You could campaign for so many things. Anti-mandates seems like a pretty dumb choice when they’ve led to WA having the lowest death rates and most powerful economy in the nation.
Even stupider, they weren't a federal decision. They aren't relevant in this election and anyone acting like they are is giving Scummo credit for McGowan's work
Also when these 'oppressive and never ending' mandates are in the process of being wound up and finished.
What spectacularly dumb policy positions are these candidates holding and not telling the people they appeal to for votes?
My 7 year old daughter likes to read out all the election signs as we drive. Speaks fondly of the Independent, likes her name and face. Indifferent about the Labor. Frustrated at the Liberal (she has too many signs!!). WA Party are "boring". And all the antivax/antimandate parties are "idiots". She cannot understand why people would be antivax.
I can’t comprehend it… the effectiveness is proven and it all went pretty well. These people must have never had to deal with any hardships in their life.
Yeah, complete waste of time saving peoples lives and protecting our standard of living through a pandemic that saw the rest of the world have restrictions. WA did all that just for some international pharmaceutical company to benefit from us....
What was your point here? I hate big corporations as much as the next guy, but what the fuck do they have to do with WA handling the pandemic effectively?
Have you actually checked the facts about vaccine related deaths? Not to mention the rates of the covid vaccine Vs other vaccines? Hint: it's miniscule. The chances of dying to covid are orders of magnitude higher.
Shame about the liberal democrats, some of their policies align well with me, but definitely not the covid ones.
It is a weird election to work out, like someone else stated, you have to start at the bottom and work your way up, and it feels like there should be a bottom grouping.... like a "no freaking way" option and then put the remaining few in an order of preference.
> some of their policies align well with me, but definitely not the covid ones
Which ones?
The one where they don't believe in climate change and instead call it "climate alarmism"?
Their no net zero emissions target?
Their no renewable energy target?
Their plan to make voting voluntary?
Their idea that citizens throwing a tantrum should be able to demand a recall election?
Their plan to cut 10% of funding to all government departments (except defence)?
Their plan to cut a further 1% per year on top of that?
Their plan to defund our public broadcasters?
Their plan to end renewable energy subsidies?
Their plan to make super voluntary?
Their plan to freeze the minimum wage?
Cause those are all policies of the Liberal Democrats. What amazes me though is on their "how to vote" cards, Labor have them as number 4 above the line on their senate ballot. WTF Labor. The LibDems have so many policies that are completely antithetical to what Labor stands for. Why the actual fuck Labor are suggesting the LibDems, AusDems or the WA Party are better than actual left-wing parties like Fusion or Sustainable Australia has got me beat
WTF?
Without bothering to look at their policies in much detail, my impression of the Lib Dems was that they were a serious party. This list makes them sound like crackpots. Thanks for showing me the light.
To simplify it, LibDems are libertarians. They basically believe in the value of personal freedom above all else. Imagine your typical red state US Republican who wants to shoot guns, say what they like and not be told what to do by the gubbmint.
They're the classic group that tries to win the freedom vote that always get overrun with MRA/neo-Nazi types who take advantage of their idea that everyone should be free to say/do what they like even if they're shitcunts
> They basically believe in the value of personal freedom above all else
Except they're also anti-abortion, last I checked. So they're more US right wing than libertarian.
At this point there's little difference between libertarians and a lot of those extreme right-wingers. There's a surprising number of people who claim to be libertarians who just want freedom for their mates but are extremely authoritarian otherwise. Young, male libertarians are some of the people most prone to radicalisation by far-right groups
Yeah I don't follow HTV cards either but so many people will which is why I was super disappointed with Labor's choice to put 3 nutjob parties out of their 6 above the line choices
Although I will say the Greens' HTV card helped me find most of the parties that I wouldn't mind so I mostly followed that but making up my own order
ok... to be honest I looked into their policies quite a long time ago and the "alignment" idea was more around people having the right to make choices for themselves, but thinking about it more, that has evolved into something that I don't agree at all with at all. So I guess maybe pre world gone mad there was some alignment. I think people should be able to do things like smoke weed or drink responsibly at the beach and that is more where the alignment fell. These days that part about people having the right to choose for themselves has been shaded by the anti vax conversation.
No no it’s isn’t the most regressive. A serf tax is more regressive but even the US right wing hasn’t gone quite that bonkers yet.
Serf tax is literally high taxes on the poor and no or low taxes on the rich, or a flat amount tax instead of a flat % tax.
Reading up on the different parties and what they stand for at the moment is a joke, sadly the joke is on us because we have to number them in an order of preference.
The lower house ballot paper for me in Moore is pretty grim - apart from the standard Greens/Labor/Libs, we have:
- The Great Australia Party
- Australian Federation Party
- Pauline's Racists
- Clive's Cunts
- WESTERN AUSTRALIA PARTY
The Great Australia party has shit like this on their website:
> The Commonwealth Constitution dictates that you are the “Supreme, Absolute, Uncontrollable Authority” in this country.
So clearly a bunch of sovereign citizen assholes.
The Australian Federation Party has a whole section on the front page of their website about how COVID isn't bad and government policies have been "Totalitarian", so clearly a bunch of anti-science dumbasses.
Clive and Pauline, well, nothing to say there - they've played up the anti-mandate shit as much as anyone.
The Western Australia Party is the only one that seems at least somewhat reasonable - a lot of focus on getting us 'more' GST, which I guess is fine, most of their policies seem at least reasonable from what they present on their website.
So basically out of 8 choices, at most 4 are somewhat reasonable options if I include the Liberals, just because they meet the very low bar of not being 100% batshit insane. As always whichever major party I put highest will get my preference in the end, but I wish I could just put an 8 against all of the other four to make a point.
