SA Footy

From their website,



AMEP preparing to contest South Australian Election

The Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party needs your help now. We want to represent you in the South Australian government, but to do so, we need 200 signatures by THIS FRIDAY 5pm. If you want to help us defend your rights as a motorist and fight against nanny State policies then join us. For those of you signing up for the first time, membership is an annual fee of $20 and we will also require that you are already enrolled to vote and have a valid residential address. If you are already a paid member, you do not have to pay your membership fee again, but you will still need to fill the form out. We will be manning stands across Adelaide 5-9pm (addresses below), tell your mates and together we can make a difference at State level.

Locations (with google maps links):

Autobarn Noarlunga: http://goo.gl/maps/sUq2L (it has moved from Beach Rd to Seaman Rd)

Autobarn Mile End: http://goo.gl/maps/IM6Xs

Autobarn Gilles Plains (Holden Hill): http://goo.gl/maps/P15rt

Supercheap Elizabeth: http://goo.gl/maps/VgAuW

https://www.facebook.com/AustralianMoto ... siastParty

The burnout party are getting some support happening.

The Street Machine Association of South Australia have been trying to get a Special Vehicles Registration Scheme going in SA as is in the other states for a very long time and the ALP Government here will have none of it. Looks like another way has been found to approach the issue.

If you restore a GT Falcon to original specs, you can get a 90 day a year rego for the same cost as three months of rego, this is because these vehicles are used for club runs or the Bay to Birdwood or similar. If you fit an FM radio or upgrade the Drum Brakes to Disc Brakes, it instantly becomes ineligible. What SMASA want is a fair scheme like the other states have, hardly an unreasonable request.

This party just won in Vic, I suspect they stand to do well on the back of that here, Will be interesting to see what happens, I will definitely be signing up this Friday!

Sojourner wrote:The Street Machine Association of South Australia have been trying to get a Special Vehicles Registration Scheme going in SA as is in the other states for a very long time and the ALP Government here will have none of it. Looks like another way has been found to approach the issue.

If you restore a GT Falcon to original specs, you can get a 90 day a year rego for the same cost as three months of rego, this is because these vehicles are used for club runs or the Bay to Birdwood or similar. If you fit an FM radio or upgrade the Drum Brakes to Disc Brakes, it instantly becomes ineligible. What SMASA want is a fair scheme like the other states have, hardly an unreasonable request.

This party just won in Vic, I suspect they stand to do well on the back of that here, Will be interesting to see what happens, I will definitely be signing up this Friday!

To many to modify any classic car to above original specs is abhorrent. I think the current SA government regulations are fair enough, they preserve classic cars.

Sojourner wrote:The Street Machine Association of South Australia have been trying to get a Special Vehicles Registration Scheme going in SA as is in the other states for a very long time and the ALP Government here will have none of it. Looks like another way has been found to approach the issue.

If you restore a GT Falcon to original specs, you can get a 90 day a year rego for the same cost as three months of rego, this is because these vehicles are used for club runs or the Bay to Birdwood or similar. If you fit an FM radio or upgrade the Drum Brakes to Disc Brakes, it instantly becomes ineligible. What SMASA want is a fair scheme like the other states have, hardly an unreasonable request.

This party just won in Vic, I suspect they stand to do well on the back of that here, Will be interesting to see what happens, I will definitely be signing up this Friday!

Due to how our senate works which may not be the case by the time the state elections come around.

They got approx 0.51% of the primary vote hardly outstanding support.

There will be a lot of scrutiny on the micro parties after the federal election. Also I suspect there were a lot of deals happening behind the scenes so we had different micros in each state sweeping up those votes. In a state election you imagine it's a lot harder to do without being able to reciprocate.

And yes, I also object to using the term "won" a seat. Perhaps fluked a seat is a better term.

I'm supporting Nick Xenophon's push for Optional Preferential Voting, which has always made sense to me.
This would eliminate the above the line vote which generates these weird cross party deals.
You would only have to fill in the first 6 of the currently below the line list to make a valid vote.

Psyber wrote:I'm supporting Nick Xenophon's push for Optional Preferential Voting, which has always made sense to me.
This would eliminate the above the line vote which generates these weird cross party deals.
You would only have to fill in the first 6 of the currently below the line list to make a valid vote.

