On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 11:45:44 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote
>>> Petzl wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>>> oddity that you vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>>
>>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>>
>>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>>
>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>>
>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50%
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>>
>>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting
>>>>> below
>>>>> the line.
>>>>
>>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>>
>>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded your
>>> any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>>
>>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
>>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>>> Five Independent candidates.
>>>
>>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>>
>>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree with
>>> your ideologies, Petzl!
>>>
>> Wouldn't mater unless one of the/your above selections got above 50%
>> your preference would go down to your option on vote.
>> When or IF your vote gets to the last number on that list, ALL that
>> last number on list preferences take over, and so-on till the last
>> number on that list collection of votes etc.
>> Eventually ALL votes end up,mainly, in Labor or Coalition
>
>Not if you VOTE BELOW THE LINE.

Your single vote (marble) drops each time to your 12th "VOTE BELOW THE
LINE" then along with other votes (marbles) that end up in your 12th
"VOTE BELOW THE LINE" are combined to the preferences of the 12th
below the line then if not over 50% of vote go down that candidates
preferences which could be Labor/Coalition, but only if none of that
candidates get over 50% of vote, all of the last candidates
preference, collect ALL votes (marbles) collected are then passed down
the last preference, preferences,
Till they end up in Labor/Coalition.

>
>> that gives them over the 50% to Senate or HoR.
>
>Not if you VOTE BELOW THE LINE.
>
Your single vote (marble) drops each time to your 12th "VOTE BELOW THE
LINE" then along with other votes (marbles) that end up in your 12th
"VOTE BELOW THE LINE" are combined to the preferences of the 12th
below the line then if not over 50% of vote go down that candidates
preferences which could be Labor/Coalition, but only if none of that
candidates get over 50% of vote, all of the last candidates
preference, collect ALL votes (marbles) collected are then passed down
the last preference, preferences,
Till they end up in Labor/Coalition.

>Instead you just waste your vote.
>
>> In that case both Labor and Coalition ministers are zero valueswhose
>> only aim is to get their corrupt snout and trotters in trough.
>
>That's bullshit too. Howard didn't even bother to live in Kirrabilly.
>
>> Sometimes it stuffs up when they parachute a real offensive stinker
>> (Kristina Keneally) to push out a very popular known local (Dai Le).
>
>Separate issue entirely.
>
not really, just pointing out sometimes upsets happen

>> Malcolm Turnbull was behind the "Teal" candidates to push out Liberals.
>
>Only because they dumped him.
>
Now he is out for revenge against the Liberals until they get rid of
the monarchy and make him KING!!!
He still has his chair hidden in parliament.
https://ibb.co/x2QJfmw
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
They wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain

On 6/06/2022 9:15 am, Petzl wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 22:45:00 +1000, Daniel65
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>
>> Petzl wrote on 2/6/22 4:02 pm:
>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:23:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>> oddity that you vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>
>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>
>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>
>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>
>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>
>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>
>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>
>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50% in
>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down the
>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>
>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting below
>>>> the line.
>>>
>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>
>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded your
>> any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>
>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>> Five Independent candidates.
>>
>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>
>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree with
>> your ideologies, Petzl!
>>
> Wouldn't mater unless one of the/your above selections got above 50%
> your preference would go down to your option on vote.
> When or IF your vote gets to the last number on that list, ALL that
> last number on list preferences take over, and so-on till the last
> number on that list collection of votes etc.
> Eventually ALL votes end up,mainly, in Labor or Coalition that gives
> them over the 50% to Senate or HoR.
>
> In that case both Labor and Coalition ministers are zero values whose
> only aim is to get their corrupt snout and trotters in trough.
> Sometimes it stuffs up when they parachute a real offensive stinker
> (Kristina Keneally) to push out a very popular known local (Dai Le).

Dai Le was the independent that ended up winning. There was another
Vietnamese woman that wanted to be the Labor candidate that got pushed out.

> Malcolm Turnbull was behind the "Teal" candidates to push out
> Liberals.

