In Western Australia Group A independants went to the Greens and they got in.

In South Australia there were group A, B, C, P,and M. All except P went to Family First. P went to the Labour Party. The Labour Party got in.

There were no need to distribute preferences in either the NT or the ACT.

So now you should know how you actually voted (if you can remember what group you chose). Oh, hang on sorry that's right you are happy to give away your vote to someone else and believe if they use it to vote for a party you disagree with it is nothing to do with you. Personally I find that rather horrifying that you could be that stupid.

Depending on your state and your group of Independants your vote could have counted from the most far right of the far right CDP to your Greenie left. In the senate there are independants who stand solely so they can redirect the vote to their party of choice--they are not very independant.

"okay, sorry I take it back. You are not a liar. You are just not very bright." Explain to me how you have proven this? You know absolutely nothing about me, you have no idea what I am capable of, what I do for a living, what I have achieved in life, etc, etc. All you now know (after taking 20 posts to explain to this to you) is that I voted for an independant in the upper house and no one in the lower house, I hardly see how that constitutes a lack of intelligence.

Now that youve taken god knows how long to google up where my vote was likely to have gone, your logic for voting in the upper house is that you vote for a candidate based on where there preferences would end up if they dont get a seat? According to that logic, and this is the rather laughable part of what you just said (purely to argue with next to no logic)...if I had voted for the greens then what?

Funny how there are no GREEN sentaors in NSW. So let me guess my vote would have gone to labour just like it did with the independant that I voted for. I didn't vote my independant expecting them to loose, just like you didnt vote for your green expecting them to loose and pass there vote onto labour, cause lets face it, labour is as PRO war as liberal.

Its very funny how you have completely ignored the lower house in this whole argument. You talk about the senate as though they are the policy makers and there influence is paramount to legislation such as foreign policy? What I find incredibly fascinating is that you voted for Greens in the lower house knowing full well that your vote would end up with PRO war labour. You also voted for greens in the upper house probably at the time not realising that this vote would end up with pro war labour.

Because lets face it unless you live in WA or TAS there are no greens that got a seat in upper house (and only 1 green in WA and TAS...good odds!). All you have done is vote labour in both houses and they are just as pro war as liberal with next to no policies. At least my lower house vote did not go to any pro war party. In fact according to your pathetic arguments my vote is alot less pro war than yours as only my upper house vote could have gone to a pro war party as opposed to both your votes..."good one".

You see its quite clear that your getting desperate to win this debate even though you cant win this debate because my vote is not PRO war. Your trying to dig up facts and bring "new angles" into this argument, angles which only make your vote far more pro war than mine. Resorting to childish insults such as saying im not very bright are only going to amuse feeble minded onlookers who you seem to think there is an abundance of in this thread as demonstrated by your determination to proove me wrong. Just face it, you got it wrong. You thought somehow my vote was pro liberal, or pro war, and you were clearly wrong. Even though I told you about 100 times that I did not vote for liberal you still chose to ignore me and preach your same anti war = pro green rubbish.

Your green vote has ended up with pro war labour, my invalid vote has not. In the upper house our votes are effecftivly the same(and the upper house deals with STATE legislation more so than foregin policy..all they can do is vote against foreign policy from the lower house). So your insistance on the importance of voting for one senator is merely a smoke screen to cover your mistake for voting greens in the lower house. Maybe now you may understand why in my first post I stated that our Democratic system is FAR from democratic.

poor Kish, he still doesn't understand.

Yes, you are responsible for your preferences and you should know where they go. It is not impossible to know where they go--you simply vote below the line and fill in every box. I know that means a tiny bit more effort but it is worth it.

You instead gave it away. To whom? You say you are in NSW. Four sets of Independants to chose from three of them went to the Christian Democratic Party the most pro war party in the running. They are more pro war than Liberal and you voted for them. You can say you didn't intend to, so insist you didn't really vote for them but that is just the pinnacle of stupidity.

