Australians: How are you voting?
I don’t know why I bother :rolleyes:
I think I’ll do one of two things.
Ask my 10 year old who she wants to vote for or do as I have done in the past, vote informal in the lower house.
For the senate, not sure, probably greens, above the line. I can’t count to 58 :smiley:

The system may be complex, but it’s not true that third parties have no real chance at all. In fact, in the Senate, it’s set up so that it’s extremely likely that a third party has the balance of power – probably the Greens after this election – while independents and third-party candidates are far more likely to win in the House of Reps than they would be in a first-past-the-post system.

I voted in this election for the first time since 1999 (it’s hard to get on the electoral roll if you’re living overseas for a long time), and voted Labor (consistent with how I’ve voted since Whitlam was PM). The Gillard government may not be perfect, but I can’t think of any way that Abbott would be an improvement on it.

Greens in the Senate.
Labor in the House of Reps.

Not going below the line this year.

Penultima thule, you seem to have a pretty deep knowledge of Australian Politics. Is it just an interest or are you involved in the game?

I hope Labor win.

I’m for the NBN, and against paying breeders up to $75,000 per spawn.

Australian Sex Party.
Liberal Democratic Party.
All those other assholes.
Zombie Hitler.
Family First.

Paid parental leave gets up your nostrils on the grounds of equity, social impacts or the cost?

To put the emblematic but potentially expensive white elephant of the National Broadband Network in perspective, just this week BHP Billiton launched a $40bn hostile takeover bid for Canada’s Potash Corp which is more than the NBN.

At the moment I don’t have two shekkels to rub together but if you are going to throw that sort of money around, I’d prefer somebody with a vested interest in getting value for their dosh was signing the cheques.

A keen, amateur interest in the process Cicero.

On the campaign itself, there is plenty on views from both pundits and punters that it’s been a lack lustre affair and predominately negative, which is true enough. But let’s throw in an element that also a non-issue.

Imagine a US election in which one of the contenders was a woman, a declared non-believer, childless, living with a man to whom she was not married and not born here.

And exactly none of that will have any material influence on whether she’s a rooster or a feather duster this time tomorrow.

We must be doing something right.

You forgot the worst of all: she’s a GINGER! :wink:

Oh, me too. It somehow parallels watching footy, but for me is much more interesting!

Maybe in 3 years, I’ll make a YouTube video: “Where are your preferences really going?” Sounds sensationalist enough to attract some attention. :stuck_out_tongue:

And about this, I am thrilled.

Y’all and your comments have made me a very happy person today :slight_smile:
Can’t wait till it’s all over, though. Life can go back to normal!

Everything from personal spite to social injustice. :smiley:

First of all, it isn’t a real Liberal Party policy. It’s just a way for the Mad Monk to win some female voters, just like the Labor party did with the Internet filter for the Jesus freaks last election.

…and there are just so many government subsidies for children already. I recently heard a factoid, that in Australia a couple with two children can earn up to $60,000pa before they effectively pay a single cent of tax. I can’t find a direct cite–either my Google-fu is weak, or I’m far too drunk, or I made it up–but this article seems tangential:
Enriched by kids, tax-wise

…and I’ve worked too many 80 hour weeks because someone got knocked-up (this would be the personal spite bit). We can’t get replacement staff at the best of times. 6 month contract until someone feels like coming back to work? Snowball’s chance in hell.

Also, if you’re earning $150,000pa can’t you manage to put away a few quid before you CHOOSE to have a child. And why are we going to give MORE public money to people who need it LESS?

And all this “baby bonus/one for the country” bullshit is happening while the Liberals squeal against a “Big Australia” and blow their wads every time a couple of dozen brown people manage to get across the Timor sea… blah. :stuck_out_tongue:

I know a bit about that BHP deal–I’m a mining engineer–which reminds me that I’m also for the mining super tax. You’ve got no idea the amount of money we are pillaging from the Australian landscape. It’s fantastic! Just a shame minerals don’t grow back, short of a supernova.

As for the NBN:
Australia is about the size of the contiguous 48 states, with the population of New York city. Distance is tyranny here. Population density is very low outside a dozen cities.

Out current telecommunications sector is piecemeal, poor and expensive, because the market is corrupted by the government remaining the majority shareholder in our largest telco.

Why don’t they sell it and let Smiddy’s invisible hand go to work? Because no-one could make a quid in rural and regional areas (because of the population density bit–that’s why I mentioned it, there had to be some reason right? or possibly not… jeez this vindaloo is hot, and I’ve HAD to drink so much of this beer to keep my face from melting). So the city needs to subsidize the bush, because we’ve all still got this romanticized view of the agrarian past and to fuck with farmers would be politically courageous. One kid dead from asthma 'cos the phone wasn’t working properly and you never here the bloody end of it.

The $43 billion was a total including likely public-private partnerships.

Despite what those with no understanding of Keynesian macroeconomic theory are saying during this election, (or rather, those who are pretending to have no understanding, but who would’ve done the same thing had they been in power, but are now playing dumb because it provides a more bogan-accessible narrative), the Australian economy is strong.

