With the outrageous explaination given by the two independents, Tony Winsor and Rob Oakshott, as to why they sided with labor, I would suggest we will see very few independents in paliment moving forward.

Their electrates must be fumming made and, I would suggest that many of them may well vote informal the next time around.

In all fairness, what should have happened was that we should have gone back to the polls.

But hey, these two politicle jockies knew that, but many suspect they had already decided several days earlier. They just wanted to enjoy their moment in the spotlight.

rehctub:

Yes! I think there will be a lot of very angry
and disappointed people out there in "lecky-land"

A few interesting facts have emerged from the
Election that would help to prevent this deplorable
situation ever occurring again:
1) We should immediately abolish "Preferential
voting!
2) We should immediately abolish "Coalitions",
the joining together of parties to gain a
stronger vote!
3) We should immediately abolish "Compulsory
Voting" whilst at the same time introducing
stringent ID monitoring at the polling booth,
for those who are interested enough to vote!

For anybody out there who may start screaming
about the abolition of the principle of Coalition,
I am myself voted for the Liberals (Coalition)
and I am dismayed that Tony Abbott received 700,000
more votes than Julia Gillard, yet he is still
sitting on the Opposition benches!

Obviously the result that we are now saddled with
does NOT truly represent the opinion of the
majority of the voting public, who indicated
that they wanted other than Labor to run this
country for the next 3 years!

Hey crackcup you really crackmeup; what a disaster we'd have if your suggestions were implemented. Imagine that, all coalitions banned, and preferential voting abolished! Great eh, yep we can then have parties who get 35% of the vote as our government ...... and bugger the other 65% majority who didn't vote for them. But wait, ol' crackhead, oops I mean crackcup, want's to go further. He wants non compulsory voting. So in that situation the 35% of votes could easily be about 15% to 20% of eligible voters. Imagine that ..... a government elected on about 20% ..... and bugger the 80% who didn't vote for them.

Yep crackcup's brave new world of voting fairness. Well thought out crackcup!

Rehctub, the first sentence of your post could just have easily read "With the outrageous explanations given by the 3 independents, Bob Katter and Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott (sic), as to why they sided with Labor and the Coalition, I would suggest we will see very few independents in parliment (sic) moving forward".

The fact that you wrote that sentence the way you did, shows your views are based on one thing . . . political bias. It's impossible to have rational political discussions when you're driven by dogma. Though I doubt very much you're interested in a rational discussion, based on your hard line dogma that you've shown in other posts on this site. "Dogma" is something that applies equally to hard line lefties and hard line righties like you.

Stringent ID. We will have to get an AU card for that.
REHCTUB has been very quiet i thought she was gearing up for something stupid again.

I think the Rob Oakshot and Tony Windsor did the right and honorable thing in choosing to back Labor and they should be applauded. They are over and above the mainstream media which runs down the labor party and the greens. Whilst I acknowledge that the coalition got a greater percentage of the 2 party preferred vote by the slenderest of margins, lets not forget 1998 when labor won the 2 party preferred vote 51-49 and still lost

I think there's a bunch or two of sour grapes being expressed by rehctub and Crackcup here. Oakeshott and Windsor have acted as true Independents by negotiating the best concessions they could get for their constituents and the country. Their explanations were anything but "outrageous".

rehctub, we know that spelling isn't your greatest strength, but have you considered writing your posts in a word processing program and running a spellchecker through them before copying and pasting them here? I had to read your OP several times in order to decipher what it is you were trying to say.

"Fumming made" indeed!

I'm with you Crackcup.

The reactionaries will say "it can't be done".

But it should. With one teensy proviso.

That the candidates themselves write down their policies, and then stick to them.

The result will be - effectively - a parliament full of quasi-independents, perhaps affiliated to, but not beholden to, a political party; elected by an unequivocal majority of voters, who cared enough to vote.

Debates would be real debates, not simply the constant, on-message party sloganeering that passes for parliamentary procedure at the moment.

Votes would be real votes, with the member voting according to the wishes of the people who elected him/her.

The laws would then be real laws, with the committees that tend to the detail unhindered by party dogma, and thus able to detect and close loopholes ahead of the bill's passing.

And the Senate would be a real Senate... er, well, actually, that's another candidate for much-needed, long-overdue reform...

Mind you, chances of any of this happening?

Buckleys.

Why would a politician even bother to lift their snout from the trough, for one single second?

That would need integrity.

And right now we're witnessing a real life example of a government that has all the integrity that our money can buy.

Thanks rechtub, Honorable mention to crack up both have me smirking even out right laughing at the lack of understanding.
Once we had a country party, it looked after the country cow cockys.
Then became the National party, it looks after? miners.
Never, not once has the Nats acted for the bush,and it never would,it is the servant of Liberalism.
Oakshot, Windsor, wanted to do what the party they left should do, get more for the bush.
No love in for Labor just the only way the only outcome that saw them win was to back labour.
It is no gift no do as you like thing it is hard work.
The one winner is the most left out section of this country the heartland we say is the real Australia.
Gillard will govern well, a lot will not get past this hung and strung Parliament.
War will be a daily thing Abbott loves confrontation, that will one day be his undoing.
Points of interest.
Gillards lead over Abbott in preferred PM is double figures.
If conservative insist on calling us the rainbow coalition how do they claim most votes most seats,, clearly not true.

