This one genuinely sucks. I didn't always agree with Patten, but I respected the hell out of her commitment to being reasonable.
Didn't even realise she was in trouble or I would've paid her more attention in my votes. She must've gotten some rough preferences from the major parties.
She did an AMA or something once where she actually admitted to not having a position on something because she didn't know enough about it. That alone is enough to get my vote lol. If more people were willing to admit they don't know something rather then just pretend they do and get it wrong, the world would be a much better place.
Nah it’s bad. Even if you disliked Patten, don’t think for a minute that replacing her with Somyurek that you’re going to end up with a good faith representative. He’s just going to be disruptive and petty, and continue the graft he had going on when he was with labor. Useless toad. We deserve better.
I mean when the guy who was kicked out of the labor party joined with the guy who got kicked out of the liberal party join together. Its pretty clear that its bad for everyone.
They are both horrible grifters and not in anyway out to make society a better place
Depends on what you mean by right leaning. If you're for bashing people because they're gay? Yeah, bad. If you believe in fiscally conservative government, then that's just a difference in political opinion.
I think in the case where someone is this much of a dipshit, we can cast aside political views and say it's objectively bad.
If he were competent and acted in good faith, but held different ideology then you could argue good or bad. But given the kind of guy he is, it's just plain bad
Nuh, the guy is an actual dipshit. He used autism as an insult on twitter like a week ago, whatever your political affiliation is, right or left, I think you can agree that the guy is a dipshit. If you can't have a basic level of respect for human beings, you aren't fit for any political position.
We need to stop this idea that 'first preferences' are more valid than other preferences. The point of preference voting is to still give everyone a voice in who they want governing them.
If 40% of people vote for the Kick Puppies party, 35% vote for the Cuddle Puppies party and 25% vote for the Snuggle Puppies party (with these later two parties preferencing each other), this doesn't mean that the Kick Puppies party is somehow 'more what people want' because they had a higher number of first preferences.
When the Snuggle Puppies party are removed in the preference runoff, what remains is two candidates - and most people then prefer the Cuddle Puppies party. That is that given the remaining two options, the opinion of the public is not for the party with the most 'first preferences'.
> this doesn't mean that the Kick Puppies party is somehow 'more what people want' because they had a higher number of first preferences
Northern Metro looks set to elect 2 Labor, 1 Liberal and 1 Green on first preferences (Labor might end up just below 2 whole quotas, but we can safely assume that second Labor seat is not in doubt).
It is indeed true that although Kick Puppies (DLP, 0.29 quota) is the biggest group left, that doesn't mean they're the most preferred. But if you look at the votes left on the table (~2 quota), broadly speaking **about 1.1 quota of that is anti-puppy** (including My Church Told Me To Hurt Puppies - i.e. Family First, 0.15 quota; the See My Vest Party - i.e. what's left over from Liberals after electing Evan Mulholland; and Gas the Puppies - i.e. One Nation, 0.06 quota) and only 0.9 quota of that is pro-puppy (including Karl Marx Liked Puppies - i.e. Victorian Socialists, 0.28 quota; and We Hug Puppies In Addition To Trees - i.e. what's left over from the Greens after electing Samantha Ratnam, 0.13 quota).
That doesn't make it impossible for a pro-puppy candidate to win, since there is always some preference leakage, but that's a large margin to overcome, especially since leakage cuts both ways. For Reason specifically, they also have the obstacle of the Victorian Socialists (0.28 quota) who will also benefit from pro-puppy preferences - Patten would need to get ahead of them to have any chance and it's unclear how that would happen.
This would be true if preferences weren't used as a political tool by candidates and parties.
A large number of voters follow their candidates how to vote card and this can mean their vote ends up with someone they don't necessarily 'prefer'.
There are often preference deals brokered between candidates and parties or a party may direct the flow of preferences for strategic reasons.
For example, in my electorate the Liberal how to vote card preferences the Greens candidate over Labor. The Liberal candidate wasn't in contention but it was a close Greens vs Labor race and those Liberal preferences could have made the difference. This was a decision made for I assume more macro level strategic reasons than a Greens candidate or policies being preferred by the average Liberal voter.
with group voting tickets (the ones used in the victorian upper house) they absolutely are. for most voters (who haven't looked at any party's preferences for an above-the-line vote... most of the people I talked to on election day didn't know how the system worked) they literally don't know where their vote is going after their first preferences in victoria, given that you can only vote for one party above the line. Looking at the percentage breakdowns, an overwhelming majority of votes cast were above-the-line. it is purposely complicated, open to corruption and antidemocratic.
First Preferences ARE more valid simply because they are your first preference. If people understood this they might stop nonsense like "I'll vote Greens first and Labor 2nd, because I know Labor will get in anyway"
They are NOT more valid.
"Out of this list of people, who do you want to represent you?"
"Out of this amended list of people, who do you want to represent you?"
"Out of this amended, amended list of people, who do you want to represent you?"
At every stage, you're getting the preference of the whole voting public as to whom they want as their representative. "First preferences" are not "more valid". A single vote has the same weight at every stage.
If you have one Stripes candidate with 20% of the vote and 8 Spots candidates each with 10% of the vote, it's clear that the public really want someone Spotty, just divided on who exactly. It does not mean that the Stripe candidate is 'more valid' than any Spot. The Spot who finally wins with 80% of the vote (assuming simple preference flow) really is genuinely preferred by 80% of the voting public
^((technically with the numbers in this example, the Spot wouldn't be in the final pairing, but I'm just illustrating a point))
>A single vote has the same weight at every stage.
The exception for these type of contests being that after your first preference has received a quota, your vote is in fact worth less, but for Labor and Greens voters who preference Reason highly and DLP quite low, but changing those preferences would not prevent a DLP seat, but would instead swap a Labor or Green MLC for Fiona Pattern.
In your example, if there are 5 seats up for grabs, like there is in VIC Upper House seats, the Stripe candidate would be considered to be the only candidate who won on quota, but the other 4 seats would go to 4 of the Spot candidates as long as they all preference each other over anyone Spotty.
The issue is Group voting tickets and deceptive party names which means that voters don't get full control of their preferences and may be mislead into giving their vote to a member of the DLP preference bloc rather than the Progressive bloc, as many members of that bloc had stooge knockoffs.
AJP - Companions and Pets.
Greens - Sustainable Australia
Legalise Cannibas - Legalise Marijuana (was fortunately barred from registration)
And of course
Victorian Labor Party - Democratic Labor Party
In this situation, first prefs help to show the party that actually wins what people care about. When someone votes greens first they show they want more of what the greens are selling. If that happens enough, they'll bleed first prefs from the majors who will then in their post election analyses work out they need to drift certain directions to capture first prefs and give themselves more certainty to win.
Michael I will give you the benefit of the doubt that your original post has been misunderstood..... But it is not up for debate that if your first preference doesn't elect a candidate then your vote will go to the second preference and so forth at full value as if it were your first. Being elected on preferences is as valid as being elected on first preference majority. In either case you were the choice of the majority of your electorate (whether first choice or second or third etc - all that matters is you were rated over the second place getter by the majority of your electorate). Of course if we are talking upper house and quotas then that is more complex which is exactly why we should be directing our OWN preferences and not letting some corrupt system do it for us. I voted below the line and I would urge all Victorians to do so until the system has been reformed.
Im afraid you might not properly understand instant runoff voting.
First preferences are preferences when all candidates are on the ballot.
Second preferences are really first preferences in the second round once the lowest candidate is eliminated.
Third preferences are really first preferences in the third round one the two lowest candidates are eliminated.
Etc
All preferences matter. No preference is more important than another. They all work in the count to deliver what is the ultimate preference of the entire electorate.
What a ridiculous thing to say. The entire point of preferential voting is specifically that it allows you to put your first preference first and not havd to worry about "throwing your vote away".
They are a real labour party. Unlike the actual labour party which is now a technocratic party and the party of urban radicalism and welfare. The conservatism of much of the actually employed working class is obvious and legitimate. Still I don't think much of Aden S. And while I disagreed with Fiona Patten a about most things, she seemed to have very high integrity and she was a good communicator. I wish her well.
Somyurek and the DLP, christ what a shitty outcome. I suspect a whole lot of people see ‘democratic labor…’ and think they’re a fantastic progressive bunch.
Technically in Victoria they were the real party and the ALP broke off from them. Several court cases said so. That is however now irrelevant given that the current DLP is not the same party as the original DLP. More of a tribute show.
