[QUOTE=Superwafflez;24662095]That really is a biased statement.
I think you'll find there are plenty of people who support Bush to this day.[/QUOTE]
Bush did the best he could, which unfortunately wasn't too good.
Most people who don't want to vote just donkey it anyway. There wouldn't really be a difference if voting was made non-mandatory.
Also, I think a lot of people are forgetting about the fucking disaster that was WorkChoices by Howard's Liberal government. Goodbye worker's rights, hello corporate rule.
[QUOTE=Keeshond v2;24662111]Bush did the best he could, which unfortunately wasn't too good.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/tony-blair-says-george-w-bush-was-very-smart-but-bill-clinton-was-smartest-politician-he-ever-met/story-e6frfku0-1225914556175[/url]
I really do despise the 'Bush fucked everything up' bandwagon.
[QUOTE=Noth;24662103]It means a lot when it's not just one Liberal government, but all, if not almost all, that set that track record[/QUOTE]
no, it actually doesn't.
Think of it like an AFL team, who in the past decade have won the grand final a few times. Now replace the coach, and most of the key players. The team isn't any more likely to do better than another team, just because it's previous set of players was particularly good. That makes little sense.
It works both ways too.
(i don't actually follow sports, mind you)
[QUOTE=GunsNRoses;24662068]Not the whole country wants to vote, so how is forcing everyone to vote an accurate reflection of what the country as a whole wants?[/QUOTE]
How is an election where say ~70% of the population votes an accurate reflection of what the country wants as a whole?
It's not, niether is compulosry voting. It worked for this election and it will continue to work, we don't need to change it.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;24662109]I'm still wondering about the NBN. One estimate put it at a taxpayer cost of $8000 per household - fair cop up. Secondly, given the incredibly-fast-changing nature of the IT industry, will this system still be relevant in the future, or will it soon become obsolete?[/QUOTE]
All it's going to mean is more tax.
[QUOTE=Keeshond v2;24662220]no, it actually doesn't.
Think of it like an AFL team, who in the past decade have won the grand final a few times. Now replace the coach, and most of the key players. The team isn't any more likely to do better than another team, just because it's previous set of players was particularly good. That makes little sense.
It works both ways too.
(i don't actually follow sports, mind you)[/QUOTE]
The difference is that the financial power brokers behind the Coalition have remained the same for decades. They ultimately direct the party, not the leader.
[QUOTE=Noth;24662158][url]http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/tony-blair-says-george-w-bush-was-very-smart-but-bill-clinton-was-smartest-politician-he-ever-met/story-e6frfku0-1225914556175[/url][/QUOTE]
obviously if he was smart enough to become president of america, he was smart, most likely smarter than You or I will ever be. But that doesn't mean much when his performance compared to other leaders of the USA, was quite poor.
[QUOTE=Keeshond v2;24662220]no, it actually doesn't.
Think of it like an AFL team, who in the past decade have won the grand final a few times. Now replace the coach, and most of the key players. The team isn't any more likely to do better than another team, just because it's previous set of players was particularly good. That makes little sense.
It works both ways too.
(i don't actually follow sports, mind you)[/QUOTE]
Comparing a sports team to a political party isn't really a fair call.
A political party has probably had the same basic policies since its origin.
A footy team relies on the strengths of the individual player in a physical activity
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;24662222]How is an election where say ~70% of the population votes an accurate reflection of what the country wants as a whole?
[/QUOTE]
BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO VOTE
Nobody would be stopping people from voting, those who want to vote, can, and those who don't want to, don't.
If people don't care enough to vote, they don't care about what direction the country takes.
[QUOTE=Keeshond v2;24662245]obviously if he was smart enough to become president of america, he was smart, most likely smarter than You or I will ever be. But that doesn't mean much when his performance compared to other leaders of the USA, was quite poor.[/QUOTE]
Ha also had balls of steel.
It takes quite a lot to stand up and say your country will invade another, at a great cost, to create a better future.
taXXX
[QUOTE=abcpea;24662269]taXXX[/QUOTE]
Porn tax what?
I'm moving to that country to the south, Tasmania.
Don't forget to pack your sister.
[QUOTE=GunsNRoses;24662249]BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO VOTE
Nobody would be stopping people from voting, those who want to vote, can, and those who don't want to, don't.[/QUOTE]
You didn't address my main arguement.
Yes, some people don't want to vote. I and everyone else in this bloody island recognise that. They might not want to vote, but by that they are not using their democratic rights. By making them vote it gives a 100% reading and means that not only are their rights looked after but them whole countries intrests are looked after as a whole.
Also because it might do them some good to have intelligent thought
Finally, it is status quo and a change would be counter-productive.