To the non political types, what's the key differences and how does it improve the situation?

Also, if you put 6 below the line, and you happen to pick 6 that are say ranked 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72, when those candidates drop out, what happens to your vote?

Trader wrote:

Psyber wrote:I'm supporting Nick Xenophon's push for Optional Preferential Voting, which has always made sense to me.
This would eliminate the above the line vote which generates these weird cross party deals.
You would only have to fill in the first 6 of the currently below the line list to make a valid vote.

To the non political types, what's the key differences and how does it improve the situation?
Also, if you put 6 below the line, and you happen to pick 6 that are say ranked 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72, when those candidates drop out, what happens to your vote?

Your vote only passes to those you have nominated until your sequence runs out at whatever number you stopped at.
It is not passed on to some candidate you have never heard of or would never vote for down at the end of a line of inter-party deals.
You can thus exercise your choice - not some party's choice - without the tedium of having to fill out every box in a huge upper house paper.

Psyber wrote:

Trader wrote:

Psyber wrote:I'm supporting Nick Xenophon's push for Optional Preferential Voting, which has always made sense to me.
This would eliminate the above the line vote which generates these weird cross party deals.
You would only have to fill in the first 6 of the currently below the line list to make a valid vote.

To the non political types, what's the key differences and how does it improve the situation?
Also, if you put 6 below the line, and you happen to pick 6 that are say ranked 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72, when those candidates drop out, what happens to your vote?

Your vote only passes to those you have nominated until your sequence runs out at whatever number you stopped at.
It is not passed on to some candidate you have never heard of or would never vote for down at the end of a line of inter-party deals.
You can thus exercise your choice - not some party's choice - without the tedium of having to fill out every box in a huge upper house paper.

Thanks.

What happens if say 15% of people vote that way so their vote drops out, all of a sudden you don't have enough votes left to get the 6th person to a full quota?

Trader wrote:

Psyber wrote:

Trader wrote:

Psyber wrote:I'm supporting Nick Xenophon's push for Optional Preferential Voting, which has always made sense to me.
This would eliminate the above the line vote which generates these weird cross party deals.
You would only have to fill in the first 6 of the currently below the line list to make a valid vote.

To the non political types, what's the key differences and how does it improve the situation?
Also, if you put 6 below the line, and you happen to pick 6 that are say ranked 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72, when those candidates drop out, what happens to your vote?

Your vote only passes to those you have nominated until your sequence runs out at whatever number you stopped at.
It is not passed on to some candidate you have never heard of or would never vote for down at the end of a line of inter-party deals.
You can thus exercise your choice - not some party's choice - without the tedium of having to fill out every box in a huge upper house paper.

Thanks.

What happens if say 15% of people vote that way so their vote drops out, all of a sudden you don't have enough votes left to get the 6th person to a full quota?

I'm not sure but I suspect quota size would be adjusted automatically based on the total number of votes counted.
I think Nick X probably selected a minimum of 6 boxes for his proposal to minimise the risk of such problems.

Trader wrote:

Psyber wrote:

Trader wrote:

Psyber wrote:I'm supporting Nick Xenophon's push for Optional Preferential Voting, which has always made sense to me.
This would eliminate the above the line vote which generates these weird cross party deals.
You would only have to fill in the first 6 of the currently below the line list to make a valid vote.

To the non political types, what's the key differences and how does it improve the situation?
Also, if you put 6 below the line, and you happen to pick 6 that are say ranked 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72, when those candidates drop out, what happens to your vote?

Your vote only passes to those you have nominated until your sequence runs out at whatever number you stopped at.
It is not passed on to some candidate you have never heard of or would never vote for down at the end of a line of inter-party deals.
You can thus exercise your choice - not some party's choice - without the tedium of having to fill out every box in a huge upper house paper.

Thanks.

What happens if say 15% of people vote that way so their vote drops out, all of a sudden you don't have enough votes left to get the 6th person to a full quota?

Put them in a cage and they fight to the death. Then we will really see who wants the 6 years of living on the Gravy Train.

Psyber wrote:

Trader wrote:

Psyber wrote:

Trader wrote:

To the non political types, what's the key differences and how does it improve the situation?
Also, if you put 6 below the line, and you happen to pick 6 that are say ranked 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72, when those candidates drop out, what happens to your vote?

