It has amazed me over the last yr or so the amount of pple..and I mean my own family as well..who dont actually vote.

These are the same pple who whinge and moan about the Liberal Government and how bad they are and yet are not enrolled to vote.

That thinking just astounds me in its sheer stupidity.

If we dont get behind our prefrred Party how can they succeed?

Labor may not be in the mess it is now if pple got behind them to effect change..

Please ask your friends 'are you enrolled to vote?'

You might be very surprised.

Please vote.This country desperately needs a change of Government.

as I said I asked six pple if they voted..they all said no, there reasons were varied but the reasons just didnt cut it.

I reasoned that if this ratio of 'couldnt be bothered ' pple were applied to the whole country proportionately at election time then that would be thousands upon thousands that didnt bother to vote.

Some elections are won or lost on a handful of votes..this is where the difference comes in.

These IR laws and all the other stuff this party has foisted on Australians has got to come to an end.

To sit idly by and allow a man like Howard to ruin our nation, is as bad as if we'd committed these crimes ourselves.

I don't see how people not enrolled to vote get away with it. It can't be all that hard to track them down. Still, I suppose it's no big deal for the politicians; all they want is enough of the votes which are cast to get them over the line.

Following on from that, Holyshadow, are you aware that, apart from the fact that you are looking like breaking Wayne Smith's record for the number of posts, this is why the ALP is so dead set against the abolition of compulsory voting. It is a well known fact that there are more thickos voting Labor than there are voting Coalition. Take away the compulsion, and the Labor vote would drop far more than their oponents'.

I can't quote the research, sorry. But you probably already know this, given your reference to family members.

Spare us the gratuitous insults, Leigh - they only diminish your credibility.

On topic: perhaps HS's relatives might have been faced with a choice like I had in the recent Qld election, that is a choice between only two candidates (either ALP or NP). Under such circumstances I dutifully turned up on election day, but deliberately cast an informal vote since neither candidate came anywhere near my political views.

I actually disagree with compulsory voting. In fact, I think that prospective electors should be required to pass some kind of test of their comprehension of our electoral system, and also of their knowledge of the salient issues of the moment.

Personally I think being forced to vote is the sort of patronising nanny value which I vote against (voluntarily).

Leigh is right. Take away the civic penalties for not voting and labor would fall even further off the radar.

On a similar topic, having voted within both systems and discussed the relative merits of each, I would vote against all the preferences rubbish and go back to a first past the post method of direct elections.

The only thing preference voting achieves is appointment of the compromise and something for the party numbers men to trade with behinf the scenes, hardly the stuff which makes for honest government, an election process appointing representatives with the aid of corrupting deals.

Yes, Col. Preferential voting is a farce, and compulsory voting is anti-democratic.

I don't know what the answer is - but we sure are doing something wrong.

Google "Corruption and Crime Commission", then "Hearings" and "Transcripts" and have a gander how the thugs are once again controlling the Labor government in Western Australia.

Past WA Inc. members, a former premier (and a gaol bird)influencing ministerial decisions and crooks in state and local government all getting in for their chop.

Of course, the gullible masses will no doubt vote these thugs in again - naively believing this mob's the "For the People" party. Lordy be!

Stay tuned to CCC friends - there's lots more to come!

To beat them this is how

You know beating liberal or labor is up to us but that is where your problem is.

As you know all it takes is one person but then its up to you.

Email me at :swulrich@bigpond.net.au
Australian Peoples Party

But there is a problem you wont because you will just keep talking about it.
For one of you to email is a chance but then you have an opinion which can be passed on.
So who will it be.
I myself am as i believe honest so dont give me any bull just say what you think.
And this is what doesnt happen.
Give me a chance.
It is actually good as i have been told

also

Aged and Disabled care policy

People with Disabilities Policy

Policing and Crime Policy

Personal Responsibilities Policy

Politicians Responsibility Policy

Veteran Affairs Policy

Industrial Relations Policy

These are real

Sorry Tapp

You left off "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" on your policy list. Guess like the major parties, you will have no idea how to reduce manmade greenhouse gases - just rhetoric!

sorry about that

but havnt finished my enviromental policy yet so no point putting it there

here is my list that i am still working on
Childcare
Environmental
Health
Education
Australian Product

Among the people I know who don't vote (and you're right, it is surprising how many there are) most are in the roughly 30s age group.