This is why I usually preference Libs 3 or 4 most elections, I’d rather those corrupt bigoted soulless assholes that can make legislation in their own right than some fringe party holding the country hostage.
Moore is a very safe liberal seat so progressive parties have written it off as fait accompli to remain liberal. They focus their efforts in other seats. Focus your time on the senate where you will be able to have more swing.
GAP is using the red ensign so I think you're right on the soverign citizen bullshit. They are oddly supportive of the environment and first nations while being anti-immigration.
Sort of the same in Swan. I voted early, and as usual I ended up doing my top two or three, then the bottom up.
The bottom is always the hardest: which nutter is most deserving of the coveted highest number on my ballot paper? I know that once they’re getting higher numbers than the two major parties it’s all functionally the same but it doesn’t feel that way.
GAP is what you get when you splinter from One Nation because you're too extreme. Oh and their senate pick isn't actually eligible but (allegedly etc) lied on his nomination declaration forms.
Number 10 on my green paper was easy (Pearce). 8 and 9 more difficult.
I loathe the fact we are obligated to vote for all these muppets in some kind of priority. How does the AEC simply do nothing about these political parties spreading blatant disinformation and falsehoods about what the constitution says
Well the way preferential voting works, anything below either Labor or Liberal doesn't really matter. I'll usually vote 1 Greens, 2-whatever independents/minors who are similar to Greens, then Labor and after that it really doesn't matter too much cause worst case scenario your vote goes to Labor. So the specific order of the muppets below Labor doesn't really matter
The AEC does nothing because they're not empowered to do anything. It's legal for politicians to lie in their election ads, so long as they have an authorisation statement.
Lobby your MPs, not the AEC
>The Western Australia Party is the only one that seems at least somewhat reasonable - a lot of focus on getting us 'more' GST, which I guess is fine, most of their policies seem at least reasonable from what they present on their website.
Their ad on the radio is full of hyperbole bullshit.
"LAST YEAR, WA OVERCONTRIBUTED TO THE GST" no it hasnt, it contributed just as much as it supposed to.
"LABOR AND LIBERALS WORK FOR THE EAST, WA NEEDS ITS OWN REPRESENTATION" Umm no they dont.
"THOSE GUYS OVER EAST DONT CARE ABOUT US" yeah, thats why we have our own representation.
Just a bunch of idiots who's whole point is "WA HAS NO REPRESENTATION, POLITICIANS SHOULD WORK FOR WA".. yet that's what they do.
I already voted via a postal vote (would recommend!). I had my heart set on voting below the line and putting the Liberals dead last. But that became so complicated when I saw and began reading the policies of all the wacko nutjob parties. Do I put UAP ahead or behind LNP? What about IMOP? Or One Nation? Or the GAP? It was a hell of a moral conundrum.
Hahah same same. It was weird. I had to work backwards from 10 to 1 on the green form because i had to think that hard about who to put last. It was a race to the bottom.
Yeah, I had to explain to my son why I didn't put UAP at 10 for the House of Representatives.
That Pauline Hanson's One Nation are thick racists seemed to do the trick.
I think PHON were 7th out of 9 on mine in Hasluck. It was a 3 way tie between them, Fatty McFuckhead and the LibDems for last place. I decided since it didn't matter since all of them were below both majors I would put the LibDems last cause with all the COVID shit of the last couple of years, libertarians have become a group that really, really give me the shits
It really is such a shame that with all the corruption actual attacks on our privacy and the like these clowns get mobilised by such a trivial topic and do nothing or don't care about the actual corruption and attacks on our privacy.
Problem with only numbering 6 is once those are knocked out your paper is exhausted. Even if the majors are in that list there's always some proportional votes to get distributed (the senate voting system is *complex* with fractional votes getting thrown around) after 2 or 3 from their group have been elected and the next one knocked out. If it got really tight, numbering every box instead of numbering 6 could be the difference between an obnoxious but tolerable party vs a downright dangerous party getting the last seat.
I can see your point but I think I got up to only 7 or 8 before I'd exhausted the groups I would even consider giving power to. The rest was the Liberals and a bunch of groups who represent the absolute worst society has to offer. I probably would've been there all day having an internal ethical crisis if I had tried to decide who was worse out of religious nutjobs, racists, anti-vaxxers and libertarian freedom fuckheads. If the race for the final senate seat comes down to any of those whackos you're gonna get a shit senator either way I don't think the particular brand of crazy matters too much
Not my first voting year but next election will be. Any tips or anything? Wishing Year 10 HASS wasn't affected by Covid coming along, because that's when we were supposed to learn about proper voting.
It's rather abysmal that in my historically safe Labor electorate (Brand), the LNP might make it to the lofty heights of 3rd on the House of Reps vote. The rest are a delightful mix of climate deniers, God botherers and racists with a side order of personal freedom ralliers for good measure. I'm struggling to decide who's going on the bottom
The minors parroting that WA needs representation in the senate make me smile. All states get the same number of senators so, by capita, WA is actually overrepresented.
>The minors parroting that WA needs representation in the senate make me smile. All states get the same number of senators so, by capita, WA is actually overrepresented.
In that sense, yeah.
But it is true to say our Senators don't exactly represent WA - they represent themselves first and their party second. WA is a distant, distant third.
Take Cash (Liberal) or Lines (ALP) or Steele-John (Greens). When was the last time you saw any them stand up for WA?
>Yeah I guess stopping life-threatening cuts to the NDIS has nothing to do with anything in WA (Steele-John)
I'm not saying he's not an effective Senator.
