SA Footy

Irrespective of which party gets to govern the nation, which party has the right - mandate to do so from the electorate?

Some think they're born to rule.
But at this point, none have the right.

Neither.

redandblack wrote:Neither.

R&B and I are having an agreeable day today.
Nobody has the right to govern until they can drum up the numbers to form a functional coalition [note the small "c"].
We need a "Neither" option in this poll.

Why is a party that only polled 14% being offered as an option?

Perhaps because there's a party which wins several seats with only 4% of the vote.

Psyber wrote:

redandblack wrote:Neither.

R&B and I are having an agreeable day today.
Nobody has the right to govern until they can drum up the numbers to form a functional coalition [note the small "c"].
We need a "Neither" option in this poll.

Once again we agree, Psyber

Done.

mick wrote:Why is a party that only polled 14% being offered as an option?

Who will have more power in a new Gillard led Government - Julia Gillard or Bob Brown?

For me whoever has the most lower house seats should in minority. I thought the Abbott speech instantly declaring Labor lost it's legitmacy to govern(due to the fact it could no way from it's own majority ) on Saturday night was an insult to every voter the nation. The fact that the Libs were in the same position surely meant a level-headed speech with some dignity was appropriate.
Latest predictions seeem to be 73-73 , Ind 3 , Gr1
If the Libs sneak ahead by 1 I have no problem with them forming goverment and believe they should.

Sojourner wrote:

mick wrote:Why is a party that only polled 14% being offered as an option?

Who will have more power in a new Gillard led Government - Julia Gillard or Bob Brown?

Bob Brown.

fisho mcspaz wrote:

Sojourner wrote:

mick wrote:Why is a party that only polled 14% being offered as an option?

Who will have more power in a new Gillard led Government - Julia Gillard or Bob Brown?

Bob Brown.

if that happens it might be finally time that some of the more whackier policies of the Greens are given a bit more media attention.
You could start with free gender reassignment surgery or heroin on prescription.
Their economic policies amount to taxing the buggery out of anything and anyone who is remotely seen as being a productive contributor to society.


Tony or Julia I can handle, Bob and his mates i'm horrified of!

I have no time for the greens, however, I think nothing has been achieved by the prohibition of illegal drugs. I think registered addicts getting free pharmaceutical grade heroin would go a long way to lessening the number of robberies and burglaries. It would also end a lucrative income stream for many criminals. I also agree with their position on same sex marriage as I believe that they should not be treated any differently than straight people, why should they(gays) miss out on the suffering ? That's about as far as it goes because in other areas they are hell bent on taking us backwards. I would have preferred a clear ALP victory than seeing this mob have any influence on the direction of the nation

Ronnie wrote:

fisho mcspaz wrote:

Sojourner wrote:

mick wrote:Why is a party that only polled 14% being offered as an option?

Who will have more power in a new Gillard led Government - Julia Gillard or Bob Brown?

Bob Brown.

if that happens it might be finally time that some of the more whackier policies of the Greens are given a bit more media attention.
You could start with free gender reassignment surgery or heroin on prescription.
Their economic policies amount to taxing the buggery out of anything and anyone who is remotely seen as being a productive contributor to society.


Tony or Julia I can handle, Bob and his mates i'm horrified of!

I worked in drug and alcohol rehab for 6 years and this makes complete sense. And it's not just me that thinks that. The doctors I worked for all did as did many pharmacists I dealt with. But their opinions were based on medical knowledge and not trying to appease Mr and Mrs Average in greater western sydney or the Gold Coast growth corridor.

redden whites wrote:For me whoever has the most lower house seats should in minority. I thought the Abbott speech instantly declaring Labor lost it's legitmacy to govern(due to the fact it could no way from it's own majority ) on Saturday night was an insult to every voter the nation. The fact that the Libs were in the same position surely meant a level-headed speech with some dignity was appropriate.
Latest predictions seeem to be 73-73 , Ind 3 , Gr1
If the Libs sneak ahead by 1 I have no problem with them forming goverment and believe they should.

I would nearly agree with this but I think you are including the WA National as a member of the Coalition. He is independent of the Coalition and should not be grouped together with them.
Whichever party wins the most seats out of Labor and the Coalition should have the first right to form government.
I agree that Tony's speech was woeful and insulting. He showed disrespect for the people of Australia and for the Australian electoral system. We have a preferential system in Australia, not a first-past-the-post system. He was plain wrong in stating that more people voted for the Coalition. On latest figures, approximately 150 000 have preferenced Labor ahead of the Coalition.

I agree that Tony Abbot should have been more restrained in his first comments as Julia Gillard was - it was less level headed and dignified than hers. Perhaps the fatigue finally got him.
However, he was correct that the Coalition got more first preferences than the ALP - though it doesn't mean much without the seats in hand.
First preferences, or two-party preferred votes, are meaningless - it is getting the seat numbers together that counts.

The seats are most important.

Two party preferred is next.

Primary vote is a long, long last.

fisho mcspaz wrote:

Sojourner wrote:

mick wrote:Why is a party that only polled 14% being offered as an option?

Who will have more power in a new Gillard led Government - Julia Gillard or Bob Brown?

Bob Brown.

A Gillard led Government will not last.

Media Park wrote:

fisho mcspaz wrote:

Sojourner wrote:

mick wrote:Why is a party that only polled 14% being offered as an option?

Who will have more power in a new Gillard led Government - Julia Gillard or Bob Brown?

Bob Brown.

A Gillard led Government will not last.

I think it might, if it's a minority government. Labor + Greens will be very formidable.

I'm thinking either the Coalition forms a minority Government, or we are voting again- which I do not understand!

If the same number of people vote as did on Saturday, with the same candidates running, would people really change their votes? what would it achieve? wouldn't it be the same result?

Media Park wrote:I'm thinking either the Coalition forms a minority Government, or we are voting again- which I do not understand!

If the same number of people vote as did on Saturday, with the same candidates running, would people really change their votes? what would it achieve? wouldn't it be the same result?

I have wondered that too but I think that if people realise how close it is and how important their vote actually was then there would be a drop in protest votes and informal votes. Also last minute undecided voters may go differently with more time to think about it. It's one thing to be a labor voter who wants to give the party a rocket and another when your protest vote actually gets the Liberals in when you thought they were no chance (as an example of a protest vote changing).

I reckon you'd get a clear majority if they did it again which is why the independents would prefer to work out a minority govenment and retain their current powerful positions (this insight is borrowed from someone on the ABC yesterday).