Senate passes Carbon Tax

Let me get this straight, The independents and the greens votes are eliminated to give only those votes for the Two party preferred votes? LOL. I can not believe what you are now attempting to say. Did you do that little sum I suggested to you? If you had you would have found one thing. The figures add up to the total number of votes counted. Immediate fail to your POPULAR VOTE theory. LOL

That is your claim when attempting to use those figures

Are you beginning to see the error of your claim?

 

Sorry, I came into this assuming you already knew what the two party preferred vote was and what its purpose is. No it's not literally the amount of votes that "counted" after preferences. However If you want to compare which party got more votes after preferences, that is the best figure to use. That did appear to be what the argument was.

We're all aware of this, stop calling it "party preference" though. "Independent's support" makes it much clearer wtf you are talking about when we're discussing preferential voting.

Again.. no idea what you are saying. The greens got 11.75% of the first preference vote (1.45 million votes or something) and won 1 seat. Each electorate has about 100k people. So maybe, after preferences the Greens might have won that seat with say 60k votes (say 40k primary and 20k second pref, just hypothetical numbers). That leaves... 1.41 million Greens primary votes that went to the second preference, obviously minus the ones in any seat that didn't go to second preference. The majority of which would have gone to the ALP, it's obvious from the numbers. Hope that is clear.

Is this some sort of silly semantics argument? The purpose of the two party preferred vote is to show... which party is preferred by the voters. Literally it does not translate into votes that "counted" or to seats. However it is much more accurate for showing the votes after preferences than the first preference vote is, and I thought that was the whole point.

Again no idea what you're talking about.

Er... No garry.

Again, no idea what you're talking about. I assumed that the greens won that seat after preferences, yes. I know that the Greens won the seat and not the ALP, obviously... because the Greens have an mp in the lower house.

Yes... I know voter preference elects members to seats... Again I think you're getting yourself very confused garry.

Surely it is obvious what the figure represents. The clue is in the name, two party preferred, which of the two parties is preferred by voters. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

It doesn't have anything to do with seats.

I'm curious, what do you think it means?

This makes absolutely no sense at all. I think you're getting confused again. The election is one thing, we'll call it Thing A. Forming a government is another thing, let's call that Thing B. Once Thing A has concluded, once it's all finished... Then Thing B can start. Thing A does not use the same system as Thing B. I really don't know how to make this any clearer.

I have absolutely no idea where you got the notion that ballot card preferences somehow have further relevance or influence after all the votes have been counted.

Again, I assumed you knew what it was. Not trying to deceive you buddy, just obviously not specific enough for you. I mean it's pretty obvious that it's not literally the amount of votes "counted" since there are more than 2 parties in the lower house. I really didn't think I had to explain this.

No... they're not irrelevant. Again... it tells us... which of the two parties is preferred by the voters. Surely it's not this difficult to understand? :S

If this continues, just to let you know, gonna keep my posts much, much shorter than this because this is getting pretty ridiculous.

Oh and Pro tip: I'm not Bugs and I don't blindly agree with everything he says. So if you're going to argue with me, actually argue with what I say and not what someone else says. Otherwise I'm not going to have any clue wtf you are on about as I haven't, nor do I intend, to read every post in this thread.

 

YOUR opinion, that's all we are getting, over and over again. You have failed to provide any authoritive references to support YOUR opinion. Why? because they don't exist. Why? Because YOUR opinion is wrong.
You desparately clutch at the word 'doubtfull' in ONE of the references I provided while ignoring all the rest which clearly state the GG can withhold assent to a law passed by both houses of parliment.
You laughably tried to claim a quote from a public lecture given by an ex-politician with no law qualifications whatsoever was more authoritve than my quote from Sir Harry Gibbs QC.
You desparately hold up YOUR opinion on the meaning of 'but according to this constitution' in s.58 but your opinion is wrong.
I have asked you explain the meaning of the word 'discretion' in s.58 but you have failed to do so.
You demonstrate your lack of understanding of the topic by repeatedly using incorrect terminology.
Do I need to say more? I think not. Game over, you lose.