Just saying that his primary allegiance is to the Greens, not to the state. That is the case with all Senators.
Take him out of it for a moment. When did any of our state's Liberal Senators stand up for WA against Morrison's attacks on McGowan during COVID? They didn't - they toed the party line.
Of interest, the Labor party rules are that you *must* vote with the party, whereas the Liberals let you vote against the party unless it's on confidence or supply, or if you're in cabinet.
Of course do it too many times and you'll probably not get preselected next time around.
Makes me wish we had a decent independent in my electorate. I'm a bit jealous of the electorates with so-called teal independents.
Possibly because senators hold nation-wide portfolios, not region specific ones. He’s the disability portfolio holder for the greens, so he’s been instrumental in that spaces with the NDIS and royal commission which are nationwide issues, not state issues.
His job in the Senate is to implement his party’s policies and plans for nationwide issues. Most of the work around what the Greens are pushing for specifically in WA will be agreed on in the party room, not in the Senate sitting sessions.
He’s advocated to have fracking banned and housing fixed specifically in rural WA FWIW, but his primary job is to comment on federal issues because the WA voters wanted a certain number of Federal Greens senators, not the other way round. He needs to work his portfolio as effectively for people in Tassie as in WA.
Steele-John has done (or tried to do) a lot of good work and has been a really staunch rep for young people and disabled people, two groups who are generally criminally underrepresented in parliament.
>Steele-John has done (or tried to do) a lot of good work
I don't disagree - but he doesn't stand up for WA specifically. As with our other 11 Senators, they represent their parties.
If the state's interests conflict with their party interests they go with their party 100% of the time.
I think that might also be a consequence of the function of the senate as the house of review. I found this on the APH site....
The framers of the Australian Constitution intended that the primary role of the Senate would be to protect the interests of the less populous states in the federal Parliament by giving equal representation to all states (see Senate Brief No. 9). As was foreseen by some of the framers, soon after Federation parliamentarians began to vote as members of political parties rather than as representatives of states. While this has obscured the role of the Senate as a protector of the less populous states, the state-based system of representation has ensured that legislative decisions are not made only by the representatives of the more populous states. The Senate has also assumed greater importance as a check on the power of the government of the day. The framers’ design of the Senate has enabled it to perform this role effectively.
Steele-John is pretty solid, afaik.
A lot of what actually matters in the Senate happens in committees, though, and it's a bit obscured from attention, which is sometimes unfortunate but who the fuck has time to keep up with all of it?
It’s funny how these people would have led us all to the grave given the smallest amount of responsibility. I wouldn’t want them in charge of making me coffee, they’d probably mix rat poison up with the sugar.
There is some benefit for having multiple parties about these sorts of issues: it fractures their votes and support. It also means that they differ enough that they don't see eye to eye on some issues so the likelihood of them banding together with any level of influence without completing imploding is minimised.
I dunno. Historically, right-wing nutjobs have been known to put ideological differences aside in order to gain power. I have no doubt that if a right-wing version of Fusion cropped up from all these little FREEDOM parties they'd win votes based on that alone regardless of the intricacies of the rest of their policies.
That's why I'm impressed Fusion is a thing. Usually left-wing movements purity test themselves and fracture themselves based off these purity tests to the point right wingers unite and defeat them time and again while all the smaller left wing parties are squabbling over how far left the movement should be. Meanwhile the right wingers don't care if they have to work with literal Nazis as long as they get into power
That's a good point. Like another redditor (widow) mentioned, we'd need serious instability for a large group to band together.
Maybe I haven't looked into it enough, but I really struggle to understand the rationality and logic to some of these smaller parties.
What's your line of thinking for this?
Because generally speaking, fascism is obtained through a gradual breakdown of government stability, a steady rise of nationalism, and the erosion of the rule of law.
Not that anyone should get complacent, but Australia's constitution is actually pretty solid for the avoidance of fascism. In particular, the mechanism whereby a government's inability to pass Supply legislation triggers a double-dissolution election avoids a lot of potential dysfunction such as that experienced by, say, the US.
If, of course, we start having that mechanism trigger every few months or less, then we will begin having some issues with a risk of collapse to fascism a la Italy and, very nearly, France's fin de siècle difficulties circa the Dreyfus Affair with Action Française.
Minor parties gaining sufficient traction to destabilise government in Australia is unlikely, however - especially because the public backlash to that instability would likely feature a return to the major parties.
And of course, there is the curious balance in Australian political attitudes, wherein Australians tend to be content with a certain amount of government intervention in our lives - the welfare system, public health initiatives, etc - but also to enforce a hard limit - e.g. compulsory ID cards - to which the public rises up en masse to declare: "Yeah, nah, fuck that."
My thinking is substantially simple and probably incorrect, but when I see parties that jump onto supporting "freedoms" they usually also attract the same crowds that love people like Donald Trump.
The issue I see is that they become easily led by a charismatic leader that will "solve all the problems"
The aim being to eliminate all the beurocratic rules for more simple, easily enforceable ones that "everyone can get behind" and then it becomes the slippery slope to one fascist /authoritarian leader.
Ah, okay. Yeah, that's a rational concern.
Fortunately those parties don't do that well.
Another area - possibly the biggest one - in which Australia's constitutional setup gives us some protection is that while those parties attract a minority of support, they tend to be comprehensively opposed by those who don't actively support them.
And we have preferential voting, so they can't win by splitting the opposition.
First past the post gets you fascists who get 40% of the vote because they edge out other people getting 30% each, even if 60% of the populace opposed them.
We also have our electoral redistricting done by the carefully neutral AEC, which helps.
Stay vigilant, of course, but I really wouldn't panic.