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote
>>>> Petzl wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>>>> oddity that you vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50%
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting
>>>>>> below
>>>>>> the line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>>>
>>>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded
>>>> your
>>>> any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>>>
>>>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>>>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>>>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>>>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>>>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>>>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>>>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>>>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>>>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>>>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates,
>>>> or,
>>>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>>>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>>>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>>>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>>>> Five Independent candidates.
>>>>
>>>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>>>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>>>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree
>>>> with
>>>> your ideologies, Petzl!
>>>>
>>> Wouldn't mater unless one of the/your above selections got above 50%
>>> your preference would go down to your option on vote.
>>> When or IF your vote gets to the last number on that list, ALL that
>>> last number on list preferences take over, and so-on till the last
>>> number on that list collection of votes etc.
>>> Eventually ALL votes end up,mainly, in Labor or Coalition

>> Not if you VOTE BELOW THE LINE.

> Your single vote (marble) drops each timeto your 12th "VOTE BELOW THE
> LINE"

Yes.

> then along with other votes (marbles) that end up in your 12th "VOTE
> BELOW THE LINE" are combined to the preferencesof the 12th below the
> line then if not over 50% of vote go downthat candidates preferences

Nope, that doesnt happen.

> which could be Labor/Coalition,

Not if none of your votes below the line
have any of those candidates numbered.

> but only if none of that
> candidates get over 50% of vote, all of the last candidates
> preference, collect ALL votes (marbles) collected are then passed down
> the last preference, preferences,
> Till they end up in Labor/Coalition.

Nope.

>>> that gives them over the 50% to Senate or HoR.
>>
>> Not if you VOTE BELOW THE LINE.

> Your single vote (marble) drops each timeto your 12th "VOTE BELOW THE
> LINE"

Yes.

> then along with other votes (marbles) that end up in your 12th "VOTE
> BELOW THE LINE" are combined to the preferencesof the 12th below the
> line then if not over 50% of vote go downthat candidates preferences

Nope, that doesnt happen.

> which could be Labor/Coalition,

Not if none of your votes below the line
have any of those candidates numbered.

> but only if none of that
> candidates get over 50% of vote, all of the last candidates
> preference, collect ALL votes (marbles) collected are then passed down
> the last preference, preferences,
> Till they end up in Labor/Coalition.

Nope.

>> Instead you just waste your vote.
>>
>>> In that case both Labor and Coalition ministers are zero valueswhose
>>> only aim is to get their corrupt snout and trotters in trough.
>>
>> That's bullshit too. Howard didn't even bother to live in Kirrabilly
>> House.
>>> Sometimes it stuffs up when they parachute a real offensive stinker
>>> (Kristina Keneally) to push out a very popular known local (Dai Le).
>>
>> Separate issue entirely.

> not really,

Yes, really, nothing whatever to do with
how the preferential voting system works.

> just pointing out sometimes upsets happen

Like I said, a separate issue entirely.

>>> Malcolm Turnbull was behind the "Teal" candidates to push out
>>> Liberals.

>> Only because they dumped him.

> Now he is out for revenge against the Liberals untilthey get rid of the
> monarchy and make him KING!!!

Labor will certainly try to dump Liz or Big Ears
if she has carked it by then but not this term
and they certainly won't be having a local king.

> He still has his chair hidden in parliament.
> https://ibb.co/x2QJfmw

Just because some fool claims somethihng...

On 6/06/2022 12:55 pm, Max wrote:
> On 6/06/2022 9:15 am, Petzl wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 22:45:00 +1000, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Petzl wrote on 2/6/22 4:02 pm:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:23:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>>> oddity that you  vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>>
>>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>>
>>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>>
>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>>
>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over
>>>>>> 50% in
>>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>>
>>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting
>>>>> below
>>>>> the line.
>>>>
>>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>>
>>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded your
>>> any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>>
>>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
>>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>>> Five Independent candidates.
>>>
>>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>>
>>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree with
>>> your ideologies, Petzl!
>>>
>> Wouldn't mater unless one of the/your above selections got above 50%
>> your preference would go down to your option on vote.
>> When or IF your vote gets to the last number on that list, ALL that
>> last number on list preferences take over, and so-on till the last
>> number on that list collection of votes etc.