Older voters tend to be cynical about the value of their single vote, but do it anyway. It was the younger ones that surprised me. I expected to find a lot that just didn't bother enrolling, but that's not the case. At least, not among the people I know.

People who don't vote have forfeited their right to be listened to when they chose to disengage themselves from the democratic process. If they ever say anything about politics, tell them to stfu and refuse to listen to them.

If I didn't vote, I wouldn't expect anyone to listen to me, nor would I feel I had a right to complain about the government.

Col and Leigh

What seat at the last election was not won by the person who got the most votes before preferences? Rhetorical question. None, Zip, Zero.

Your arrogance about abolition of compulsory voting giving the coalition an advantage is breath taking.

It is the other way around, Leigh the evidence is out there, the abolition of compulsory voting would decrease the coalition vote by 1.8%

I do agree that compulsory voting should go but for different reasons, it would make candidates work harder in their electorates and the idea of safe seats would go.

I only hear from my local member when an election is called maybe it would get this lazy liberal off his butt and not take things for granted.

At it again, Steve. "Idiot", "arrogant" - all because you don't like other people having an opinion. Address your remarks to the instigator of the topic, not to all and sundry.

I stick by what I said, irrepective of your blah. What? Do you think you have some miraculous power that will change peoples' minds?

Rather than calling other people names, you should give some thought to what people more polite than you could be calling you if they took notice of your posts.

Leigh

I was referring to "It is a well known fact that there are more thickos voting Labor than there are voting Coalition".

I pointed out that this is not a well know fact and that it is arrogant of you to assume such, given as you stated you have no evidence for the statement.

Given that only 75% of eligable voters cast a valid vote under compulsory voting in the last election and that 36% stated they had no interest in politics it means that only about 50% of voters even care who is elected.

So our Govt, was elected by 39% of voters, hardly democratic.

Leigh if you can call people "thickos" I can call you an arrogant idiot, fairs fair :)

Steve Madden “So our Govt, was elected by 39% of voters, hardly democratic.”

That is Garbage.

If less than 77% care and 39% (or roughly 51% of 77%) elect the government then it is perfectly “Democratic”

The thing with a democracy, it is never presented as a “perfect” solution (otherwise we would be allotted voting rights based on IQ).
The imperfect system should at least respect the sovereignty of the voter by leaving the “choice” with the voter, Both Who to vote for and whether or not to vote at all.

That you, I suspect, resent the electoral wisdom and “democratic” outcome of the will of the majority of participating voters is your problem

Col

I think you misread what I wrote, sure the Govt got 51% of the vote of those who voted but 61% of those eligable to vote did not vote for them.

I was commenting on compulsory voting, which I oppose, given that 36% of people have no interest in politics then we should have a voter turnout of about 50% if voting was not compulsory.

This I suggest would be unacceptable to all political parties and would result in candidates actually getting involved in local issues and getting people to vote for them, you know the hard work you are in favour of.

The 18.9% Liberal/National and 17.1% Labor voters who have no interest in politics but vote anyway are the ones who create "safe seats" there should be no such thing.

Get them off their collective butts and earn our votes not expect them on a plate.

I notice you didn't comment on first past the post voting, very strange. :)

in my opinion voting should require a certificate of understanding for the election process & the doctrine of parties. at every election all parties ramble on about how we need more of everything but as soon as they get into power they are stuck with the horrible reality that they can't deliver on their promises. let's look at the standard promises. "better eduction' is always a huge catch cry but when will we see it. "better health services" where is it ? "less taxes" now there's one. "law & order" well, we might as well give up on that one. how can we ever expect to form a functional society when we have a system which forces us to vote but fails to inform us of the fundamentals of various parties so that people can make "An Informed" choice. the present system where the revenue taker rather than the revenue maker dictates is not an efficient one hence the devided & disappointed electorate. we need to focus on sustainability & reward for effort. sorry lefties i know this hard for you to comprehend but you can't sustain an economy which costs more to keep than what it produces.