Compulsory voting being ditched would have hilarious results for Labor, they would be totally stuffed without the doll bludgers, immigrants and misty eyed students being forced to actually turn up at polling booths :V
What about those who shit-vote because they didn't want to vote.
Or just turned up, got their name ticked off and didn't vote at all.
[QUOTE=Noth;24662246]Comparing a sports team to a political party isn't really a fair call.
A political party has probably had the same basic policies since its origin.
A footy team relies on the strengths of the individual player in a physical activity[/QUOTE]
Except both parties are crossing over and becoming like each other.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;24662308]You didn't address my main arguement.
Yes, some people don't want to vote. I and everyone else in this bloody island recognise that. They might not want to vote, but by that they are not using their democratic rights. By making them vote it gives a 100% reading and means that not only are their rights looked after but them whole countries intrests are looked after as a whole.
Also because it might do them some good to have intelligent thought
Finally, it is status quo and a change would be counter-productive.[/QUOTE]
The irony is that you are saying that people HAVE TO vote because it is their democratic right.
Compulsory voting is the opposite of democratic.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;24662308]You didn't address my main arguement.
Yes, some people don't want to vote. I and everyone else in this bloody island recognise that. They might not want to vote, but by that they are not using their democratic rights. By making them vote it gives a 100% reading and means that not only are their rights looked after but them whole countries intrests are looked after as a whole.
Also because it might do them some good to have intelligent thought
Finally, it is status quo and a change would be counter-productive.[/QUOTE]
They dont want their rights, and the people hat are to lazy to vote just go 1 2 3 4 5 so on down the page anyway
[QUOTE=Superwafflez;24662243]The difference is that the financial power brokers behind the Coalition have remained the same for decades. They ultimately direct the party, not the leader.[/QUOTE]
So you're voting for a party who you don't believe, ultimately has much control over itself?
Thats a bit corrupt when you think about it, the liberal party bending over for a financial benefactor for money.
Even then, should i be wrong, if a track record is all you have to prove the liberals have better capability to govern the country, you still don't really have much.
[QUOTE=Superwafflez;24662332]The irony is that you are saying that people HAVE TO vote because it is their democratic right.
Compulsory voting is the opposite of democratic.[/QUOTE]
[quote]democracy
–noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.[/quote]In summary, no
[QUOTE=teeheeV2;24662325]Except both parties are crossing over and becoming like each other.[/QUOTE]
i was going to make this point, but you beat me to it.
They are crossing over, and their ideologies are becoming more vague and obscure.
[QUOTE=Keeshond v2;24662337]So you're voting for a party who you don't believe, ultimately has much control over itself?
Thats a bit corrupt when you think about it, the liberal party bending over for a financial benefactor for money.
Even then, should i be wrong, if a track record is all you have to prove the liberals have better capability to govern the country, you still don't really have much.[/QUOTE]
lets see you prove labor are better
[QUOTE=Keeshond v2;24662337]So you're voting for a party who you don't believe, ultimately has much control over itself?
Thats a bit corrupt when you think about it, the liberal party bending over for a financial benefactor for money.
Even then, should i be wrong, if a track record is all you have to prove the liberals have better capability to govern the country, you still don't really have much.[/QUOTE]
Funny you say that when Labor are always bending over for the Unions, who pretty much pay for Labors dirt slinging campaigns.
[QUOTE=abcpea;24662379]lets see you prove labor are better[/QUOTE]
you should read both threads. I've done this numerous times already.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;24662308]You didn't address my main arguement.
Yes, some people don't want to vote. I and everyone else in this bloody island recognise that. They might not want to vote, but by that they are not using their democratic rights. By making them vote it gives a 100% reading and means that not only are their rights looked after but them whole countries intrests are looked after as a whole.
Also because it might do them some good to have intelligent thought
Finally, it is status quo and a change would be counter-productive.[/QUOTE]
That's not true at all. People donkey vote and vote informally because they don't want to be voting in the first place, so in reality it gives a less accurate reflection. It makes you wonder how many seats are decided by who was the first on the voting list.
People shouldn't be forced to exercise their democratic right if they don't want to, forcing dumb people to vote doesn't make them think.
Finally explain to me how the hell it would be "counter-productive" to have only the people who actually give a shit voting.
[QUOTE=Keeshond v2;24662415]you should read both threads. I've done this numerous times already.[/QUOTE]
no you havent
[QUOTE=Keeshond v2;24662337]So you're voting for a party who you don't believe, ultimately has much control over itself?
Thats a bit corrupt when you think about it, the liberal party bending over for a financial benefactor for money.
Even then, should i be wrong, if a track record is all you have to prove the liberals have better capability to govern the country, you still don't really have much.[/QUOTE]
How about yet another track record?
Of the massive debt we've been left with every time Labor has been in government.
Then the Coalition comes in, sweeps up the mess, and Labor bring us back down again
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.