![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
darren_stranger
Now, i know that for most people who will be reading this i'm generally 'preaching to the choir' as far as Howard-bashing goes, but from some discussions i've read and heard lately, there's one thing i think needs to be mentioned.
As i've said before, i'm going for the Greens because their views are closest to my own, and to keep the pressure on Labor not to turn into Liberal clones like they did last time, but one thing i am hearing a lot of folks saying at the moment is that they'd like to vote for someone like the Greens but don't want to take a chance on it letting Howard get back in. Now, unless i've got the House of Reps system totally wrong (and someone correct me if i have), as long as you put Labor second, there is NO WAY a vote for the Greens can help Howard get back in (short of the Greens agreeing to form a minority government with the Libs, which would be suicide). If the Greens candidate doesn't get in, it's like you voted for Labor anyway, and even if a Labor seat is lost to the Greens it still doesn't give an extra seat to Howard, so he's no closer to having a majority needed to form a government, but it could mean Labor has to cut a deal with the Greens to form a government (or at the very least make them wary about alienating the pinko-poofo bleeding-heart vote).
(The Senate form is a bit more complicated - you have to either number all the boxes below the line or trust in a party line, but that's up to you. Edit - Be aware though that voting above the line puts the preferences out of your control and there may be preference deals that benefit someone you'd rather not help get a voice in the Senate, so it's safer to number them yourself.)
Much as i'd like to, it's not for me to tell anyone how to vote (vote green vote green vote green vote green vote green) but at least be aware of the above when making your decision.
Writtenandauthorisedbydarrenstrangeronbehalfofhispinkopoofoself.
Edit - According to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/general/index.htm :
"After an election the political party (or coalition of parties) which has the most Members in the House of Representatives becomes the governing party. Its leader becomes Prime Minister and other Ministers are appointed from among the party's Members and Senators. To remain in office a Government must keep the support of a majority of Members of the House."
Reading that ("the political party [..] which has the most members") i could be wrong on the majority issue, though "a majority of Members of the House" seems to contradict that. More research needed, but make up your own minds.
Edit #2 - According to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/infosheets/is19.pdf:
"After a general election the political party (or coalition of parties) with the support of a majority of Members in the House of Representatives becomes the governing party and its leader becomes Prime Minister. To remain in office a Government must have 'the confidence of the House' - that is, keep the support of the majority of in the House of Representatives."
Slightly different wording, but leans more toward how i understood it to work. Really should have researched this more closely - anyone who knows for sure, please speak up..
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 03:07 am (UTC)A vote for the Greens is double-value
When you vote for the House of Representatives at this election you must number every box, from the candidate you like the most to the candidate you like the least.
By voting 1 for the Greens, you send a powerful message in support of Greens policies – the environment, public services and human rights. If the Greens candidate wins then those policies will have a powerful advocate in the new Parliament.
If the Greens candidate is not elected then your vote has a second life. Your vote will flow on at full value to your next choice.
That way, your vote will either elect the Greens candidate or else flow on to elect the candidate from your preferred major party. Either way, it will be a vote against the major party you like the least.
And whoever is elected will know that you preferred the Greens’ policies.
How to vote in your seat:
http://www.greens.org.au/howtovote/htvs
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 03:14 am (UTC)It's nice to see something that actually explains a little of our preference system (which the media and the major parties seem to love mystifying and obscuring).
It's certainly good to see a well articulated and reasoned response to the lame "throwing away your vote" bullshit.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 03:21 am (UTC)The big thing i think is that while pretty much everybody knows that your vote go to your #2 preference if #1 doesn't get in etc, the picture i'm getting is that people are scared of Labor seats going to the Greens and thus letting the Coalition get more seats than Labor and win. As i understand it, you actually have to have a majority, not just more then the other lot, so if Howard doesn't get enough seats to have a majority, he can't form a government regardless of whether he got more seats than Latham (unless he cuts a deal with enough independents to cobble together a mix'n'match majority). In such a situation, if it's the Greens who held the decider, they're more likely to cut a deal with Latham than Howard.
So it's win-win, unless Howard wins.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 03:28 am (UTC)Senate...
Please vote below the line!!!
