"Beam me up Scotty ....
... there's no intelligent life in this election."
I do apologise to all trekkies for misquoting Jim Kirk.
Declaring some sort of interest in the matter here is a photo of the fence beside our front gate, with my support for the ALP's Mike Kelly screwed into place.
However I am not a member of any political Party and reckon that Cath Moore, the Greens candidate, is also good value (if only her Party had a skerrick of common sense or pragmatism to it - see below for more on this - I'd possibly have her photo there)!
What about the Liberal chappie you ask? Two words:
This post has come about as a result of an article in the Canberra Times this morning (apparently channeling The Age) suggesting that the vivacious and intellectual Ms P. Hanson could get a job as Senator representing the people of NSW after 7 September. This is, of course, a worry.
It led me to look at the choices that the electors of NSW face in the Senate election. The AEC site was a - possibly 'THE' - starting point from which I downloaded a list of candidates. Oh lawks a mussy boss, tell me it ain't so: 110 candidates! Trying to get them right from the get go, without making a mistake, is going to be almost impossible.
The alternative way of voting is to give a vote 'above the line to a single Party and your preferences then follow that Party's ticket. Before taking a stroll down that path let us explore the Third Way: giving preference to parties above the line. Unfortunately that isn't allowed, and with 44 groups is probably not much less error prone than working ones way through the individual candidates.
However it was very clear that the party to come stone motherless last (#44) was the Shooters and Fishers Party. I don't think any other Party in Australia's history has been condemned as severely, and justifiably so, by the activities of their pride and joy the NSW Game Council. Let no-one think there wasn't competition for last place. It must be a matter of relief to:
So to avoid the curse of 110 I would like to find a Party to give a 1 to. My first thought - refer photo above - was to honour the ALP. Unfortunately their registered ticket, presented by the AEC as a voting paper appeared to gave 4th place to the Shooters and Fishers Party. How can they have done that? Give that position 3 is the Senator Online Party which, unfortunately for the reasons below, can probably be ignored it is possible that quite a heap of votes could end up with the gun-nuts.
I was so annoyed by the Shooters getting position 4 that it led me to get distracted from tracking down closely who was #2! I have now done that. It wasn't completely simple, but finding an alternatve presentation on the AEC website just listing the candidates with their sequential number helped out. It turns out to be the Greens that get second preference. So things are better than I thought - the chances of a number of ALP votes ending up with the gun-nuts must be miniscule. Thus the ALP gets a 1 above the line!
Next shot was to see what the Greens had on offer. They put the Pirate Party (que? - on looking at their site the only difference to Wikileaks seems to be that their leader isn't hiding in an Embassy) second and then the Wikileaks mob next. So here we have a situation in which quite a bunch of preferences are going to end up with a party I loathe. While this is typical of the lack of common sense of the Greens, it is again too risky. Can you imagine Julian Assange having the balance of power in the country's Parliament? Or, looking at the Pirate mob, someone whose top priority is copyright reform?
Given that the Senator Online group are headed by Tim Ferguson of the Doug Anthony All Stars they have some merit (at least it wouldn't be boring). However their ticket shows a whole bunch of minor parties heading their preferences which makes it too risky to give them a 1, as it becomes more or less a random event where your vote ends up.
Fortunately my revised analysis of the ALP ticket saves me from the 110 vote route!
I do apologise to all trekkies for misquoting Jim Kirk.
Declaring some sort of interest in the matter here is a photo of the fence beside our front gate, with my support for the ALP's Mike Kelly screwed into place.
What about the Liberal chappie you ask? Two words:
- Mad
- Monk.
- He worked closely with the Howard Government as adviser to Peter Reith during the 'children overboard' scandal.
- He is currently senior adviser to Deputy Leader Julie Bishop
This post has come about as a result of an article in the Canberra Times this morning (apparently channeling The Age) suggesting that the vivacious and intellectual Ms P. Hanson could get a job as Senator representing the people of NSW after 7 September. This is, of course, a worry.
It led me to look at the choices that the electors of NSW face in the Senate election. The AEC site was a - possibly 'THE' - starting point from which I downloaded a list of candidates. Oh lawks a mussy boss, tell me it ain't so: 110 candidates! Trying to get them right from the get go, without making a mistake, is going to be almost impossible.
The alternative way of voting is to give a vote 'above the line to a single Party and your preferences then follow that Party's ticket. Before taking a stroll down that path let us explore the Third Way: giving preference to parties above the line. Unfortunately that isn't allowed, and with 44 groups is probably not much less error prone than working ones way through the individual candidates.
However it was very clear that the party to come stone motherless last (#44) was the Shooters and Fishers Party. I don't think any other Party in Australia's history has been condemned as severely, and justifiably so, by the activities of their pride and joy the NSW Game Council. Let no-one think there wasn't competition for last place. It must be a matter of relief to:
- the Wikileaks mob - whose Leader is still trying to work out how to emerge from the Eucadorean Embassy (#43):
- One Nation (#42)- current home of Ms Hanson; and
- the Fred Nile Group (#41) - who seem to be back in charge in NSW following the Shooters and Fishers doing the aforementioned number on themselves via the Game Council.
So to avoid the curse of 110 I would like to find a Party to give a 1 to. My first thought - refer photo above - was to honour the ALP. Unfortunately their registered ticket, presented by the AEC as a voting paper appeared to gave 4th place to the Shooters and Fishers Party. How can they have done that? Give that position 3 is the Senator Online Party which, unfortunately for the reasons below, can probably be ignored it is possible that quite a heap of votes could end up with the gun-nuts.
I was so annoyed by the Shooters getting position 4 that it led me to get distracted from tracking down closely who was #2! I have now done that. It wasn't completely simple, but finding an alternatve presentation on the AEC website just listing the candidates with their sequential number helped out. It turns out to be the Greens that get second preference. So things are better than I thought - the chances of a number of ALP votes ending up with the gun-nuts must be miniscule. Thus the ALP gets a 1 above the line!
Next shot was to see what the Greens had on offer. They put the Pirate Party (que? - on looking at their site the only difference to Wikileaks seems to be that their leader isn't hiding in an Embassy) second and then the Wikileaks mob next. So here we have a situation in which quite a bunch of preferences are going to end up with a party I loathe. While this is typical of the lack of common sense of the Greens, it is again too risky. Can you imagine Julian Assange having the balance of power in the country's Parliament? Or, looking at the Pirate mob, someone whose top priority is copyright reform?
Given that the Senator Online group are headed by Tim Ferguson of the Doug Anthony All Stars they have some merit (at least it wouldn't be boring). However their ticket shows a whole bunch of minor parties heading their preferences which makes it too risky to give them a 1, as it becomes more or less a random event where your vote ends up.
Fortunately my revised analysis of the ALP ticket saves me from the 110 vote route!
Comments