NationStates Jolt Archive

My nomination goes to the 1974 constitutional referendum in Australia.
Proposed law entitled "An Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that the members of the House of Representatives and of the parliaments of the states are chosen directly and democratically by the people".
Do you approve the proposed law?
Every state, with the exception of New South Wales by the slimmest margin, voted against it. Go figure.

Rotovia they wanted to change it from proportional voting to direct voting? Well that's just absurd and the fact that it was going to influence the states as well I am not surprised. What was so weird about it?

Rotovia they wanted to change it from proportional voting to direct voting? Well that's just absurd and the fact that it was going to influence the states as well I am not surprised. What was so weird about it?

It guaranteed the right to vote, they voted it down.

Maybe its just funny when you're a polisci student who smokes a lot of pot

My vote has to go for when the Soviet Union declared that social democrats were the 'moderate wing of fascism', in a conspiracy with the extreme right and thus to be called 'social fascists'. Somehow, lots of people were stupid enough to follow. I mean, I've come up with some ridiculous stuff in my time, but I can't fail to be impressed at the audacity of that one.

It guaranteed the right to vote, they voted it down.

Well no because and my memory may be a bit fuzzy because it is hot, I'm very tired and I am slightly drunk, but doesnt the consitution already have our voting system in it?

Scary, but true
Method of election of senators.
9. The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method
of choosing senators, but so that the method shall be uniform for all the
States. Subject to any such law, the Parliament of each State may make laws
prescribing the method of choosing the senators for that State. Times and
places.
The Parliament of a State may make laws for determining the times and
places of elections of senators for the State.

My vote has to go for when the Soviet Union declared that social democrats were the 'moderate wing of fascism', in a conspiracy with the extreme right and thus to be called 'social fascists'. Somehow, lots of people were stupid enough to follow. I mean, I've come up with some ridiculous stuff in my time, but I can't fail to be impressed at the audacity of that one.

Well, almost any part of practical communism you can name was made of absurdity. I, personally, like the Soviet idea of "symptomeless schizophrenia", whose only symptome was opposition to the government. :wink:

I vote for Bob Dole. Not anything specific, just the general existance of Bob Dole.

It guaranteed the right to vote, they voted it down.

We don't want....the ability to do this...

I vote for Australia accidentally granting the vote to women then having to retract it. That always amused me. Or most of the things John Wilkes did, that guy was cool.

Different cultures have different opinions of what's ridiculous.

It is cited that the Burmese king Nanda Bayin, in 1599 "laughed to death when informed, by a visiting Italian merchant, that Venice was a free state without a king."

In 1660, the Scottish aristocrat, polymath and first translator of Rabelais into English, Thomas Urquhart, is said to have died laughing upon hearing that Charles II had taken the throne.

...that, and people suggetsing that Ron Paul actually had a chance XD

Different cultures have different opinions of what's ridiculous.

It is cited that the Burmese king Nanda Bayin, in 1599 "laughed to death when informed, by a visiting Italian merchant, that Venice was a free state without a king."

In 1660, the Scottish aristocrat, polymath and first translator of Rabelais into English, Thomas Urquhart, is said to have died laughing upon hearing that Charles II had taken the throne.

...that, and people suggetsing that Ron Paul actually had a chance XD

Nanda Bayin was being held prisoner by his brothers after they staged a coup. The laughed to death was likely a story told to the masses to explain why he disappeared.

Sir Thomas Urquhart's death by laughter was likely an urban legend.

I would have to say the weirdest thing to me was the rejection of the Lisbon treaty by the referendum in Ireland last year.
The vast majority of voter apparently voted against it "because we don't know what it says".

The sheer stupidity and complacency of not being willing to go online and read it up, or read one of the many copies with explanations distributed ... it just did my head in.
I wouldn't have minded if they just had objected to parts of it, but this was just plain clownish.

I would have to say the weirdest thing to me was the rejection of the Lisbon treaty by the referendum in Ireland last year.
The vast majority of voter apparently voted against it "because we don't know what it says".

The sheer stupidity and complacency of not being willing to go online and read it up, or read one of the many copies with explanations distributed ... it just did my head in.
I wouldn't have minded if they just had objected to parts of it, but this was just plain clownish.

you have been reported to the IRA check and make sure your car doesn't have a bomb in it.

you have been reported to the IRA check and make sure your car doesn't have a bomb in it.

