Is our 2 party system just a con?

[octave]

4 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

PO mailing box are 37km from my place.

How do you get mail delivered? When I lived in a rural area, the postie would pick up letters to be posted as well as deliver mail. Apart from that, on two occasions I did not vote  (accidentally), I got a notice, and I just said I was sick that day, so no fine for me. By the way, it is not illegal to fail to register to vote, but once on the electoral roll, you are required to vote. The fine from memory is ridiculously small, however, if you hate the government, then why give them your money?

[willedoo]

2 minutes ago, octave said:

When I lived in a rural area, the postie would pick up letters to be posted as well as deliver mail.

octave, picking up letters is long gone. It might happen somewhere but would be fairly rare these days. Contractors in our area put in a low price to get the job and tackle it like a car race. You often find letters lying in the mud in the stormwater drain. I've kept my PO box in town for secure parcel collection because the contractors are so bad. Been that way for years now, every new contractor is as bad as the last. 

[willedoo]

3 hours ago, red750 said:

This house near me just got passed in for the fifth time...

Not their fault, Howard made them build it.

[octave]

7 minutes ago, willedoo said:

octave, picking up letters is long gone. It might happen somewhere but would be fairly rare these days.

Well, in that case, surely GON would have a good case to have the fines waived. 

 

It is hard to believe that during the weeks you can postal vote GON does not go into town to buy food, petrol or anything else.   

 

Where I used to live, neighbours would always ring and say they were going into town, and did we need anything? We would also do this for others. Perhaps people in the country are no longer kind and helpful to each other.

 

As I say, I have failed to vote twice, and on both occasions the fine was waived.

 

 

In any case, my point is that GON chooses to pay a fine, but there are alternatives. 

 

In Australia, voting in federal elections is compulsory. If you’re enrolled but don’t vote in an election run by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), you may receive a “Failure to Vote” notice asking you to explain why.

You won’t be fined if the AEC accepts that you had a “valid and sufficient reason.” The law doesn’t give a strict list, but these are commonly accepted examples:

1. Illness or medical emergency

• Being seriously ill on election day

• Being in hospital or caring for someone with a medical emergency

2. Being outside Australia

• If you were overseas and unable to access overseas voting or postal voting in time.

3. Religious beliefs

• If voting conflicts with genuine religious beliefs.

4. Natural disaster or major disruption

• Floods, bushfires, severe storms, or other events preventing travel to a polling place.

5. Unexpected work commitments

• If work made it genuinely impossible to attend a polling place or vote early/postally.

6. Travel or remoteness

• Being in a remote location where voting options were not reasonably available.

7. Accident or unforeseen events

• Car breakdown, transport failure, or similar unexpected problems preventing you from voting.

8. Administrative issues

• You were not properly enrolled or believed you were not required to vote.

---

Reasons usually not accepted

Examples that normally won’t be considered valid:

• “I forgot”

• “I was busy”

• “I don’t like the candidates”

• “I don’t believe in voting”

---

What happens if the reason isn’t accepted

• The AEC usually issues a small fine (about $20).

• If unpaid, it can escalate through the court system and become larger.

---

✅ Important: In Australia you don’t actually have to vote for a candidate — you only have to attend a polling place or submit a ballot. You can cast a blank or informal vote if you choose.

 

[randomx]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

I haven't voted for the last four Fed elections, just paid the fines, because the major parties are more internationalist than Australian these days, I can't stomach them.

Yep, same, exactly. To me it hasn't even been worth the time out to go vote haven't for 15yrs now. To me there's been no one even worth voting for so forget it. lf there ever is l'll go vote.

[randomx]

 

Any thoughts on Angus ?

[octave]

4 minutes ago, randomx said:

To me there's been no one even worth voting for so forget it.

There surely must always be a "least worst" choice?   

[randomx]

Yeah but yaknow, a worst choice isn't gonna win or do anything anyway sooo , not even worth the trip down and time to me.

l voted every time when Howard was in , to get the yank bum kissing moron out.  😁

Edited 4 hours ago by randomx

[red750]

Back to big houses, this is the newest house in our street. The owners moved in last week. Landscaping still to be done.

 

[octave]

5 minutes ago, randomx said:

a worst choice isn't gonna win or do anything anyway sooo

In the US, Trump knows that suppressing voters is the only way he will get re-elected. 

[willedoo]

Our local federal member is LNP and fairly safe. Last election he got his margin halved to 7%, but should get in ok next time. His only real opposition is Labor, and the way the preferences flow, he should get back in ok. Even if One Nation take a heap of his support, it's an area where the Greens poll 10%, so their preferences will go to Labor and should knock One Nation out of the contest. ON preferences (with Family First and Palmer's) will then flow back to the LNP and top Labor. Demographics are on the side of the LNP here - part rural and one candidate due to the LNP amalgamation, a big small business population, and a big population of Victorian self funded retiree migrants.

[randomx]

1 hour ago, octave said:

In the US, Trump knows that suppressing voters is the only way he will get re-elected. 

Yeah right, interesting.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, randomx said:

 

Any thoughts on Angus ?

Yep! He's a slimy bastard. And I'm not saying that simply because of teh Party he is in. He's puolled some pretty shonky deals in his life.

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, octave said:

There surely must always be a "least worst" choice?   

Why endorse anyone if in your opinion they aren't up for the job?