There is a difference between my general observation on the the human race and your personal attack on me, but people like you don't see that.

I note that you don't have any evidence for your rebuttal of my assertion, either. Again, people like you only see wrong in others, never themsleves.

You are not worth arguing with, Steve. Ta ta.

I too voted informally. There was no-one in my electorate who represented my views.

Holyshadow’s idea that we should vote for Labor to support them and get them out of their self-created mess and inexorable decline is misguided. Voting for the ALP will not change the nature of the ALP.

Labor’s degeneration is a reflection of the fact that it does not represent its traditional social base – working people - who it has systematically sacrificed to the dictates of the free market. In recent decades the ALP has been revealed for what it REALLY is – a party representing the interests of business.

Those who believe the ALP will save us, and those on the right who criticise the ALP, should remember that it is social-democratic parties (like the ALP) the world over who have propped up the capitalist system. If there were no ‘leftist’ alternatives, who would workers vote for when they are wanted a change – no-one. What if there was no alternative to vote for? They would have to start thinking about other means to change things.

The apparent lack of interest in the electoral process is a reflection of the disenfranchisement of many by the parliamentary system – which has been revealed for what it REALLY is - the boardroom of the bourgeoisie. The differences between parliamentary parties are merely tactical differences of how best to manage the economy in the interest of business.

It is time to start building a new party which represents the interests of ordinary people, and its goal must be to overthrow the capitalist system.

I can't say I favour compulsory voting. It might increase the quantity but does nothing for the quality. One really bad government and it would soon self correct, as the silent majority starts to take an interest.

Don't like any of the candidates? Stand for office yourself! I did.
You might not get elected, but get enough primaries and you will certainly have an influence.

What we have is less democracy than a elected autocracy:
One can vote & change govt but it does not necessarily mean a change in policies.

Apart from the old bi-partisan ploy -where parties openly adopt the same attitude.

You have the fact that political parties are like fruit cakes (in more than one way).They sell themselves on the basis of the icing/topping but underneath there are a lot of other unannounced or perhaps sparingly announced policies.

By voting for a party you give defacto endorsement for all its platform.Hence people get lumbered with policies which are not in their interest & which they would reject if they were presented with them on an individual basis .-

You are right about change

and if you do decide that this is needed well email me, you will find that since their is no one in your electorate why dont you stand this you would understand how with the constitution.

Its totally up to you

Email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au
The Australian Peoples Party

It really is something diferent

tapp,

Is your party socialist? Does it have an analysis of capitalism?

The main problem is a capitalist economic system in which human requirements are subordinated to the drive for profit. Unless society is reorganised on the basis of human need, then the problems are going to continue regardless of what party is in power.

tao
email me i will send you something about who i am and a constitution
email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au

Holyshadow, you seem to come up with good topics.

Many interesting opinions, so far.

I'd like to ask what people think of allowing permanent residents to vote- or is that too much off-topic?

If permanent residents have lived in Australia for more than, say, 5 years and speak the language well enough to be able to understand politics, what reasons would there be for disallowing them to vote?

Celivia,

Seeing you think it’s OK for other people to stick their noses in, I’ll give you my answer. I won’t be making a habit of it, though.

The law says that only citizens can vote. I have no idea where you came from, but were non-citizens allowed to vote there?

If people cannot be bothered to become citizens, they should not, and will not, be allowed to vote. I cannot see even “anything-goes” Australia making any changes like that to the Electoral Act. Our politicians are pretty soft in the heads, but not that soft.

If a person has lived in Australia for “say 5 years”, without becoming an Australian citizen, I think they should be given the boot, as they are only here for what they can get, but have no commitment the country.

