Australian Federal Election thread - 2010 edition.

[JointStrikeFighter]

On a 2 party preferred basis the difference was 0.02% with 88.18% couted

OBVIOUSLY against the will of the people.

What is the confidence interval of that stat :V

[Stark]

Amusingly by retard boys argument Howard's entire governmental period was against the will of the people cause of their coalition with the national party.


DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT.

Fucking Liberals. Fucking Nationals, going against the will of the Australian people in exchange for political horse-trading. WE VOTED AGAINST LIBERAL, YOU TOSSERS!

Fucking Labor for not doing the sensible thing and not joining up with the Democrats senator to block supply.

Fuck you, politicians! Fuck you all!

A vote for John Howard was a vote against Jabba the hutt Beasley.

[LionElJonson]

Every time I see somebody mention "going in against the will of the people" in regards to the building of a governmental coalition, I feel the need to point out that, by definition, a coalition that has a majority governs with the consent of the people.

Yes, but the Independants aren't doing that; they're still Independant. They're just going "Fuck you, everyone who wanted Labor out of power; they've got much better bribes."

I sure do wish we had Abbott + Family First in government, that'd be great.

Never said anything about that; I just wanted the Coalition senator to join up with the Family First senator to block supply, so we could go back to the polls and get enough votes that the power-hungry backstabbing bitch can't bribe her way back into power.

Wow. I come in here this morning and someone has taken a giant idiotic shit all over the thread. Thanks Lion'el. Now we can be sure that you are in fact totally insane.

Firstly, it's Lion El Jonson, three words. If you must use one, call me Lion, or LionElJonson. I make sure to use everyone else's username correctly; please extend me the same courtesy, weemadando. Secondly, I have not taken a giant shit all over the thread; this thread is for commenting on the election, and that is exactly what I am doing.

Amusingly by retard boys argument Howard's entire governmental period was against the will of the people cause of their coalition with the national party.

No. You voted for one or the other, you voted for the Coalition as a whole. The parties are basically inseperable nowadays, anyway; it's why the NLP unified in Queensland.

[weemadando]

Can't you all just calm down and look at this sanely.

Clearly the fact that 88% of the electorate voted against the Greens means that all this talk of climate change must be bunk.

But then only 0.03% voted for the Climate Sceptics party. So that must mean that that near enough to 100% of people believe in climate change.

My head is hurting already.

And the fact that 98% of the population voted against Family First/Christian Democrat Party/Other good christian folk means that 98% of the population must be evil Muslims who want to burn bibles and behead good christian folk.

And then there's the problem that the Citizens Electoral Council only polled 0.06%. Is it really the case that so many people can hate monorails that much?

Clearly this election was decided by people voting against those that they hated. The results speak more clearly than anything I could write here.

[Stark]

Uh oh, Lionel Ritchie has declared the coalition a single party. I wonder when he'll tell the federal government?

[Stofsk]

A vote for John Howard was a vote against Jabba the hutt Beasley.

I thought Jabba the Hutt was Laurie Oaks.

According to Mark Latham.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Amusingly by retard boys argument Howard's entire governmental period was against the will of the people cause of their coalition with the national party.

No. You voted for one or the other, you voted for the Coalition as a whole. The parties are basically inseperable nowadays, anyway; it's why the NLP unified in Queensland.

This is even funnier because in the Howard days they certainly weren't the same party.

[JointStrikeFighter]

And then there's the problem that the Citizens Electoral Council only polled 0.06%. Is it really the case that so many people can hate monorails that much?

Monorails are the work of the devil

[weemadando]

Every time I see somebody mention "going in against the will of the people" in regards to the building of a governmental coalition, I feel the need to point out that, by definition, a coalition that has a majority governs with the consent of the people.

Yes, but the Independants aren't doing that; they're still Independant. They're just going "Fuck you, everyone who wanted Labor out of power; they've got much better bribes."

It couldn't possibly be because people in those electorates have had some quite valid concerns regarding communications and climate policy, both of which Abbott was sorely lacking.