[facthunter]

Your right to Vote is the Best assurance of your ability to be rid of a despot. Most of the World would love to have what we have. Compulsory voting came in to stop the Bosses from preventing you voting.. (like Trump wants to) Boasting about NOT voting is like Wearing a Jumper with " I'm the Village Idiot"  on it.  Nev

[facthunter]

Pauline is Just someone offering what she Cannot give, Brazenly.  she doesn't believe RULES apply to Her and uses racism openly (adjusted over time) She just an opportunistic $#1t stirrer and Trump worshipping CON Artist collecting Misfit Candidates and Rinehart financed. . She will fall foul for  some Law for sure and claim she is being victimised guaranteed. She's no Benevolent genius dedicated to helping Australina get ahead. She's capable of doing  a lot of Damage and has to be considered a very risky Proposition based on Form and Performance so far. Nev

[Siso]

So same as the other pollys, they all promise what they can't give

[octave]

55 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Why endorse anyone if in your opinion they aren't up for the job?

Because in life, you are often faced with choices, and there is no perfect solution. If I book a domestic flight, every airline available has had its share of fvckups. What am I to do, not book any of them, or do I rationally evaluate the choices available and choose the best (or least worst one?

 

The thing is that as individuals, we all have things we want and don't want. No party can ever represent every single thing I want so what am I to do?  Should I not vote for anyone or should I vote for the government that most closely aligns with my beliefs?

 

If I took your statement literally, then I would never vote. Would that be a good thing if no one voted?

[facthunter]

She has  NO one legitimately in the Lower House Where it ALL Happens. If Barnaby runs for the Lower house HE may Miss out. He is guaranteed a Place on the senate ticket that will get him in there. For Integrity on a scale of one to ten I would give him Minus five. He's just Pooped on the party that supported him for ages. What a great example HE sets? Not,  Nev

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

7 minutes ago, octave said:

If I took your statement literally, then I would never vote. Would that be a good thing if no one voted?

If we stopped voting, then that would make the political class stop and think: "What are we doing wrong"

 

 

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Compulsory voting came in to stop the Bosses from preventing you voting

 

Compulsory voting was brought in by the Conservatives. Labor agreed with it.

[octave]

1 minute ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

If we stopped voting, then that would make the political class stop and think: "What are we doing wrong"

 

 Why?  You get to be in government because the majority votes for you, and it does not matter whether it's 20 million  or just a handful of voters. It might be worth reading this:

 

in australia where voting is mandatory, does it send any kind of useful messages to the political parties. Do they even care how many people fail to vote?

 

Short answer: not very much. In Australia’s compulsory voting system, the number of people who fail to vote is generally too small to send a strong political signal, and parties tend to pay far more attention to other indicators.

Here’s how it works in practice.

---

1. Non-voting rates are very low

Turnout in Australian federal elections is typically around 90–92% of enrolled voters. The election is administered by the Australian Electoral Commission.

Rough breakdown in many elections:

• ~90% vote formally or informally

• ~3–5% fail to vote

• some are excused after explaining to the AEC

Because the non-voting group is small and scattered, it’s hard to interpret it politically.

---

2. Political parties mostly ignore “failure to vote”

Parties like the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, and others generally don’t treat non-voting as a meaningful message because:

• The people who miss voting are not a coherent group.

• Many simply forget, are travelling, or are ill.

• They don’t know the political views of those people.

So parties can’t tell if non-voters were protesting, apathetic, or just busy.

---

3. Informal voting sends a clearer signal

If people want to show dissatisfaction, informal ballots are a better indicator.

An informal vote is when the ballot is filled out incorrectly or left blank. These are counted and reported.

In some electorates analysts look closely at:

• high informal rates

• large numbers of blank ballots

These can hint at protest or confusion with the ballot.

---

4. The signals parties actually care about

Political parties pay far more attention to:

1. Primary vote shifts
Changes in each party’s first-preference vote.

2. Preference flows
How minor-party voters allocate preferences.

3. Booth-level swings
Detailed results from each polling place.

4. Demographic patterns
How suburbs or demographic groups move between elections.

These data points are far more useful than the small number of people who simply didn’t vote.

---

5. Compulsory voting changes the meaning of turnout

In voluntary systems (like the US), turnout can signal:

• enthusiasm

• disengagement

• mobilisation success

But in Australia, turnout is largely “forced”, so it tells parties very little about political sentiment.

---

✅ In effect:
Failing to vote in Australia rarely sends a meaningful political message, because it’s too uncommon and too ambiguous.

[octave]

The thing is GON, that a non-vote is not much of a signal, but parties are very sensitive to trends in the vote count, i.e., are they gaining or losing votes. They also take notice of informal votes with slogans written on the ballot paper. You could write "deport immigrants" on your paper if that is what you think, and if enough people do that, scrutineers report this back to the party leadership. Your brilliant plan of "doing nothing" is not the powerful weapon you think it is. Doing something, even if unsuccessful, is better than doing nothing and thinking you are doing something useful.

 

The other thing is that it is better for personal happiness to take positive action rather than do nothing.  There is a saying that certainly helps me maitain a happy life. : "Action absorbs anxiety." 

[octave]

19 minutes ago, Siso said:

So same as the other pollys, they all promise what they can't give

 

I think the problem is that the electorate is infantile. Promises are for kids sitting on Santa's knee. We think of pollies as being bad because they don't do exactly what we personally want.  So I agree that pollies make promises they can't keep, but why?  Perhaps it is because we crave simple answers. I am sure most of us here would think that large corporations should pay more (or any in some cases) tax.  Why don't stupid pollies realise that and do this super popular thing?  I guess they are probably aware that if they did, some of these corporations would shut up shop and then move elsewhere.  Then the gov would be criticised for chasing large employers offshore. It is naive to believe that it is easy or that there is one simple answer that will please everyone.

[onetrack]

16 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

 

Compulsory voting was brought in by the Conservatives. Labor agreed with it.

And the Liberal Party voted to support voluntary voting at their 1988 Federal Council decision-making.