As you are a newcomer, I will add my opinion that dual citizenship should also be abolished. Nothing personal

Some residents can already vote without being Australian Citizens :)

Enrolment is compulsory for any person who:

is 18* years of age or over, and
is an Australian citizen, or
was a British subject on a Commonwealth electoral roll as at 25 January 1984.

"The law says that only citizens can vote" is incorrect.

The citizens of the following Commonwealth countries had the status of a British subject in Australia as at 25 January 1984:

Countries listed in Section 7 of the Australian Citizenship Act:

Bahamas (Commonwealth of the)
Bangladesh (People's Republic of)
Barbados
Botswana (Republic of)
Canada
Cyprus (Republic of)
Fiji
Gambia (The)
Ghana (Republic of)
Guyana
India (Republic of)
Jamaica
Kenya (Republic of)
Lesotho (Kingdom of)
Malawi (Republic of)
Malaysia
Malta
Mauritius
Nauru (Republic of)
New Zealand
Nigeria (Federal Republic of)
Sierra Leone
Singapore (Republic of)
Sri Lanka (Republic of)
Swaziland (Kingdom of)
Tanzania (United Republic of)
Tonga (Kingdom of)
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Kingdom and Colonies
Western Samoa (Independent State of)
Zambia (Republic of)
Countries included in Citizenship Regulation 5A:

Antigua and Barbuda
Belize
Dominica (The Commonwealth of)
Grenada
Kiribati
Maldives (Republic of)
Papua New Guinea (Independent State of)
Ireland*
Saint Lucia
Solomon Islands
Seychelles (Republic of)
St Christopher and Nevis
St Vincent
Tuvalu
Vanuatu (Republic of)
Zimbabw

Leigh
“Seeing you think it’s OK for other people to stick their noses in, I’ll give you my answer.”
You’ve made my day :+)

To answer your question, I’m from The Netherlands, and yes they allow permanent residents to vote after they have been living in The Netherlands for five years.
Politics gives a better reflection of a society when permanent residents are able to vote.

Steve,
"The law says that only citizens can vote" is incorrect.”
Thanks for this information; I guess many people, like Leigh and I, didn’t know that Australian residents from all of these countries are able to vote!

I think this is a good thing (I just wished my country was on that list, too!).
An important part of integration is participation in politics.

Holyshadow,
I thought that since it’s compulsory to vote, people who do not vote would be fined? I remember one of my neighbours was fined (I think $100) for not voting a few years ago.

I don’t really like the idea of compulsory voting because it’s not democratic and because many people don’t have an interest in politics; quality of voters is better than quantity. Voluntary voting may also make the parties work a bit harder to get their votes.

Instead of imposing voting, the government should aim to create more interest and opportunities for people to be educated in politics and voting procedures, since many disinterested people, I believe, find politics too complicated and can’t see the forest for the trees.
For example, free, independent, political education lessons could be organised at neighbourhood/community centres or at schools or TAFE before election time.
Or it would be good if there was a free political education course website.

But I’m with you, holyshadow, that people who complain about the government have no grounds to complain if they don’t bother voting for a different government.

Celivia,

And look at the mess Holland is in! Probably the reason you left.

Forgot.

Yes, people once were allowed to vote by dint of their being commonwealth citizens. But now, even Poms have to apply for citizenship just like everyone else.

Don't take too much notice of what Mr. Madden says.

Leigh

If you were enrolled to vote in 1984 and were a Tanzanian 18 year old resident, you could now be a 31 year old Tanzanian resident and be eligible to vote. Even though you were not a citizen.

So your statement "The law says that only citizens can vote" is, how should I put it so you understand, WRONG.

At this moment the Netherlands is the 16th largest economy of the world. Between 1998 and 2000 annual economic growth (GDP) averaged nearly 4%, well above the European average. Growth slowed considerably in 2001-05 as part of the global economic slowdown, but the second quarter of 2006 showed a promising 2.8%.

Growth will likely exceed 3% both in 2006 and 2007. Inflation is 1.3% and is expected to stay low at about 1.5% in the coming years.