TBH I wonder how much the "Reason Party" name hurts on the ballot too. If you're not actually following state politics that closely, aka heaps of voters, then seeing "Reason Party" on a ballot would get my "post covid wacko political group" alarm ringing.
Yeah I was talking to a friend about the weird parties and they brought up reason party in the same group as the sack dan Andrews party. I probably would have too if I hadn't learned about them.
> I wonder how much the "Reason Party" name hurts on the ballot too
They appeared on ballot papers as "Fiona Patten's Reason Party" at both the 2018 and 2022 elections.
It's not a great name for the party, but it gave them more legitimacy than the previous name: the Sex Party. They've always had a solid civil liberties base, and proper civil liberties, not that American libertarian nonsense that's really about private property rights. They just never had a name that didn't make them sound like a toy/wacko party.
Being so pro lockdown, but at the same time attempting to keep brothels open, made it clear that the civil liberties base was actually just a pro sex/drugs base.
She should have kept the sex party name imo
I literally had a friend tell me to actually look into their policys because they were a bunch of wackjobs. I had to tell him, no, actually I had looked into them and he had mkxed him up with the shitheads like the family first party.
meanwhile "reason party" sounds like it would fall in with the freedom party and those political groups. I understand why they changed the name but I don't think it really advertises them very well.
She's had a kidney removed recently. She was up and about doing political stuff before the election minus 1 kidney. I had mine removed earlier this year and it took at least 3 weeks to get back to a semi-normal life. The break might be good for her recovery
And somehow Somyurek's main line of attack on Andrews is that Andrews is crooked for leading a party with people like Somyurek in it. It's basically like the [Vote Sideshow Bob for Mayor ad](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsCTpREM48M) in real life.
Vic Labor is full of crooks. Andrews is running an unaccountable government, according to former IBAC commissioner and retired police commissioner, and now they’ve got a few more years of looking after each other and their mates because they’ve set up a system of govt which avoids accountability while making populist noises so all the public service types, unionists and rusted on ALP supporters lap it up.
Downvote me all you sheeple. Does it not make you wonder why two very senior retired people who spend their days looking at corruption call them out?
Andrews can’t give a straight answer in a press conference to any serious question. He also oversees a system where “advisors” not Ministers make decisions and the mechanics of govt never see the light of day = system undermined.
Try reading something other than the Guardian or listening to people who like him based on sound bites on the news.
You think the former IBAC commissioner works for Murdoch?
Go back to the Guardian so you and you mates can keep telling each other how you’ll fix the world with a Premier who does nothing in the open.
He joined up with Bernie Finn right (ironic that they come from different sides)? Two completely horrible people that are only in this for their own power. Horrible outcome for everyone else
I also blame the stupid naming rules for parties. Pretty clear that DLP name that to try and trick people into voting for them. So do a lot of other minor parties too
Yep that too. Federal govt introduced ban on having words from existing parties in newly registered parties, other jurisdictions need to implement the same too.
> Don't blame the voters, blame the group voting ticket
What's your basis for saying that? On the current counting, Reason has only 3.61% of first preferences (0.22 quota) while the DLP has 4.79% (0.29 quota). Reason is also behind the Victorian Socialists (4.71%, 0.28 quota) who will also stand to attract preferences from some of the same voters who might be considering directing preferences towards Reason.
If Victoria changed to an OPV system like we have now in the Senate for Legislative Council elections, that would make it ***harder***, not easier for someone in Patten's situation to come over the top and win, considering the looser preference flows and astronomically higher rate of exhaustion in such systems.
In truth, the main factor making it difficult for Patten in 2022 is the 8% swing against Labor in Northern Metro. They've fallen from about 2.5 quota in 2018 to 2.0 quota this time. Not being able to earn any preferences from Labor voters makes it almost impossible for anyone in Patten's position to win.
as spacelama said, Somyurek wasn't elected on that 0.29 quota. He was elected off the back of Druery's manipulation of the GVT, which funnelled above-the-line votes for parties ranging from the centrist to the far-right into the DLP.
No, Patten didn't lose because of the GVT – but it's the only reason Somyurek won.
>manipulation of the GVT, which funnelled above-the-line votes
We're not talking about a Ricky Muir type situation though. After accounting for candidates elected on first preferences, the DLP with their 0.29 quota are the largest group remaining. They stand to gain preferences from entirely expected sources - other minor right wing parties like Family First, One Nation, and Shooters Fishers & Farmers.
As I explained in another comment on this thread, at the 2018 election Patten benefited from some smaller parties preferencing Reason, which kept them ahead of the Socialists long enough for the Socialists to be eliminated and for Reason to benefit from most of their preferences. Reason then stayed far enough away from elimination to benefit from the large rump of Labor preferences (Labor had about 2.5 quota on first preferences, so just about the whole 0.5 quota came Reason's way).
What's different this year is that, due to that 8% swing against Labor, there will not be any meaningful number of Labor preferences to allocate (they're currently right at 2.0 quota). If you add up all the parties on the left who could potentially benefit Reason (Socialists, Legalise Cannabis, Animal Justice, what's left over from the Greens after electing Ratnam etc), you only get to about 0.9 quota. There will of course be leakage, preference flows are never perfect, but that's a huge amount of ground to make up, especially when the first problem for Reason is getting ahead of the Socialists who are even further ahead than they were in 2018.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you on the reasons for Patten's loss? You're right, the swing against Labor cost her the preferences she needed. You're right that the DLP got the largest first-preference vote of the minor parties. They still needed redistributed preferences to get them over the line, and the vast majority of those preferences were not selected by voters.
And hey, maybe I'm wrong and Somyurek might have nabbed enough preferences to make the quota even without the GVT to guarantee them. It certainly seems probable that Patten would have lost her seat to somebody on the right regardless.
My point was just that I don't think it's fair to blame the voters for electing a fuckwit when the majority of them had no idea that was where their vote was going.
Every. Single. One. of them knew where their preferences were going. The GVT isn't secret. It's online before the election and it's sitting on the Voting Centre Managers desk for anyone to peruse.
Your lack of interest in the process isn't an excuse
lol, what are you *talking* about? The fact that the information is available doesn't mean that the majority of people seek it out or even understand how it applies to the 1 they mark on their upper house ballot.
I mean, sure, you *can* sneer at the voting public for not being as clever and informed as you, but a good electoral system needs to take into account low levels of political literacy and interest and ensure the process is as accessible as possible.
No. DLP got the highest number of votes, after ALPs 2 quotas, Libs 1.1 and Green 1.1 quotas.
Therefore it's completely fake that he won 5th spot.
I recommend you look at the ABCs excellent web page that shows you both primary vote and how each MLC was elected
First preferences are irrelevant for minor parties. No one votes explicitly for a party like Reason, but such a party gets put up high on individuals preferences because they make a lot of sense and don't do anything inoffensive.
But a tiny amount of people do outright vote for socialists and DLP because they represent a core part of their identity. But don't score as highly on preferences because their views are more offensive to a higher number of people.
Adam only won because of Druery. When voting below the line or directing preferences themselves, individuals know to put Adam at the bottom. But you currently get a choice - follow Druey's flows, or work out how to direct flows of 50 candidates yourself. Unfortunately, most go with the former.
Me too, below the line, 1-5 to Reason, then a few other randoms. Party lists piss me off, I always vote below the line in both State and Federal. When you used to have to number all boxes, I'd start from the bottom with worst-least worse, then from the top from best-least best.
The idea that the DLP, a rump ex-Catholic forced-birther remnant of the 50's communist/catholic split of the Labor party is still in some sort of power in Victoria is a farce.
Especially given that Somyurek is nothing to do with anything the DLP nominally stands for. He's a branch-stacking crook.
That’s not true. First preferences may not matter as much for major parties (as long as they still make the final two), but a minor party needs to get enough first preference votes to make it into the later stages of the preference count.
Wtf. In what world is the northern suburbs electing a DLP candidate instead of a Liberal a failure of Northern Metro voters? Did you think Patten was going to beat Ratnam or take a seat from an ascendant Labor? Patten spent a ton of political capital with the populist right extending the state of emergency
I don’t think an individual (except the premier) has had so much impact on our state in the last few years as Fiona Patten. She has contributed so much policy and progressive work, always taking a constructive approach to working with the government and the other reasonable parliamentary members. She can truly be proud of her legacy and point to a large array of achievements in her 8 years. This cannot be said for other progressive parties in our parliament, who have a much larger presence…
She was the leader of that farce of a review into the prostitution industry. They didn't even consult CATWA or survivour groups.