 

You own references show you are wrong.

Try reading them

No - none of your references clearly state the GG can withhold assent to a law passed by both houses of parliament - only one suggests it is "doubtful"

Try reading your own references. I will hep you if you do not understand them

You have never provided your reference for your quote from Harry Gibbs. I have assumed it is something else you have misunderstood. Show us your reference and I will explain it to you.

Every reference you have provided confirms that my "opinion" is correct.

Though understanding the meaning of English words is not actually an "opinion".

Discretion - The freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation

And the GG may do this subject to the Constitution.

Sorry - but the Constitution does not allow the GG to arbitrarily overrule the Parliament. That is just stupid.

I don't know how many times I must tell you this

Have you worked out what the difference between reserve powers and prescribed powers?

When you do that - come back and tell me how much I don't understand.

 

However, you proclaimed it supported your statement 'ALP got more votes and the Liberals won more seats.' Now, you say it does not? LOL, The figures to use are the figures above, in the AEC not the Two Party Preferred figures because you do not actually understand what they consist of. You should understand that the 4 INDEPENDENTS votes would be considered fluid, as they can change support at anytime, this does not require a BY-ELECTION or anything like that, the member can simply stand up and say I now support the Coalition. Meaning in the Two Party Preferred figures would change.

I am Sorry, do you not like the term PARTY PREFERENCE? You are aware it is totally different from VOTER PREFERENCE? You do realise they actually mean TWO different things? ONE indicates voter intentions the other indicates member preference. Oh, You do not know what type of electoral system you have? You electoral system is a preferential voting system. Which means if a tally can not provide the winner of a seat, the second preference of the voter is tallied to each member and the third, until a member receives the appropriate number of votes to win the seat. This is the closest and best representation of voter intentions (or preferred government) than the so called Two party Preferred system that you proclaim to be.

LOL, And I thought you where beginning to understand. You see, YOU ASSUME that these votes went to members that did not win seats. LOL, Sorry about that, I actually thought you had some idea of what I actually tallied when I made the sums, from the AEC, which you objected to me being able to do. LOL,

That is what you are attempting. You are attempting to Show your votes and seats comment is shown by the Two Party Preferred system. Fact is, you made the statement and are attempting to show something from figures that are totally irrelevant to the actual results of the election. BUGs is attempting to demonstrate they mean voter preference (if you actually followed this) and you are attempting to show votes attributed. NEITHER of which is correct. As you would be trying to attribute Independent votes to the ALP as the Two party preferred system does. Or have you not worked that out yet. These are votes for members who made a deal with the ALP not voter preference and not a vote for the ALP. LOL

So, you consider that the voters for the independents voted for the ALP? LOL, What would happen to those voters preference if the independents decided to no longer support the ALP? Do you suddenly suggest that now the voters preferred the Coalition? LOL, Accurate, LOL.

but you are claiming the Greens vote as a vote for the ALP.

So deceptive of you. They do not show which party of the two are preferred by voters, it simply shows that through support of other parties and members, whom won seats, that labor can form government. NOTHING MORE. Should the Greens or the independants decide to change support, this would be at the 'party preference', that term you do not like, NOT the voter. So not it does no such thing.

actually it has more to do with seats than votes, LOL, as stated above as simply as possible.

Yes, it clearly shows you do not know your own electoral system. So from your simple understanding, the election has nothing to do with forming government? LOL

There is that lovely word again, your attempt to appear so more intelligent than those around, LOL.

Oh, please. Yes, you would be trying to deceive all of us. You made a claim that was factually wrong, and at the top of this post you try and back away claiming you where unaware of the debate. BUT INSTEAD of leaving it as that, you again attempt to justify your statement with figures you assume support your stance, when they are actually irrelevant to your comment. YES, YOU ARE TRYING TO DECEIVE.