Bullshit. To get elected to the Senate, it's quota plus 1.

To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to Thistlethwaite) is
ridiculous, when the question of a republic needs to be decided by
referendum.

There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides there
should be a republic.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Petzl wrote
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote
>>> Petzl wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>>> oddity that you vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>>
>>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>>
>>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>>
>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>>
>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50%
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>>
>>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting
>>>>> below
>>>>> the line.
>>>>
>>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>>
>>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded
>>> your
>>> any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>>
>>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates,
>>> or,
>>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>>> Five Independent candidates.
>>>
>>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>>
>>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree
>>> with
>>> your ideologies, Petzl!
>>>
>> Wouldn't mater unless one of the/your above selections got above 50%
>> your preference would go down to your option on vote.
>> When or IF your vote gets to the last number on that list, ALL that
>> last number on list preferences take over, and so-on till the last
>> number on that list collection of votes etc.
>> Eventually ALL votes end up,mainly, in Labor or Coalition that gives
>> them over the 50% to Senate or HoR.
>> In that case both Labor and Coalition ministers are zero values whose
>> only aim is to get their corrupt snout and trotters in trough.
>> Sometimes it stuffs up when they parachute a real offensive stinker
>> (Kristina Keneally) to push out a very popular known local (Dai Le).

> Dai Le was the independent that ended up winning.

She was only an independant because Albo stupidly parachuted
that fool yank Keneally into that seat after she got dumped into
an unwinnable place in the Labor NSW Senate ticket.

> There was another Vietnamese womanthat wanted to be the Labor candidate

Yes, there were two of them who stood for preselection.

> that got pushed out.

They both did in favor of Keneally.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister"(to Thistlethwaite) is
> ridiculous,

Nope, dope.

> when the question of a republic needs to be decided by referendum.

Nope, dope. That minister gets involved in the detail of what
the questions voted on in the referendum are and other stuff
like what the govt proposes to do with the detail of what
powers the president has and how it is appointed etc.

> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides there
> should be a republic.

Wrong, as always.

Max wrote:
> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to Thistlethwaite) is
> ridiculous, when the question of a republic needs to be decided by
> referendum.
>
> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides there
> should be a republic.

You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't you?

On 6/06/2022 3:30 pm, Ozix wrote:
> Max wrote:
>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to Thistlethwaite)
>> is ridiculous, when the question of a republic needs to be decided by
>> referendum.
>>
>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides
>> there should be a republic.
>
> You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't you?

I voted Yes to a republic in 1999. I would vote No because now I
realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool being our
head of state.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Ozix wrote
>> Max wrote

>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to Thistlethwaite)
>>> is ridiculous, when the question of a republic needs to be decided by
>>> referendum.
>
>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides
>>> there should be a republic.

>> You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't you?

> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999. I would vote No because now I
> realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool being our
> head of state.

So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?

Who has no power at all in this country.

Thanks for that completely superfluos proof
that you actually are that terminal a fuckwit.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 16:05:13 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

>On 6/06/2022 3:30 pm, Ozix wrote:
>> Max wrote:
>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to Thistlethwaite)
>>> is ridiculous, when the question of a republic needs to be decided by
>>> referendum.
>>>
>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides
>>> there should be a republic.
>>
>> You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't you?
>
>I voted Yes to a republic in 1999. I would vote No because now I
>realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool being our
>head of state.
>
Malcolm Turnbull the KING of Australia
Already has his chair for it.
https://imgbb.com/x2QJfmw
--
Petzl
As Winston Churchill once said;

The Monarchy is important,
not for the power it wields,
but for the power it denies others.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 16:31:53 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Ozix wrote
>>> Max wrote
>
>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to Thistlethwaite)
>>>> is ridiculous, when the question of a republic needs to be decided by
>>>> referendum.
>>
>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides
>>>> there should be a republic.
>
>>> You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't you?
>
>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999. I would vote No because now I
>> realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool being our
>> head of state.
>
>So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>
>Who has no power at all in this country.
>
>Thanks for that completely superfluos proof
>that you actually are that terminal a fuckwit.
>
Yes "King Malcolm Turnbull" awaits us
https://imgbb.com/x2QJfmw
--
Petzl
As Winston Churchill once said;

The Monarchy is important,
not for the power it wields,
but for the power it denies others.

