Would you vote differently??

[Sheer Bliss]

So.....If an arrangement can't be worked out with either or the 2 main parties and the independents and we go back to another election - wold you change your vote? Would it make you actually vote if you didn't the first time? Just wondering how 'worth it' it would be to spend so much money etc on another election, and therefore how imortant the negotiations over the coming days are.....

Poll Coming....

ETA: By Donkey vote - I mean numbering the candidates sequentially down the page - 1, 2, 3, etc. If you did an informal vote (ie wrote nothing on your ballot paper or intentionally put all #1's or something else invalid) then I was counting that as an 'I didn't vote' options - as your vote didn't count, whereas a donkey vote counts as a valid vote when counting.
_______________

[Tweak]

I wouldn't I'd stick to my original vote :)

[Pregnor]

Nope, there is one key policy that means I will never entertain voting for the other major party.

And I'll still vote green first, even though they wont win my seat

[Izy]

i'm with you pregnor

[elleandsam]

I'd vote the same, and I hope those who placed an informal vote would vote correctly because then we might end up with a government.

[MegaGuts]

I voted Labour and i'd still vote Labour as i don't want to see a Liberal party in power, no matter who's at the head of it :yes:

[~Candy~]

I'd vote the same, and I hope those who placed an informal vote would vote correctly because then we might end up with a government.

:iagree:

[Lillynix]

I'd still vote the same way for sure. I put a lot of thought into my vote and I won't change it :)

[xkwzit]

I'd still vote the same too. I was gobsmacked at some phone poll this morning that was coming in as 70% of ppl would change their vote. Why? I can understand if you'd accidentally made a mistake on the paper that made it invalid (I had to fill out my senate paper twice - what a pain!). But, even if you were protest voting because both Labor and Liberal are offering not a lot, nothing has changed that means you shouldn't still protest vote.

Cheers

[KatiesMum]

Nope, there is one key policy that means I will never entertain voting for the other major party.

And I'll still vote green first, even though they wont win my seat
:iagree: :yes: :yes: :yes:

[Lillynix]

I'd still vote the same too. I was gobsmacked at some phone poll this morning that was coming in as 70% of ppl would change their vote. Why? I can understand if you'd accidentally made a mistake on the paper that made it invalid (I had to fill out my senate paper twice - what a pain!). But, even if you were protest voting because both Labor and Liberal are offering not a lot, nothing has changed that means you shouldn't still protest vote.

Cheers

I dunno, I actually do hope many would change their vote...but change it to Greens rather than Lab/Lib :laughing:

I can only dream :cloud9:

[silverstars]

I would still vote that same. I am so glad The Greens went so well in the Senate, takes away a smiggen of worry about the chance of Tony Abbott the religious fanatic becoming PM.

[Jakois]

I dunno, I actually do hope many would change their vote...but change it to Greens rather than Lab/Lib :laughing:

I can only dream :cloud9:

I think that as time goes by your dream may become a reality!! Look at the following they have recieved this election.

I voted Greens and I wound not change my Vote.

[giveitago]

I'd vote the same.
But I do believe there will be a chosen governemnt in the coming weeks.
I believe the issue will be when they try adn pass new legislation.

Everything thats tries to get pushed through the senate will be blocked.
And then they will have to ask the Governor General for a Double Dissolution election.

So I think we will be voting again within twelve months.

If the Liberal party even wants me to fractionally entertain the idea that they could be godd for Australia.... they need to get rid of the horrid man in charge and also his pompous understudy can go. I do believe I MAY have listened to Peter Costello if he was running. I'm not sure if it would have changed my vote, but I would have tried to grasp a better understanding of what policies tehy were outlining.

[ThereIsNoPlaceLikeHome]

I voted for Greens in both Senate & HR. I put Labor 2nd in HR.

I know my voted counted towards Labor despite putting Greens in 1st, however if I re-voted I would probably just put number in next to Labor in HR (not that it would have made any difference, just a technicality I guess) but wouldn't change my senate vote.