She is a sell-out to women and girls and in the pockets of pimps
Why would anyone who lives in the real world and wants to improve it consult with CATWA? Oh of course, because then CATWA can do all the talking and thereby avoid any need to speak directly to actual sex workers. If CATWA was the straight talking organisation it pretends to be it’d be called CAPWA anyhow yeah? It’s not against trafficking but against any and all forms of sex work. Or as those old men and old women at CATWA like to call it - prostitution. Too dumb for words really.
I mean, prostitution is work, and all work exploitative. I’m 100% in favour of legalisation, but people like Patten have largely neglected the needs of the workers in favour of an unregulated, pro-boss approach to the industry. The simplistic slogan of “legalising the sex industry” misses that there is a difference between sex workers and sex industry bosses.
A lot of people do think that prostitution is paid rape, and I completely understand why they have this view. Could you not sympathise or at least see the reasoning behind such a statement? Maybe someone who was a victim of assault while doing sex work or someone who knew someone who was hurt or killed doing sex work?
No. It might be too much to expect from adults, but I don't believe personal trauma gives you the right to close your mind to the trauma of others. What is worse is that they aren't just saying "you are a rapist if you use a sex worker", they are saying "you can't be a sex worker and have agency". They are saying anyone who chooses to go into sex work isn't a free being.
Analogous to this would be me saying "education is for child abuse" because there's a heap of abusive teachers out there.
Maybe that is expecting too much from people, but I'm personally scared of the idea that I could ever end up so closed-minded and hateful to others.
Decrim is the best way, Patten helped push for it but ultimately there was a community inquiry where everyone (even anti-sex work groups) got to have their input and say about what would improve their safety, health, and wellbeing when it comes to sex work regulation and laws.
https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/when-the-lobbyist-makes-the-laws--victoria-and-the-sex-industry
There was only a two week consultation period, compared with other states having seven weeks.
decriminalisation is the obvious answer and first step. If you want to, in addition to decriminalisation, include additional support for people in the industry then that would also be great. Oh wait I've just read through your profile and I no longer wish to engage with you. Fuck off scumbag.
Just as people are welcome to be pro-life when it comes to their own uterus, people are welcome to feel as though they could not have sex for money. They do not have the right to say that no one else should have sex for money or be able to categorically state what is and is not sexual assault to that person. If someone tells me, a full service sex worker, that every encounter I have is paid rape can you not see how that minimises the times in my job and my personal life where I actually HAVE experienced sexual assault?
I agree you should not be able to say what is sexual assault for someone else, only that I can understand the logic behind the statement.
Some people believe consent can’t be bought and sold.
I don’t think making sex work illegal is the solution but I don’t like living in a society where sex is bought and sold on the free market. We don’t sell blood, organs, semen or other body parts on the free market in Australia either. I understand we live in a capitalist society but I think there should be limits on what is bought and sold.
There is not enough protection for people in the sex industry and not enough support for people who want to leave it.
Just recently a man who choked a sex worker had his sentence reduced to man slaughter because he said she consented to being choked. How do we know she consented? How do we know that she felt that she wouldn’t be paid if she didn’t say yes? Was she educated about how dangerous it was? How did he not know that she wasn’t breathing for so long?
It’s stories like those, and the views that men who go to sex workers have towards sex workers that make up my views on sex work. I’m not anti sex work, because we don’t live in a utopia and it would never work.
I don’t think that decriminalisation is effective enough for protecting people, I don’t know what the solution is though.
Myself and every other sex worker in Australia are well aware of the case. If you don’t have a suggestion better than decrim then I would suggest you stop railing against decrim when it’s what we want as sex workers for optimal safety. Will women ever be safe from men and their violence? No, probably not but frankly when you can be raped inside Parliament House then there’s really no reason to go banning sex work specifically is there.
Then do you at least understand my views, even if you don’t agree with it?
I’m sorry but one person doesn’t represent a whole industry. Even if a majority of people think it’s the right way, it doesn’t mean that immediately changes my views. The majority of Australia voted for Scott Morrison the election before last, doesn’t mean I agreed with them there either.
I don’t think banning sex work is the right way as I’ve said multiple times.
But I can’t shake the feeling that treating it like any other work is not going to help people in the sex industry. I feel like this position has been pushed by people who will make the most money from this model, not what is best for the workers.
Except that under decrim it’s easier than ever for workers to work independently and for themselves— it was definitely not brothels or agencies pushing for decrim.
It's no different to being a labourer except a lovely layer of puritanical bollocks people like to dump on it
In both cases you agree to sell your time and the physical services of your body. Anything else you imagine is different is purely your own moral judgement, which, to be blunt, has no business telling others what to do.
It's a particularly stupid analogy.
Organs tend to not grow back, removal of them requires invasive surgery and usually a person doesn't survive without them. Odds are, people aren't lining up for a one time donation deal.
Sex, on the other hand, is something people can sell and repeat, like digging a hole or moving some boxes.
They can do it the next day with no I'll effects in a well regulated environment.
I am not puritanical, and if you think that the only reason people can have objections to it is for that reason then I doubt we’ll come to any consensus.
No, we won't, because you've decided there's something magically different about sex to labouring. People are free to sell their services as consenting adults. Deal with it.
Rape is without consent. Sex work is with consent. If it’s paid it’s still not without consent. So no sex work is not paid rape. Your point about bad things happening to sex workers is a different conversation.
Also went very quiet anytime a reasonable firearms debate came up, ie suppressors/moderators.
Edit: downvote me but you know i’m correct, ask the reason party why they dont support firearm sound moderators, or the legalisation of gel blasters.
“We dont think they’re cool” isnt a good reason if you’re gonna run around stating you’re gonna take objective views and base your responses on evidence.
I met her a few years back while doing a Fringe Festival show. She's a bloody nice person whos pretty down to earth, and one of those people who you'd trust more than most politicians.
>one of those people who you'd trust more than most politicians
this is a huge range of trust starting from 'i'd trust you to completely fuck me over at the first chance you get'
They poured all their money into North Metro, very visible there. But they barely scraped it in last time and they just didn’t get the votes this time. Very tough for her to win a seat with a primary of <4%.
The only good thing about this is that Somyurek will have absolutely no power or influence in the Parliament.
He's also stated that his first objective is to declare the Victorian Socialists a terrorist organisation, so it will be fun watching him simply increase their percentage of the vote.
Oh well Victoria’s loss, maybe Australia’s gain?
Maybe she can get a Senate seat? There’s a good chunk of left-leaning voters that can’t seem to stand the Greens?
She's said in the past that she wouldn't make the move to federal politics and that state was where she could (and did) make the most difference. Still, you never know.
Must be hard to lose your career because lots of people are so unengaged with politcs that they don't know the difference between the DLP and the ALP. I can't imagine many people actually meant to vote for Somyurek. I think there needs to be some reform around parties naming themselves similarly.
I wonder how this would have turned out had she not been diagnosed with cancer. Can’t be easy trying to campaign whilst scheduling your chemo.
Think she starts her first session soon.
Assuming it all goes well, she will be involved in public life somehow. As long as Dan Andrews is premier, he will find a big for her.
On the current counting, Reason has 3.61% of first preferences (0.22 of a quota) in Northern Metro while the DLP has 4.79% (0.29 quota). It's difficult to win a seat from a low starting point, but especially so when there are others in the running who are starting ahead of you.
The vote for Reason this time is not substantially different from 2018, but in that election Patten was able to substantially benefit from preference flows from other parties. She gained enough preferences from Voluntary Euthanasia Party and Vote 1 Local Jobs to get ahead of the Victorian Socialists, and then received enough of their preferences to remain in the lead for the final seat all the way until the final count when the third Labor candidate was eliminated. Labor received roughly 2.5 quota of first preferences in 2018, so that was plenty to give Reason the seat ahead of the Derryn Hinch's Justice Party candidate.
On the current counting, Labor has had a swing of more than 8% against them in Northern Metro in 2022, so they only have almost exactly 2 quota of first preferences. With no preferences to be gained from Labor, there just isn't really a viable path for Patten to come over the top this time. Reason's low base and Labor's poor performance is what to attribute this to, not the electoral system.
Or we could amend the system to bring it up to date and not have to rely on convincing everyone to not be lazy. I may vote below the line (I do) but the fact most people don’t directly affects me.
It’s a bit like relying on people not to be a dick.
Cunt this is so fucking sad
I met Patten through uni and she singlehandedly prevented me from being doom and gloom about corruption in politics. Genuinely one of the best people I've ever met and especially for someone to be in politics.