They show no such thing. YOU assume it does because they show the ALP has more preferences. BUT you say they have nothing to do with the voter preference, in this post.
'I have absolutely no idea where you got the notion that ballot card preferences somehow have further relevance or influence after all the votes have been counted'

So you answered your own question.

LOL, Please whatever it takes.

Pro tip: do not attempt to use others suppositions unless you know what they are. As I have addressed everything you have said to me, in the context you are putting them. Then it is not me who can not follow what is said. Perhaps if you where not proclaiming the very same things as BUGs who has obviously realised the error of his ways, then don't complain. I have addressed your claims to you, and BUGs to him.

 

I'm going to try and summarise for you garry because again, I'm sorry, but you seem confused.

The Two party preferred vote is given primarily for two reasons.

1. Malapportionment.
2. Concerntration of votes.

It is given to show which of the two major parties is preferred by the voters.

It is calculated, hoping this is quite obvious, by eliminating all other parties and effectively counting the ballots as if there were only the 2 major parties. Hence it's the... two party preferred vote. The ALP won this "vote" (yes... I call it a "vote" for the sake of simplicity, sorry if you struggle with this). It was the preferred party by voter preferences.

The two party preferred vote does not actually have any affect on the outcome of the election. It's only to show... which party is preferred.

I do hope you're following.

So why does the AEC calculate this? Because if it differed too much from the outcome of the election we would know there is something wrong with the system. Much like the popular vote vs the electoral college for the Americans.

It is a STATISTIC OF THE ELECTION. Independents supporting one party or the other is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to this statistic. One it has been counted it DOES NOT CHANGE. I felt this really needed emphasis, hence the caps.

All quite straightforward, I hope.

First preference votes do not give a good indication of the amount of votes that were actually received after preferences. Again I hope this is obvious.

If axial is going to pull out the first preference vote as though it means something significant that the coalition got "more votes" (not seats, votes) but lost the election. Yep, I'm going to call BS on that. If you want a picture of who got more of the "popular vote" you use the two party preferred stat, that is what it is there for.

Hope that is all clear.

The greens only won 1 seat, so yes... the vast majority of those 1.45 million votes went to greens members who did not win a seat. I really have no idea what this argument of yours is.

When you say "party preference" this does not immediately indicate that you're talking about the confidence of the house. I don't like the term because it's already used in the voting system. I don't know why you have decided to use it to describe the state of the parliament. This is not its common usage.

The way you describe the preferential voting system is incorrect garry.

If no one receives a majority of votes (50% + 1 vote) then the candidate with the least amount of votes is crossed off and their second preferences are distributed. This continues until someone has a majority.

I guess it's hard to keep track of these types of "discussions" and you probably just accidently project Bugs comments/arguments onto me, so nevermind.

"Notion" is just a perfectly normal mainstream word that everyone knows garry, I do not for one second think that this word makes me appear "so more intelligent than those around".

No one trying to "deceive" you garry, makes you sound a bit paranoid.

 

So now it is an inequitable representation? So tell me How does it support YOUR statement, if it is.

LOL, No it does not show concentration of votes, LOL.

How can it be, when it does does not represent the voter preference? LOL.

LOL, So, tell me the other members the independents votes are not counted to this system?

You should say that the Two Party Preferred vote does not actually indicate the results of the election.

LOL, so the votes for the Independents are not part of the Two party preferred statistics? LOL, You do understand that the Two party preferred STATISTICS can change with each and every vote by parliament? LOL, No it is not really a statistic that shows election results, as explained the Two party preference vote encompasses all formal votes, some for the greens some for the independents. They are purely attributed to labor, because they supported labor, And yes, the Two party preference DOES change and should any member change supporting party, those figures will change to suite.

No, But preferential voting does, As who won seats, not what you proclaim.

