice versa. So you admit the flaw in the preference system, so back to First past the post as it was once.
Preferential voting allows minor parties and independents to have a large influence in elections. They can decide which major party will win by telling their supporters how to distribute their preferences.
No offence but CRAP, The preference system in Australia is the only system of it's kind in the world, WHY? Because it is rulled fraud and ileagle in other countries. The system keeps independents out and they have very little impact, except when they get enough primary vote and fall into 1 of the top 2 possition, then they take advantage of the fraud.
No offence but your recent comment is CRAP. Australia isn't the only country that uses preferential voting.
It's used in Ireland to elect their President. This voting method is used for Papua New Guinea's national elections. This type of voting's also used in Fiji's House of Representatives.
You have a problem reading don't you, I never said that I said NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS THE SAME PREFERENTIAL SYSTEM AS AUSTRALIA! The countries you talk about have a different preference system and the preferences are not fraudulantly counted like Australia.
First-past-the-post voting limits the power of independents and minor parties. They cannot influence the outcome of the major parties because they can only mark one candidate.
Well done if you do I will be happy to send you information that will help you if you like I have been in politics for over 17 years, and have picked up a lot of hints.
So you want everyones preferences to count? If you count preferences for the 1st and 2nd places, then what happens to the peoples 1st preference? A person can't vote twice. Counting their preferences will not only allow them to vote 2+ times, but will also make it finish so that every candidate finishes on the same number of votes.
We are told that we MUST mark every box so that our number 2 preferences will go to whoever we choose, should our first choice candidate not win, RIGHT? The fact that there is a preference count ordered means NO candidate has won, so are not those voters entitled to have their preferences go to where they want them to go, as they were promised they would go if thir candidate did not win. I have always said count out all the preferences or have a first past the post!
You have not grasped what I am warning about, we should either have a full distribution of preferences or a first past the post, but NOT only preferences to Labor and Liberal and NONE from Labor and Liberal or do you believe only Labor and Liberal should win?
Its the primary count which is the most important,the many different ways to sort preferences will almost always mean the candidate with the highest primary vote wins.
I suggest you focus on getting the best primary vote you can,and not rely on preferences in your bid to win a seat.
Because that is exactly what most candidates will be doing.
Hi well ofcourse you are right and that is exactly what I am doing, but the people must know of the fraud and the unfair election process which is in place. Do you know that the fraud means that no Government has benn legal since 1918 and thefore no laws made by the fraud artist are legal, don't you think it matters?
My warning is not for me, it is for the voter, you seem to be saying if I get into first or second spot and take advantage of the fraud and I will have no complaints WRONG! If I win I will challenge the fraud in the High court, I want to stop the people from being cheated, even if it costs me the seat. We should have either aa full distribution of the preferences or first past the post.
damn, that really sux, gl man.
locriansrevenge 2 years ago
Let me be as clear as I can. The current system defrauds the voter. The Australian constitution states the voter shall only vote once See section 30 " but in the choosing of members each elector shall vote only once" NOW again I ask what is the legal definition of the word Vote? VOTES are not ballot papers, one can not count ballot papers and claim they are counting votes! Until someone clearly states the legal definition of the word vote, no more discussion will be entered into!
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago
In your seat of forde, the result was:
Labor 41,419
Lib 36,869
If it was first-past-the-post the result would've been:
Liberal 26,576
Labor 34,721
same thing.
guy0307 4 years ago
Fine then that simply proves that is what the true majority wanted, and that is how it should be, with the fraud removed then whoever campaigns hardest wins.
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago
Peter Beattie's "Just Vote 1" strategy was adopted in the 2001 Queensland election NOT THE 1998 election.
In the 1998 Queensland election One Nation won 11 seats because the Liberal and National Parties PREFERENCED (yes, preferenced) them ahead of Labor.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
Bullsh1T many One Nation seats were won on primary vote. and consider the fact that Pauline Hanson in the Federal Election got almost double the primary vote of Liberal or National it was a combined effort from Labor Liberal and National preferences to beat Pauline Hanson in 1998.
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago
You don't seem to understand what preferential voting is.
Preferential voting is a form of RUN-OFF VOTING. In run-off voting the two most popular candidates (the two with the highest number of votes) go to a run-off if the leading candidate fails to get more than 50% of the vote.
Preferential voting is INSTANT RUN-OFF VOTING because the run-off occurs shortly after the first vote.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
The only way to vote is first past the post as all voting in Australia was until 1918. Then you have a fair system, the winner will be the candidate who wore out the most shoe leather. In Australia we have neither free or fair elections. If the people ever get close to a full distribution of preferences, you will see the major parties run to court at full speed to get the system changed to first past the post.
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago
First-past-the-post would actually give the major parties the advantage. With this voting method cynical voters who are tempted to vote for an independent or minor party are discouraged from voting for them because there no point in voting for someone who will not win.
With preferences cynical voters are encouraged to vote for independents or minor parties since their vote won't be wasted when their most preferred candidate is eliminated.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
Are you saying that cynical voters can vote say Labor or Liberal and their preferences will count is that what you are saying? If it is you are wrong DEAD WRONG! Because the preferences of the major parties are not allowed to be distributed in 99% of the seats. First past the post will place everyone on the same level, everyone will only win if they campaign hard enough. As it is now Labor and Liberal don't have to campaign at all and one of the 2 parties will take Government!