I sure do wish we had Abbott + Family First in government, that'd be great.

Never said anything about that; I just wanted the Coalition senator to join up with the Family First senator to block supply, so we could go back to the polls and get enough votes that the power-hungry backstabbing bitch can't bribe her way back into power.

Wow. And here I was thinking that there wasn't enough vitriol already. And how would it have been any different if the Coalition and Family First had buddied up and formed gov't? Or would that be totally OK because in that case, your side would have won.

Wow. I come in here this morning and someone has taken a giant idiotic shit all over the thread. Thanks Lion'el. Now we can be sure that you are in fact totally insane.

Firstly, it's Lion El Jonson, three words. If you must use one, call me Lion, or LionElJonson. I make sure to use everyone else's username correctly; please extend me the same courtesy, weemadando. Secondly, I have not taken a giant shit all over the thread; this thread is for commenting on the election, and that is exactly what I am doing.

No problem , I'll make sure to call you correctly in the future. After all, it's not like anyone ever gets my user name wrong. Oh wait. Yes they do. People get it wrong quite often. And it's not like we need to reference the name in any referential manner here. After all we're debating the points, not the name.

But out of deference to you and to prove that I'm not a total bad guy, from here on in I will refer to you by your rightful title. Lion'El'Johnson.

And he's so cute too. Little DAngel that he is.

Amusingly by retard boys argument Howard's entire governmental period was against the will of the people cause of their coalition with the national party.

No. You voted for one or the other, you voted for the Coalition as a whole. The parties are basically inseperable nowadays, anyway; it's why the NLP unified in Queensland.

And that's why it's not a unified party everywhere else, because good luck getting anyone in country Victoria to vote for the Libs after Jeff Kennett fucked them good and hard for a decade. And good luck running as a Nationals candidate in Tasmania, where there might be a lot of rural space in the electorates, but there's also enough city dwellers to make a pure Nationals campaign a suicide mission. Sure, it's a nice way to shell game with the names and keep the numbers in parliament the same, but they are still two separate parties for those of us outside of Queensland, so we'll just keep playing pretend.

[Stark]

Do you think he knows why they actually unified in Queensland?

[Lusankya]

Never said anything about that; I just wanted the Coalition senator to join up with the Family First senator to block supply, so we could go back to the polls and get enough votes that the power-hungry backstabbing bitch can't bribe her way back into power.

I, for one, hope that the Coalition senators join up with Fielding to block supply, so we can go back to the polls and further reduce the number of seats held by the Liberals, to ensure that that power-hungry backstabbing misogynist doesn't have a chance of bribing his way into power.

Man, coalition supporters are hilarious when they complain about how Gillard came into power. It's almost as though their dude didn't find himself on the wrong side of a party policy vote, then hold a leadership spill to overturn that policy, and then, when the first leadership spill failed, held another leadership spill a few days later. I guess it's only backstabbing if you are skilful enough that you only need to plunge the knife in once.

And that's why it's not a unified party everywhere else, because good luck getting anyone in country Victoria to vote for the Libs after Jeff Kennett fucked them good and hard for a decade. And good luck running as a Nationals candidate in Tasmania, where there might be a lot of rural space in the electorates, but there's also enough city dwellers to make a pure Nationals campaign a suicide mission. Sure, it's a nice way to shell game with the names and keep the numbers in parliament the same, but they are still two separate parties for those of us outside of Queensland, so we'll just keep playing pretend.

Before the Nationals stopped existing in my state, they were in a coalition with Labor. I wonder what Pocket Jonson thinks of that.

[Stofsk]

Never said anything about that; I just wanted the Coalition senator to join up with the Family First senator to block supply, so we could go back to the polls and get enough votes that the power-hungry backstabbing bitch can't bribe her way back into power.

I, for one, hope that the Coalition senators join up with Fielding to block supply, so we can go back to the polls and further reduce the number of seats held by the Liberals, to ensure that that power-hungry backstabbing misogynist doesn't have a chance of bribing his way into power.

