apathy maybe
14th May 2009, 13:03
By announcing it will re-introduce its 'Alcopops' tax after June 18, the Rudd government has ramped up prospects of an early double dissolution election.
The government is re-introducing the bill not because it wants an early election, but because it wants the legislation passed. But re-introducing it in a manner that permits the legislation to become a double dissolution trigger ramps up the pressure on the Opposition and the Senate cross-benchers to pass the legislation or potentially face the electoral consequences.
If the Senate again blocks the 'Alcopops' legislation after June 18, the Government will have a trigger to call a double dissolution at any time between July this year and October 2010. That will provide a useful stick for the government to use against the Senate as the Government attempts to pass its Budget measures, as well as its legislation to introduce a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).
Original article (quoted above) (p://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/05/by-announcing-i.html) and the Wikipedia's article on double dissolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution)
So, there is the potential for a DD election. I don't believe in voting in government elections (partly due to me being an anarchist). However, with a DD election, all the senators are up for re-election, making it a lot easier for minor parties to win (to quote from the same article as above):
However, by reducing the quota for election from 14.3% to 7.7%, a double dissolution could also bring into the Senate a rag-tag collection of unknown Senators from micro-parties, elected thanks to the vagaries of the Senate's preferential voting system.
Which does make it a little bit more agreeable to vote. In such a situation I would expect to see more Greens (up from the current five), maybe a Family First (unchanged), maybe one of those racist fuckers, DLP perhaps? and so on.
What makes it more agreeable when a racist, sexist homophobe might get elected? The fact that you can also choose to vote for (among others):
Climate Change Coalition
Australian Sex Party
What Women Want
Senator On-Line
Nuclear Disarmament Party
(Currently registered parties (http://aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Registered_parties/index.htm))
Sound like fun?
So, the question is, with the possibility of a "rag-tag" party getting in, will that influence your vote?
(I'll give my answer later in the thread.)
The government is re-introducing the bill not because it wants an early election, but because it wants the legislation passed. But re-introducing it in a manner that permits the legislation to become a double dissolution trigger ramps up the pressure on the Opposition and the Senate cross-benchers to pass the legislation or potentially face the electoral consequences.
If the Senate again blocks the 'Alcopops' legislation after June 18, the Government will have a trigger to call a double dissolution at any time between July this year and October 2010. That will provide a useful stick for the government to use against the Senate as the Government attempts to pass its Budget measures, as well as its legislation to introduce a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).
Original article (quoted above) (p://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/05/by-announcing-i.html) and the Wikipedia's article on double dissolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution)
So, there is the potential for a DD election. I don't believe in voting in government elections (partly due to me being an anarchist). However, with a DD election, all the senators are up for re-election, making it a lot easier for minor parties to win (to quote from the same article as above):
However, by reducing the quota for election from 14.3% to 7.7%, a double dissolution could also bring into the Senate a rag-tag collection of unknown Senators from micro-parties, elected thanks to the vagaries of the Senate's preferential voting system.
Which does make it a little bit more agreeable to vote. In such a situation I would expect to see more Greens (up from the current five), maybe a Family First (unchanged), maybe one of those racist fuckers, DLP perhaps? and so on.
What makes it more agreeable when a racist, sexist homophobe might get elected? The fact that you can also choose to vote for (among others):
Climate Change Coalition
Australian Sex Party
What Women Want
Senator On-Line
Nuclear Disarmament Party
(Currently registered parties (http://aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Registered_parties/index.htm))
Sound like fun?
So, the question is, with the possibility of a "rag-tag" party getting in, will that influence your vote?
(I'll give my answer later in the thread.)