According to the definition used by the Dutch Statistics Agency CBS, unemployment is at 5.5% of the labor force. By Eurostat standards however, unemployment in the Netherlands is at only 3.8% - the lowest rate of all EU member states.

"Holland" is in a mess? 2.8% second qtr growth, (Australia 0.3%) Inflation 1.3% (Australia 4%) Unemployment, a least they measure it accurately, significantly lower than Australia.

Maybe I realise now why you don't comment, you are so ill-informed :)

Steve,

Leigh has no solutions or suggestions, just whinging and nit picking as I see it.

She has many hours in a day to while away looking to be the first to swoop on new threads and have a unsubstantiated ,baseless grizzle about everything and nothing.

I just hope to ignore most of the time..

Sorry Leigh..but you are yourself a straight shooter I believe?

Steve,
Thanks for setting Leigh straight.
You know much more about the Dutch economy than I do! So I appreciated your comments very much.

Leigh:
“And look at the mess Holland is in!“
Leigh, what mess are you referring to if not to the economy?

Perhaps the latest elections in Holland? Yes they are struggling very much to form a coalition. It may take a long time and it’s a real drama atm.
The Christen democrats (CDA) gained the most votes, with Labor second and Socialist Party third. The problem is that CDA and Labor need another party to make up the 150 seats.

Labor wants SP in the coalition, but the CDA prefer another Christian party rather than SP.
CDA are scared, because Labor and SP together would have more seats than the CDA and on many issues, it would be SP/Labor against CDA.

Labor and SP have agreed they can work together. Labor is not willing to accept the small, Christian party that CDA prefer.
The queen is trying to help out now, with help of an independent political advisor; much negotiation will be needed.

Leigh, the results of this election were reached even though about 20 percent of Dutch voters are not Dutch and were able to vote.
Voting is voluntary, but more than 80% of the eligible population voted.

Most non-Dutch voters are the permanent residents from Muslim countries.

I think it’s a good thing that the Muslims were able to vote because they wouldn't have voted for a racist party, would they? They voted for a party that will give them a fair go. That’s I think, why the Liberals (VVD) have lost power now, after their introduction of strict immigration rules and regulations.

Sorry if I bored anyone with some Dutch politics, but I just wanted to show that non-Australian voters may not be all that bad as people like Leigh might think.

If our Muslim residents would be allowed to vote like the Dutch Muslim voters did- then many won’t vote for the Liberals.
Isn't that a win/win situation? :)

Steve Madden “If you were enrolled to vote in 1984 and were a Tanzanian 18 year old resident, you could now be a 31 year old Tanzanian resident ”

Steve, I know this might seem a bit pedantic but if you want to promote your view with a modicum of credibility,

A Tanzanian who is 18 in 1984 (22 years ago) will be around 40 years of age today, unless you are suggesting Tanzanian’s age at a different rate to the rest of us.

It actually gets worse.

Using “Tanzania” for an example of anything, I would observe Tanzania, in 1984 was under the repressive one party government, so enrolling to vote meant nothing at all.

Life expectancy, well reaching 40 today (the current age of your 1984 18 year old), would put the average Tanzanian about 2 years short of meeting his maker. So close to death, I am sure politics and the next election is not high on the list of priorities, especially as “democratic government” in Tanzania is only around 11 years old.

The above somehow conditions your expression “Maybe I realise now why you don't comment, you are so ill-informed”

Having read what you wrote about Tanzanians, quoting statistics about the national economy of Holland seemed to have lost its informative eloquence.

I hate to say it Col but you are correct, my maths was wrong. The Tanzanian would be 41.

He/she would still have the right to vote. (even with a postal vote from hospice).

I stand by my stats on the dutch economy, unless you can prove me wrong (which of course is your prerogative).

I wonder if the Govt. advertised that you cannot be fined if you enrol to vote, no matter how long it has been since you voted, if the vote would increase.

Also Celivia's figures of an 80% turnout to vote in The Netherlands without compulsory voting is higher than Australia's with compulsory voting.