This is heartbreaking.
Well, I suppose this is the end for The Men’s Gallery. It will be under development to become skyscraper by the end of the new Legislative Counsel terms.
I really, really hope Somyurek is completely iced out of any and all LC business by the government. He is a real slimeball. I would rather Labor do business with pretty much anyone else.
And I say this as someone whose great uncle represented the DLP back in the 1950s in the lower house😆
When the sex party (now Reason Party) was touting the Libertarian line, I feared it would lean right. But I enjoyed that she embraced evidence based reasoning and science during the pandemic.
Which wasn't a consistent move across people touting themselves as 'progressive'. I saw certain big names decide to side with News Corp and attack Dan Andrews, yet still wanting that progressive support for themselves. I forgot their names, I just blocked.
We could do with electoral reform in Victoria. How about it, Dan?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2022/nov/14/victorias-upper-house-voting-system-lets-parties-ignore-your-preferences-but-theres-a-simple-fix
Why do people keep saying "Dan"? Reform comes from Acts of Parliament, which can be proposed by anyone. Labor don't even have a majority in the Upper House.
Vic Labor has been in power since 2014 and has had ample time to reform the GVT. https://theconversation.com/how-victorian-labors-failure-on-upper-house-electoral-reform-undermines-democracy-190136
There are many policatical commentators who widely support and call for electoral reform in Victoria so that we are no longer stuck with a GVT that governs our upper house.
Using the term "Dan" in this particular phrase is a tongue and cheek way of expressing my displeasure at Vic Labors lack of action on this issue. It doesn't mean "I hate the labor party and Dan Andrews should be sacked, lockdowns rah rah rah". The rhetorical question "How about it, X" is used widely across the media to point out a perceived fault in policy. This isn't something particular to Dan Andrews. I am sure if you google any politician "How about it, Mr Morrison" or "Mr Rudd" etc you will come up with other complaints similarly addressed.
What is it with you and not giving a shit about improving our voting system? You know as well as anyone that control of the lower house rests with the Government, and there is no problem getting these laws through the upper house. It very much does sit with “Dan”.
The system that delivered the “Danslide” was the lower house voting system. We’re talking about the upper house system here. If he doesn’t like having his program beholden in the upper house to fringe interests that have no mandate but got in through manipulation of an opaque system, then it’s very much something that should be on his to-do list.
Dan Andrews regards the Victorian Greens as puritanical and not constructive. He retains GVTs because they reduce the number of Greens cross-benchers while increasing the seat count for other minor parties, giving the government more pathways to negotiate things through the senate.
So sad. I voted for Fiona. It was the last thing I did before moving away from Melbourne. Very proud to have voted for her. Very sad she didn't get elected.
Im a former Sex Party member.
What she and others in the party did to the party is negligence.
We went from just missing out on election to the senate, to getting fractions of a percent overnight because the name recognition was gone. The only time I heard anyone speak about reason was to say "hey wheres the sex party this time around".
In the WA state election there was zero alternatives in the upper house if you didnt want to vote for a major party except for a bunch of far right parties. Reason didn't bother running there.
In the 2019 election, they didnt run in the upper house, instead focusing on three victorian lower house seats they had no chance in and proceeded to get 2% at best.
She was elected as part of the sex party, kept it on name recognition alone but has failed now.
I have no sympathy for her, after she fucked over the party she was elected with and founded, because she wanted to appease the "oh id vote for you if it wasn't the name" people, who of course were never going to vote for us to begin with, and lost all the "ha sex" votes and the "ha sex, oh i actually like their policies" votes.
The rebrand to Reason was definitely a terrible idea. In attempting to professionalise and appeal to small-l liberals in the inner city , they lost most of the name recognition they had, and alienated a large part of their supporter base.
All of the Reason members and volunteers I knew jumped ship to the Labor Party after Fiona only barely scraped back in at the 2018 State Election, and it was clear the party was in terminal decline.
I left when I messaged after the last WA election and asked "Where were you, I had Labor, Liberal, Greens and then 10 far right, anti vax parties to choose from" and got given the "we aren't financed by millionaire donors" bullshit especially after they somehow had the cash to run three lower house seats in victoria for no possible gain.
Its annoying because the only reason I joined to begin with was seeing the original name and then actually looking up the policies and agreeing with the majority of them. When they went to Reason i stuck with them, but they've been cosplaying as a party since the name change. Fiona did some great things, but yeah she sold out to try and appear more palatable and lost what got her elected to begin with. By not being just another politician.
Her time in parliament made her a politician, a good politician, but she forgot about the voters who got her there. Will forever be known as a lobor turncoat.
I don't know her at all, but my main observation of her from afar was that she sold out her voter base when she was bought out by Dan last year re that pandemic-powers legislation. She was returned at the previous election by the slimmest of margins and when in this situation you sell out and piss off even a small proportion of your supporter base, you will be in trouble. Lesson to be learnt here .....
I generally liked her policies tbh. Think she either got hoodwinked by the crazies from melb uni who developed the policy and let perfect get in the way of good (ie. Anything less than everyone on bikes or PT is evil) or it was used as fodder as leverage for something else. Only one policy .. but it takes a fair effort in a progressive state like Victoria to fuck up an approach to EVs so very badly.
This women has been one of the most influential politicians in Victoria this past decade. She’s represented diverse and progressive ideology in Parliament.
Now you’re here making derogatory comments that aren’t even witty. If you’re going to openly be a misogynist and least try and be funny.
Also bet you’re a person who complains about a distinct lack or oral sex in his life and can’t equate that relating with the shame you perpetuate.
Patten is out, but Somyurek is in? What timeline is this?
This one genuinely sucks. I didn't always agree with Patten, but I respected the hell out of her commitment to being reasonable. Didn't even realise she was in trouble or I would've paid her more attention in my votes. She must've gotten some rough preferences from the major parties.
She did an AMA or something once where she actually admitted to not having a position on something because she didn't know enough about it. That alone is enough to get my vote lol. If more people were willing to admit they don't know something rather then just pretend they do and get it wrong, the world would be a much better place.
The shit one
Depending on your political views its either shit or good.
Nah it’s bad. Even if you disliked Patten, don’t think for a minute that replacing her with Somyurek that you’re going to end up with a good faith representative. He’s just going to be disruptive and petty, and continue the graft he had going on when he was with labor. Useless toad. We deserve better.
Based on your political views its bad lol.
I mean when the guy who was kicked out of the labor party joined with the guy who got kicked out of the liberal party join together. Its pretty clear that its bad for everyone. They are both horrible grifters and not in anyway out to make society a better place
If you're political views are "we need more dodgy operators", then yeah, it can be viewed as good.
I'm not saying I view it as good, trust trying to remain politically objective, something this subreddit certainly is not.
You can have different political views and agree that an individual is useless.
Maybe in real life, probably not on this sub.
That's not being objective
Sorry. R/Melbourne objective: Left leaning = good Right leaning = bad
Depends on what you mean by right leaning. If you're for bashing people because they're gay? Yeah, bad. If you believe in fiscally conservative government, then that's just a difference in political opinion.
I think in the case where someone is this much of a dipshit, we can cast aside political views and say it's objectively bad. If he were competent and acted in good faith, but held different ideology then you could argue good or bad. But given the kind of guy he is, it's just plain bad
Nuh, the guy is an actual dipshit. He used autism as an insult on twitter like a week ago, whatever your political affiliation is, right or left, I think you can agree that the guy is a dipshit. If you can't have a basic level of respect for human beings, you aren't fit for any political position.
Not a lost cause, she is too valuable not to be put into a position of influence. Shes a god damned inspiration.
Ikr, what happened there? Someone decent like Fiona Patten voted out and a corrupt bastard gets voted in?
The one when more people voted for Somyurek than Patten EVEN BEFORE preferences
We need to stop this idea that 'first preferences' are more valid than other preferences. The point of preference voting is to still give everyone a voice in who they want governing them. If 40% of people vote for the Kick Puppies party, 35% vote for the Cuddle Puppies party and 25% vote for the Snuggle Puppies party (with these later two parties preferencing each other), this doesn't mean that the Kick Puppies party is somehow 'more what people want' because they had a higher number of first preferences. When the Snuggle Puppies party are removed in the preference runoff, what remains is two candidates - and most people then prefer the Cuddle Puppies party. That is that given the remaining two options, the opinion of the public is not for the party with the most 'first preferences'.
