Qld Queensland State Election 2024

[swingdog]

I think only systems that don't have full preferential voting are various upper chambers such as the Senate with a combination of partial preferential voting and proportional representation? Queensland doesn't have an upper chamber.

One benefit to moving away from full preferential voting is that it means more votes counted where a voter has a clear preference but has failed to fill in a ballot correctly. And as a general role more inclusive voting rules could be considered 'better' or 'fairer'.

But can't imagine it's an altruistic angle so there must be some benefit to the LNP in there somewhere... probably because of a lot of seats where Green votes flow to ALP or vice-versa to get over the LNP; if some of those Greens and ALP voters voted "1" for their party but didn't put a preference for the other ahead of LNP, that's a win for the LNP.


Equally true for any right-wing minor party preference flows into LNP... but realistically the Greens/ALP situation is the most significant source of meaningful preference flow in the country.

Especially since he also wants to make voting non-compulsory. That would make us more like the US, an electoral system nobody should copy.

 

[Rotayjay]

The Coalition is obsessed with copying anything American, so naturally they want to Americanise our voting system.

I think they also want to stop people giving their primary vote to a minor far-right party but being too stupid to preference the LNP over Labor. That is, they want to exercise their right to vote for a far-right non-LNP party, clearly prefer the LNP over Labor, but are dumbarses and put Labor at (say) number 3 and LNP at number 4.

If said dumbarse has optional preferential, they might just think 'LNP will win this seat anyway and Layba is bad so I better vote LNP'.

 

[Xtreme]

A vote for the LNP is a double whammy, Anastasia should have stayed the course and gotten voted out properly. But she jumped before she could be officially dumped.

 

[RedStarUncle]

The Coalition is obsessed with copying anything American, so naturally they want to Americanise our voting system.

I think they also want to stop people giving their primary vote to a minor far-right party but being too stupid to preference the LNP over Labor. That is, they want to exercise their right to vote for a far-right non-LNP party, clearly prefer the LNP over Labor, but are dumbarses and put Labor at (say) number 3 and LNP at number 4.

If said dumbarse has optional preferential, they might just think 'LNP will win this seat anyway and Layba is bad so I better vote LNP'.

Much more likely the far-right voter would still vote for the minor party and LNP would lose the preference flow.



But it's usual reactionary stuff based on the current norm. If it was the other way around and the Greens were sitting at 2% while One Nation and Katter were pulling in 10% each statewide.... ALP would be the ones calling for optional preferences and the LNP bleating that it'd be unfair. None of them are interested in a genuine fair election just whatever favours them.

 

[tandino]

Much more likely the far-right voter would still vote for the minor party and LNP would lose the preference flow.



But it's usual reactionary stuff based on the current norm. If it was the other way around and the Greens were sitting at 2% while One Nation and Katter were pulling in 10% each statewide.... ALP would be the ones calling for optional preferences and the LNP bleating that it'd be unfair. None of them are interested in a genuine fair election just whatever favours them.

That's not even a hypothetical. We know that to be the case because it has been the other way around in the past and the ALP used to be all for optional preferential voting.

Candidates, Informal Voting and Optional Preferential Voting

In the final week of parliamentary sittings, Queensland LNP Senator James McGrath tabled the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM’s) inquiry into the conduct of …

antonygreen.com.au

If you remember this point, that OPV helps the candidate and party with the highest first preference vote, you understand why Australia’s two major parties have swapped their opinions on OPV over time.

It is not a swap based on principle, or supporting something that voters want, but rather on the basis of self-interest at the time.

In the days when DLP preferences helped the Coalition win seats, Labor supported OPV and the Coalition opposed it. One of the Labor Party’s icons, Gough Whitlam, was a supporter of OPV and tried to implement it while Prime Minister.

Another Labor hero, Neville Wran, implemented OPV in NSW in 1980. He also entrenched it in the state’s constitution, and many a Labor figure has since cursed OPV’s entrenchment as the rise of the Green’s has removed Labor’s former advantage over the Coalition on first preferences.