Man, coalition supporters are hilarious when they complain about how Gillard came into power. It's almost as though their dude didn't find himself on the wrong side of a party policy vote, then hold a leadership spill to overturn that policy, and then, when the first leadership spill failed, held another leadership spill a few days later. I guess it's only backstabbing if you are skilful enough that you only need to plunge the knife in once.

They have ridiculous double standards about this. Party in opposition is exempt from the tar-and-feather stigma of deposing a leader in a challenge apparently.

I mean come on, who hasn't made a leadership challenge? Both major parties do it. The only person I am aware of who hasn't is Bob Brown, since he's been leader of the Greens for basically forever.

[Lusankya]

And at least the challenge against Rudd was done cleanly. Aside from getting rid of a leader who I found tolerable and replacing him with one who was Tony Abbott, the way the Coalition got rid of Turnbull was disgusting in how it highlighted the divides within the party that are so deep that they can't even decide on policy without turning against itself. After that performance, the only way I could see myself voting for (preferencing) the Federal Coalition in the foreseeable future would be if I knew which faction of the party the candidate was from.

[bobalot]

Against the "will of the people"? Wow, LionElJonson you really are one stupid fuckwit.

The ALP is on course to win the 2PP (By a very small margin, about 50.2 to 49.8 ). Labor and the Greens got a whopping 49.74% of the primary vote (As of 7:12 PM Sydney Time).

Seriously, if people had known that Tony Abbott was out by $11 Billion dollars in his policy costings BEFORE the election, do you really think we would even be here discussing the forming of a minority government? I think Labor would have just hung onto a small majority.

The hilarious thing is that the Coalition needed ALL THREE of the independents to form government. According to LionElJonson's tortured logic, a Coalition government would be even more against the will of the people.

In the 1998 election the Coalition lost the two party preferred voted 49-51 and lost the primary vote but still held onto government. I didn't see Labor supporters going berserk then.

[Ford Prefect]

Yes, but the Independants aren't doing that; they're still Independant. They're just going "Fuck you, everyone who wanted Labor out of power; they've got much better bribes."

Maybe you missed it, but both parties secured 72 seats in the Lower House. Neither party had any real 'mandate of the people' at all.

[thejester]

Guys, don't you understand? Demanding parliamentary reform and infrastructure in your electorate = getting bribed. We should all be outraged.

[LionElJonson]

Never said anything about that; I just wanted the Coalition senator to join up with the Family First senator to block supply, so we could go back to the polls and get enough votes that the power-hungry backstabbing bitch can't bribe her way back into power.

I, for one, hope that the Coalition senators join up with Fielding to block supply, so we can go back to the polls and further reduce the number of seats held by the Liberals, to ensure that that power-hungry backstabbing misogynist doesn't have a chance of bribing his way into power.

Man, coalition supporters are hilarious when they complain about how Gillard came into power. It's almost as though their dude didn't find himself on the wrong side of a party policy vote, then hold a leadership spill to overturn that policy, and then, when the first leadership spill failed, held another leadership spill a few days later. I guess it's only backstabbing if you are skilful enough that you only need to plunge the knife in once.

They have ridiculous double standards about this. Party in opposition is exempt from the tar-and-feather stigma of deposing a leader in a challenge apparently.

It's not a double standard at all. Leadership challenges should only be made when the party is in the opposition, in my opinion; to do otherwise is to betray the trust of the Australian people who voted that PM in, and stab the rightful Prime Minister in the back.

Yes, but the Independants aren't doing that; they're still Independant. They're just going "Fuck you, everyone who wanted Labor out of power; they've got much better bribes."

Maybe you missed it, but both parties secured 72 seats in the Lower House. Neither party had any real 'mandate of the people' at all.

Yes, my point exactly. The amount of protest votes, however, make the fact that the current Labor government is unacceptable crystal clear.

[Stark]

How do you 'vote a PM in' in the Westminster system? I don't recall a 'Prime Minister' column on my ballot? Is it on the Senate form somewhere?