On 6/06/2022 4:31 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Ozix wrote
>>> Max wrote
>
>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to Thistlethwaite)
>>>> is ridiculous, when the question of a republic needs to be decided
>>>> by referendum.
>>
>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides
>>>> there should be a republic.
>
>>>  You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't you?
>
>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999.  I would vote No because now I
>> realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool being our
>> head of state.
>
> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>

Yes, given that we were actually settled by England, and have the same
system of government and laws, and language. And have very similar
culture with regard to food, arts, sport and religion.

It therefore remains a good idea to keep having the English monarch as
our head of state, until Australia is totally over-run by people who
speak English as a second language and who are not Christian.

Canada have not become a republic yet. Why do we think we are any more
indepedent or better than them? It's only because of fuckwits like
Turnbull that anyone does think that.

> Who has no power at all in this country.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluos proof
> that you actually are that terminal a fuckwit.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Ozix wrote
>>>> Max wrote

>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to Thistlethwaite)
>>>>> is ridiculous, when the question of a republic needs to be decided
>>>>> by referendum.
>
>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides
>>>>> there should be a republic.

>>>> You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't you?

>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999. I would vote No because now I
>>> realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool being our
>>> head of state.

>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?

> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England,

We got independence quite some time ago now.

> and have the same system of government

Nope, we have a federal system, dont.

We aren't actually stupid enough to have an upper
house stuffed with senile old farts and bishops etc
who hardly ever bother to show up either.

> and laws,

Wrong, as always.

> and language. And have very similar culturewith regard to food, arts,
> sport and religion.

Bullshit we do.

> It therefore remains a good idea to keep havingthe English monarch as
> our head of state,

Bullshit it does. And that prat gets no say on anything here anyway.

> until Australia is totally over-run by people who speakEnglish as a
> second language and who are not Christian.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> Canada have not become a republic yet.

Irrelevant.

> Why do we think we are any more indepedent or better than them?

Because we are, and the stupid poms too.

> It's only because of fuckwits like Turnbull that anyone does think that.

Wrong, as always. There have always been plenty that have
seen no sense in having some stupid pom as the head of
state even before that fool Turdbull was even born.

>> Who has no power at all in this country.

>> Thanks for that completely superfluos proof
>> that you actually are that terminal a fuckwit.

On 6/06/2022 5:32 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>> Max wrote
>
>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a republic
>>>>>> needs to be decided by referendum.
>>
>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides
>>>>>> there should be a republic.
>
>>>>>  You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't you?
>
>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999.  I would vote No because now I
>>>> realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool being our
>>>> head of state.
>
>>>  So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>
>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England,
>
> We got independence quite some time ago now.
>
>> and have the same system of government
>
> Nope, we have a federal system, dont.
>
> We aren't actually stupid enough to have an upper
> house stuffed with senile old farts and bishops etc
> who hardly ever bother to show up either.
>
>> and laws,
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> and language.  And have very similar  culturewith regard to food,
>> arts, sport and religion.
>
> Bullshit we do.
>
>> It therefore remains a good idea to keep havingthe English monarch as
>> our head of state,
>
> Bullshit it does. And that prat gets no say on anything here anyway.
>
>> until Australia is totally over-run by people who speakEnglish as a
>> second language and who are not Christian.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>
>> Canada have not become a republic yet.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> Why do we think we are any more indepedent or better than them?
>
> Because we are, and the stupid poms too.
>

Do you think we would be able to put on the celebrations for the Jubilee
like the way the Poms just did?

Bullshit we would. Our's would be shithouse in comparison.