Your vote only passes to those you have nominated until your sequence runs out at whatever number you stopped at.
It is not passed on to some candidate you have never heard of or would never vote for down at the end of a line of inter-party deals.
You can thus exercise your choice - not some party's choice - without the tedium of having to fill out every box in a huge upper house paper.

Thanks.

What happens if say 15% of people vote that way so their vote drops out, all of a sudden you don't have enough votes left to get the 6th person to a full quota?

I'm not sure but I suspect quota size would be adjusted automatically based on the total number of votes counted.
I think Nick X probably selected a minimum of 6 boxes for his proposal to minimise the risk of such problems.[/quote]

anyone else find it ironic that the X man is proposing this, when he himself is the head of a "micro" party!! another example of his hipocracy......

the only reason this is even on the radar is because the "micro" parties involved hold some views that arent really politically correct. personally i dont have any issue with them representing the country (or their states) in the parliament. they have used the system to their advantage, the majors have been doing it for years.....

maybe some different perspectives could be good for a change. obviously it is yet to be seen, and we could be stuck with a similar situation to the last few years, but just because these people hold some non politically correct views, doesnt mean they are necessarily bad. i actually agree with some of the things they have campaigned for. then again, i expect that i will be described as a redneck for my enjoyment of cars and guns.....

once_were_warriors wrote: Put them in a cage and they fight to the death. Then we will really see who wants the 6 years of living on the Gravy Train.

I'd like to see what the Sex Party uses in that brawl

Would they be able to bring in a system where you have an a lower quota as well?

Ie: if you don't get at least say 25% of a quota then you are automatically removed and your votes redistributed?
This would allow the current system to remain as is, no need to limit parties from running etc, but just means you can't get a seat without achieving at least 3.5% of the primary vote.

I'd say if you can achieve a 1/4 of a quota on your own, then its fair to have you in the senate as you do have a reasonable portion of the public that is happy for you to vote on their behalf.

tipper wrote: anyone else find it ironic that the X man is proposing this, when he himself is the head of a "micro" party!! another example of his hipocracy......

the only reason this is even on the radar is because the "micro" parties involved hold some views that arent really politically correct. personally i dont have any issue with them representing the country (or their states) in the parliament. they have used the system to their advantage, the majors have been doing it for years.....

maybe some different perspectives could be good for a change. obviously it is yet to be seen, and we could be stuck with a similar situation to the last few years, but just because these people hold some non politically correct views, doesnt mean they are necessarily bad. i actually agree with some of the things they have campaigned for. then again, i expect that i will be described as a redneck for my enjoyment of cars and guns.....

This is not about micro parties, but about winning seats without getting anywhere near a quota on the primary vote, over candidates who got much higher primary vote levels.
This happens now only because of behind the scenes party preference distribution deals!
The aim is to get rid of these non-transparent inter-party deals.

Nick X actually got a quota to get into office the first place and came close to two this time.
The contrast is that one of this new group got something like 0.22% of the primary vote and still gets a seat.

(As you may know from my past posts, I, too, love my cars and was reluctant to part with my rather nice Winchester lever action .22 Magnum.)

Psyber wrote:(As you may know from my past posts, I, too, love my cars and was reluctant to part with my rather nice Winchester lever action .22 Magnum.)

You might even be able to get a new gun Psyber if that Liberal Democratic Party nutter gets in!

Gozu wrote:

Psyber wrote:(As you may know from my past posts, I, too, love my cars and was reluctant to part with my rather nice Winchester lever action .22 Magnum.)

You might even be able to get a new gun Psyber if that Liberal Democratic Party nutter gets in!

Firearms laws are solely state affairs.

Sky Pilot wrote:

Gozu wrote:

Psyber wrote:(As you may know from my past posts, I, too, love my cars and was reluctant to part with my rather nice Winchester lever action .22 Magnum.)

You might even be able to get a new gun Psyber if that Liberal Democratic Party nutter gets in!

Firearms laws are solely state affairs.

John Howard re: Port Arthur?

I always vote below the line as I don't trust ANY party with their preference deals but sadly I am in a very small minority.