Don't have a car. :p

Don't have a car. :p

keep a look out for masked men with AK-47's shooting up your place.


Seriously how do you live with out a car ????

keep a look out for masked men with AK-47's shooting up your place.


Seriously how do you live with out a car ????

Oh, those. But they're Polish and Lithuanian, for the most part, surely.

I never had a car in my entire life... neither did my family when I was growing up.
We use busses, trains, bicycles and our feet...

Oh, those. But they're Polish and Lithuanian, for the most part, surely.

I never had a car in my entire life... neither did my family when I was growing up.
We use busses, trains, bicycles and our feet...

I do admit i walk or bike when possible. Keeps me from getting fat.
a date in a bus or a train just isn't cool. no privacy and you cant have the train take you to an isolated look out.

I do admit i walk or bike when possible. Keeps me from getting fat.
a date in a bus or a train just isn't cool. no privacy and you cant have the train take you to an isolated look out.

Why would you date somebody in a car? :confused:
That's what cafes and pubs are for...
And what would you do on a lookout? I usually invite people back home to my place.

...what about joke warfare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5HpgV42LQ&feature=related)? You didn't say it had to be nonfiction! :p

That time we nearly had a coup in the UK in the 1970s.

Scary, but true

Yeah true but that talks about the appointment of Senators not members of the House of Reps which is what the question on the referendum was asking about.

Besides which you being a Poli Sci student you would no very much that we rely on convention here in Australia and since we have a set way how to do things that is more than likely how it is going to stay. We aren't like some country that needs everything set out in writing because they are to pedantic about each other and where people are going to cheat the system such as the USA.

Yeah true but that talks about the appointment of Senators not members of the House of Reps which is what the question on the referendum was asking about.

Besides which you being a Poli Sci student you would no very much that we rely on convention here in Australia and since we have a set way how to do things that is more than likely how it is going to stay. We aren't like some country that needs everything set out in writing because they are to pedantic about each other and where people are going to cheat the system such as the USA.

Convention is not legally enforcable

Convention is not legally enforcable

No shit, but as I say we are in Australia here one where the rules of convention are followed if we didn't we would have no Prime Minister and no Cabinet as these two things aren't mentioned in the Constitution. But regardless as I say that quote from the Constitution was about Senators not the house of reps therefore even if that referendum had been successful that section of the Constitution would still be in place. And actually I am pretty sure that the High Court has looked at Convention in the past in order to make judgements on these sort of issues.

No shit, but as I say we are in Australia here one where the rules of convention are followed if we didn't we would have no Prime Minister and no Cabinet as these two things aren't mentioned in the Constitution. But regardless as I say that quote from the Constitution was about Senators not the house of reps therefore even if that referendum had been successful that section of the Constitution would still be in place. And actually I am pretty sure that the High Court has looked at Convention in the past in order to make judgements on these sort of issues.

We have a long history of convention not being followed, is my point

We have a long history of convention not being followed, is my point

We also have a long history of convention being followed but what did your OP have to do with the section you quoted?

We also have a long history of convention being followed but what did your OP have to do with the section you quoted?
This may have been more appropriate

Qualification of electors.
30. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualification of electors
of members of the House of Representatives shall be in each State that
which is prescribed by the law of the State as the qualification of
electors of the more numerous House of Parliament of the State; but in the
choosing of members each elector shall vote only once.
Application of State laws.
31. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, but subject to this
Constitution, the laws in force in each State for the time being relating
to elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State
shall, as nearly as practicable, apply to elections in the State of members
of the House of Representatives.

Why would you date somebody in a car? :confused:
That's what cafes and pubs are for...
And what would you do on a lookout? I usually invite people back home to my place.

you take them to the cafe in the car.
then you take them to a secluded spot on a mountain where you can see the entire city and talk.

I vote for Australia accidentally granting the vote to women then having to retract it. That always amused me.

Pardon my ignorance but what are you talking about? I'm Australian and I have never, ever heard of this.

Pardon my ignorance but what are you talking about? I'm Australian and I have never, ever heard of this.

Neither had I

you take them to the cafe in the car.
then you take them to a secluded spot on a mountain where you can see the entire city and talk.

That's silly. You'd spend hours trying to find a parking space within an hours walk of any cafe.

That's silly. You'd spend hours trying to find a parking space within an hours walk of any cafe.