>> It's only because of fuckwits like Turnbull that anyone does think that.
>
> Wrong, as always. There have always been plenty that have
> seen no sense in having some stupid pom as the head of
> state even before that fool Turdbull was even born.
>
>>> Who has no power at all in this country.
>
>>> Thanks for that completely superfluos proof
>>> that you actually are that terminal a fuckwit.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Ozix wrote
>>>>>> Max wrote

>>>>>>> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to
>>>>>>> Thistlethwaite) is ridiculous, when the question of a republic
>>>>>>> needs to be decided by referendum.
>>>
>>>>>>> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides
>>>>>>> there should be a republic.
>>
>>>>>> You've gone gaga over Liz Windsor's 70 year pompfest, haven't you?
>>
>>>>> I voted Yes to a republic in 1999. I would vote No because now I
>>>>> realise how dangerous it would be to have some Aussie fool being our
>>>>> head of state.
>>
>>>> So you would rather have some pommy fuckwit that
>>>> was actually stupid enough to be conned into marrying
>>>> a stupid bimbo and kept on with his slut on the side ?
>>
>>> Yes, given that we were actually settled by England,
>> We got independence quite some time ago now.
>>
>>> and have the same system of government
>> Nope, we have a federal system, dont.
>> We aren't actually stupid enough to have an upper
>> house stuffed with senile old farts and bishops etc
>> who hardly ever bother to show up either.
>>
>>> and laws,
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> and language. And have very similar culturewith regard to food,
>>> arts, sport and religion.
>> Bullshit we do.
>>
>>> It therefore remains a good idea to keep havingthe English monarch as
>>> our head of state,
>> Bullshit it does. And that prat gets no say on anything here anyway.
>>
>>> until Australia is totally over-run by people who speakEnglish as a
>>> second language and who are not Christian.
>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>>
>>> Canada have not become a republic yet.
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>>> Why do we think we are any more indepedent or better than them?

>> Because we are, and the stupid poms too.

> Do you think we would be able to put on the celebrationsfor the Jubilee
> like the way the Poms just did?

Yes we did. And much better than those stupid poms managed.

> Bullshit we would. Our's would be shithouse in comparison.

You are free to bugger off there if you prefer they way they do things.

>>> It's only because of fuckwits like Turnbull that anyone does think
>>> that.
>> Wrong, as always. There have always been plenty that have
>> seen no sense in having some stupid pom as the head of
>> state even before that fool Turdbull was even born.
>>
>>>> Who has no power at all in this country.
>>
>>>> Thanks for that completely superfluos proof
>>>> that you actually are that terminal a fuckwit.

Petzl wrote on 6/6/22 9:23 am:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 23:22:22 +1000, Daniel65
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>
>> Max wrote on 5/6/22 10:47 pm:
>>> On 5/06/2022 10:45 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>> Petzl wrote on 2/6/22 4:02 pm:
>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:23:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>>>> oddity that you  vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50% in
>>>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down the
>>>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting below
>>>>>> the line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>>>
>>>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded
>>>> your any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>>>
>>>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>>>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>>>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>>>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>>>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>>>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>>>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>>>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>>>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>>>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
>>>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>>>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>>>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>>>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>>>> Five Independent candidates.
>>>>
>>>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>>>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>>>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree
>>>> with your ideologies, Petzl!
>>>
>>> Don't their preferences all end up flowing to one of the major parties?
>>
>> No!! Once your twelve preferences have been allocated (according to YOUR
>> instructions) how the hell could anyone, apart from you, know where you
>> might want your thirteenth preference to go!
>>
> No once your and other votes (marbles) end up on your 12th selection
> (assuming none got over 50% of the marbles) Then ALL of the marbles in
> the 12th go to the selected preferences to continue down to most
> likely Labor/Coalition

No, they do not!!

Once your preferences AS YOU'VE WRITTEN ON THE PAPER have been used,
your ballot paper is set aside in a pile effectively called 'EXPIRED'
and not used again.

If you have only marked, say, EIGHT preferences below the line, your
ballot paper is set aside AFTER YOUR EIGHT PREFERENCES HAVE BEEN
ALLOCATED in a pile effectively called 'EXPIRED' and not used again.

If you have only marked, say, EIGHTY-EIGHT preferences below the line,
your ballot paper is set aside AFTER YOUR EIGHTY-EIGHT PREFERENCES HAVE
BEEN ALLOCATED (or a candidate has received a share of the votes) in a
pile effectively called 'EXPIRED' and not used again.

