https://www.ozervnews.com

NP,
Better than boycotting the election, let’s all turn up and be checked off, then all submit blank ballot papers with “None of the above” written on them.
Enough informal votes (>50%) would invalidate the election and a rerun would be required.

What would be the point of a rerun other than wasting the voter's time if everyone voted informally?

George

Perhaps a bit of fine-tuning… how about:
For the re-run all candidates from the first failed ballot could be banned from standing again.

You have all made it clear that you can't trust any politicians.

To state the bleeding obvious here. Newcastle is a labor electorate, nothing the libs could do will ever change it, they don't want it either. Labor knows that they don't have to do anything in this area to get votes. They promise the earth and if/when they ever get in, they give us gravel. That train is a figment of all their little tiny minds. It won't ever happen.

Ditto the western suburbs of Melbourne.
Rusted on Labor.
Libs know nothing they do for the area will win them the seat, so they don’t bother.
Labor knows they could stand Sammy the Seal as their candidate and he’d get in by a big margin, so they don’t bother.
The west has the worst public transport in the state, the least money spent on it, and the ‘freeway’ to the city is on permanent peak hour.
Chairman Kennet even tried to locate a toxic waste dump next to the huge market gardens in Werribee, which supplies 80% of leaf vegetables to Maccas & greater Melbourne’s supermarkets!
Only a well-organised popular campaign stopped it. Labor stayed silent.

Newcastle George wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:56 pm What would be the point of a rerun other than wasting the voter's time if everyone voted informally?

George

It would get a lot more independents with some decent ideas elected after a re-run, because they would see they had a good chance of getting elected. The only problem would be the parties would probably combine to introduce legislation to force people to vote for them. Not sure if it happened, but remember reading they changed the rules for becoming a political party from around 100 members to many more. As it is their above the line voting is so parties makes sure they get elected as they rig the preferences that way and no one knows. Which is getting close to the chinese only allowing party candidates to run and be elected, the parties here do the same thing, but by stealth and people are to stupid and lazy to do anything but follow along like true cloned slaves.

INTERESTING…

I decided to check with the Australian Electoral Commission.
I asked, “Is there a minimum number or percentage of formal votes required to declare an election valid? What happens if the minimum is not reached?”

I received an answer this morning.
“There is no minimum number or percentage of valid votes required. An election is declared on the total of valid votes cast.”
(There was a lot of accompanying bumf on how to cast a valid vote, and why voting informal is a wasted vote and thus a Bad Thing.)
So, as the law stands, we could have a situation where four candidates stand in an electorate of 100,000 eligible voters, but due to voter backlash and a subsequent boycott, only five valid votes are cast. Assuming that each candidate votes for themselves, the election is decided by one voter!!!

Greynomad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 10:27 am INTERESTING…

I decided to check with the Australian Electoral Commission.
I asked, “Is there a minimum number or percentage of formal votes required to declare an election valid? What happens if the minimum is not reached?”

I received an answer this morning.
“There is no minimum number or percentage of valid votes required. An election is declared on the total of valid votes cast.”
(There was a lot of accompanying bumf on how to cast a valid vote, and why voting informal is a wasted vote and thus a Bad Thing.)
So, as the law stands, we could have a situation where four candidates stand in an electorate of 100,000 eligible voters, but due to voter backlash and a subsequent boycott, only five valid votes are cast. Assuming that each candidate votes for themselves, the election is decided by one voter!!!

Even preferences would start a battle, but the independents preference votes would get the party candidate of the line .... but we've already seen that happen when the car enthusiasts party got a candidate through with SFA actual votes .....

As far as high house prices that NP mentioned, that is driven by first home buyer grants etc, even low interest rates don't generate the funds for the deposit .... the bank of mum and dad often get that sorted, but I bet they never get the money back .... a zero interest and zero repayment loan
I remember breaking into the housing market started with a very small flat, doing it up andselling that to get the deposit and step up to either an older home unit or old house and the struggle continued from there.
Those are no longer available, those are snapped p by investors looking at collecting rent from the suckers who can't get that first step up.
Where did all this start falling apart, not the negative gearing thing, but stopping financing public housing, because that was where the life time renters went and the first cheap house hit the market. It was also where the renter could opt to turn their rent into house payments so they could actually get into the housing market ......
Can we ever return to that system ..... the scream from the landlords loosing their investment would stop that ever happening ..... So, until the baby boomers die off and their kids have blown all the money because they never did the hard yards to earn it, the system will stay as it is .....
Now, those cashed up investors could always buy the house via a company and rent it to their kids at a modest rate ..... yeah, well ..... We aren't known as the greedy generation for nothing .....

T1 Terry

When I bought my 1st house it was necessary to have 20% deposit in order to get a loan and the loan repayment was such that one could only pay per month what one earned in a week based on one income excluding any overtime. This helped to restrain increases in house prices until the banks started lending large amounts based on multiple incomes etc.

George

Newcastle George wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:24 pm When I bought my 1st house it was necessary to have 20% deposit in order to get a loan and the loan repayment was such that one could only pay per month what one earned in a week based on one income excluding any overtime. This helped to restrain increases in house prices until the banks started lending large amounts based on multiple incomes etc.

George

They had to change so they could keep pace with the Building Societies once they were granted deregulation. About the time we were looking for finance for our first house, I didn't earn enough as a mechanic to actually get a loan ..... but the IMB were happy to give me a loan ...... about 2 yrs in, the interest rate spiral started .... we started at 11.5% and after my wife at the time near got us evicted because she found better places to spend the money, we refinanced with the bank were we had the business over-draught .... big mistake, sold up at 23.5% that reached 25.5% by the time the money went through ..... paid out the over-draught and ran the business out of my back pocket ..... well, until I shacked up with a woman that turned out to have a gambling problem ..... wallet started to get lost all too often .... and only when it was real full

T1 Terry