I know that it involves number lots of little boxes and knowing which number comes after the next (give you a hint - 6 comes after 5 and 7 after 6 :P ) but we really must be careful not to let those Family First "witch burners" get into our government. Their motives are not that which we as a country should stand for. Sure, vote for the conservatives if you like, but this group is so far out left that they almost create a new area of the left-right divide called "middle" where our current political parties reside.
I don't generally speak on political issues, but this one really has me worried!
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 05:34 am (UTC)Or, at the very least know how the preferences will flow.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 03:50 am (UTC)Fuck 'em, I say. If the Greens get a few seats and Labor don't get a majority, then they can just form a fucking coalition like they did in Tasmania.
My question, though - if we were to get a breakdown like, say:
Lib + Nat - 74
Labor - 73
Green - 3
As I understand it (well, as Wikipedia puts it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Australia)), "By convention, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party or coalition which has the most seats in the lower house of the Federal Parliament." Do I take that to mean that, whilst of course a Labor/Green coalition would have 76 seats and form government, if Labor and Green could not come to an agreement, the Libs + Nats would form a minority government, since they had one more seat than Labor?
Such a situation could potentially mean that vote for the Greens hurt the ALP?
Although, imho, if the ALP did not form a coalition in such a situation, they deserve to be hurt.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 04:34 am (UTC)I'd always understood that you couldn't form a government with only 74 seats, unless you made a deal with a couple of independent or small party members to get a majority. Digging about at http://www.aph.gov.au/house seems to come up with different wordings, one of which follows what wikipedia quoted and another that talks about needing a majority. I'm going to have to dig some more, as i might be wrong after all.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 05:32 am (UTC)Be nice if the media could cover such issues, instead of just printing the "Vote Liberal!" editorials that their masters direct them to publish.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 05:03 am (UTC)Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 04:19 am (UTC)But I am a little concerned with your what your mate dcarson said here.
They are not that thick are they?
I am just SO CONCERNED this time round as you know I want to do nasty things to Jockstrap Howard - and I think it will be a close one when really it shouldnt be - but the majority swallow the propaganda ads like kids in a lollie shop.
I am going to vote Greens but if the situation arises that there will be such a split - and the ALP & the Greens dont cut a deal - I am going to feel fucking guilty as shit that I didnt vote for the ALP straight out, even though I dont agree with them as I do with the Greens.
What a fuckin mess.
I cant wait till tomorrow is over - I am sick to fuckin death of this government & sick to tears of this campaign.
Re: Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 04:37 am (UTC)Hmmm, going by what Dave said, and seemingly contradictory explanations at http://www.aph.gov.au/house, i could be wrong about the majority issue, so go with what you think best..
Re: Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 04:57 am (UTC)All we can do is try & educate each other - thanks for your help mate.
:)
Re: Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 04:57 am (UTC)It's so hard for a minor party to get up in the lower house: in fact, I'm not even sure that it's ever been done (although many have given it a good swing and almost succeeded).
Re: Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 05:35 am (UTC)Re: Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 05:40 am (UTC)Re: Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 05:41 am (UTC)Re: Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 05:47 am (UTC)Re: Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 01:55 pm (UTC)Re: Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 05:40 am (UTC)Re: Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 06:09 am (UTC)I just want Johnny gone.
Re: Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 09:51 am (UTC)Re: Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 05:38 am (UTC)It's a tough call, but the way I see it:
(a) If the Greens win some seats and leave neither major party with a clear majority in the lower house, there will likely be a coalition between them and the ALP (just like in Tasmania previously)
(b) The Greens represent my politics so much better than the ALP, that if they win Grayndler, the delight of having a Green MP will outweigh the sorrow of the ALP losing a seat
(c) Tactical voting be damned, I refuse to feel guilty about voting for someone I truly support, even though..
(d) I COULD NOT AGREE MORE ABOUT BEING SICK TO FUCKING DEATH OF THIS GOVERNMENT!! ARGH!! PLEASE PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!!!
All the best,
David...
Re: Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 05:44 am (UTC)Re: Dont be lazy vote under the line in the Senate
Date: 2004-10-08 06:06 am (UTC)Thanks for this mate, its very much appreciated. I try & keep up, but to go through all the bullshit & propaganda sometimes makes me confused.
But definately YES - the Greens represent my beliefs as close as any party can. But I still worry - as I cannot live with this kind of leader for another 3 years.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-08 09:48 am (UTC)