[Boobycino]

If vote differently. I voted greens then labour and liberal last.

I'd vote labour first, greens second, just to keep liberal out!

[OneBabyBoy]

If vote differently. I voted greens then labour and liberal last.

I'd vote labour first, greens second, just to keep liberal out!

I'm exactly the opposite.

I would change my vote too, but I voted Labor in house of reps (even though I always planned to vote Greens I think I got scared that Liberal would get in so I just voted Labor). So this time I would go with my original gut feeling and vote Greens first with preferences to Labor.

[Boobycino]

Well hopefully we aren't in the same area or we'll cancel each other out - :laughing:

[Pregnor]

I think its important that so many people have given first preference to the greens, even though they have only won one seat (first one ever! YAY) it shows that people are wanting change. Wanting to look at issues like the environment and gay marriage. Which is why i wont change my first pref.

[Izy]

I think its important that so many people have given first preference to the greens, even though they have only won one seat (first one ever! YAY) it shows that people are wanting change. Wanting to look at issues like the environment and gay marriage. Which is why i wont change my first pref.

Here here.

Although I do have to admit as much as I support our compulsory voting system I would much prefer that a re-election on top of the first was NOT compulsory.

I'd like to see the votes that are counted come from those that actually care about which of the two get in.

Just to re-iterate I am GLAD for the compulsory voting system as it encourages alot of people to take interest in politics that would otherwise blow it off, but we've peaked the interest for this election, lets make the votes all have thought...

[Roopee]

My vote would stay the same.

[KatiesMum]

If vote differently. I voted greens then labour and liberal last.

I'd vote labour first, greens second, just to keep liberal out!

unless you are in the seat of Denison in Tasmania, or the seat of Melbourne, putting greens 1st, then Labor ... or putting Labor first would not have made any difference to the actual result.


Unless you were in these seats, the Labor candidate got your vote anyway.

[Boobycino]

Oh, okay. Cool then I'd vote the same.

Goes to show what I know ;)

[Benji]

I would still vote that same. I am so glad The Greens went so well in the Senate, takes away a smiggen of worry about the chance of Tony Abbott the religious fanatic becoming PM.

Ditto. I'm so glad Greens did so well!! I'm thrilled that Australia is slowly but surely moving away from two party preferred voting!! :D:D

[Bron]

I'd vote the same, but I've never been a swinging voter anyway.

Just as a heads up, though. The poll refers to "donkey"votes. A donkey vote is simply numbering all the boxes in order, top to bottom, so the candidate that is first on the ballot gets your first preference, second on the ballot gets your second all the way to the candidate last on the ballot who gets your last preference. This is actually considered a formal vote and is counted, simply because you may well have that order of preference anyway. In fact, our ALP candidate had a donkey vote as his how to vote card, it's simply the way the preferences worked in this seat.

Informal voting is different. That's when you don't complete your ballot correctly - don't number every box, write rude messages, leave your ballot blank etc.

I'm guessing the OP means informal voting, not donkey.

[Boobycino]

I assumed she meant not voting meant not turning up or informal vote (leaving it blank) because a lot of people in the one area doing a donkey vote would sway the outcome?

[faroutbrusselsprout]

I'd vote the same.
But I do believe there will be a chosen governemnt in the coming weeks.
I believe the issue will be when they try adn pass new legislation.

Everything thats tries to get pushed through the senate will be blocked.
And then they will have to ask the Governor General for a Double Dissolution election.

So I think we will be voting again within twelve months.

.

:iagree:

[Bron]

I assumed she meant not voting meant not turning up or informal vote (leaving it blank) because a lot of people in the one area doing a donkey vote would sway the outcome?

Unless that is how they genuinely want to vote though? If everyone who voted labor in my seat followed the candidate's how to vote, there'd be a huge number of donkey votes. It's still voting properly.

[FiveInTheBed]

Mine would stay the same.

