importance of voting this election - General

[media]https://youtu.be/Lih8D59xZac[/media] context behind this is that im real annoyed that people in my age bracket refuse to vote when they forget we hold the power also i know my shit isnt the best and stuff and im real reluctant to post on here anymore but whatever, i hope i can encourage people around me to vote that's all

in my experience 'I'm not voting because politicians don't x' is such a copout. People that don't vote 90% of the time are either too lazy or haven't bothered to research a political party that aligns with their beliefs

Good video. You should have also mentioned people who say, "doesn't matter who I vote for it's just going to be the same two parties that get the most votes." Even though we have preferential voting and the two main parties both have different polices, so you're going to want to have your say in which one gets into office. I'd also hazard to guess that the lack of young voters who participated in the last election was probably a significant factor in why we got stuck with Tony Abbott.

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;50330429]in my experience 'I'm not voting because politicians don't x' is such a copout. People that don't vote 90% of the time are either too lazy or haven't bothered to research a political party that aligns with their beliefs[/QUOTE] In my experience, the people of both parties don't represent me or even most people and it's easier to classify people like me as extremists who should just submit and sacrifice most of their opinions anyway.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;50330516]In my experience, the people of both parties don't represent me or even most people and it's easier to classify people like me as extremists who should just submit and sacrifice most of their opinions anyway.[/QUOTE] Do you not have minor parties in the US?

i'm not voting this election because when the election rolls around i won't be 18 yet

[QUOTE=helifreak;50330589]Do you not have minor parties in the US?[/QUOTE] We do, but they're widely seen as a wasted vote.

[QUOTE=helifreak;50330589]Do you not have minor parties in the US?[/QUOTE] Since the united states is First Past the Post (aka: you get one vote to vote for one person), it's inevitable to end up with this crazy two-party gridlock, and have the very real problem of "tactical voting," or: "I want to vote for the people who represent me, but they have a snowball's chance in hell, and I'd rather the people I can tolerate get in than the people I hate." As far as I can tell, Aus utilizes preferential voting, which is a great alternative (literally anything other than FPTP is)

UK has first past the post and has elected minority parties. I think it's the fault of the media and I suppose culture in being two party

Waaaaay to many people i know are just going to wander in and pull a donkey vote. I'm going to have a great time calling them out every single time they bitch about politics because they didn't fucking vote.

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;50330429]in my experience 'I'm not voting because politicians don't x' is such a copout. People that don't vote 90% of the time are either too lazy or haven't bothered to research a political party that aligns with their beliefs[/QUOTE] upgrade that to 99%

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50330734]UK has first past the post and has elected minority parties. I think it's the fault of the media and I suppose culture in being two party[/QUOTE] Our most recent election still had the biggest disparity between vote counts and MP recipients, though. UKIP, our (relatively) nationalist EU independence party, got over 10% of the vote, but received a single seat in Parliament.

We currently have a situation where the ruling party gave one seat in the parliament to an athlete for a publicity stunt. She then went to a sports competition and the parliament can't vote for 3 weeks now because they don't have a quorum anymore. It's not just her fault, but the ruling party has just a few seats more than the opposition, so if anyone calls in sick or has to do something that is more important than a parliament of a country, they simply can't vote and do anything. It's the same government that gave us a prime minister that doesn't speak Croatian properly. The less they do, the better, it's the only positive thing about all this.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;50331097]We currently have a situation where the ruling party gave one seat in the parliament to an athlete for a publicity stunt. She then went to a sports competition and the parliament can't vote for 3 weeks now because they don't have a quorum anymore. It's not just her fault, but the ruling party has just a few seats more than the opposition, so if anyone calls in sick or has to do something that is more important than a parliament of a country, they simply can't vote and do anything. It's the same government that gave us a prime minister that doesn't speak Croatian properly. The less they do, the better, it's the only positive thing about all this.[/QUOTE] was she elected in hopes to make the party seem more in touch with people. Croatia's parliamentary system sounds stupid, even more terrifying with the last part "the less they do, the better". Do you lot have any corruption watchdogs?