INCONCEIVABLE!

hahahahaha

Yes well, what can I say.

Day ONE, we have a missunderstanding about the mining tax.

Boy Tony, you should have got that one in writting old mate. To late now to say I thought......

You see, one of labors fundimental errors, is that they fail time and time again to dot the 'T's' and cross the 'I's'.

So I guess it's yet another round of 'here we go again' time.

I just hope they leave some sought of a skelton once they are finnished so there is at least some chance of re-building the economy we once had. Having said that, if the previous three years and the first one day are any indication, we'd best hope for the best and plan for the worst.

If it wern't so serious, it would be funny.

How did I go col?

<< they fail time and time again to dot the 'T's' and cross the 'I's'. >>

Now that is truly funny. Not even a spellchecker would help you with that one!

What! No comment from CJ on the 'day one' stuff up!

Perhaps some sought of an explanation as to how on earth this could have happend on 'day 1' would have been a little more costructive, instead of trying to make fun of my spelling disorder.

How does this 'Day1' debarcle fit into the 'stable government' they said we were going to have.

And TZ52HX.>>> Imagine that, all coalitions banned, and preferential voting abolished! Great eh, yep we can then have parties who get 35% of the vote as our government ...... and bugger the other 65% majority who didn't vote for them

So isn't that what we have now.

Less people voted for labor than against, yet they have held government.

Which means, the majority didn't want them.

But it's those two ind that will pay the ultimate price. Unless by some miricle Labor can do a coplete turn around and get it right this time.

Now had they made one or even two mistakes, then that's feasible, but, with the amount of trophys they have in their three short years, for failures, I think we are kidding ourselves.

We can only hope!

Imagine that ..... a government elected on about 20% ..... and bugger the 80% who didn't vote for them.

Yep crackcup's brave new world of voting fairness. Well thought out crackcup!
Posted by TZ52HX, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 2:17:38 PM

TZ52HX: The outcome of a government elected on approximately 20% was the outcome that has seen Labor re-elected. A good percentage of Australians did not bother actually voting and for the people that have in fact voted: their votes were entirely wasted as a result of the current system.

Crackcup's brainstorming and other OLO Posters' previous suggestions on reform are building blocks for Australians to unite and hopefully one day in the near future, overhaul the current voting system and practices.

Why send up an entire concept when in fact, down the track, part of Crackcup's theory may be put in practice by one of the three Independents or another political identity after this year's election crap that served as a learning exercise!

ok give me a bit of room.
Time to climb up on the stump.
FIRST test me.
Go now to the AEC check out the two party preferred 20% are we to say foolish things like that?
WHO what party leads the two party preferred right now.
And how many seats did Labor win.
How many did Liberals win
How many Nats.
Did you include the WA Nat?
Greens got one.
Independents, are they in your view able to be independents?
Can they think for them selves?
Have we the right to say you got it wrong vote as I say.
What type of democracy do you want?
NOW one vote one value is my dream, but we may get government by one party without improvement from it forever
Big Kim got 51% Howard 49% and Howard won!
Check before claiming who won 2pp
KNOW labor would govern almost always if one vote one value kills the chances of smaller party's.
LAST understand these two are still independents and even those complaining here today will change their minds on seeing and understanding that very soon.
All those in favor of giving the elected government a chance hands up rechtub sit down you can not vote you are not a member.

1 independent went with the coalition Katter
Another Nat/Indy went to them
The Nats a different party make up the conservative coalition.
How in any way is that different than the government?
AEC this morning gave the 2 party preferred to Labor [so far 50.8 to 49.2
the coalition, both are ,with the most votes rules ok?

Rehctub and we are unique, neither of you quite understood what TZ said.

The Labor government was not elected on 20% of the total votes as implied by we are unique. And the Labor government was not elected on 35% of the total vote as implied by rehctub. Good spin though; you should both be politicians.

The official two party preferred vote at 11/9/2010 (with 93.2% of the primary vote counted) was Labor 5,921,802 votes, and Liberal plus the Nats 5,902,097 votes. So Labor got 50.08% of votes and the Liberal + Nats got 49.92% of votes. These figures, after preference allocation to "BOTH" sides, are from the Australian Electoral Commission Virtual Tally Room "the official election results". Here's the link to the figures http://vtr.aec.gov.au

TZ was referring to a system where it's first past the post with no preferences allocated. That can readily produce a government who gets just 15% or 20% or 30% of votes, where we have multiple popular parties. That was TZs point.

When governments gets elected on just 15% or 25% of total votes, it means democracy down the gurgler.

petej in time you will find entrench conservatives, some just anti Labor and some truly uninformed here.
We are unique is a good person but blind to anything other than conservatism.
Rechtub is not malicious just doesn't have much idea about politics.
I posted that information this morning it is just as you say.
Now how, tell me, can those who complain not notice the opposition is a coalition of Independents National and what ever Bob Katter and the WA Nat is?
And how can any one, noting the daily warnings from Independents think they are in Labors pocket?
Given the blindness of the Abbott plan complain and lie, I do not fear an election but want one bring it on.