US cities were designed with cars in mind so parking is much, much more available than in Europe. The half dozen cafes in my town all have parking lots within 2 minutes walk, some have their own parking lots.

Neither had I

Apparently it was just Victoria rather than all of Australia.

link (http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/women.html)


In a piece of faulty legislative drafting, the Electoral Act of 1863 enfranchised all ratepayers listed on local municipal rolls. By some oversight the Parliament overlooked earlier local government legislation that had permitted women to be added to the municipal rolls for local government elections. Those women therefore now had the vote and proceeded to use it in the General Election of 1864.

Shocked at such effrontery, and embarrassed by their oversight, Members of the Legislative Assembly hastily amended the offending clause early in 1865 by restricting the vote for parliamentary elections strictly to male ratepayers.



It's a shame we don't have film records of older UK parliaments, usually good for a laugh.

There was the time Alan Clark turned up to give a speech drunk iirc. The person who got into trouble was the MP who euphemistically accused him of being drunk (accusing another MP of being drunk is against parliamentary rules).

Or most of Alan Clark's career really.

Pardon my ignorance but what are you talking about? I'm Australian and I have never, ever heard of this.

Yeah same I haven't heard this either.

Rotovia: Fair enough mate, I can see why many did decide to vote against it simple because it places the power on how people vote in their state representatives rather than federal representatives. And why should someone in Queensland decide the voting system for people living in WA or people in Tasmania deciding how people vote in their state elections in NSW? I would have voted against it for that reason and the other being that it is not needed.

I vote for Australia accidentally granting the vote to women then having to retract it...

I'm not aware of that - could you provide a link?

It did happen in Victoria, though - in 1863. You can read about it here (http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/women.html).

Edit: D'oh. Shoulda read the entire thread.

My nomination goes to the 1974 constitutional referendum in Australia.
Proposed law entitled "An Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that the members of the House of Representatives and of the parliaments of the states are chosen directly and democratically by the people".
Do you approve the proposed law?
Every state, with the exception of New South Wales by the slimmest margin, voted against it. Go figure.

But it gets worse. In 1988, the following referendum was put:

A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?

It didn't get a majority anywhere.

Background for non-Australians. Referenda pass when a majority of states (4 out of 6) and a majority of the total vote support the change. Very few referenda ever get up, and then only with bipartisan support. The Liberal Party (the Oz right wing party) on principle never support referenda proposals put by Labor Governments.

But it gets worse. In 1988, the following referendum was put:

A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?

Well define fair and democractic?

It is all very well to have words but even Mugabe has claimed his election wins to be fair and democratic.


Background for non-Australians. Referenda pass when a majority of states (4 out of 6) and a majority of the total vote support the change. Very few referenda ever get up, and then only with bipartisan support. The Liberal Party (the Oz right wing party) on principle never support referenda proposals put by Labor Governments.

More crying from labor nothing to do with a lot of people being against the actual proposal oh no it was the liberal party's fault.

Well define fair and democractic?

It is all very well to have words but even Mugabe has claimed his election wins to be fair and democratic.

The legislation, which had already passed both houses of Federal Parliament, required that, in state elections, the number of voters in any seat must not differ from the statewide mean by more than 10%. (It may have been 20%. It's a while back.) Such a safeguard already existed in federal and territory elections.

The shadow Attorney General at the time, Peter Reith, fronted the "no campaign" for the Liberals. He successfully argued that the referendum was an attack on states' rights, ie if the Queensland or WA governments wanted to continue with their gross malapportionment then it was their right to do so.

The paradox, of course, is that the small-government, pro-individual party championed the rights of governments over individuals. That's one of the many reasons the whole event was so weird.

Peter Reith was, not unexpectedly, about as honest during this campaign as he was with the waterfront dispute and with the children overboard affair.

More crying from labor nothing to do with a lot of people being against the actual proposal oh no it was the liberal party's fault.

Not complaining. Just telling it as it is.

The legislation, which had already passed both houses of Federal Parliament, required that, in state elections, the number of voters in any seat must not differ from the statewide mean by more than 10%. (It may have been 20%. It's a while back.) Such a safeguard already existed in federal and territory elections.

The shadow Attorney General at the time, Peter Reith, fronted the "no campaign" for the Liberals. He successfully argued that the referendum was an attack on states' rights, ie if the Queensland or WA governments wanted to continue with their gross malapportionment then it was their right to do so.

