ttbn wrote "Even if he got it wrong, ..."

If? It's not hard to check for yourself. Go to the AEC website (http://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionalResults-27966.htm) and see for yourself if you can find even one electorate that comes within cooee of a 25% informal vote. Then try to work out why your source chose to mispresent the truth and what other truths they might be prepared to mispresent.

I find this anxiety to be lied to, to be fascinating. I've often advised Foxy to check her sources rather than just beleive that which suits prejudices. You might want to think about doing the same.

You say Collits says (no link so I can't be sure) "70 percent of the electorate wishing they [the ALP] hadn't [won]?" That's rubbish. I didn't give them my first preference but still wanted them to win. 75% of Green preferences went to the ALP. They wanted them to win. In a preferential voting system, its possible to vote for others while still ensuring the party you want to win, gets you final vote. In a first-past-the-post system I and millions of others would have voted differently. But the same people would have won.

Terry Barnes, another nutter dredged up from far right field. While the displaying of the Union Jack on the Australia flag is entirely inappropriate as it represents murder, genocide and the destruction of indigenous people wherever the British invaded and hoisted their flag.
Just as it would be inappropriate for Germany to incorporate the NAZI swastika into their flag. Good on Adam Bandt for standing up on this issue.

ttbn, how are you going with 25% claim of yours, got any evidence yet?

Mhaze,

Just because you "still wanted them to win" (pretty dopey of you not to give them your first preference if that is true) doesn't mean that other voters felt the same. Sane people actually vote for parties or people they want to win. Clearly you are different. 'Protest votes' against people you 'really want to see elected' are baloney.

You are certainly in no position to be "advising" Foxy to do anything, being as you are the egoist equivalent of her for the other side.

As I said, I will be sticking with Collits, who has qualities and qualifications that you don't. He is a publicly recognised academic, easily found online, while you are just another anonymous poster who has made all sorts of claims about himself and his experiences, but who cannot prove a thing.

From my experience of nearly 40 years, the majority of people who vote informal, actually wanted to cast a valid vote, but cocked it up. The problem would be easily overcome with optional preferential voting, simply vote for one or more candidates. Add in a "candidate" called "no choice". In a very rare instance should no choice win then a non voting administrator be appointed to manage local constituent affairs, until the next general election is called.

Pre-poll doesn't usually favour the minor parties, but its obvious that's what Australians want as part of their democratic process, so I'm for it. With new technology, the next logical step is voting online.

The only ones here opposing pre-poll voting is the forums Trumpster mob.

So ttbn,

That's a hearty "NO" to check the data for yourself. As I said, I don't understand the type of thinking that just believes what you're told because you want it to be true. What's the view like down that particular garden path?

I also get the impression that you don't actually understand how preferential voting works. I wanted Labor to win in the contest between them and the Libs - the only contest that mattered. But by voting for someone else as a first preference, I show where my true feelings lay AND the party that I most favour gets the funding attached to my vote.

"As I said, I will be sticking with Collits, who has qualities and qualifications that you don't. He is a publicly recognised academic, easily found online,"...and who has demonstrably lied to you. But if you want to be lied to, then...good call. Just don't pretend to know what's really going on.






Paul wrote: "The only ones here opposing pre-poll voting is the forums Trumpster mob."

I'm a Trumpster but favour pre-polling. The difference between here and the USA is that pre-polling here was tightly controlled and devoid of fraud. The opposite occurred in the USA - little control and an abundance of fraud. (http://2000mules.com/)

Hi mhaze,

You are actually making a great deal of sense on this issue. Preferences only come into play when no candidate has reached an absolute majority on first votes, then it become academic as to the two party preferred vote is. We wait about 3 years to exercise our democratic right, then some people cock it up with bad handwriting, or a silly mistake. I recall the "table cloth" ballot paper for the Senate in NSW back in the 70's, there were something like 183 names and each one had to be numbered in preferential order, it was a nightmare. At one early election in Australia there was no ballot paper, the voter had to write the name of his preferred candidate on a piece of paper. At another election only one voter at a time was let into the polling station, for privacy, that was until they got the idea of voting cubical's.

On Trump, both VP Mike Pence and Trump's hand picked AG William Barr, both believed there was insufficient evidence of voter fraud to overturn the result. But US elections are as rigged as anything the old Commo's ran in the Soviet Union.