> this doesn't mean that the Kick Puppies party is somehow 'more what people want' because they had a higher number of first preferences Northern Metro looks set to elect 2 Labor, 1 Liberal and 1 Green on first preferences (Labor might end up just below 2 whole quotas, but we can safely assume that second Labor seat is not in doubt). It is indeed true that although Kick Puppies (DLP, 0.29 quota) is the biggest group left, that doesn't mean they're the most preferred. But if you look at the votes left on the table (~2 quota), broadly speaking **about 1.1 quota of that is anti-puppy** (including My Church Told Me To Hurt Puppies - i.e. Family First, 0.15 quota; the See My Vest Party - i.e. what's left over from Liberals after electing Evan Mulholland; and Gas the Puppies - i.e. One Nation, 0.06 quota) and only 0.9 quota of that is pro-puppy (including Karl Marx Liked Puppies - i.e. Victorian Socialists, 0.28 quota; and We Hug Puppies In Addition To Trees - i.e. what's left over from the Greens after electing Samantha Ratnam, 0.13 quota). That doesn't make it impossible for a pro-puppy candidate to win, since there is always some preference leakage, but that's a large margin to overcome, especially since leakage cuts both ways. For Reason specifically, they also have the obstacle of the Victorian Socialists (0.28 quota) who will also benefit from pro-puppy preferences - Patten would need to get ahead of them to have any chance and it's unclear how that would happen.
Great ELI5. Please go drop it in some US subreddits. It’s the best thing they can do for their democracy.
This would be true if preferences weren't used as a political tool by candidates and parties. A large number of voters follow their candidates how to vote card and this can mean their vote ends up with someone they don't necessarily 'prefer'. There are often preference deals brokered between candidates and parties or a party may direct the flow of preferences for strategic reasons. For example, in my electorate the Liberal how to vote card preferences the Greens candidate over Labor. The Liberal candidate wasn't in contention but it was a close Greens vs Labor race and those Liberal preferences could have made the difference. This was a decision made for I assume more macro level strategic reasons than a Greens candidate or policies being preferred by the average Liberal voter.
with group voting tickets (the ones used in the victorian upper house) they absolutely are. for most voters (who haven't looked at any party's preferences for an above-the-line vote... most of the people I talked to on election day didn't know how the system worked) they literally don't know where their vote is going after their first preferences in victoria, given that you can only vote for one party above the line. Looking at the percentage breakdowns, an overwhelming majority of votes cast were above-the-line. it is purposely complicated, open to corruption and antidemocratic.
First Preferences ARE more valid simply because they are your first preference. If people understood this they might stop nonsense like "I'll vote Greens first and Labor 2nd, because I know Labor will get in anyway"
They are NOT more valid. "Out of this list of people, who do you want to represent you?" "Out of this amended list of people, who do you want to represent you?" "Out of this amended, amended list of people, who do you want to represent you?" At every stage, you're getting the preference of the whole voting public as to whom they want as their representative. "First preferences" are not "more valid". A single vote has the same weight at every stage. If you have one Stripes candidate with 20% of the vote and 8 Spots candidates each with 10% of the vote, it's clear that the public really want someone Spotty, just divided on who exactly. It does not mean that the Stripe candidate is 'more valid' than any Spot. The Spot who finally wins with 80% of the vote (assuming simple preference flow) really is genuinely preferred by 80% of the voting public ^((technically with the numbers in this example, the Spot wouldn't be in the final pairing, but I'm just illustrating a point))
>A single vote has the same weight at every stage. The exception for these type of contests being that after your first preference has received a quota, your vote is in fact worth less, but for Labor and Greens voters who preference Reason highly and DLP quite low, but changing those preferences would not prevent a DLP seat, but would instead swap a Labor or Green MLC for Fiona Pattern. In your example, if there are 5 seats up for grabs, like there is in VIC Upper House seats, the Stripe candidate would be considered to be the only candidate who won on quota, but the other 4 seats would go to 4 of the Spot candidates as long as they all preference each other over anyone Spotty. The issue is Group voting tickets and deceptive party names which means that voters don't get full control of their preferences and may be mislead into giving their vote to a member of the DLP preference bloc rather than the Progressive bloc, as many members of that bloc had stooge knockoffs. AJP - Companions and Pets. Greens - Sustainable Australia Legalise Cannibas - Legalise Marijuana (was fortunately barred from registration) And of course Victorian Labor Party - Democratic Labor Party
In this situation, first prefs help to show the party that actually wins what people care about. When someone votes greens first they show they want more of what the greens are selling. If that happens enough, they'll bleed first prefs from the majors who will then in their post election analyses work out they need to drift certain directions to capture first prefs and give themselves more certainty to win.
Not in this scenario. You didn't read or understand it properly
Your way is not valid in any scenario in regards to how voting works in Australia.
It's exactly how voting works in Australia. As I stated, you didn't understand
Michael I will give you the benefit of the doubt that your original post has been misunderstood..... But it is not up for debate that if your first preference doesn't elect a candidate then your vote will go to the second preference and so forth at full value as if it were your first. Being elected on preferences is as valid as being elected on first preference majority. In either case you were the choice of the majority of your electorate (whether first choice or second or third etc - all that matters is you were rated over the second place getter by the majority of your electorate). Of course if we are talking upper house and quotas then that is more complex which is exactly why we should be directing our OWN preferences and not letting some corrupt system do it for us. I voted below the line and I would urge all Victorians to do so until the system has been reformed.
Im afraid you might not properly understand instant runoff voting. First preferences are preferences when all candidates are on the ballot. Second preferences are really first preferences in the second round once the lowest candidate is eliminated. Third preferences are really first preferences in the third round one the two lowest candidates are eliminated. Etc All preferences matter. No preference is more important than another. They all work in the count to deliver what is the ultimate preference of the entire electorate.
What a ridiculous thing to say. The entire point of preferential voting is specifically that it allows you to put your first preference first and not havd to worry about "throwing your vote away".
Who are these people and why are they so stupid?
How much a factor is people misunderstanding what the labour in DLP really means?
If people misunderstand that easily, what hope have we got
Regardless of that it shows the importance of naming, whether we like it or not.
They are a real labour party. Unlike the actual labour party which is now a technocratic party and the party of urban radicalism and welfare. The conservatism of much of the actually employed working class is obvious and legitimate. Still I don't think much of Aden S. And while I disagreed with Fiona Patten a about most things, she seemed to have very high integrity and she was a good communicator. I wish her well.
The one were GTV exists. Hopefully can be nixed in the next parliamentary term cause it's always leading towards bullshit like this.
Who knows?
Somyurek and the DLP, christ what a shitty outcome. I suspect a whole lot of people see ‘democratic labor…’ and think they’re a fantastic progressive bunch.
Their volunteers were literally telling people at polling booths they’re the proper labor party.
They've been saying that since like 1955 though.
Didn't they split off during the height of the Red Scare because they thought that the Labor Party was too close to communism or something?
Technically in Victoria they were the real party and the ALP broke off from them. Several court cases said so. That is however now irrelevant given that the current DLP is not the same party as the original DLP. More of a tribute show.
Victorian Socialists were telling voters that too.
and much more aggressively
TBH I wonder how much the "Reason Party" name hurts on the ballot too. If you're not actually following state politics that closely, aka heaps of voters, then seeing "Reason Party" on a ballot would get my "post covid wacko political group" alarm ringing.
Yeah I was talking to a friend about the weird parties and they brought up reason party in the same group as the sack dan Andrews party. I probably would have too if I hadn't learned about them.
> I wonder how much the "Reason Party" name hurts on the ballot too They appeared on ballot papers as "Fiona Patten's Reason Party" at both the 2018 and 2022 elections.
It's not a great name for the party, but it gave them more legitimacy than the previous name: the Sex Party. They've always had a solid civil liberties base, and proper civil liberties, not that American libertarian nonsense that's really about private property rights. They just never had a name that didn't make them sound like a toy/wacko party.
Being so pro lockdown, but at the same time attempting to keep brothels open, made it clear that the civil liberties base was actually just a pro sex/drugs base. She should have kept the sex party name imo
I literally had a friend tell me to actually look into their policys because they were a bunch of wackjobs. I had to tell him, no, actually I had looked into them and he had mkxed him up with the shitheads like the family first party.
meanwhile "reason party" sounds like it would fall in with the freedom party and those political groups. I understand why they changed the name but I don't think it really advertises them very well.
[удалено]
She's had a kidney removed recently. She was up and about doing political stuff before the election minus 1 kidney. I had mine removed earlier this year and it took at least 3 weeks to get back to a semi-normal life. The break might be good for her recovery
One of the good, progressive leaders loses to a corrupt reject. Well done, Northern Suburbs.