The paradox, of course, is that the small-government, pro-individual party championed the rights of governments over individuals. That's one of the many reasons the whole event was so weird.

Peter Reith was, not unexpectedly, about as honest during this campaign as he was with the waterfront dispute and with the children overboard affair.

What's that the rights over the individuals on how they want their states to run? The horror I tell you the federal government should tell people how to elect their state governments. Of course there are other ways in which to combat gerrymandering.

Not complaining. Just telling it as it is.

It's a shame that you still can't hack it that you didn't nationalise the banking system. But then we could go through all the bad referendums that the ALP and Liberal has proposed over the years and why it was good that they weren't passed. I'm sure that many people of the liberal party won't oppose a referendum that the government wants to propose in fact they will be all for it.

What's that the rights over the individuals on how they want their states to run? The horror I tell you the federal government should tell people how to elect their state governments. Of course there are other ways in which to combat gerrymandering.

I think you're being a little bit tongue in cheek here. Perhaps not.

Due to malapportionment, people in WA and Qld weren't able to elect the governments they wanted. Bjelke-Petersen's Country Party (later National Party) never received a majority of votes but always won far more seats than their vote would, under a fairer system, entitle them to. The Liberal Party, as well as the Labor Party, were big losers under the system. The Liberals were always suitably compliant towards B-P, agreeing to be the minor party in coalition. Eventually, thanks to the Bjelkemander, he fell only one seat short of a Parliamentary majority in his own right. Don Lane infamously defected from the Liberals in return for a ministerial position.

Interestingly, until Goss eventually won, despite the Bjelkemander, the Labor party would never have won against Bjelke-Petersen, even with a fair system. Their own unelectability played against them.

Steele Hall, while Liberal Premier of SA and operating under a similarly malapportioned system and wishing to remove it, argued that malapportionment did not assist a party in the long run. Not only did it encourage corruption and incompetence, leading to dissatisfaction among voters, but it forced the oppostion party to move politically in the direction of the governing party, thus robbing the ruling party of some of its own constituency. Both these factors allowed Goss to win in Queensland

It's a shame that you still can't hack it that you didn't nationalise the banking system.

You can do better than that.

But then we could go through all the bad referendums that the ALP and Liberal has proposed over the years and why it was good that they weren't passed. I'm sure that many people of the liberal party won't oppose a referendum that the government wants to propose in fact they will be all for it.

Yes, and political parties should support or oppose referenda on their merits. I think we can agree on that.

Democratic Party chooses for their candidate in 2004... John Kerry? Buh buh bwah?

Bush v Gore 2000

The leadership of the Worlds superpower hinged on 9 Justices and 527 confused elderly people in Florida.

I think Caligula Caesar making his horse a senator counts a weird political moment. If for nothing else, you'd know the horse would never vote for anything.

I think Caligula Caesar making his horse a senator counts a weird political moment. If for nothing else, you'd know the horse would never vote for anything.

Indeed. It would always vote "Nay".

I think you're being a little bit tongue in cheek here. Perhaps not.

Due to malapportionment, people in WA and Qld weren't able to elect the governments they wanted. Bjelke-Petersen's Country Party (later National Party) never received a majority of votes but always won far more seats than their vote would, under a fairer system, entitle them to. The Liberal Party, as well as the Labor Party, were big losers under the system. The Liberals were always suitably compliant towards B-P, agreeing to be the minor party in coalition. Eventually, thanks to the Bjelkemander, he fell only one seat short of a Parliamentary majority in his own right. Don Lane infamously defected from the Liberals in return for a ministerial position.

Interestingly, until Goss eventually won, despite the Bjelkemander, the Labor party would never have won against Bjelke-Petersen, even with a fair system. Their own unelectability played against them.

Steele Hall, while Liberal Premier of SA and operating under a similarly malapportioned system and wishing to remove it, argued that malapportionment did not assist a party in the long run. Not only did it encourage corruption and incompetence, leading to dissatisfaction among voters, but it forced the oppostion party to move politically in the direction of the governing party, thus robbing the ruling party of some of its own constituency. Both these factors allowed Goss to win in Queensland

I was a bit.

You can do better than that.

Yes but give me a break it was 11:30 at night.

Yes, and political parties should support or oppose referenda on their merits. I think we can agree on that.

Well yes but then all political parties will also look at it from their own beliefs.

Indeed. It would always vote "Nay".

I hate negative politicians.

He surely was dark horse to the other senators.