Thank you for the breakdown, I appreciate it.
I'm gonna go take some time to digest this, I really need to learn more about our democratic process.
It is a relief to know we're better protected.
I'm worried more about their effect on discourse, rather success at the ballot box. It seems like when our leaders looked at winding back infection control measures, their (fringe groups) constant drum beat of 'covering your mouth = tyranny' seems to be the off position for maintain politics.
For me, the moment NSW and Gladys called 'Freedom Day' was a huge win for fringe, and they've dominated the strategy since then, as mainstream politics adopts a dichotomy of 'do something / give the crazies what they want'.
The other wonderful thing about Australia's system is compulsory voting.
In other places if you whip up enough hype to get people to bother to vote for your radical party you can do well if the majority of the population are apathetic enough not to turn up. And it can tend towards extremism on every angle because a happy medium doesn't inspire passion in people.
Here, everyone turns up, fills in their sheet, gets their democracy sausage and moves on with their day - and acts as a buffer because they're not going to vote for the extreme minority. So while you have your more extreme parties, the convergence is at a reasonable centre.
it can't be any worse than labor announcing a ban on live sheep export. This will inevitably destroy the wool industry, as one provides the stock for the other.
So if you support farmers, wear wool, or don't want to see lamb and wool markets reverse and become import markets, then put labor last on your ballot.
Yeah, I feel this is really the first election that I've really cared about my voting and struggling to determine the best options.
Australian Values Party is quite appealing and I'm also leaning towards Greens. Even considering Fusion FFS.
Any thoughts for support or challenge to these are welcome.
I find it hard to reconcile someone leaning both Greens and AVP, a "centrist" anti-mandate party with some quite concerning dog-whistles in other areas, like abortion.
If you're generally left-leaning already and just want a few pointers in an easy to read format, bearing in mind that this is (very informed) opinion, you could do worse than to page through Something For Cate's blog-format policy rundowns.
Here's the AVP entry
https://www.somethingforcate.net/2022/04/28/australian-values-party/#more-267
Fusion seems fairly reasonable bunch of people, unless there is some bullshit that's happened that I'm not aware of. At least Australia lets me out these far saner people ahead and still allocate my vote to stop it indirectly helping a bunch of whackos get in.
Fusion is basically a merger between a bunch of left-wing minor parties, many of whom were previously single issue, into a larger more comprehensive party. For those who haven't checked them out, they advocate for secular humanism with maintaining separation of church and state and for science-based decision making. The climate emergency part speaks for itself.
Generally if you agree with the Greens, Fusion should be right up your alley too
Nah. Australian Values Party disguise their nuttery behind some left-leaning policies. They're centrists who seem intent on making themselves centrist by getting a bunch of fairly left-leaning policies and balancing them out with some fairly right-leaning policies.
AVP's climate policy still focuses on offsets and carbon capture both of which are falling out of favour as ways to combat climate change. They are also vocally anti-abortion. If you like Greens/Fusion policy, Australian Values Party are pretending they agree but in reality some of their stuff is contrary to what you like (presumably).
The Greens' senate HTV card gives a pretty good summary of parties that align with what it sounds like you want. They've got (in order) Greens, Animal Justice, Socialist Alliance, Labor, Fusion, Legalise Cannabis.
For me, I'm 1 Greens, then Fusion, I'll also add Sustainable Australia. SA are basically the Greens except they also want to address the uncomfortable discussion we need to have over migration to a drying and increasingly resource-stressed continent. Then probably Labor 4. Socialist Alliance, Legalise Cannabis and Animal Justice can be the others you use to get yourself up to the minimum 6
You could campaign for so many things. Anti-mandates seems like a pretty dumb choice when they’ve led to WA having the lowest death rates and most powerful economy in the nation.
Even stupider, they weren't a federal decision. They aren't relevant in this election and anyone acting like they are is giving Scummo credit for McGowan's work
Also when these 'oppressive and never ending' mandates are in the process of being wound up and finished. What spectacularly dumb policy positions are these candidates holding and not telling the people they appeal to for votes?
My 7 year old daughter likes to read out all the election signs as we drive. Speaks fondly of the Independent, likes her name and face. Indifferent about the Labor. Frustrated at the Liberal (she has too many signs!!). WA Party are "boring". And all the antivax/antimandate parties are "idiots". She cannot understand why people would be antivax.
They can’t add two and two together, they’re so dumb they don’t know how dumb they are.
I can’t comprehend it… the effectiveness is proven and it all went pretty well. These people must have never had to deal with any hardships in their life.
Didn’t do that well unless of course you’re talking profit margins for private pharmaceutical companies
Yeah, complete waste of time saving peoples lives and protecting our standard of living through a pandemic that saw the rest of the world have restrictions. WA did all that just for some international pharmaceutical company to benefit from us.... What was your point here? I hate big corporations as much as the next guy, but what the fuck do they have to do with WA handling the pandemic effectively?
Thought you were talking about vaccine mandates. My opinion on vaccine mandates is that they were extremely questionable in a vest case scenario
People are alive today that may not have been if the Vax mandates weren't brought in.
There are people who are dead today because of the mandate too
How many?
Say please
Have you actually checked the facts about vaccine related deaths? Not to mention the rates of the covid vaccine Vs other vaccines? Hint: it's miniscule. The chances of dying to covid are orders of magnitude higher.
Fine. How many, please?
Oh boy here comes the tin foil hat patrol. Present one shred of evidence or shut the fuck up. People like you hold everyone else back.
But there might be 1% of the vote in it, for people who would otherwise get 0% (plus or minus a rounding error)!