The importance of voting... Well, there is one really good way to teach people just that - show them the cost of not taking this process seriously. Even i had a lot to think about last few years.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50331439]was she elected in hopes to make the party seem more in touch with people. Croatia's parliamentary system sounds stupid, even more terrifying with the last part "the less they do, the better". Do you lot have any corruption watchdogs?[/QUOTE] She wasn't elected. The guy who got elected doesn't have the time for parliament duty because he is the major of the capital city, so he gave her the set. This probably makes no sense to you, but that is how it is around here; one person leads the campaign and gets the votes, then goes to do other stuff and puts someone else in his place. I have to correct myself, tthey are not from the ruling party, but they gave them their support. As for corruption, lol. The party that is now in power was in power 5 years ago and their prime minister got arrested for corruption and the whole [U]party[/U] is still under criminal investigation and they still won these elections. The current boss of the "prime minister" already caused a scandal, just 3 months after forming the government, because he wanted to stop an investigation concerning a bad deal when selling a public oil company, because his wife was lobbying for the company that bought it. But it is not their fault, people vote for them for 25 years, because we need to fight the communists. You know, it's all the fault of the damn communists... It's all so messed up, that is why I said it is better for these people to simply do nothing at all.

[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;50330695]We do, but they're widely seen as a wasted vote.[/QUOTE] "Wasted votes" are a fallacy. Your individual vote doesn't matter in the long run anyway, you might as well vote for someone you actually like

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;50330699]Since the united states is First Past the Post (aka: you get one vote to vote for one person), it's inevitable to end up with this crazy two-party gridlock, and have the very real problem of "tactical voting," or: "I want to vote for the people who represent me, but they have a snowball's chance in hell, and I'd rather the people I can tolerate get in than the people I hate." As far as I can tell, Aus utilizes preferential voting, which is a great alternative (literally anything other than FPTP is)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=fruxodaily;50330734]UK has first past the post and has elected minority parties. I think it's the fault of the media and I suppose culture in being two party[/QUOTE] I think the major difference here is that, and correct me if I'm wrong because I don't really know that much about the UK's system, in the UK you don't technically vote for a prime minister, you vote a party into the senate and the party that gets the most seats gets to have their prime minister, right? In the US on the other hand, the presidential election is completely separate from both houses of congress, they're 3 completely different votes on top of also voting for a bunch of local positions. In the case of congress, voting in a third party could have some effect as they might at least get a few seats. Although at least in the case of the house of representatives, the electoral districts are gerrymandered in such a way that only a small minority of the districts that vote actually matter. The rest are pretty much automatically going either democrat or republican. The presidential election is what the vast majority of people focus on though, and it's completely binary. Whoever has the most votes wins winner takes all system, which in effect really means voting for a third party representative is a complete waste. Even if a candidate gets 10% of the votes, it doesn't matter in the slightest. And unless you dislike both candidates equally, it could even be seen as hurting yourself, because you're effectively giving more votes to the candidate you dislike more, giving them a larger chance at winning.

Bring back the communist party of Australia!

"21st Century Australia Party" [t]https://jii.moe/VkgpDy7fb.png[/t] Sure Mates

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;50331829]"Wasted votes" are a fallacy. Your individual vote doesn't matter in the long run anyway, you might as well vote for someone you actually like[/QUOTE] in first past the post voting systems, voting for "someone you actually like" actually decreases your chances of being represented more than just voting for the least worst of the big two parties. This is because a third party will naturally attract voters from whatever main party is it most similar to, and as a result, allow the third party which represents the population less than the other side to win. Its not a fallacy, its a mathematical fact.

