Is our 2 party system just a con?

[nomadpete]

But

 

But

 

You are assuming the voters will engage in logical reasoning.......

 

Hanrahan was right.

[willedoo]

3 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

If they truly wanted to change things for the better, they'd vote Green

I will if I ever get a frontal lobotomy first. I do give them full credit for trying in our area. They have well meaning candidates who front up every election but they just never get enough numbers in our electorates. They were a bit comical last election. They all dressed up in khaki for their corflute photos, probably thinking it would make them look very green like park rangers. It was like looking at the Irwins on the Australia Zoo ads every time you drove past a Green corflute. Having said that, if they'd been in local government over the years, the environmental destruction from over development around here would be a lot less for sure. A certain amount is due to state government but the council has a big say in town planning and development.

[Jerry_Atrick]

31 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

If they truly wanted to change things for the better, they'd vote Green or progressive independents like Pocock. 

Go back to GON's post. They don't want to change things for the better. They want to punish the incumbents in a big way. It is that simple. Chump, Farage, PHON, and some of the right wing nut job parties in Europe are well funded and have the backing of enough of the press to make a dent. 

 

You bet it will get worse for them.. No one said it would get better - except those seeking to disrupt. Getting better doesn't factor into their thinking. Maybe it is getting even?

 

 

[willedoo]

Going back to that assessment and prediction from Tony Barry of Redbridge Group, here's a quote of his opinion (based on polling) on reasons behind One Nation support:  “For about 15 per cent of One Nation voters, they self-report immigration as their key consideration. But for most, they’re looking for an anti-establishment party. It’s a rejection of the two-party system,” 

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, willedoo said:

I will if I ever get a frontal lobotomy first. I do give them full credit for trying in our area. They have well meaning candidates who front up every election but they just never get enough numbers in our electorates. They were a bit comical last election. They all dressed up in khaki for their corflute photos, probably thinking it would make them look very green like park rangers. It was like looking at the Irwins on the Australia Zoo ads every time you drove past a Green corflute. Having said that, if they'd been in local government over the years, the environmental destruction from over development around here would be a lot less for sure. A certain amount is due to state government but the council has a big say in town planning and development.

There's my point.

You start by saying you'd only vote for them if you had a lobotomy, but end by saying the environmental destruction in your area would have been less if they'd been in power.

So people vote against their best interests... why?

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

The Greens are not getting enough votes.

[willedoo]

2 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

There's my point.

You start by saying you'd only vote for them if you had a lobotomy, but end by saying the environmental destruction in your area would have been less if they'd been in power.

So people vote against their best interests... why?

I think one reason the Greens have only appealed to one in ten voters is that they have some sensible policies that appeal but a lot that don't. I understand why they don't broaden their scope as it would entail getting away from their basic brief. A lot of people don't like their politics; they see them these days as more a party of protest than a party of trees. There's many reasons why the Greens don't have broad appeal. The people there have a bit to do with it. Many see them as a bunch of nutters. If they were any better, they'd get more votes, but I think they've hit their peak. They're often their own worst enemies. But they do provide a niche vote for some people.

[Jerry_Atrick]

15 minutes ago, willedoo said:

they see them these days as more a party of protest than a party of trees. There's many reasons why the Greens don't have broad appeal. The people there have a bit to do with it. Many see them as a bunch of nutters.

In my case, that is true. In the 22 federal election I would have probably voted for them. Sure, PHON is a party of protest too, and they are also nutters and LNP rejects, but they seem to espouse stuff more Aussies can relate to... Not sure if that is a good or bad thing. 

 

For the record, I would vote Green before PHON, but neither would get my vote. 

 

Australia needs a party of Pococks. 

[Marty_d]

Pocock is (or appears to be) on the correct side of most issues.

The trouble is, for every Pocock there's a Bob Katter, a Clive Palmer, a Barmy Joyce or a Pauline Hanson.

29 minutes ago, willedoo said:

I think one reason the Greens have only appealed to one in ten voters is that they have some sensible policies

Well that puts them in front of PHON then, who have thought bubbles instead of policies and can't even agree amongst themselves as to what they are.

Look I know the Greens sometimes seem nutty. My point is that if you want to park your vote with a protest party, at least give it to the nutters who have the best interests of the planet at heart, instead of the nutters who want to destroy it.

[willedoo]

Just to clarify, Marty. The Haha icon I left on your post is not to put shite on the post; I just thought your post was a rather witty response.

Edited 18 minutes ago by willedoo