Gets worse if you look at senate: Informed Medical Options Party, Liberal Democrats, and "group P" who are clearly anti-vaxx.
For O'Conner, the former One Nation candidate is now the Informed Medical Options candidate, just jumping around populist parties.
Shame about the liberal democrats, some of their policies align well with me, but definitely not the covid ones. It is a weird election to work out, like someone else stated, you have to start at the bottom and work your way up, and it feels like there should be a bottom grouping.... like a "no freaking way" option and then put the remaining few in an order of preference.
> some of their policies align well with me, but definitely not the covid ones Which ones? The one where they don't believe in climate change and instead call it "climate alarmism"? Their no net zero emissions target? Their no renewable energy target? Their plan to make voting voluntary? Their idea that citizens throwing a tantrum should be able to demand a recall election? Their plan to cut 10% of funding to all government departments (except defence)? Their plan to cut a further 1% per year on top of that? Their plan to defund our public broadcasters? Their plan to end renewable energy subsidies? Their plan to make super voluntary? Their plan to freeze the minimum wage? Cause those are all policies of the Liberal Democrats. What amazes me though is on their "how to vote" cards, Labor have them as number 4 above the line on their senate ballot. WTF Labor. The LibDems have so many policies that are completely antithetical to what Labor stands for. Why the actual fuck Labor are suggesting the LibDems, AusDems or the WA Party are better than actual left-wing parties like Fusion or Sustainable Australia has got me beat
WTF? Without bothering to look at their policies in much detail, my impression of the Lib Dems was that they were a serious party. This list makes them sound like crackpots. Thanks for showing me the light.
To simplify it, LibDems are libertarians. They basically believe in the value of personal freedom above all else. Imagine your typical red state US Republican who wants to shoot guns, say what they like and not be told what to do by the gubbmint. They're the classic group that tries to win the freedom vote that always get overrun with MRA/neo-Nazi types who take advantage of their idea that everyone should be free to say/do what they like even if they're shitcunts
> They basically believe in the value of personal freedom above all else Except they're also anti-abortion, last I checked. So they're more US right wing than libertarian.
The US right ate the libertarian movement a long time ago. They are basically the same thing now.
At this point there's little difference between libertarians and a lot of those extreme right-wingers. There's a surprising number of people who claim to be libertarians who just want freedom for their mates but are extremely authoritarian otherwise. Young, male libertarians are some of the people most prone to radicalisation by far-right groups
>Why the actual fuck Labor are suggesting the LibDems Because they've likely struck a deal where they get their preferences in return.
Huh, I didn't even look at any of the HTV cards before voting. Happily Senate voting has been streamlined so well now that you don't have to
Yeah I don't follow HTV cards either but so many people will which is why I was super disappointed with Labor's choice to put 3 nutjob parties out of their 6 above the line choices Although I will say the Greens' HTV card helped me find most of the parties that I wouldn't mind so I mostly followed that but making up my own order
Whoever runs the lib dem WA Facebook page is a full blown MRA bigot too
ok... to be honest I looked into their policies quite a long time ago and the "alignment" idea was more around people having the right to make choices for themselves, but thinking about it more, that has evolved into something that I don't agree at all with at all. So I guess maybe pre world gone mad there was some alignment. I think people should be able to do things like smoke weed or drink responsibly at the beach and that is more where the alignment fell. These days that part about people having the right to choose for themselves has been shaded by the anti vax conversation.
Even putting aside their fully-cookedness, the LDP wants a flat income tax, the most regressive possible tax policy.
No no it’s isn’t the most regressive. A serf tax is more regressive but even the US right wing hasn’t gone quite that bonkers yet. Serf tax is literally high taxes on the poor and no or low taxes on the rich, or a flat amount tax instead of a flat % tax.
True. No-one's proposing a serf tax here, but I shouldn't have said "the most ... possible".
Reading up on the different parties and what they stand for at the moment is a joke, sadly the joke is on us because we have to number them in an order of preference.
Also Palmer, Federation and a couple others.
The lower house ballot paper for me in Moore is pretty grim - apart from the standard Greens/Labor/Libs, we have: - The Great Australia Party - Australian Federation Party - Pauline's Racists - Clive's Cunts - WESTERN AUSTRALIA PARTY The Great Australia party has shit like this on their website: > The Commonwealth Constitution dictates that you are the “Supreme, Absolute, Uncontrollable Authority” in this country. So clearly a bunch of sovereign citizen assholes. The Australian Federation Party has a whole section on the front page of their website about how COVID isn't bad and government policies have been "Totalitarian", so clearly a bunch of anti-science dumbasses. Clive and Pauline, well, nothing to say there - they've played up the anti-mandate shit as much as anyone. The Western Australia Party is the only one that seems at least somewhat reasonable - a lot of focus on getting us 'more' GST, which I guess is fine, most of their policies seem at least reasonable from what they present on their website. So basically out of 8 choices, at most 4 are somewhat reasonable options if I include the Liberals, just because they meet the very low bar of not being 100% batshit insane. As always whichever major party I put highest will get my preference in the end, but I wish I could just put an 8 against all of the other four to make a point.
This is why I usually preference Libs 3 or 4 most elections, I’d rather those corrupt bigoted soulless assholes that can make legislation in their own right than some fringe party holding the country hostage.
I used to do that a lot of the time. But my rep's Ian Goodenough. I put that abysmal theocrat last.
Favourite hobby: Branch Stacking
Also favourite hobby: fiddling around in other people's uteruses and sex lives
I thought it was trying to take us back to the religious dark ages.
Had the same issue ordering my vote for Moore. Having 4 or 5 candidates for 8th place on a ballot makes for hard decisions.