[QUOTE=elowin;50331965]I think the major difference here is that, and correct me if I'm wrong because I don't really know that much about the UK's system, in the UK you don't technically vote for a prime minister, you vote a party into the senate and the party that gets the most seats gets to have their prime minister, right? In the US on the other hand, the presidential election is completely separate from both houses of congress, they're 3 completely different votes on top of also voting for a bunch of local positions. In the case of congress, voting in a third party could have some effect as they might at least get a few seats. Although at least in the case of the house of representatives, the electoral districts are gerrymandered in such a way that only a small minority of the districts that vote actually matter. The rest are pretty much automatically going either democrat or republican. The presidential election is what the vast majority of people focus on though, and it's completely binary. Whoever has the most votes wins winner takes all system, which in effect really means voting for a third party representative is a complete waste. Even if a candidate gets 10% of the votes, it doesn't matter in the slightest. And unless you dislike both candidates equally, it could even be seen as hurting yourself, because you're effectively giving more votes to the candidate you dislike more, giving them a larger chance at winning.[/QUOTE] Firstly, it is a parliamentary system where we elect MPs to Parliament, not a Presidential system with separation of powers. Besides that, the main parties in the US have more of a structural advantage than in the UK. UK elections need funding for sure, but nothing on the level of the US (and this is coming from someone who is very skeptical about the real effects of money in politics). UK parties are also less skilled at being broad to the point where they cover all areas, giving opportunities to the left and right of the main parties (Lib Dems 2005, Green, UKIP 2015) whilst still winning seats (even if few in number. There are also the nationalist parties (SNP, Plaid Cymru) which don't exist in the US for various reasons. Finally, due to a highly centralised government (meaning a lack of power of local politicians beyond the council), it has always been possible to win campaigning on local issues, which is a lot of what the Lib Dems to win seats that would have otherwise been solidly Conservative. This all leads to more diversity in the UK parliament than the US.

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;50330429]in my experience 'I'm not voting because politicians don't x' is such a copout. People that don't vote 90% of the time are either too lazy or haven't bothered to research a political party that aligns with their beliefs[/QUOTE] I'm well researched politically and I never vote. It's a waste of time since major political parties only stay in power by trying to appeal to as many people as possible and being as inoffensive as possible, so they stand for nothing and both parties are exactly the same, conservative or liberal. I feel like voting is a waste of time and I find it degrading.

[QUOTE=Jack32;50334153]I'm well researched politically and I never vote. It's a waste of time since major political parties only stay in power by trying to appeal to as many people as possible and being as inoffensive as possible, so they stand for nothing and both parties are exactly the same, conservative or liberal. I feel like voting is a waste of time and I find it degrading.[/QUOTE] this is exactly what i have a problem with, surprise surprise there's more than the conseratives and labour in your country. You have tons, and the more this mindset sweeps over the general populas, the more big parties will roam around and fuck everyone over we were given the right to vote for a reason

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50334523]this is exactly what i have a problem with, surprise surprise there's more than the conseratives and labour in your country. You have tons, and the more this mindset sweeps over the general populas, the more big parties will roam around and fuck everyone over we were given the right to vote for a reason[/QUOTE] Yeah and the times I have voted I'd vote for minor parties, not that it makes a difference. [editline]17th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Jack32;50334828]Yeah and the times I have voted I'd vote for minor parties, not that it makes a difference.[/QUOTE] When everyone has a choice you have dictatorship of the masses, you can't please everyone. Giving everyone an equal say who governs makes absolutely no sense. People who live on welfare and smoke weed all day have as much say in who runs their country as war veterans who laid their lives down for their country that they actually care about.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;50331829]"Wasted votes" are a fallacy. Your individual vote doesn't matter in the long run anyway, you might as well vote for someone you actually like[/QUOTE] Imagine this simple bar graph. [t]http://i.imgur.com/b3W8IBb.png[/t] Blue has slightly more votes, and would win the election in this scenario. But, what if a new, third color cropped up, a more extreme blue? [t]http://i.imgur.com/6W5oj56.png[/t] Even though red's number has not changed, and there is less red than there are total blue, red wins. Dark blue "stole" votes from light blue. If the system was, say, alternative vote, the dark blue voters could have named light blue as their secondary option, which would return the scenario to graph 1.

So who are the good partys for the Aus I here Labour is a Joke

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;50336019]So who are the good partys for the Aus I here Labour is a Joke[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/F4WbtAr.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;50336019]So who are the good partys for the Aus I here Labour is a Joke[/QUOTE] Greens pretty much, they have the right idea about a lot of things. Mind you, some of their stances are not perfect and a lil stupid but they blow Labor and Liberal out of the water Labor will be good when a party reform happens, by that i mean, a new progressive leader not some trade unionist turned politician. Liberals have a pile of abbott policies and hard rights in their party, so they're just dumb ontop of greens you got the other micro parties, smaller parties and what not that help balance everything out

You guys should vote for greens then