>> Hence the instructions you should have been given AND WHICH ARE WRITTEN
>> ON THE BALLOT PAPER that, to be valid, you must allocate from ONE to AT
>> LEAST TWELVE preferences!! ;-)
>>
> Or draw a cock and balls if the informal votes get over 50% means the
> election has to be done again!
--
Daniel

Petzl wrote on 6/6/22 9:17 am:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 22:47:24 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 5/06/2022 10:45 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Petzl wrote on 2/6/22 4:02 pm:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:23:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless
>>>>>>>> the oddity that you vote for gets 50% of the vote
>>>>>>>> first count,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>>
>>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>>
>>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of
>>>>>> over 50%,
>>>>>
>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure that neither
>>>>> of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going
>>>>>> downhill.
>>>>>
>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure that neither
>>>>> of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of
>>>>>> over 50% in last box, preferences take over with ALL votes
>>>>>> gathered going down the preference drain again till they
>>>>>> end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>>
>>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your
>>>>> voting below the line.
>>>>
>>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>>
>>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have
>>> awarded your any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>>
>>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or, Three TNL candidates,
>>> or, Three Citizens Party candidates, or, Three Sustainable
>>> Australia Party candidates, or, Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>>> Two ungrouped candidates, or, Three Reason Australia candidates,
>>> or, Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or, Two Federal ICAC Now
>>> candidates, or, Three Australian Democrats candidates, or, Two
>>> Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or, Four
>>> Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or, Two Seniors
>>> United Party of Australia candidates, or, Two Informed Medical
>>> Options Party candidates, or, Two The Great Australian Party
>>> candidates, or, Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency,
>>> candidates, or, Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates,
>>> or, Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or, Two Australian Values
>>> Party candidates, or, Six United Australia Party candidates,
>>> and, Five Independent candidates.
>>>
>>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to
>>> get any of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have
>>> to go anywhere near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>>
>>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might
>>> disagree with your ideologies, Petzl!
>>
>> Don't their preferences all end up flowing to one of the major
>> parties?
>>
> Most often
>
No, once your preferences have been used up, your ballot paper is
expired .... or exhausted .... or whatever the correct word is!!
--
Daniel

Petzl wrote on 6/6/22 9:15 am:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 22:45:00 +1000, Daniel65
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>
>> Petzl wrote on 2/6/22 4:02 pm:
>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:23:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>> oddity that you vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>
>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>
>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>
>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>
>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>
>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>
>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>
>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50% in
>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down the
>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>
>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting below
>>>> the line.
>>>
>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>
>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded your
>> any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>
>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>> Five Independent candidates.
>>
>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>
>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree with
>> your ideologies, Petzl!
>>
> Wouldn't mater unless one of the/your above selections got above 50%
> your preference would go down to your option on vote.

Once your list of preferences is exhausted, your vote is exhausted!!

END OF .....
--
Daniel

Petzl wrote on 6/6/22 12:41 pm:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 11:45:44 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote
>>>> Petzl wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>>>> oddity that you vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50%
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting
>>>>>> below
>>>>>> the line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>>>
>>>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded your
>>>> any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>>>
>>>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>>>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>>>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>>>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>>>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>>>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>>>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>>>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>>>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>>>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
>>>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>>>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>>>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>>>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>>>> Five Independent candidates.
>>>>
>>>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>>>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>>>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree with
>>>> your ideologies, Petzl!
>>>>
>>> Wouldn't mater unless one of the/your above selections got above 50%
>>> your preference would go down to your option on vote.
>>> When or IF your vote gets to the last number on that list, ALL that
>>> last number on list preferences take over, and so-on till the last
>>> number on that list collection of votes etc.
>>> Eventually ALL votes end up,mainly, in Labor or Coalition
>>
>> Not if you VOTE BELOW THE LINE.
>
> Your single vote (marble) drops each time to your 12th "VOTE BELOW THE
> LINE" then along with other votes (marbles) that end up in your 12th
> "VOTE BELOW THE LINE" are combined to the preferences of the 12th
> below the line then if not over 50% of vote go down that candidates
> preferences which could be Labor/Coalition, but only if none of that
> candidates get over 50% of vote, all of the last candidates
> preference, collect ALL votes (marbles) collected are then passed down
> the last preference, preferences,
> Till they end up in Labor/Coalition.
>
>>
>>> that gives them over the 50% to Senate or HoR.
>>
>> Not if you VOTE BELOW THE LINE.
>>
> Your single vote (marble) drops each time to your 12th "VOTE BELOW THE
> LINE" then along with other votes (marbles) that end up in your 12th
> "VOTE BELOW THE LINE" are combined to the preferences of the 12th
> below the line then if not over 50% of vote go down that candidates
> preferences which could be Labor/Coalition, but only if none of that
> candidates get over 50% of vote, all of the last candidates
> preference, collect ALL votes (marbles) collected are then passed down
> the last preference, preferences,