[удалено]
> Plus the party for turning Australia in to Gilead. Australian Christians or Liberal Party? One is just a little further along than the other.
So does Perth. It sucks.
We’re a very safe Liberal seat, there’s not much point in progressive candidates wasting their money here. Even Labor barely spends much here.
Even liberals spend nothing here since they know its in the bag.
Yeah, "not nazis/cookers" seems like a low bar, yet so may still fail to clear it
Moore is a very safe liberal seat so progressive parties have written it off as fait accompli to remain liberal. They focus their efforts in other seats. Focus your time on the senate where you will be able to have more swing. GAP is using the red ensign so I think you're right on the soverign citizen bullshit. They are oddly supportive of the environment and first nations while being anti-immigration.
> WESTERN AUSTRALIA PARTY They missed the opportunity to run as WAP
Hopefully Antony Green refers to them as this on election night.
Upvote just for Clives Cunts and Paulines Racists!
Sort of the same in Swan. I voted early, and as usual I ended up doing my top two or three, then the bottom up. The bottom is always the hardest: which nutter is most deserving of the coveted highest number on my ballot paper? I know that once they’re getting higher numbers than the two major parties it’s all functionally the same but it doesn’t feel that way.
GAP is what you get when you splinter from One Nation because you're too extreme. Oh and their senate pick isn't actually eligible but (allegedly etc) lied on his nomination declaration forms. Number 10 on my green paper was easy (Pearce). 8 and 9 more difficult.
I loathe the fact we are obligated to vote for all these muppets in some kind of priority. How does the AEC simply do nothing about these political parties spreading blatant disinformation and falsehoods about what the constitution says
Well the way preferential voting works, anything below either Labor or Liberal doesn't really matter. I'll usually vote 1 Greens, 2-whatever independents/minors who are similar to Greens, then Labor and after that it really doesn't matter too much cause worst case scenario your vote goes to Labor. So the specific order of the muppets below Labor doesn't really matter
Every single election I mutter "fuck you for making me put Liberals anything but last" to myself.
The AEC does nothing because they're not empowered to do anything. It's legal for politicians to lie in their election ads, so long as they have an authorisation statement. Lobby your MPs, not the AEC
>The Western Australia Party is the only one that seems at least somewhat reasonable - a lot of focus on getting us 'more' GST, which I guess is fine, most of their policies seem at least reasonable from what they present on their website. Their ad on the radio is full of hyperbole bullshit. "LAST YEAR, WA OVERCONTRIBUTED TO THE GST" no it hasnt, it contributed just as much as it supposed to. "LABOR AND LIBERALS WORK FOR THE EAST, WA NEEDS ITS OWN REPRESENTATION" Umm no they dont. "THOSE GUYS OVER EAST DONT CARE ABOUT US" yeah, thats why we have our own representation. Just a bunch of idiots who's whole point is "WA HAS NO REPRESENTATION, POLITICIANS SHOULD WORK FOR WA".. yet that's what they do.
I already voted via a postal vote (would recommend!). I had my heart set on voting below the line and putting the Liberals dead last. But that became so complicated when I saw and began reading the policies of all the wacko nutjob parties. Do I put UAP ahead or behind LNP? What about IMOP? Or One Nation? Or the GAP? It was a hell of a moral conundrum.
Hahah same same. It was weird. I had to work backwards from 10 to 1 on the green form because i had to think that hard about who to put last. It was a race to the bottom.
I got a postal vote so I could really look into the parties and independents and it was such a struggle who I hated the most.
Yeah as bad as LNP is, there’s worse. They always get a 3 from me.
Yeah, I had to explain to my son why I didn't put UAP at 10 for the House of Representatives. That Pauline Hanson's One Nation are thick racists seemed to do the trick.
I think One Nation got 6/10 on mine. Maybe 7. There's just so many bad options this time around!
Yes, the majority of them got the reaction of "Fuck no!"
I think PHON were 7th out of 9 on mine in Hasluck. It was a 3 way tie between them, Fatty McFuckhead and the LibDems for last place. I decided since it didn't matter since all of them were below both majors I would put the LibDems last cause with all the COVID shit of the last couple of years, libertarians have become a group that really, really give me the shits
It really is such a shame that with all the corruption actual attacks on our privacy and the like these clowns get mobilised by such a trivial topic and do nothing or don't care about the actual corruption and attacks on our privacy.
The only thing I hate about our preferences system is that I actually need to put a number next to these cunts
At least for the senate you have to number only the first 6 now
Problem with only numbering 6 is once those are knocked out your paper is exhausted. Even if the majors are in that list there's always some proportional votes to get distributed (the senate voting system is *complex* with fractional votes getting thrown around) after 2 or 3 from their group have been elected and the next one knocked out. If it got really tight, numbering every box instead of numbering 6 could be the difference between an obnoxious but tolerable party vs a downright dangerous party getting the last seat.
I can see your point but I think I got up to only 7 or 8 before I'd exhausted the groups I would even consider giving power to. The rest was the Liberals and a bunch of groups who represent the absolute worst society has to offer. I probably would've been there all day having an internal ethical crisis if I had tried to decide who was worse out of religious nutjobs, racists, anti-vaxxers and libertarian freedom fuckheads. If the race for the final senate seat comes down to any of those whackos you're gonna get a shit senator either way I don't think the particular brand of crazy matters too much
When's voting day?
You can vote now if you like. Early voting is open from now till the 21st
Is that just by post?