OPV disappeared from Labor’s policy platform in 1991, a year after compulsory preferential voting played a significant part in the Hawke government winning a narrow re-election.

Since 1990, it is overwhelmingly Labor and minor parties that have benefited from CPV, and the Coalition that has found itself on the losing side.

Politicians do what politicians do.

 

[GrayRanga]

Consider that preferential voting was introduced by Conservative parties due to minor parties splitting the Conservative votes leaving the Labor Party to win the first past the post vote.

Basically, it was a way to consolidate the Conservative vote in rural/regional areas with the rise of the Country Party which which split the vote of Conservatives.

Of course, Queensland's conservative party in the LNP rather than the Coalition arrangement in other States and Federal Parliaments

 

[Rotayjay]

The tide always turns. In March 2023 we got wall-to-wall Labor governments on the mainland. Tasmania has remained Liberal, the Northern Territory went to the CLP, and now Queensland seems set to go that way too. Nothing lasts forever.

 

[Borisdog]

They wheel this stuff out every couple of years, start a few, they don't work, there's a scandal, then they close it.

Two years later, they start again as a "trial".

Polling seems neck and neck 2PP, but that's not great for Labor. Good chance of a hung parliament with Greens, Katter and ON likely increasing

The chances of there being a hung Parliament are right up there with me nailing a Supermodel.

The ALP are going to get slaughtered. And it won't be by the minor parties.

 

[Borisdog]

The actual remedies are tossed in the too-hard basket by conservatives every time they're elected.

Screw supporting families in poverty, just wait until the kids grow up poor, malnourished and mentally ill and toss them in prison.

Ah yes,

And the "Actual remedies" that have been put into use by this mob have worked?

I'm semi-tempted to enquire about what ARE the "Actual remedies"? But I suspect I'd just be astounded by the naivete.

9.5 years is a reasonable gestation for these "Actual remedies" to have worked I'd think.

Or, possibly, **** all was actually tried?

 

[Saint]

Ah yes,

And the "Actual remedies" that have been put into use by this mob have worked?

I'm semi-tempted to enquire about what ARE the "Actual remedies"? But I suspect I'd just be astounded by the naivete.

9.5 years is a reasonable gestation for these "Actual remedies" to have worked I'd think.

Or, possibly, **** all was actually tried?

Better nutrition (free school lunches), better education, trying to provide a stable home life (ensuring parents can/do provide a roof and food).

The kids in Townsville and Cairns want to go to juvie rather than home/school because they get fed and have a roof over their head. And if they're going to commit a crime to deliberately go to juvie, might as well get high and make it a fun one, like stealing a car and going for a joyride.

I knew one of the prosecutors and every time somebody said "stick them in juvie for the rest of their childhood" about the worst crimes committed by kids, he said, yeah that's what they want, if I do that, every kid will commit the same crimes.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

If you lock up someone who is commiting robberies then ergo its just plain logical to say that reduces crime in the short run because those people are no longer able to commit robberies. How is this logic not sufficient for you?

Because other people can commit robberies in their place. There cna be a steady stream of criminality. Otherwise the huge prison population in the US should mean crime rates go down there every year, but while there's a long term downward trend due to many factors, it does rise in some years.

I agree it does not fix problems in the medium to long run. The insitutional problems that drive people to commit theft need to be fixed and if they arent then the system just drives other people to crime and they replace those who were locked up. But that takes time. It doesnt occur instantaneously. No person says hey, those guys just got locked up and as a result i will now commit the crimes that they would of.

Of course some people do, if there's less competition. Why do you think arresting drug dealers doesn't eliminate drugs from the street for good? Others move in when a competitor disappears.

I agree the death penalty doesnt deter crime. But thats not because threat of punishment doesnt deter crime. But more because there is no difference in deterence between life time in prison and the death penalty.