Where have you gotten this from, Petzl, cause as I and Rod understand
the system, YOU are wrong!!
--
Daniel

Rod Speed wrote on 6/6/22 2:47 am:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

<Snip>

>> Why not just live it up, watching TV,
>
> You ever checked what is broadcast in the daytime ?

Yeah, but if you've recorded some half decent stuff from the previous
evening .... and you get to Fast-Forward through the Ads as well!! ;-)
--
Daniel

Max wrote on 6/6/22 1:37 pm:
> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to Thistlethwaite) is
> ridiculous, when the question of a republic needs to be decided by
> referendum.
>
> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides there
> should be a republic.

IMHO, a Republic vote could only ever succeed if the 'correct' format of
a Republic is placed in front of the Voters.

If the option is
a. STAY A MONARCHY, or,
b. SWITCH TO A REPUBLIC WHERE THE *PARLIAMENT* SELECTS THE PRESIDENT

I doubt that'll get up but ...

If the option is
a. STAY A MONARCHY, or,
b. SWITCH TO A REPUBLIC WHERE THE *PEOPLE* VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT

that might get up! .... MIGHT!!
--
Daniel

On 6/06/2022 8:32 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Petzl wrote on 6/6/22 9:15 am:
>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 22:45:00 +1000, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Petzl wrote on 2/6/22 4:02 pm:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:23:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>>> oddity that you  vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>>
>>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>>
>>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>>
>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>>
>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over
>>>>>> 50% in
>>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>>
>>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting
>>>>> below
>>>>> the line.
>>>>
>>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>>
>>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded your
>>> any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>>
>>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
>>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>>> Five Independent candidates.
>>>
>>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>>
>>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree with
>>> your ideologies, Petzl!
>>>
>> Wouldn't mater unless one of the/your above selections got above 50%
>> your preference would go down to your option on vote.
>
> Once your list of preferences is exhausted, your vote is exhausted!!
>
> END OF .....

Our resident village idiot doens't even know how the Senaotrs get
elected. Try explaining to him the quota that applies to the Senators
in order for them to get elected but good luck with that getting through
to him. For some reason our resident moron keeps on mentioning 50%.
He's a waste of oxygen given how clueless he is.

On 6/06/2022 8:42 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote on 6/6/22 2:47 am:
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
> <Snip>
>
>>> Why not just live it up, watching TV,
>>
>> You ever checked what is broadcast in the daytime ?
>
> Yeah, but if you've recorded some half decent stuff from the previous
> evening .... and you get to Fast-Forward through the Ads as well!! ;-)

Try 'Beforeigners' and 'Trom' on SBS catchup.

On 6/06/2022 1:37 pm, Max wrote:
> To be appointing a "Republic Assistant Minister" (to Thistlethwaite) is
> ridiculous, when the question of a republic needs to be decided by
> referendum.
>
> There should no ministers named as such until a referendum decides there
> should be a republic.

?????????? So you don't think it's possible to have a Minister so that
Minister work towards a future Republic??????????????

The same could be said of a Trade Minister. Why have one of those for
any possible future trade. Or a Foreign Minister. Why have one of
those to actually bother to wander round the world to work on future
relationships with other countries. Future trade and future Foreign
Relations are as nutty as a Future Republic.