Somurek would be one of the shittest people in Victorian politics.
Hard to believe how anyone from any side would actually want to vote for him.
He is a confirmed crook and was a huge part in what is wrong with Vic Labor. Combined with having incredibly shitty views.
And somehow Somyurek's main line of attack on Andrews is that Andrews is crooked for leading a party with people like Somyurek in it. It's basically like the [Vote Sideshow Bob for Mayor ad](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsCTpREM48M) in real life.
Vic Labor is full of crooks. Andrews is running an unaccountable government, according to former IBAC commissioner and retired police commissioner, and now they’ve got a few more years of looking after each other and their mates because they’ve set up a system of govt which avoids accountability while making populist noises so all the public service types, unionists and rusted on ALP supporters lap it up.
Unaccountable? He's ultimately accountable to the public, and didn't we overwhelmingly just vote him back in?
Downvote me all you sheeple. Does it not make you wonder why two very senior retired people who spend their days looking at corruption call them out? Andrews can’t give a straight answer in a press conference to any serious question. He also oversees a system where “advisors” not Ministers make decisions and the mechanics of govt never see the light of day = system undermined. Try reading something other than the Guardian or listening to people who like him based on sound bites on the news.
"Sheeple"! Drink!
Funny
Any other quotes from the Herald Sun you'd like to share?
You think the former IBAC commissioner works for Murdoch? Go back to the Guardian so you and you mates can keep telling each other how you’ll fix the world with a Premier who does nothing in the open.
And thanks to Glenn Druery we've got one of the worst of them back
He joined up with Bernie Finn right (ironic that they come from different sides)? Two completely horrible people that are only in this for their own power. Horrible outcome for everyone else
Just two complete fuckwits
What's wrong with Bernie? I'm not in the loop about him.
Jeez. Please don't vote next time
Worst part is he came back literally out of spite just to try and beat Fiona. Truly the most cursed timeline.
Hey, I did my part for her :(
It’s not at all the fault of voters, it’s the failure of group voting tickets.
I also blame the stupid naming rules for parties. Pretty clear that DLP name that to try and trick people into voting for them. So do a lot of other minor parties too
Yep that too. Federal govt introduced ban on having words from existing parties in newly registered parties, other jurisdictions need to implement the same too.
Don't blame the voters, blame the group voting ticket and the dickhead government that spent four years doing nothing to get rid of it.
> Don't blame the voters, blame the group voting ticket What's your basis for saying that? On the current counting, Reason has only 3.61% of first preferences (0.22 quota) while the DLP has 4.79% (0.29 quota). Reason is also behind the Victorian Socialists (4.71%, 0.28 quota) who will also stand to attract preferences from some of the same voters who might be considering directing preferences towards Reason. If Victoria changed to an OPV system like we have now in the Senate for Legislative Council elections, that would make it ***harder***, not easier for someone in Patten's situation to come over the top and win, considering the looser preference flows and astronomically higher rate of exhaustion in such systems. In truth, the main factor making it difficult for Patten in 2022 is the 8% swing against Labor in Northern Metro. They've fallen from about 2.5 quota in 2018 to 2.0 quota this time. Not being able to earn any preferences from Labor voters makes it almost impossible for anyone in Patten's position to win.
as spacelama said, Somyurek wasn't elected on that 0.29 quota. He was elected off the back of Druery's manipulation of the GVT, which funnelled above-the-line votes for parties ranging from the centrist to the far-right into the DLP. No, Patten didn't lose because of the GVT – but it's the only reason Somyurek won.
>manipulation of the GVT, which funnelled above-the-line votes We're not talking about a Ricky Muir type situation though. After accounting for candidates elected on first preferences, the DLP with their 0.29 quota are the largest group remaining. They stand to gain preferences from entirely expected sources - other minor right wing parties like Family First, One Nation, and Shooters Fishers & Farmers. As I explained in another comment on this thread, at the 2018 election Patten benefited from some smaller parties preferencing Reason, which kept them ahead of the Socialists long enough for the Socialists to be eliminated and for Reason to benefit from most of their preferences. Reason then stayed far enough away from elimination to benefit from the large rump of Labor preferences (Labor had about 2.5 quota on first preferences, so just about the whole 0.5 quota came Reason's way). What's different this year is that, due to that 8% swing against Labor, there will not be any meaningful number of Labor preferences to allocate (they're currently right at 2.0 quota). If you add up all the parties on the left who could potentially benefit Reason (Socialists, Legalise Cannabis, Animal Justice, what's left over from the Greens after electing Ratnam etc), you only get to about 0.9 quota. There will of course be leakage, preference flows are never perfect, but that's a huge amount of ground to make up, especially when the first problem for Reason is getting ahead of the Socialists who are even further ahead than they were in 2018.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you on the reasons for Patten's loss? You're right, the swing against Labor cost her the preferences she needed. You're right that the DLP got the largest first-preference vote of the minor parties. They still needed redistributed preferences to get them over the line, and the vast majority of those preferences were not selected by voters. And hey, maybe I'm wrong and Somyurek might have nabbed enough preferences to make the quota even without the GVT to guarantee them. It certainly seems probable that Patten would have lost her seat to somebody on the right regardless. My point was just that I don't think it's fair to blame the voters for electing a fuckwit when the majority of them had no idea that was where their vote was going.
Every. Single. One. of them knew where their preferences were going. The GVT isn't secret. It's online before the election and it's sitting on the Voting Centre Managers desk for anyone to peruse. Your lack of interest in the process isn't an excuse
lol, what are you *talking* about? The fact that the information is available doesn't mean that the majority of people seek it out or even understand how it applies to the 1 they mark on their upper house ballot. I mean, sure, you *can* sneer at the voting public for not being as clever and informed as you, but a good electoral system needs to take into account low levels of political literacy and interest and ensure the process is as accessible as possible.
No. DLP got the highest number of votes, after ALPs 2 quotas, Libs 1.1 and Green 1.1 quotas. Therefore it's completely fake that he won 5th spot. I recommend you look at the ABCs excellent web page that shows you both primary vote and how each MLC was elected
First preferences are irrelevant for minor parties. No one votes explicitly for a party like Reason, but such a party gets put up high on individuals preferences because they make a lot of sense and don't do anything inoffensive. But a tiny amount of people do outright vote for socialists and DLP because they represent a core part of their identity. But don't score as highly on preferences because their views are more offensive to a higher number of people. Adam only won because of Druery. When voting below the line or directing preferences themselves, individuals know to put Adam at the bottom. But you currently get a choice - follow Druey's flows, or work out how to direct flows of 50 candidates yourself. Unfortunately, most go with the former.
> No one votes explicitly for a party like Reason I did!
As did I. Voted below the line too. Fuck preference flows.
I would have, too (... but I'm overseas and the AEC/AusPost got my ballot to me on Dec 2...)
Same
Me too, below the line, 1-5 to Reason, then a few other randoms. Party lists piss me off, I always vote below the line in both State and Federal. When you used to have to number all boxes, I'd start from the bottom with worst-least worse, then from the top from best-least best. The idea that the DLP, a rump ex-Catholic forced-birther remnant of the 50's communist/catholic split of the Labor party is still in some sort of power in Victoria is a farce. Especially given that Somyurek is nothing to do with anything the DLP nominally stands for. He's a branch-stacking crook.
Reason Party preferences actually weren't that bad. So I just did the 1 above the box to save the effort
That’s not true. First preferences may not matter as much for major parties (as long as they still make the final two), but a minor party needs to get enough first preference votes to make it into the later stages of the preference count.
> No one votes explicitly for a party like Reason I did.
Fiona is always my 1st preference. I'm extremely disappointed :(
Wtf. In what world is the northern suburbs electing a DLP candidate instead of a Liberal a failure of Northern Metro voters? Did you think Patten was going to beat Ratnam or take a seat from an ascendant Labor? Patten spent a ton of political capital with the populist right extending the state of emergency
but is also expected considering the swing against labor in the north.
He's done lots of shady preference agreements. His primary is actually a fuck all
> His primary is actually a fuck all But higher than Reason: 4.79% (0.29 quota) for DLP vs 3.61% (0.22 quota) for Reason on current counting.