This is essentially what I'm saying. Punishment does deter crime, I don't dispute that, I'm saying that after a point, the strength of the punishment doesn't deter crime. If I know I can't get away with beating up someone I hate, I won't do it regardless of whether I'll be in prison for one year or ten. Maybe I would if I knew I could avoid prison and just pay a modest fine, but the length of the prison sentence isn't what makes me choose not to do it.

Look at countries like Singapore. Very high inequality but very low crime because they are tough on crime and have created a society where status is linked to compliance.

Singapore is also a place where they beat people with canes for chewing gum, execute people for selling drugs and jail people who criticise the government. Authoritarianism leads to more authoritarianism. I have no desire for us to become Singapore, as I like having freedom, think people deserve a chance to live and repent for causing harms, and enjoy being able to criticise the government.

I'm not suggesting criminals escape punishment. I've met people who think prisons shouldn't exist, and while I think on a certain level they have a few valid points about the impact institutional correction has on prisoners, guards and society as a whole, I strongly disagree with their central idea because prisons are necessary to keep society safe. I just think that there should be a focus on rehabilitation rather than pure punishment, especially for youth offenders who might mature and grow with age.

Crime is down. I agree. Doesnt mean its down to acceptable levels though. Unfortunately until recently people have been blissfully unaware of how much crime happens in their neighbourhoods. But now thanks to cameras and people posting all the footage on social media people realise the robberies are regularly happening all around them. This awareness is creating mental health problems.

I accept that you agree crime is falling. Visibility doesn't change that. This is a textbook example of a moral panic where the public are being led by feelings over facts. And so they're falling for crappy slogans like "adult crime, adult time" despite the experts who have studied youth crime telling us that locking kids up for ages with adults is just going to make them into better criminals and reoffend.

I think the camp ideas may have merit, but the LNP screw this up every time (including under Newman a decade ago) because they still focus on punishment over rehabilitation. I think especially for Indigenous youth offenders, camps run by Indigenous community figures that include some level of reconnecting with their culture can be useful, and I'd support funding for that rather than just building more and more prisons to lock up more and more people.

I agree poverty is a key issue (not the only one though). I dont think the recent affordability crisis is much of an issue though cos as you point out, the crime rate hasnt risen in the past couple of years.

In time it will. Poverty and unemployment drive a lot of people to theft or hard drugs. And those drive people to more crimes. It doesn't happen overnight, but it does happen.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

9.5 years is a reasonable gestation for these "Actual remedies" to have worked I'd think.

Or, possibly, **** all was actually tried?

They are working. Crime rates go down every single decade.

 

[Borisdog]

Better nutrition (free school lunches), better education, trying to provide a stable home life (ensuring parents can/do provide a roof and food).

The kids in Townsville and Cairns want to go to juvie rather than home/school because they get fed and have a roof over their head. And if they're going to commit a crime to deliberately go to juvie, might as well get high and make it a fun one, like stealing a car and going for a joyride.

I knew one of the prosecutors and every time somebody said "stick them in juvie for the rest of their childhood" about the worst crimes committed by kids, he said, yeah that's what they want, if I do that, every kid will commit the same crimes.

Interesting logic.

They want to go there, but the sentencing laws keep letting them out. So they keep committing crimes upon release, but keeping them in the slot will make sure every other kid does the same.

If they want to be there, then keep them there. It's probably cheaper for the general public.

And just by the by, your prosecutor mate isn't the one who sticks them in juvie That's the job of the judiciary, who follow the sentencing laws. And THAT is one of the problems.

Once again I've been drawn into a circular debate on this subject. It absolutely amazes me that there haven't been more deaths and/or serious injuries/assaults, on both offender and victim side. Especially in Townsville where there is a very large population of serving and ex-military.

People getting held-up, car-jacked, broken into etc do NOT GAF about the root cause, they only care about the immediate consequences to them. And they're utterly gobsmacked at the record of many of these recidivists.

Say what you will about not leaving them in juvie, but I'll bet you no-one in juvie ever stole a car, robbed a house, car-jacked someone or flogged a pensioner when they were IN juvie.

Simplistic you say, yep, but so's a wheel.