You can call it what you like, Fact is that without the Independents and the greens vote, Labor received considerably less votes both primary and preferential than the Coalition. You seem to miss the point of what the Two Party Preference Figures consist of. I have stated several times but you proclaim it does not change, as that if the independents changed support their vote would still remain the tally to the ALP, LOL.

You assume that all these votes did not go to ALP members that won seats. So if this is not the case, According to you, the figures are counted twice, as an ALP vote as a preference and as a Green vote As Greens vote. TCH, TCH, deceptive of you, LOL

LOL, attempts to change my statements, again deceptive, I am not reflecting on the confidence of the house and never have, with the term PARTY PREFERENCE, As it indicates only the sitting members preference not the house or the voter. As the Greens made the Party PREFERENCE widely known before the election to the ALP. no secret there. But the independents which would be considered a party of 1 also had made that distinction once their support was needed to create governance. LOL, you really do not know the difference of the party and the voter with the preference system, LOL

LOL, is that not what I said? No deceit on your part. LOL

LOL, No, You did state, To me that 'LABOR won more votes and Coalition won more seats.' Which you try to support with The Two Party Preferred figures that actually do not reflect LABOR'S votes in any way. You attempted to then state it was voter intention to elect the ALP and these figures show that, However, that is also deceptive. You even changed your own statements within the very same post in attempts to justify your deceit. As BUGs has also attempted to do.

LOL, is that why you have also attempted the same with 'malapportionment'(BTW, you do know that there is no such word? making up words again attempting to show your intelligenc). LOL, attempts to show how intellectual you are. LOL.

No, you are trying to deceive all around, You can not decieve. You know this, so you attempt to display to others you far greater understanding of something that you should actually know far better than me. Nice try with this one, I heard a while ago, 'if you can not dazzle them with science, then baffle them with BS', You are poorly demonstrating the latter

Let us put it to a far more simple system for you,

http://australianpolitics.com/elections/two-party/two-party-preferred.shtml

DOES THAT MAKE IT CLEARER, IT IS NOT SAYING WHAT YOU PROCLAIM?

 

Seriously garry you said:

Which is WRONG.

Eurgh.

You also are consistently WRONG about how the two party preferred vote is calculated.

It compensates for malapportionment

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malapportionment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapportionment#Malapportionment

and concentration of votes. It doesn't "show" it unless you compare it to the seats won.

OF COURSE the two party preferred vote doesn't show the election result. THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO PARTIES. I have already said this and it is OBVIOUS to ANYONE simply by the NAME.

What do you think would happen to the two party preferred vote (that number on the bottom of the AEC page) if Tony Windsor decided that he supported the opposition?

I really can't be bothered with this.

Do you actually live in Australia? I don't know why I have to explain all this crap to you and I don't know why you're so ignorant about our electoral system. Can only assume that you either don't actually live here or that you don't vote!

Can you PLEASE keep you frickin posts SHORTER garry. It's completely ridiculous the length of your posts that you expect me to respond to.

I get the feeling you're just trolling. You keep going on and on about how me and bugs are trying to "deceive" you. This isn't a conspiracy garry.

 

No, I never said it was. However, Both of you made the same claim

LABOR received more votes than COALITION.

Factually incorrect.

THEN you attempt to justify your statement with the Two Party Preferred figures. When brought to task, you attempt to change things to suite.

No you attempted to deceive, you have had ample opportunity to back down and you continue to proclaim How these figures showed your statement. You even tried to admit you knew very little of the original comments.

But hey, if you can not win, just attempt insult and subterfuge, that might work, But whatever you do, never stop bashing your point, even if your WRONG.

I gather you are very racist, with your continued comments on my nationality. would this be correct?

 

Right, I've just gone back and read this thread.

You and bugs are both wrong.

You and bugs were both wrong about how the voting system works. I've already quoted your incorrect explanation of the system.

And then you garry were also wrong about how the two party preferred stat is calculated. It most certainly does not change depending on who an Independent supports in the lower house.