How do 'protest votes' indicate discontent with the current leadership, rather than a discontent with all involved parties? Why wouldn't people who were 'protesting' about Labor vote for their opponents?

[mr friendly guy]

Well now that not only have both the ALP and the liberals have been humbled, it turned out even better that Abbott missed out.

I may dislike what the ALP did (although they did do some good stuff as well), but Abbott is a homophobic, racist bigot who is a climate change denier to boot. Not to mention his bare chested Abbott in speedos spread. Is he trying to do the same type of self promotion Vladimir Putin does with his bare chested Putin pics?

I think the momentum turned against Abbott when it was revealed the Coalition funding had a hole so large they could fit Joe Hockey through.

In any event the obligatory gloating.

Oh, and remember, our glorious laws led to the Gillard led minority government. Anyone who doesn't like it can get the hell out of my country. Oops, I forgot that line only works when the right wing wankers toss it up to defend whatever they like.

[Stofsk]

It's not a double standard at all.

Yes it is. A leader of a party is a leader of a party, it makes no difference whether that party is in or out of government. To decry Julia Gillard as a backstabber is unbelievable when your main opposition party deposed its leader barely more than half a year ago, and in controversial circumstances as Lusankya described. It's not like Turnbull is innocent of it either, he challenged Nelson for the role of leader of the Liberals too. And Kevin Rudd became leader in opposition and then went on to become PM by challenging Kim Beazley. Furthermore Kevin Rudd's popularity was in the dumps when Gillard took over, as was most other leaders who were replaced. Nelson was a joke, Beazley was unelectable, and Turnbull was not preferred over Kevin Rudd either. So the reasons for leaders being replaced is at least consistent.

Both of the major parties will issue leadership challenges if and when it suits them. It's not like it's totally unprecedented either for a sitting Prime Minister to be deposed of by its own party, it happened to John Gorton (though he actually resigned but the point is a leadership challenge showed him how tenuous his position was when it came down to a tied vote, and he likely thought it more dignified to leave on his own terms than get kicked out in another vote).

[Twoyboy]

Yes, my point exactly. The amount of protest votes, however, make the fact that the current Labor government is unacceptable crystal clear.

You must be one of the stupidest people on earth. Even with the huge amount of protest votes, which were mostly a protest against the fucking system since, as has previously been reasoned, Gillard was quite within her right to challenge, Labor still got as many fucking seats as the coalition. And by the way the challenge was made when Rudd's 2PP polling fell below 50%, by any of the definitions that you are using, it was essentially the will of the fucking people that removed him (even if I don't agree with it personally).

Following that, the protest votes are a temporary backlash. If we held another election tomorrow, plenty of those people would, having seen how close things were, actually vote Labor this time. How do you explain the coalition suddenly getting a higher vote a few weeks later? Magic? More lying?

[bobalot]

Yes, but the Independants aren't doing that; they're still Independant. They're just going "Fuck you, everyone who wanted Labor out of power; they've got much better bribes."

Maybe you missed it, but both parties secured 72 seats in the Lower House. Neither party had any real 'mandate of the people' at all

Yes, my point exactly. The amount of protest votes, however, make the fact that the current Labor government is unacceptable crystal clear.

Are you fucking retarded? How do you know that those protest votes were against Labor alone? There was major discontent with both major parties.

I also noticed you ignored my example of the 1998 election where Labor won the primary vote and the two party preferred and still didn't govern. You know why? It is the party that can get a majority of seats in the house of representatives that is able to govern according to the constitution (I suggest you read it).

[bobalot]

It appears LionElJonson has run away from the thread after finding out he doesn't understand the constitution of his own country or even how the parliamentary system works.

[weemadando]

Has anyone else been basking in the warm glow of Wilson Tuckey's spectacular supernova?

[mr friendly guy]

On a 2 party preferred basis the difference was 0.02% with 88.18% couted

OBVIOUSLY against the will of the people.

What is the confidence interval of that stat :V

I am pretty sure concepts like the confidence interval don't apply when you already count the ENTIRE population you're studying as opposed to a sample size of that population.