We didn’t even have a technical recession because of the GFC. We could put the NBN on the credit card tomorrow and our public debt as a % of GDP would still be about the lowest in the developed world.

…and for fucks-sake won’t someone think of the pornography!
1GB per second is multiple streams of 3D blu-ray cum guzzling MILF sluts.

Anyway, I hope that godless, barren by choice, living in sin, ginger, footy mole, Welsh tart wins tomorrow.

Well, at this stage of the count, it looks like neither the Welsh tart nor the English-born former seminarian has won the election – the balance of power is almost certain to be held by 4 independent and one Green MHR. A very interesting election indeed.

Labor first, Greens second in the house, and Greens 1 above the line in the senate.
Well Labor seem to be still holding out for the seat of Denison, which is the new independent seat, I’m not sure if this is reasonable or not.

eh, by my calculations you could make it up to 90k or more before paying any tax. Just got to have 7 kids, is all…

I think you greatly underestimate how much those factors affected people’s votes.

I think they may have been an underlying factor in some demographics, but no way did they get played-up the way they would have in the U.S.

Based on what evidence? This isn’t a rhetorical question, I’d like to know. I have no idea personally whether you are right or wrong.

Well, it’s certainly my personal experience of what some friends, neighbours etc have been saying. But more particularly it’s based on the evidence of a fellow chorister, who, through her job, has been involved in a lot of community seminars over the past couple of months. She told me the other day how common the theme was from people when they were chatting before and after the seminars. There was no particular concern with the idea of a female PM, nor active dislike for Julia Gillard per se. Just a general view that her chosen way of life (unmarried, career politician, no children) meant that she lived in political vacuum with no link to the real world. It seemed that the presence of children especially was seen as a feature that grounded a politician in reality. “At least Tony Abbott’s got a family” they kept on saying, according my chorister friend.

I’m paraphrasing what she said here, but that was the gist.

I voted for Labor last election but they abandoned a lot of their promises and have shifted towards the right. In that case I’d prefer to vote for the one that is also fiscally conservative - or I would if not for Abbott.

The social values I hold are no longer reflected in the party I was supporting. So my vote this year was for The Greens in Melbourne, and quite clearly I wasn’t the only one. Bandt articulated what I’ve been feeling for a long time - “People here in this electorate have been taken for granted. It’s been assumed by Labor that they can lurch to the right as far as they want and become like a pale shadow of the Liberal Party and that people will still be forced to vote for them because they feel that there’s no other choice.”

Fuck you Labor, you can’t count on my vote.

The Greens have some real power and I’ll be interested to see what they do with it. If they pull a Krudd and cave on their core issues (the big ones for me are climate change, asylum seekers and same sex marriage) then I’ll probably become a disillusioned voter who defaces her ballot paper in future elections. I’m glad that it’s a hung parliament because as they currently stand neither Labor nor Liberal deserve to hold power.

I don’t think that’s true, or if it is it is only true in a very specific set of circumstances. I’ve been part of a couple with two children earning about $60,000 and was effectively paying very close to 30% in tax.

Since then our circumstances have improved significantly and I payed $40,000 in tax this year and the year before so I certainly don’t feel like I owe you or any other tax payer anything.

It’s not about what individual people need it’s about what society needs. The position is essentially that the country needs more babies so people are being paid to make babies. The fact that some of those people could afford to make babies anyway is irrelevant.

Children are the future of the country and modern couples are choosing to have fewer of them, one of the reasons is that it is expensive and the days where a family of 4 - 5 could live off a typical single income are long gone. Mum and Dad both need to work to make ends meet and if Mum is going to lose her job after she has a kid then she might choose not to have kids. That might be fine by you but everyone in this country, you included, need the following generations of tax payers to pay the cost of running the country. We need today’s kids to pay for tomorrow’s infrastructure that we will still be using in our unproductive years.

Consider also that having two children is not enough. My wife and I have had two children and don’t intend to have any more, that is not enough to keep the country going in the future. People like me who only have enough kids to replace themselves, and people like you who don’t have any are relying on there being a significant number of people who have three or more children. So yes, the government needs to make having children attractive or at least less of a burden because it needs us to have children.

If you want to argue that the details of the grow-a-family incentive scheme is off and needs to be tweaked, then fair enough nothing is perfect and there may well be better, fairer ways of growing the population, but it seems to me at least that there is a need to encourage Australians to have more children.

The issue with “brown people” crossing 90 miles of ocean to get to the Ashmore Islands is not really about keeping immigrants out of the country, it is about only letting immigrants into the country who are going to be a benefit to the country. The country needs doctors and teachers, it does not need unknowns. Some of the illegal immigrants may well be useful to the country, but the government would prefer that they arrived the way all the others did, via designated refugee camps.

Not wanting illegal immigrants while crying about the aging population is not hypocrisy.

Anyway, I voted for The Ranga. I have to admit that there was no big issue for me this time around and so I pretty much just wanted to give her a chance for a whole term to see what she can do with the place. Tony can wait a few more years (though he might not have to.)