You also used this "party preference" phrase incorrectly which leads to confusion.

Yes I said the ALP got more votes, quoting the TPP stat. This is entirely correct and relevant when comparing which of the two major parties won the "popular vote".

http://australianpolitics.com/elections/two-party/two-party-preferred.shtml

Then you also had some major gripe about me saying the bulk of the Greens vote went to the ALP after preferences. So, OK:

http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/HouseStateTcpFlow-15508-NAT.htm

77% of Greens votes had ALP as their second preference compared to only 15% for Liberal. So again you are wrong. Since Greens only won 1 seat this is HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT as it accounts for roughly 1.4 million votes.

If you want the exact number of votes that "counted" in the election garry. What you need to do is find out which electorates were decided on first preference and add up all the votes for the Libs/ALP for those seats. Then see which went to preferences and calculate the preferences manually for each of those seats.

If you can be bothered doing that for all 150 seats then goodluck to you.

Otherwise if you're comparing the votes of the two major parties, WHICH IS HOW THIS STARTED, you use the two party preferred.

Why? Because most people who vote independent/green do not actually expect their first preference to win. If we had fpp then quoting the first preference would be perfect, but we don't.

 

LOL, so what is the Party preference system in your mind? I'll answer the rest further along.

LOL, that would be incorrect, shown by the the amount of votes counted and the SUPPORT given. Again the TPP STAT, has no relevance on the Popular vote or voter preference as you proclaimed.

http://australianpolitics.com/elections/two-party/two-party-preferred.shtml

and you assume that all these preferences are attributed to members who did not win seats with those preferences.

Really are you telling me you need a large calculation to see what the AEC had at the bottom of those primary Votes. No, I can do one simple calculation. As stated, the TPP (as you like so much) is calculated from the SUPPORT, NOT VOTES as you would have us believe.

No thanks, If i need to find out who is supporting the parties I will look at the TPP, but if I want to see What votes each party got I'll look at the individual votes. AND yes this did start by a factually incorrect statement of 'Labor received more votes Coalition received more seats' Unfortunately for your premise, You discuss the direct votes and preferential vote and proclaim that support also counts as votes. something that was not Given for several days AFTER the election results where reached, creating a hung parliament.

LOL, so you still consider the TPP is indicative of the voting intent? Sorry, get angry, all you like, BUT NO, it does not support your statement.

 

garry what the hell are you talking about "support given"? What does this even refer to?

None of your post makes any sense at all.

The TPP is, again:

This is ENTIRELY relevant and the BEST INDICATOR of which of the two major parties was more popular with the voters.

What you said about the greens makes NO SENSE. The Greens won 1 seat, but got 1.45 million of the primary vote. 77% of all greens votes listed ALP as their second preference compared to 15% listing the Libs. So yes... most of the greens vote actually went to the ALP.

Again I already quoted your incorrect explanation of how preferences are counted and gave the correct process.

 

No - this started from this factually incorrect statement:

That is wrong not only on first preferences:

Australian Labor Party 4,711,363
Liberal 3,777,383
http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-15508-NAT.htm

But also on a 2 party preferred basis

ALP 6,216,445
LIB/NAT 6,185,918
http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/HouseTppByState-15508.htm




The point of all this being that more people voted for or directed their preferences to parties that had policies to introduce carbon pricing. And now the government has passed legislation to introduce carbon pricing

 

Ah AH AH AH!! flap flap flap flop flip flap. Just your opinion AGAIN. God! It's like talking to a brainwashed religious fanatic. I can see I'm wasting my time, stupid of me to think I might have gotten some sort of reasoned argument from Buggsy. Mate, you go ahead through life with your basless opinion, I don't care if you continually make a fool of yourself, and I'll kept to my well founded opinion.

 

No - it is the opinion of the sources you have been quoting. Go and read them again. I will help you if you do not understand.

S58 does not allow the GG to arbitrarily overrule the Parliament. Go and read your own source again.