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago
I WAS NEVER referring to cynical voters who vote for Labor or Liberal.
I was referring to cynical voters who vote for minor parties and independents. Cynical voters who vote for minor parties and independents have more power under preferential voting because their vote IS NOT WASTED when their preferred candidate is eliminated.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
If all preferences were distributed then there would be more Independents and minor parties in power, however that is not how the count works, the count gives all the preferences from the minor parties to the major parties and nothing from the major parties to the minor parties or independents, would you stay in a poker game once you discovered the dealer was dealing from the bottom of the deck. First past the post gives everyone the same chance.
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago
First-past-the-post robs minor parties and independents to influence the final outcome of the election.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
Yet Bull again, if First past the post was returned it would mean whoever campaigned the best and got the most votes would win, as it was designed to be and WAS in fact. You have failed to explain the legal definition of the word VOTE! You can't can you?
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago
It doesn't make sense to distribute the preferences of major parties immediately. You're saying that a candidate's preferences should flow even if he/she comes second or first. So you're suggesting that less popular candidates should not be eliminated? THAT'S NOT DEMOCRACY.
In a democracy the most popular candidates get elected. The most popular candidates in Australian elections get the highest number of primary votes AND the highest number of preferences from less popular candidates.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
But if all preferences are distributed the partys with the most primary votes won't win the seat!
That means that the less popular ("minor") partys will be elected!
Go learn the system before you make videos.
guy0307 4 years ago
That is only true if say Labor or Liberal voters voted for the minor parties as number 2 on the ballot paper however considering that a former Liberal Prime Minister once suggested that the 2 parties join to keep out One Nation, then it would not work out that way if the Liberal voter voted Labor 2 and vice versa. So you admit the flaw in the preference system, so back to First past the post as it was once.
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago
Preferential voting allows minor parties and independents to have a large influence in elections. They can decide which major party will win by telling their supporters how to distribute their preferences.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
No offence but CRAP, The preference system in Australia is the only system of it's kind in the world, WHY? Because it is rulled fraud and ileagle in other countries. The system keeps independents out and they have very little impact, except when they get enough primary vote and fall into 1 of the top 2 possition, then they take advantage of the fraud.
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago
No offence but your recent comment is CRAP. Australia isn't the only country that uses preferential voting.
It's used in Ireland to elect their President. This voting method is used for Papua New Guinea's national elections. This type of voting's also used in Fiji's House of Representatives.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
You have a problem reading don't you, I never said that I said NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS THE SAME PREFERENTIAL SYSTEM AS AUSTRALIA! The countries you talk about have a different preference system and the preferences are not fraudulantly counted like Australia.
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago
You're wrong. The places I've mentioned use the same preferential voting as Australia.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
First-past-the-post voting limits the power of independents and minor parties. They cannot influence the outcome of the major parties because they can only mark one candidate.
DrIdaho 4 years ago
Independents are Australia's future, hope you win. Next NSW State election I will run as an Independent myself.
eyewrenchee 4 years ago
Well done if you do I will be happy to send you information that will help you if you like I have been in politics for over 17 years, and have picked up a lot of hints.
Cheers.
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago
So you want everyones preferences to count? If you count preferences for the 1st and 2nd places, then what happens to the peoples 1st preference? A person can't vote twice. Counting their preferences will not only allow them to vote 2+ times, but will also make it finish so that every candidate finishes on the same number of votes.
Razorstorm1988 4 years ago
We are told that we MUST mark every box so that our number 2 preferences will go to whoever we choose, should our first choice candidate not win, RIGHT? The fact that there is a preference count ordered means NO candidate has won, so are not those voters entitled to have their preferences go to where they want them to go, as they were promised they would go if thir candidate did not win. I have always said count out all the preferences or have a first past the post!
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago
What is the legal definition of the word VOTE please?
harrisharrod 2 years ago
You have not grasped what I am warning about, we should either have a full distribution of preferences or a first past the post, but NOT only preferences to Labor and Liberal and NONE from Labor and Liberal or do you believe only Labor and Liberal should win?
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago
Its the primary count which is the most important,the many different ways to sort preferences will almost always mean the candidate with the highest primary vote wins.
I suggest you focus on getting the best primary vote you can,and not rely on preferences in your bid to win a seat.
Because that is exactly what most candidates will be doing.
mooneepondskid 4 years ago 2
Hi well ofcourse you are right and that is exactly what I am doing, but the people must know of the fraud and the unfair election process which is in place. Do you know that the fraud means that no Government has benn legal since 1918 and thefore no laws made by the fraud artist are legal, don't you think it matters?
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago
My warning is not for me, it is for the voter, you seem to be saying if I get into first or second spot and take advantage of the fraud and I will have no complaints WRONG! If I win I will challenge the fraud in the High court, I want to stop the people from being cheated, even if it costs me the seat. We should have either aa full distribution of the preferences or first past the post.
aussieindependentstv 4 years ago