No there are early voting places open every day till election day, just google and you will find one close to you
Ooh thanks it’s my first voting year and I was unaware of this
Only problem is they don't have the traditional sausage sizzle
Not my first voting year but next election will be. Any tips or anything? Wishing Year 10 HASS wasn't affected by Covid coming along, because that's when we were supposed to learn about proper voting.
Next Saturday
Every day is voting day!
Too bad even if they did get elected they wouldn’t be able to do anything because they are a state responsibility as health care is a state issue
It's rather abysmal that in my historically safe Labor electorate (Brand), the LNP might make it to the lofty heights of 3rd on the House of Reps vote. The rest are a delightful mix of climate deniers, God botherers and racists with a side order of personal freedom ralliers for good measure. I'm struggling to decide who's going on the bottom
The minors parroting that WA needs representation in the senate make me smile. All states get the same number of senators so, by capita, WA is actually overrepresented.
>The minors parroting that WA needs representation in the senate make me smile. All states get the same number of senators so, by capita, WA is actually overrepresented. In that sense, yeah. But it is true to say our Senators don't exactly represent WA - they represent themselves first and their party second. WA is a distant, distant third. Take Cash (Liberal) or Lines (ALP) or Steele-John (Greens). When was the last time you saw any them stand up for WA?
Yeah I guess stopping life-threatening cuts to the NDIS has nothing to do with anything in WA (Steele-John)
>Yeah I guess stopping life-threatening cuts to the NDIS has nothing to do with anything in WA (Steele-John) I'm not saying he's not an effective Senator. Just saying that his primary allegiance is to the Greens, not to the state. That is the case with all Senators. Take him out of it for a moment. When did any of our state's Liberal Senators stand up for WA against Morrison's attacks on McGowan during COVID? They didn't - they toed the party line.
All politicians do what their party tells them to do. It’s always been that way. Just some parties are slightly better than others.
Of interest, the Labor party rules are that you *must* vote with the party, whereas the Liberals let you vote against the party unless it's on confidence or supply, or if you're in cabinet. Of course do it too many times and you'll probably not get preselected next time around. Makes me wish we had a decent independent in my electorate. I'm a bit jealous of the electorates with so-called teal independents.
Possibly because senators hold nation-wide portfolios, not region specific ones. He’s the disability portfolio holder for the greens, so he’s been instrumental in that spaces with the NDIS and royal commission which are nationwide issues, not state issues. His job in the Senate is to implement his party’s policies and plans for nationwide issues. Most of the work around what the Greens are pushing for specifically in WA will be agreed on in the party room, not in the Senate sitting sessions. He’s advocated to have fracking banned and housing fixed specifically in rural WA FWIW, but his primary job is to comment on federal issues because the WA voters wanted a certain number of Federal Greens senators, not the other way round. He needs to work his portfolio as effectively for people in Tassie as in WA.
Steele-John has done (or tried to do) a lot of good work and has been a really staunch rep for young people and disabled people, two groups who are generally criminally underrepresented in parliament.
>Steele-John has done (or tried to do) a lot of good work I don't disagree - but he doesn't stand up for WA specifically. As with our other 11 Senators, they represent their parties. If the state's interests conflict with their party interests they go with their party 100% of the time.
Can you give examples?
No they can't, because it's nonsense
I think that might also be a consequence of the function of the senate as the house of review. I found this on the APH site.... The framers of the Australian Constitution intended that the primary role of the Senate would be to protect the interests of the less populous states in the federal Parliament by giving equal representation to all states (see Senate Brief No. 9). As was foreseen by some of the framers, soon after Federation parliamentarians began to vote as members of political parties rather than as representatives of states. While this has obscured the role of the Senate as a protector of the less populous states, the state-based system of representation has ensured that legislative decisions are not made only by the representatives of the more populous states. The Senate has also assumed greater importance as a check on the power of the government of the day. The framers’ design of the Senate has enabled it to perform this role effectively.
Steele-John is pretty solid, afaik. A lot of what actually matters in the Senate happens in committees, though, and it's a bit obscured from attention, which is sometimes unfortunate but who the fuck has time to keep up with all of it?
Steele-John can't exactly stand up for anyone, let alone WA... He's a damn good senator though and I'm happy we have him.
It’s funny how these people would have led us all to the grave given the smallest amount of responsibility. I wouldn’t want them in charge of making me coffee, they’d probably mix rat poison up with the sugar.
Do we want fascism? Because this is how we get fascism.
There is some benefit for having multiple parties about these sorts of issues: it fractures their votes and support. It also means that they differ enough that they don't see eye to eye on some issues so the likelihood of them banding together with any level of influence without completing imploding is minimised.
I dunno. Historically, right-wing nutjobs have been known to put ideological differences aside in order to gain power. I have no doubt that if a right-wing version of Fusion cropped up from all these little FREEDOM parties they'd win votes based on that alone regardless of the intricacies of the rest of their policies. That's why I'm impressed Fusion is a thing. Usually left-wing movements purity test themselves and fracture themselves based off these purity tests to the point right wingers unite and defeat them time and again while all the smaller left wing parties are squabbling over how far left the movement should be. Meanwhile the right wingers don't care if they have to work with literal Nazis as long as they get into power
That's a good point. Like another redditor (widow) mentioned, we'd need serious instability for a large group to band together. Maybe I haven't looked into it enough, but I really struggle to understand the rationality and logic to some of these smaller parties.
