BF2S Forums Australian politics thread.

Burwhale wrote:

As for BER.

BER taskforce wrote:

An interim report, released on Friday, says the overall BER versus pre-BER cost differential, for each education authority, is in the range from zero per cent to 12 per cent.

"The higher costs have resulted from the scale, time and complexity of the undertaking," it says.

"Overall, delivering BER P21 within the short timeframe to achieve the economic stimulus objectives may have added a premium to pre-BER business as usual costs of between 5-6 per cent.

"The taskforce will continue to gather and analyse BER and pre-BER project data to enable us to have a more definitive view on value for money for the BER program as a whole by our November 2010 report."

Only 2 percent of schools had complaints. See the bit where it said "BER P21 within the short timeframe to achieve the economic stimulus objectives may have added a premium to pre-BER business as usual costs of between 5-6 per cent."
So most of the money went where it was meant to go, and 98 % of schools are happy.

Why would schools complain, they're getting free money. Does not stop the fact it's mostly pointless and wasteful spending. There's a private school just up the road from where I live (Sydney Grammar Prep), the BER money is being spent to rebuild the headmasters private residence.

What I'm curious to know is how Fielding ever got elected...  Are there just a large number of idiots in Victoria?

DrunkFace wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

What I'm curious to know is how Fielding ever got elected...  Are there just a large number of idiots in Victoria?

Yes

Is it specifically religious nuts, or just old people that are really stuck up?

Turquoise wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

What I'm curious to know is how Fielding ever got elected...  Are there just a large number of idiots in Victoria?

Yes

Is it specifically religious nuts, or just old people that are really stuck up?

Bear in mind Turq that 1. Fielding was elected in 2004, he didn't face reelection in 2007. In that election, he got a primary (so i.e. a "1" above or below the line) vote of 1.88%. So technically only 1.9% of Victorians actually voted for him. However preference flows (either from each individual below-the-line vote or above-the-line preferences decided by each party) gave him the 14.3% after-preferences needed to reach the Senate quota.

http://mumbrella.com.au/kerry-obrien-au … ewer-25637

<3

Spark wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Yes

Is it specifically religious nuts, or just old people that are really stuck up?

Bear in mind Turq that 1. Fielding was elected in 2004, he didn't face reelection in 2007. In that election, he got a primary (so i.e. a "1" above or below the line) vote of 1.88%. So technically only 1.9% of Victorians actually voted for him. However preference flows (either from each individual below-the-line vote or above-the-line preferences decided by each party) gave him the 14.3% after-preferences needed to reach the Senate quota.

You'll have to explain this a bit further...  How does this primary differ from being up for re-election?  In the American system, a primary is only applicable within a single party before an election.  It sounds like your primaries are almost the same as an actual election...

Also, Instant Runoff Voting (something that may eventually make it to the American system) is basically the same as what you call preference voting -- so far as I understand it anyway.  So, I thought that preferences just meant that you could vote for a third party guy like Fielding but that he'd just have his votes ultimately go to one of the bigger parties (whichever party was most voted for as a second choice under Fielding).

With the way you've described it, it sounds almost like the opposite situation.

I guess I'm trying to figure out what below the line and above the line preferences are.  It sounds rather complicated.

oooh, i just voted and i have a hangover. felt like i was going to throw up waiting in line. lol

Dilbert_X wrote:

Voted, went for a coffee and warm double-choc muffin after.

heh, when you vote here, you don't get coffee or a muffin, just raped . . .

Turquoise wrote:

Spark wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Is it specifically religious nuts, or just old people that are really stuck up?

Bear in mind Turq that 1. Fielding was elected in 2004, he didn't face reelection in 2007. In that election, he got a primary (so i.e. a "1" above or below the line) vote of 1.88%. So technically only 1.9% of Victorians actually voted for him. However preference flows (either from each individual below-the-line vote or above-the-line preferences decided by each party) gave him the 14.3% after-preferences needed to reach the Senate quota.

You'll have to explain this a bit further...  How does this primary differ from being up for re-election?  In the American system, a primary is only applicable within a single party before an election.  It sounds like your primaries are almost the same as an actual election...

Also, Instant Runoff Voting (something that may eventually make it to the American system) is basically the same as what you call preference voting -- so far as I understand it anyway.  So, I thought that preferences just meant that you could vote for a third party guy like Fielding but that he'd just have his votes ultimately go to one of the bigger parties (whichever party was most voted for as a second choice under Fielding).

With the way you've described it, it sounds almost like the opposite situation.

I guess I'm trying to figure out what below the line and above the line preferences are.  It sounds rather complicated.

You can still direct your preferences regardless of where they would normally go (or so I've been led to believe). I think ultimately though they'll end up at one of the two majors.

Turquoise wrote:

Spark wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Is it specifically religious nuts, or just old people that are really stuck up?

Bear in mind Turq that 1. Fielding was elected in 2004, he didn't face reelection in 2007. In that election, he got a primary (so i.e. a "1" above or below the line) vote of 1.88%. So technically only 1.9% of Victorians actually voted for him. However preference flows (either from each individual below-the-line vote or above-the-line preferences decided by each party) gave him the 14.3% after-preferences needed to reach the Senate quota.

You'll have to explain this a bit further...  How does this primary differ from being up for re-election?  In the American system, a primary is only applicable within a single party before an election.  It sounds like your primaries are almost the same as an actual election...

An individual senate seat is contested at every second election, hence why normal general elections (not double dissolutions) are called half-senate elections.

Also, Instant Runoff Voting (something that may eventually make it to the American system) is basically the same as what you call preference voting -- so far as I understand it anyway.  So, I thought that preferences just meant that you could vote for a third party guy like Fielding but that he'd just have his votes ultimately go to one of the bigger parties (whichever party was most voted for as a second choice under Fielding).

With the way you've described it, it sounds almost like the opposite situation.

In the senate things work differently. Once all the votes are counted, any "redundant" votes that take a candidate over the quota but not enough to reach the next quota have their preferences distributed. I think. It is quite complicated.

I guess I'm trying to figure out what below the line and above the line preferences are.  It sounds rather complicated.

There is literally a line on the voting card for the senate. Above the line you can only put one vote for a single party (you can't put second or third preferences) and then the party you voted for basically decides where the the preferences go.

In the House of Reps life is much simpler, there it does work like a stock-standard preferences system.

Below the line you direct your preferences to each individual candidate yourself.

BN wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Just voted. On a sour note though, two more aussie soldiers have died in Afghanistan, this is getting ridiculous.

(Also free sausage sizzle ftw )

I am disappointed in all parties for NOT making the wars an election issue.

What are wars compared to violence in Left 4 Dead 2?

Voted:
-liberal
-shooting party
-sex party
-fishing party
-vladmir putin
-labor

Crossed everyone else out from the list, and wrote 'HAHAHA' under the Australian Democrats.