 

No, look back, I did wonder when that was going to dawn on you. With you, I continue to state 'Coalition'. However, you are correct that Labor received more votes than the Liberal party, You statement was directed at another member. I do consider it funny though, you getting semantic NOW after, some days arguing differently. Also, It also shows, that you had made the connection of what the member intended.

and that would have settled the debate completely, if that is what you actually thought.

This would indicate you are debating, with full knowledge of the statement MEANING the COALITION received more votes.

Would this be a further attempt to deceive? No, I think maybe you are trying TOO hard to beat this.

Actually yes, that is your point. BUT it is wrong. As the policy the Labor party put forward was to discuss policies for a greener future. Your own links stated this and also the lie Gillard, herself, Apologized for. But the best representation of what the public thought of is the opinion polls, which True do not represent a exact feeling of the public it is close enough to show, it was a very unpopular decision.

As also, there where several other policies in the election, not that carbon policy you proclaim

Oh by the way, Your debate is totally different to the argument I was having with ZIG. I guess that is what happens, when you think you are attempting to join forces against an adversary in attempt to show credibility.

 

You too too paranoid garry!

We did not "join forces", we just happened to both disagree with you.

You PROVED by your incorrect explanation of how preferences are counted that you were wrong. You proved by your incorrect explanation of how the two party preferred vote is counted that you were wrong. You were just wrong about everything garry.

 

Hey Gary - it's not all about you.

As I stated - this whole conversation started from Axialturban's incorrect statement. You just jumped in to confuse things.

 

Labor never abandoned their policy for putting a price on carbon.

Sorry Garry - that is a simple fact

JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term as part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/features/fed...se/story-fn5tar6a-1225907552000#ixzz1f5ZZ39gs


You can whine all you want about the post-election deal with the Greens to implement a 3 year fixed price period - but the simple fact remains that the majority of Australians either voted for or directed their preferences to parties that had policies to introduce carbon pricing.

 

Oh, so your comment was the same as what BUGs and I was discussing? Try again, I took you to task over a totally different comment OF YOURS.


LOL, owned again, and now you chase me around in some sort of attempt, of what?

 

No, that would be deceptive.

From your link,

Could you tell us all WHERE it states that she would introduce a carbon pricing policy? As your quote is not part of gillards wording, if She was not returned to government by the independents, you would have claimed it as a smear campaign, and you would be right.

LOL, they all did have carbon pricing policies, according to you, so this would be a logical fallacy of yours wouldn't it. No, there where far more policies than just your carbon policy. Probably the most telling thing is that Labor did not win the election. So, How do you assume that they have a mandate?

 

Right there in your quote:
I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism

 

Which party formed Government?

 

Oh so some sort of market-based mechanism or a carbon pollution reduction scheme, means putting a Price on carbon? No, it simply means She would consider all policies to reduce carbon emissions. Just in case you are unaware, there are many systems to reduce carbon emissions.

No, you conveniently left out the remainder of the comment, that in your eyes is setting a price on carbon "I rule out a carbon tax.". which Gillard herself admitted.

Now you are trying to deceive the forum. You quoted a part of a comment in attempt to show not what they actually mean. THAT is deception, much like your PM.

Tell me, Does Gillard set the standards for Australians? Since "stabbing Rudd" in the back and deceiving the Australian population on several occasions, Does this mean all Australians think it is justified to deceive others? No wonder, Australians are not as well like as they think they are, internationally

No, your link and comment are not supported by this.

 

LOL, So that means a majority voted for the party sitting in governance? No, ALP was only able to form a MINORITY government, with the support of INDEPENDENTS, who did not have a carbon policy at all. They never campaigned on a carbon policy, of even stated support for either parties policies during the election. Sorry, it is a fail.

I feel we are going in circles, maybe we can just call it even. You can not convince me and I can not convince you. Neither of us are willing to give a millimeter based entirely on what is so far provided. We have covered much and gotten nowhere. Up to you.