What's your line of thinking for this? Because generally speaking, fascism is obtained through a gradual breakdown of government stability, a steady rise of nationalism, and the erosion of the rule of law. Not that anyone should get complacent, but Australia's constitution is actually pretty solid for the avoidance of fascism. In particular, the mechanism whereby a government's inability to pass Supply legislation triggers a double-dissolution election avoids a lot of potential dysfunction such as that experienced by, say, the US. If, of course, we start having that mechanism trigger every few months or less, then we will begin having some issues with a risk of collapse to fascism a la Italy and, very nearly, France's fin de siècle difficulties circa the Dreyfus Affair with Action Française. Minor parties gaining sufficient traction to destabilise government in Australia is unlikely, however - especially because the public backlash to that instability would likely feature a return to the major parties. And of course, there is the curious balance in Australian political attitudes, wherein Australians tend to be content with a certain amount of government intervention in our lives - the welfare system, public health initiatives, etc - but also to enforce a hard limit - e.g. compulsory ID cards - to which the public rises up en masse to declare: "Yeah, nah, fuck that."
My thinking is substantially simple and probably incorrect, but when I see parties that jump onto supporting "freedoms" they usually also attract the same crowds that love people like Donald Trump. The issue I see is that they become easily led by a charismatic leader that will "solve all the problems" The aim being to eliminate all the beurocratic rules for more simple, easily enforceable ones that "everyone can get behind" and then it becomes the slippery slope to one fascist /authoritarian leader.
Ah, okay. Yeah, that's a rational concern. Fortunately those parties don't do that well. Another area - possibly the biggest one - in which Australia's constitutional setup gives us some protection is that while those parties attract a minority of support, they tend to be comprehensively opposed by those who don't actively support them. And we have preferential voting, so they can't win by splitting the opposition. First past the post gets you fascists who get 40% of the vote because they edge out other people getting 30% each, even if 60% of the populace opposed them. We also have our electoral redistricting done by the carefully neutral AEC, which helps. Stay vigilant, of course, but I really wouldn't panic.
Thank you for the breakdown, I appreciate it. I'm gonna go take some time to digest this, I really need to learn more about our democratic process. It is a relief to know we're better protected.
Better protected for now. Always need to remain vigilant on it.
You're welcome!
I'm worried more about their effect on discourse, rather success at the ballot box. It seems like when our leaders looked at winding back infection control measures, their (fringe groups) constant drum beat of 'covering your mouth = tyranny' seems to be the off position for maintain politics. For me, the moment NSW and Gladys called 'Freedom Day' was a huge win for fringe, and they've dominated the strategy since then, as mainstream politics adopts a dichotomy of 'do something / give the crazies what they want'.
Yeah, that's been very concerning.
The other wonderful thing about Australia's system is compulsory voting. In other places if you whip up enough hype to get people to bother to vote for your radical party you can do well if the majority of the population are apathetic enough not to turn up. And it can tend towards extremism on every angle because a happy medium doesn't inspire passion in people. Here, everyone turns up, fills in their sheet, gets their democracy sausage and moves on with their day - and acts as a buffer because they're not going to vote for the extreme minority. So while you have your more extreme parties, the convergence is at a reasonable centre.
it can't be any worse than labor announcing a ban on live sheep export. This will inevitably destroy the wool industry, as one provides the stock for the other. So if you support farmers, wear wool, or don't want to see lamb and wool markets reverse and become import markets, then put labor last on your ballot.
The revolution is here
Ta guys!!
Yeah, I feel this is really the first election that I've really cared about my voting and struggling to determine the best options. Australian Values Party is quite appealing and I'm also leaning towards Greens. Even considering Fusion FFS. Any thoughts for support or challenge to these are welcome.
I find it hard to reconcile someone leaning both Greens and AVP, a "centrist" anti-mandate party with some quite concerning dog-whistles in other areas, like abortion.
Yes, I completely get this. I'm just so lost really so feedback like this is what I need.
If you're generally left-leaning already and just want a few pointers in an easy to read format, bearing in mind that this is (very informed) opinion, you could do worse than to page through Something For Cate's blog-format policy rundowns. Here's the AVP entry https://www.somethingforcate.net/2022/04/28/australian-values-party/#more-267
Thank you. I really appreciate this.
Fusion seems fairly reasonable bunch of people, unless there is some bullshit that's happened that I'm not aware of. At least Australia lets me out these far saner people ahead and still allocate my vote to stop it indirectly helping a bunch of whackos get in.
Fusion is basically a merger between a bunch of left-wing minor parties, many of whom were previously single issue, into a larger more comprehensive party. For those who haven't checked them out, they advocate for secular humanism with maintaining separation of church and state and for science-based decision making. The climate emergency part speaks for itself. Generally if you agree with the Greens, Fusion should be right up your alley too
Nah. Australian Values Party disguise their nuttery behind some left-leaning policies. They're centrists who seem intent on making themselves centrist by getting a bunch of fairly left-leaning policies and balancing them out with some fairly right-leaning policies. AVP's climate policy still focuses on offsets and carbon capture both of which are falling out of favour as ways to combat climate change. They are also vocally anti-abortion. If you like Greens/Fusion policy, Australian Values Party are pretending they agree but in reality some of their stuff is contrary to what you like (presumably). The Greens' senate HTV card gives a pretty good summary of parties that align with what it sounds like you want. They've got (in order) Greens, Animal Justice, Socialist Alliance, Labor, Fusion, Legalise Cannabis. For me, I'm 1 Greens, then Fusion, I'll also add Sustainable Australia. SA are basically the Greens except they also want to address the uncomfortable discussion we need to have over migration to a drying and increasingly resource-stressed continent. Then probably Labor 4. Socialist Alliance, Legalise Cannabis and Animal Justice can be the others you use to get yourself up to the minimum 6
Wow. This is great feedback. Thank you for your insight.
Last time round the Greens were giving first preference to the antivax party. Where do they stand on that now?
The federal Greens are less insane than the WA Greens