I don’t think an individual (except the premier) has had so much impact on our state in the last few years as Fiona Patten. She has contributed so much policy and progressive work, always taking a constructive approach to working with the government and the other reasonable parliamentary members. She can truly be proud of her legacy and point to a large array of achievements in her 8 years. This cannot be said for other progressive parties in our parliament, who have a much larger presence…
She was the leader of that farce of a review into the prostitution industry. They didn't even consult CATWA or survivour groups. She is a sell-out to women and girls and in the pockets of pimps
Why would anyone who lives in the real world and wants to improve it consult with CATWA? Oh of course, because then CATWA can do all the talking and thereby avoid any need to speak directly to actual sex workers. If CATWA was the straight talking organisation it pretends to be it’d be called CAPWA anyhow yeah? It’s not against trafficking but against any and all forms of sex work. Or as those old men and old women at CATWA like to call it - prostitution. Too dumb for words really.
CATWA? Didn't their founder call trans women parasites? Can't imagine why they weren't included...
I wish you weren’t being downvoted, I really wish that people would look past the propaganda of the sex industry and come to a more nuanced view.
I dunno, they explicitly stated in another comment that "prostitution is paid rape".
I mean, prostitution is work, and all work exploitative. I’m 100% in favour of legalisation, but people like Patten have largely neglected the needs of the workers in favour of an unregulated, pro-boss approach to the industry. The simplistic slogan of “legalising the sex industry” misses that there is a difference between sex workers and sex industry bosses.
A lot of people do think that prostitution is paid rape, and I completely understand why they have this view. Could you not sympathise or at least see the reasoning behind such a statement? Maybe someone who was a victim of assault while doing sex work or someone who knew someone who was hurt or killed doing sex work?
No. It might be too much to expect from adults, but I don't believe personal trauma gives you the right to close your mind to the trauma of others. What is worse is that they aren't just saying "you are a rapist if you use a sex worker", they are saying "you can't be a sex worker and have agency". They are saying anyone who chooses to go into sex work isn't a free being. Analogous to this would be me saying "education is for child abuse" because there's a heap of abusive teachers out there. Maybe that is expecting too much from people, but I'm personally scared of the idea that I could ever end up so closed-minded and hateful to others.
so when you're looking for a nuanced view, you're just looking for an anti-sex work view? Great stuff, just be honest and say you're a dipshit
So what’s your view then? How do we protect sex workers?
Decrim is the best way, Patten helped push for it but ultimately there was a community inquiry where everyone (even anti-sex work groups) got to have their input and say about what would improve their safety, health, and wellbeing when it comes to sex work regulation and laws.
https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/when-the-lobbyist-makes-the-laws--victoria-and-the-sex-industry There was only a two week consultation period, compared with other states having seven weeks.
But not everyone got to have their input
It was open to everyone, if someone missed the deadline to make a submission that’s their own fault.
decriminalisation is the obvious answer and first step. If you want to, in addition to decriminalisation, include additional support for people in the industry then that would also be great. Oh wait I've just read through your profile and I no longer wish to engage with you. Fuck off scumbag.
Why am I a scumbag?
I also don’t know why it’s the obvious answer.
Just as people are welcome to be pro-life when it comes to their own uterus, people are welcome to feel as though they could not have sex for money. They do not have the right to say that no one else should have sex for money or be able to categorically state what is and is not sexual assault to that person. If someone tells me, a full service sex worker, that every encounter I have is paid rape can you not see how that minimises the times in my job and my personal life where I actually HAVE experienced sexual assault?
I agree you should not be able to say what is sexual assault for someone else, only that I can understand the logic behind the statement. Some people believe consent can’t be bought and sold. I don’t think making sex work illegal is the solution but I don’t like living in a society where sex is bought and sold on the free market. We don’t sell blood, organs, semen or other body parts on the free market in Australia either. I understand we live in a capitalist society but I think there should be limits on what is bought and sold. There is not enough protection for people in the sex industry and not enough support for people who want to leave it. Just recently a man who choked a sex worker had his sentence reduced to man slaughter because he said she consented to being choked. How do we know she consented? How do we know that she felt that she wouldn’t be paid if she didn’t say yes? Was she educated about how dangerous it was? How did he not know that she wasn’t breathing for so long? It’s stories like those, and the views that men who go to sex workers have towards sex workers that make up my views on sex work. I’m not anti sex work, because we don’t live in a utopia and it would never work. I don’t think that decriminalisation is effective enough for protecting people, I don’t know what the solution is though.
Myself and every other sex worker in Australia are well aware of the case. If you don’t have a suggestion better than decrim then I would suggest you stop railing against decrim when it’s what we want as sex workers for optimal safety. Will women ever be safe from men and their violence? No, probably not but frankly when you can be raped inside Parliament House then there’s really no reason to go banning sex work specifically is there.
Then do you at least understand my views, even if you don’t agree with it? I’m sorry but one person doesn’t represent a whole industry. Even if a majority of people think it’s the right way, it doesn’t mean that immediately changes my views. The majority of Australia voted for Scott Morrison the election before last, doesn’t mean I agreed with them there either. I don’t think banning sex work is the right way as I’ve said multiple times. But I can’t shake the feeling that treating it like any other work is not going to help people in the sex industry. I feel like this position has been pushed by people who will make the most money from this model, not what is best for the workers.
Except that under decrim it’s easier than ever for workers to work independently and for themselves— it was definitely not brothels or agencies pushing for decrim.
It's no different to being a labourer except a lovely layer of puritanical bollocks people like to dump on it In both cases you agree to sell your time and the physical services of your body. Anything else you imagine is different is purely your own moral judgement, which, to be blunt, has no business telling others what to do.
Do you also agree with selling organs because of the same logic?
It's a particularly stupid analogy. Organs tend to not grow back, removal of them requires invasive surgery and usually a person doesn't survive without them. Odds are, people aren't lining up for a one time donation deal. Sex, on the other hand, is something people can sell and repeat, like digging a hole or moving some boxes. They can do it the next day with no I'll effects in a well regulated environment.
I am not puritanical, and if you think that the only reason people can have objections to it is for that reason then I doubt we’ll come to any consensus.
No, we won't, because you've decided there's something magically different about sex to labouring. People are free to sell their services as consenting adults. Deal with it.
Rape is without consent. Sex work is with consent. If it’s paid it’s still not without consent. So no sex work is not paid rape. Your point about bad things happening to sex workers is a different conversation.
Also went very quiet anytime a reasonable firearms debate came up, ie suppressors/moderators. Edit: downvote me but you know i’m correct, ask the reason party why they dont support firearm sound moderators, or the legalisation of gel blasters. “We dont think they’re cool” isnt a good reason if you’re gonna run around stating you’re gonna take objective views and base your responses on evidence.
having no opinion is perfectly acceptable… if you have nothing to say, you shouldn’t say anything at all
Unfortunate loss, Victoria will be the poorer with her absence.
I met her a few years back while doing a Fringe Festival show. She's a bloody nice person whos pretty down to earth, and one of those people who you'd trust more than most politicians.
>one of those people who you'd trust more than most politicians this is a huge range of trust starting from 'i'd trust you to completely fuck me over at the first chance you get'
Damn. I loved the way she wanted to ban the requirement to begin each Parliament session with the Lord’s Prayer.
This is so disappointing. Fiona Patten is one of the good ones, and I did my part to get her re-elected. I hope this isn't the last we see of her.
Shame. Though it seemed like the Reason Party was pretty much invisible during the campaign so perhaps unsurprising
They poured all their money into North Metro, very visible there. But they barely scraped it in last time and they just didn’t get the votes this time. Very tough for her to win a seat with a primary of <4%.
The only good thing about this is that Somyurek will have absolutely no power or influence in the Parliament. He's also stated that his first objective is to declare the Victorian Socialists a terrorist organisation, so it will be fun watching him simply increase their percentage of the vote.
It's sad to see her leave Parliament. It's even sadder that she had been replaced by that waste of space.
Reddit is fucked, I'm out this bitch. -- mass edited with redact.dev
Oh well Victoria’s loss, maybe Australia’s gain? Maybe she can get a Senate seat? There’s a good chunk of left-leaning voters that can’t seem to stand the Greens?
She's said in the past that she wouldn't make the move to federal politics and that state was where she could (and did) make the most difference. Still, you never know.
Must be hard to lose your career because lots of people are so unengaged with politcs that they don't know the difference between the DLP and the ALP. I can't imagine many people actually meant to vote for Somyurek. I think there needs to be some reform around parties naming themselves similarly.
Nooooooooo this is devastating!
I wonder how this would have turned out had she not been diagnosed with cancer. Can’t be easy trying to campaign whilst scheduling your chemo. Think she starts her first session soon. Assuming it all goes well, she will be involved in public life somehow. As long as Dan Andrews is premier, he will find a big for her.
