SFF Party

[barryb]

Keith , what's going on mate . Fooknng Lawsie is bagging us - news reporting SFF preferences going to Greens/Labour.
Am I having a Senior moment.
Barry

[Camel]

Only the VOTER can give out preferences, not the candidate or political party, anyone who says that there are preference deals done is an out and out liar or totally confused with federal voting systems. It is a deliberate ploy by other parties to muddy the waters and get people to make mistakes or avoid giving a vote to another party. In NSW the VOTER give out THIER preference, no one else.

[DSD]

Only the VOTER can give out preferences, not the candidate or political party, anyone who says that there are preference deals done is an out and out liar or totally confused with federal voting systems. It is a deliberate ploy by other parties to muddy the waters and get people to make mistakes or avoid giving a vote to another party. In NSW the VOTER give out THIER preference, no one else.

You are half correct


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[The Raven]

Fuck SPR and SPV. First past the post should always win.

Ooops, was I being political?... It's not like they are going to listen to us anyway!

[220]

You are half correct

No Mate camel pretty much had it covered for a NSW state election.
The LA is optional preferential voting you only need to place a 1 in one box for a valid vote. For a preference to flow anywhere you need to have put a 2 in another box. Then a 3, 4 or 5 if you wish to give further preferences.
The parties have no say on where your preferences go other than advising you with how to vote cards. In the by election here 6 months ago the preference allocation showed less than 20% of people followed the how to vote cards.

Barry the how to vote cards are decided very much by what gives the candidate the best chance of being elected.
The local SFFP here is recommending preferencing labour at 2 the sitting ind at 3 and no preferences to libs nat or greens.

[DSD]

Ok

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[kjd]

Keith , what's going on mate . Fooknng Lawsie is bagging us - news reporting SFF preferences going to Greens/Labour.
Am I having a Senior moment.
Barry

Hi Barry,

Lawsie is a dickhead and Latham is a liar:
https://www.shootersfishersandfarmers.o ... bor_greens

[kjd]

https://www.shootersfishersandfarmers.o ... ction_2019

[Flash Gordon]

If you are too dumb to allocate your own preferences you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

[Rabbitz]

If you are too dumb to allocate your own preferences you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

A fair point.

It should also be noted that voting below the line effectively gives you two votes:

A vote FOR someone; and

A vote AGAINST someone.

If we all put the sitting member last, then every seat would become marginal. In that case the parties (all of them) would need to start governing for the people not for themselves and their mates.

[Dunderi]

Personally I'm in favor of a societal collapse. That gives me castle doctrine, the ability to clear my *list* and no mortgage.

Failing that, I vote SFFP where I can and put blue/red/green last.

I hate the preference system, largely because how to vote simply isn't taught properly in schools.

Most people seem to think the jar with the most marbles wins... but they dont realise some jars get tipped into others.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[kickinback]

Personally I'm in favor of a societal collapse. That gives me castle doctrine, the ability to clear my *list* and no mortgage.

Failing that, I vote SFFP where I can and put blue/red/green last.

I hate the preference system, largely because how to vote simply isn't taught properly in schools.

Most people seem to think the jar with the most marbles wins... but they dont realise some jars get tipped into others.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Very good points Morgan. There isn’t a hint of explanation of how the entire political system works in most education systems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[DSD]

Now that you blokes have calmed down I would like your clarification on something,
220 talked about legislative assembly and by elections which is the small paper. My original post never disputed how that works and if you only number 1 box and they are the lowest ranked in the first or any subsequent count back after the lowest ranked has been dropped your vote is exhausted and does not count, hence why people who really want their say or dislike someone enough number every box, so they may keep getting counted until the end.


The legislative council (the big paper) however is slightly different if you vote below the line you give your preferences the way you want.
If you vote above the line you endorse the party to distribute your votes in the order they see fit or like, this is usually in the listed order the candidates are in below the line so if you dislike the second candidate but if the first 1 gets knocked out you have just voted for #2 whom you disliked.

My question. Is this not the party controlling preferences?
Does this not make the aforementioned statement about only the voter being able to give out preferences only half true as you effectively give your vote to the party to control or distribute?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Camel]

Well, no, it doesnt, this is to your last paragraph, because YOU, to voter actually, write the numbers on the ballot paper, no one else, so the votes go to where you want them. How to vote cards are an indication of where the party/person would LIKE you to vote, its not compulsory.

[Rabbitz]

Antony Green the famed election analyst wrote this piece, in which he describes the NSW system:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-11/ ... le/4951020

The part of interest is this:

The NSW reforms changed the meaning of a single '1' above the line. Instead of adopting a ticket of preferences, such a vote became a single vote for the selected parties. No further preferences beyond the party were implied.

Voters were given a new voting option to number groups above the line. So you could vote '1' Family First and '2' Liberal, and your vote would go to Family First, and if required later, would go to the Liberal Party. Parties can try to influence voters to fill in squares above the line, but they cannot control them.

The NSW above the line voting system advantages parties that actively campaign, as by distributing how-to-votes with preference recommendations, parties can influence preference flows. Parties that don't campaign for first preferences lose power to control how their preferences flow.

This system is appropriate for the NSW Legislative Council where 21 members are elected, but may need some tweaking for the Senate where only six members are elected. In NSW, only 20 per cent of voters have been using the above the line preference option, though the rate has varied by party. Its use would probably increase if introduced for federal elections.

NSW has had three elections using the new system, but only once have preferences changed the order candidates were elected - that was in 2011 when just enough voters filled in preferences to deprive Pauline Hanson of election to the final seat.

This would indicate that 'above the line' preferences become expired as the number of preferences that the voter adds run out. Thus the "voting above the line lets the party redistribute mantra" is wrong.

This is for NSW state elections, Federal, other states and local council elections have different rules (apparently).