Unless you voted Group W Independants your vote went to the biggest war mongering party to effectively be in the running. For their policy on the war: http://www.cdp.org.au/fed/policy_federal.asp

I am in Victoria. I can tell you exactly where my vote finished up. With the Greens. In the final count my vote went Green. They lost. I voted for the losing side. Just like you did--the CDP lost but only by a little.

The way the system works is if you vote for a minor party/independant your vote changes down your preferences until you hit a party who is one of the last two parties to slog out for the final seat. You don't automatically win but you do automatically get to be in the final battle for the final seat. You probably voted warmongering CDP while I definitely voted Green-not my first preference but they were where my vote wound up.

And it was completely in your power not to vote CDP. You chose to give your preference vote away.

cont...

In the lower house, yes my vote went to Labour through the preferences. I am happy with that. Although Labour wavers they at least want to be anti the war. They have been consistently critical of the inital invasion and have never wavered on condemning that. I am prepared to vote for someone who is MORE LIKELY to remove Australia from the war rather than leave it up to someone else to chose Liberal.

I would point out Labours current stance IS against the war: http://www.alp.org.au/media/0606/speloo220.php

Yes, Labour is antiwar. I voted antiwar in both cases. You probably voted the most really, pro war party out there in the senate and nothing in the House of Reps. I would say I was very effective at voting antiwar while you completely and miserably failed on that one.

As well, the major parties do take notice of the policies of minor parties that are polling significantly. An example, is Liberals immigration stance. They took the stronger tactics on immigrantion as a result of the success of One Nation. The major parties only stay in as long as they please the voting public, so they do their best to at least appear to be following public approval, especially close to elections. The only reason Labour dropped its policy of bringing the troops home was because of their polling on public opinion showed the PUBLIC at that time wanted to stay in. Your vote for CDP would have been noted as they nearly got in--they are a big threat to the sitting parties. It was a really strong statement for the far, far Christian right. Thanks to you politics once again shifted right. The Democrats lost seats, the Greens lost seats, while Family first gained a seat and the CDP got close. Right is generally prowar.

CDP and Family First are not going to compete for the same seatsin the next election so they won't split the conservative Christian vote -- http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/family-first-abandons-state-election-fight/2006/01/11/1136956242999.html. Family First passed all their preferences to CDP anyway.

let me try to understand this, now you support labour? hahahahaha, I could almost rest my case on that comment alone.

http://www.alp.org.au/policy/index.php

Lets go to there policy page, as you can see its "full" of policies. Labours been working hard these past ten years, oh and guess what there all blueprints. So what does this mean exactly, that they can be changed when the political tide decides turn becaues there not policies there blueprints of policies. So your supporting a party that does'nt even have policies, but blueprints? Lets go into there national security policy (one of labours 6 policies hahaha).

"An issue I will pursue relentlessly as Leader of the Opposition until we are in power to correct it. That issue is the security of our people from the threat of terrorism." So your telling me that your anti war (which is a pro-terrorism war) yet you buy into all this terrorist propaganda? You believe there is a war on terrorism? On one hand your a lefty anti war, on the other your right winged, we must fight terrorism with bush? Now lets look at Labours attitude towards bush and his war on terrorism.

"Compounding this, the Government’s failure to work with the United States to relentlessly hunt down terror cells in Afghanistan has been a critical error of judgement. An error made worse by bogging Australia down in the Iraqi quagmire. Together, the failure to finish the job in Afghanistan - which is “terror central” Now liberal did not work with bush enough to catch bin laden right?

And your telling that me this Pro bush party will be anti war when they get elected. That there supposed initial stance against the war was anything less than good old lierbal bashing / fence sitting (as they seem to be pro bush and anit war, appeals to all right?) And lets not forget that there policy on iraq has changed nothing short of 20 times in the past few years, that is one of there 6 policies, after all it is a blueprint right.