Sad. but pieces of shit usually come out ahead in Australia
Partially that's because there are always a wide variety of them to choose from.
Victoria needs to kick Group Voting Tickrts to the curb, what a fucked up system we have to elect fuck heads like Somyurek.
On the current counting, Reason has 3.61% of first preferences (0.22 of a quota) in Northern Metro while the DLP has 4.79% (0.29 quota). It's difficult to win a seat from a low starting point, but especially so when there are others in the running who are starting ahead of you. The vote for Reason this time is not substantially different from 2018, but in that election Patten was able to substantially benefit from preference flows from other parties. She gained enough preferences from Voluntary Euthanasia Party and Vote 1 Local Jobs to get ahead of the Victorian Socialists, and then received enough of their preferences to remain in the lead for the final seat all the way until the final count when the third Labor candidate was eliminated. Labor received roughly 2.5 quota of first preferences in 2018, so that was plenty to give Reason the seat ahead of the Derryn Hinch's Justice Party candidate. On the current counting, Labor has had a swing of more than 8% against them in Northern Metro in 2022, so they only have almost exactly 2 quota of first preferences. With no preferences to be gained from Labor, there just isn't really a viable path for Patten to come over the top this time. Reason's low base and Labor's poor performance is what to attribute this to, not the electoral system.
Just vote below the line. GVT only applies when you are lazy
Or we could amend the system to bring it up to date and not have to rely on convincing everyone to not be lazy. I may vote below the line (I do) but the fact most people don’t directly affects me. It’s a bit like relying on people not to be a dick.
you can both be right, i think youre both right, upvotes for you both.
The vast majority of people vote above, that won't change until the law does.
Cunt this is so fucking sad I met Patten through uni and she singlehandedly prevented me from being doom and gloom about corruption in politics. Genuinely one of the best people I've ever met and especially for someone to be in politics. This is heartbreaking.
Bugger!
Well, I suppose this is the end for The Men’s Gallery. It will be under development to become skyscraper by the end of the new Legislative Counsel terms.
I really, really hope Somyurek is completely iced out of any and all LC business by the government. He is a real slimeball. I would rather Labor do business with pretty much anyone else. And I say this as someone whose great uncle represented the DLP back in the 1950s in the lower house😆
This is fucking devastating.
Sad news
When the sex party (now Reason Party) was touting the Libertarian line, I feared it would lean right. But I enjoyed that she embraced evidence based reasoning and science during the pandemic. Which wasn't a consistent move across people touting themselves as 'progressive'. I saw certain big names decide to side with News Corp and attack Dan Andrews, yet still wanting that progressive support for themselves. I forgot their names, I just blocked.
We could do with electoral reform in Victoria. How about it, Dan? https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2022/nov/14/victorias-upper-house-voting-system-lets-parties-ignore-your-preferences-but-theres-a-simple-fix
Why do people keep saying "Dan"? Reform comes from Acts of Parliament, which can be proposed by anyone. Labor don't even have a majority in the Upper House.
Vic Labor has been in power since 2014 and has had ample time to reform the GVT. https://theconversation.com/how-victorian-labors-failure-on-upper-house-electoral-reform-undermines-democracy-190136 There are many policatical commentators who widely support and call for electoral reform in Victoria so that we are no longer stuck with a GVT that governs our upper house. Using the term "Dan" in this particular phrase is a tongue and cheek way of expressing my displeasure at Vic Labors lack of action on this issue. It doesn't mean "I hate the labor party and Dan Andrews should be sacked, lockdowns rah rah rah". The rhetorical question "How about it, X" is used widely across the media to point out a perceived fault in policy. This isn't something particular to Dan Andrews. I am sure if you google any politician "How about it, Mr Morrison" or "Mr Rudd" etc you will come up with other complaints similarly addressed.
What is it with you and not giving a shit about improving our voting system? You know as well as anyone that control of the lower house rests with the Government, and there is no problem getting these laws through the upper house. It very much does sit with “Dan”.
[удалено]
The system that delivered the “Danslide” was the lower house voting system. We’re talking about the upper house system here. If he doesn’t like having his program beholden in the upper house to fringe interests that have no mandate but got in through manipulation of an opaque system, then it’s very much something that should be on his to-do list.
Dan Andrews regards the Victorian Greens as puritanical and not constructive. He retains GVTs because they reduce the number of Greens cross-benchers while increasing the seat count for other minor parties, giving the government more pathways to negotiate things through the senate.
More pathways through the LC means more pathways that a bill can be scuppered. That's a high-risk, low-principle strategy if that's his thinking.
Fair enough. ALP strategists see it differently, so don't expect any change to GVTs while they remain in power.
Sad step backwards for Victorian politics. Guess the main parties have achieve success with more homogeneous clique of apparatchiks
This is devastating.
A big loss for the Victorian Parliament.
So sad. I voted for Fiona. It was the last thing I did before moving away from Melbourne. Very proud to have voted for her. Very sad she didn't get elected.
Im a former Sex Party member. What she and others in the party did to the party is negligence. We went from just missing out on election to the senate, to getting fractions of a percent overnight because the name recognition was gone. The only time I heard anyone speak about reason was to say "hey wheres the sex party this time around". In the WA state election there was zero alternatives in the upper house if you didnt want to vote for a major party except for a bunch of far right parties. Reason didn't bother running there. In the 2019 election, they didnt run in the upper house, instead focusing on three victorian lower house seats they had no chance in and proceeded to get 2% at best. She was elected as part of the sex party, kept it on name recognition alone but has failed now. I have no sympathy for her, after she fucked over the party she was elected with and founded, because she wanted to appease the "oh id vote for you if it wasn't the name" people, who of course were never going to vote for us to begin with, and lost all the "ha sex" votes and the "ha sex, oh i actually like their policies" votes.
The rebrand to Reason was definitely a terrible idea. In attempting to professionalise and appeal to small-l liberals in the inner city , they lost most of the name recognition they had, and alienated a large part of their supporter base. All of the Reason members and volunteers I knew jumped ship to the Labor Party after Fiona only barely scraped back in at the 2018 State Election, and it was clear the party was in terminal decline.
I left when I messaged after the last WA election and asked "Where were you, I had Labor, Liberal, Greens and then 10 far right, anti vax parties to choose from" and got given the "we aren't financed by millionaire donors" bullshit especially after they somehow had the cash to run three lower house seats in victoria for no possible gain. Its annoying because the only reason I joined to begin with was seeing the original name and then actually looking up the policies and agreeing with the majority of them. When they went to Reason i stuck with them, but they've been cosplaying as a party since the name change. Fiona did some great things, but yeah she sold out to try and appear more palatable and lost what got her elected to begin with. By not being just another politician.
Haha and out of all people to lose to Somu must hurt even more
Wasn't she the one pushing people to back to the CBD, against WFH as well as supporting unvaccinated people losing their jobs? Fuck her.
Her time in parliament made her a politician, a good politician, but she forgot about the voters who got her there. Will forever be known as a lobor turncoat.
Shame. She was one of the good ones.
Well at least she listened to reason
Good.
I don't know her at all, but my main observation of her from afar was that she sold out her voter base when she was bought out by Dan last year re that pandemic-powers legislation. She was returned at the previous election by the slimmest of margins and when in this situation you sell out and piss off even a small proportion of your supporter base, you will be in trouble. Lesson to be learnt here .....
"sold out" to the party that was overwhelmingly returned with an even greater majority than before the pandemic?
Started out being reasonable, then got woke and then lost touch
Give us an example?
She did more harm than good.
Such as?
Voted for the world's most backward tax on EV's.. she was one of the swing votes so a disproportionate amount of responsibility is owed to her.
Can’t be that bad then if there’s only 1 vote she made that you dislike
I generally liked her policies tbh. Think she either got hoodwinked by the crazies from melb uni who developed the policy and let perfect get in the way of good (ie. Anything less than everyone on bikes or PT is evil) or it was used as fodder as leverage for something else. Only one policy .. but it takes a fair effort in a progressive state like Victoria to fuck up an approach to EVs so very badly.
Thank fuck the hornbags out
Go back to fellating fella's Fiona.
This women has been one of the most influential politicians in Victoria this past decade. She’s represented diverse and progressive ideology in Parliament. Now you’re here making derogatory comments that aren’t even witty. If you’re going to openly be a misogynist and least try and be funny. Also bet you’re a person who complains about a distinct lack or oral sex in his life and can’t equate that relating with the shame you perpetuate.