:D

[Boobycino]

Unless that is how they genuinely want to vote though? If everyone who voted labor in my seat followed the candidate's how to vote, there'd be a huge number of donkey votes. It's still voting properly.

I would call a donkey vote when someone doesn't care who they vote for just number
From top to bottom?

If they like the candidates in that order anyway then that's not a donkey vote?

(was that what you mean?)

[FiveInTheBed]

Unless that is how they genuinely want to vote though? If everyone who voted labor in my seat followed the candidate's how to vote, there'd be a huge number of donkey votes. It's still voting properly.

...then you'd be consciously voting.

I'm sure the OP understands the way a donkey vote is (numbering sequentially) ...some people utrightly say they are going to do a donkey vote. - I supose she is wondering if they would vote by looking at the names, rather than numbering down the page...
You know what though

-- I'm sure there are plenty of people that sprout off how they are going to 'donkey vote' ...and actually they are making an 'informal vote' by drawing a line through the page or leaving a smiley face or a few defamatory words (I know a few of those personally [:rolleyes: <--- please note Mr rolly eye dude directed at said people I know IRL and not BH people!]

[Sheer Bliss]

...then you'd be consciously voting.

I'm sure the OP understands the way a donkey vote is (numbering sequentially) ...some people utrightly say they are going to do a donkey vote. - I supose she is wondering if they would vote by looking at the names, rather than numbering down the page...
You know what though

-- I'm sure there are plenty of people that sprout off how they are going to 'donkey vote' ...and actually they are making an 'informal vote' by drawing a line through the page or leaving a smiley face or a few defamatory words (I know a few of those personally [:rolleyes: <--- please note Mr rolly eye dude directed at said people I know IRL and not BH people!]
:yes: I didn't specify, but by donkey vote i meant a 'true' donkey vote of numberng down the page 1, 2, 3,etc and classed an 'informal' vote (blank ballot, smiley face etc) in the same class as those who didn't vote - as their ballot paper meant nothing, whereas a donkey vote counted as a vote.

[RedPanda]

I'd vote the same. I don't bother following the "How to" cards because I can make up my own mind. Also, I live in a seat where it never comes down to preferences anyway so not an issue.

[zenifa]

I would still vote the same, but hope that the half of the population that voted for the conservatives on the right, will see the light and change their vote!!

[WorkingClassMum]

What I'd like to see is that the total vote was the decider, not the individual seats

As our system stands, our vote as a whole doesn't matter diddly squat

For example, pretend there are three seats of 10,000 voting population and there was Labor safe seat and say out of the 10,000 people, 9000 voted Labor, but then two marginal seats say only 5050 voted Liberal in each seat. technically most people wanted Labor, but two Lib's got marginal victories (ie assuming 10,000 in each seat, then overall 18,900 wanted Labor and 10,100 wanted Liberal.

With our current system, any one party could get the majority of the vote and still fail to win the election.

[KatiesMum]

while I agree - the total popular vote is important ...

but by the same token - its important to have electorates as well. Otherwise basically the cities, and higher density parts of cities ... get a higher representation.

We already get sandbagging in marginal areas ... loads of money spent where the votes are.

If it was completely done on the popular vote, Melbourne and Sydney (which holds more than 1/2 of australias population) would get every last cent spent on it, and the rest of the country basically wouldnt count.

[mummynow]

For example, pretend there are three seats of 10,000 voting population and there was Labor safe seat and say out of the 10,000 people, 9000 voted Labor, but then two marginal seats say only 5050 voted Liberal in each seat. technically most people wanted Labor, but two Lib's got marginal victories (ie assuming 10,000 in each seat, then overall 18,900 wanted Labor and 10,100 wanted Liberal.

With our current system, any one party could get the majority of the vote and still fail to win the election.

:yes: :iagree:

[headoverfeet]

I'd vote the same.

[A Party of Five]

I voted - and I'd vote for the same candidate go Greens :yes:

[BabelFish]

Exactly the same, here.