On 21 August 2010 my senate vote will go to...

A 4WD owned by a Greens candidate is probably not so bad, but there are plenty of less conspicuous options than a V8 Cruiser, haha.

KB1971 said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

KB1971 said :

Lin is not so green it seems:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/greens-candidate-defends-4wd-use/1911207.aspx

A V8 Landcruiser no less.

Apparently she ‘needs’ it to go camping. It really makes me wonder how I have managed to go camping all these years without a four wheel drive….

Depends I guess, if you go to Bendethera then, yes you ‘need’ a 4WD but if you go to the Big 4 at Nellegen then no.

There is camping & then there is “camping”, staying in a tent in a caravan park is not camping.

*sigh* I am not talking about staying in caravan parks. It is quite possible to drive on unsealed roads in a sedan. Sure there are *some* places you can’t get to, but you don’t *need* to go to them – there are plenty of alternatives.

How about

‘So potentially under the Greens party policy, all art objects and jewellery looted from Jewish communities in Europe during WW2 by your Nazi ancestors and your rural estate funded by the sale of gold and blood diamonds stolen in Africa by your Boer uncle in the 1970’s would all be vulnerable to seizure, sale and the government taking half the proceeds. Too bad, the Greens want their 55%, thanks.’

just for balance’s sake.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

KB1971 said :

Lin is not so green it seems:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/greens-candidate-defends-4wd-use/1911207.aspx

A V8 Landcruiser no less.

Apparently she ‘needs’ it to go camping. It really makes me wonder how I have managed to go camping all these years without a four wheel drive….

Depends I guess, if you go to Bendethera then, yes you ‘need’ a 4WD but if you go to the Big 4 at Nellegen then no.

There is camping & then there is “camping”, staying in a tent in a caravan park is not camping.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Of course all of you who vote for the Greens are quite happy with this little bit of policy?

*gasp*

All those ‘vulnerable and often frail old people’ – who are sitting on more than $5m.

. <- smallest violin

I loved this bit in that article:

‘So potentially under the Greens party policy, precious family heirlooms or jewellery or much-loved family beach shack or painting that had been in the family for generations would all be vulnerable to seizure, sale and the government taking half the proceeds. As a refugee, your grandmother smuggled her grandmother’s priceless engagement ring out of occupied Europe in World War II to Australia. Too bad, the Greens want their 55%, thanks.’

I never knew my grandmother was a refugee. Or that we have any precious heirlooms, jewellery, or paintings. As for a much-loved beach shack… If the Greens manage to find these and sell them, I’d be very happy to get 50% of what I didn’t even know I’d inherited.

If I wanted a guaranteed vote for someone who is going to do exactly what I would do and someone who has exactly the same beliefs as me I would need to create a clone and vote for myself.

Unfortunately I don’t have a clone, and I’m not that interested in standing for parliament so I’ll do the next best thing and vote for the person/party who most closely represents what I stand for – even if there are some of their policies I disagree with. In this case I’ll be voting for the Greens. I may not agree with every single policy but they’re a hell of a lot closer to my beliefs than either the Labor or Liberal party.

Can any Labor or Liberal voter here say that they agree with 100% of their parties policies? Julia’s ‘Citizen’s forum’ or Abbott’s ‘Carrier Pigeon – oops…Broadband solution’?

None of the parties are perfect (far from it in this election) and the only thing a voter can do is pick the person/party to which they feel is the best representation of who they are and what they believe.

I’m a Christian and a climate change skeptic and I’ll be voting Green.

Just bumping this back up the page to shoot for the magical 450+ which apparently makes it a proper sample

Nothing magic about 450. A self selected sample is never really a proper sample, unless everyone selects themselves or if people select themselves at random with a known (and non-zero) probability (the former being a special case of the latter).

Self selecting samples aren’t totally useless, they can tell about the (say) 483 people that responded to the poll, but making inferences about the whole of the population from a self selecting sample is not really possible.

KB1971 said :

Lin is not so green it seems:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/greens-candidate-defends-4wd-use/1911207.aspx

A V8 Landcruiser no less.

Apparently she ‘needs’ it to go camping. It really makes me wonder how I have managed to go camping all these years without a four wheel drive….

Lin is not so green it seems:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/greens-candidate-defends-4wd-use/1911207.aspx

A V8 Landcruiser no less.

Awesome, we’ve got ourselves a sample!

The margins of error quoted by the pollsters are a little misleading as they are simply the ‘sampling error’. Sampling error does not include any non-sampling sources of error, for example from non-response (voters who do not participate but have different voting tendencies), coverage bias (voters who do not have phones or unavaiable during polling, people polled that aren’t enrolled), sampling frame issues (people with more than one phone). Of course, pollsters use demographic information to adjust their weighting (eg sex by age group population totals) to help control bias, but this can’t fully compensate for non-sampling errors. If you were able to quantify the bias then the total margin error could be calculated, and this would be higher than the quoted margins of error.

A sample size of 384 gives a +/- 5% 95% confidence interval around an estimate of 50%, on an estimate of 27% (the coalition and green estimates) the error bounds are a bit tighter at about +/-4.4%.

Thumper said:

Of course all of you who vote for the Greens are quite happy with this little bit of policy?

http://www.vexnews.com/news/10315/death-tax-greens-party-plans-to-tax-the-dead/

Wow, how many times can you use the word “extreme” in the one article? 8 it seems, with 6 uses in the first 5 paragraphs.

Unbiased reporting at its best!

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Sampling 0.1 percent of the ACT’s population is always a good statistical indicator…
Statistics – you fail at it.
Confidence level: 95% Confidence interval: +/- 5%
Population: 351,200 (ACT population June 2009 – can use number of voters if you like (~225,000), sample won’t size change)
Sample size required: 384

But if you want a little home fun, and don’t like goverment by opinion poll/ focus group, you can tag the surveyor along but refuse to ask key questions.
The statistics are valid if the sample is random, i.e. they can persuade you to respond.
Please think before you do.

Of course all of you who vote for the Greens are quite happy with this little bit of policy?

http://www.vexnews.com/news/10315/death-tax-greens-party-plans-to-tax-the-dead/

For some unknown reason I found myself watching the exchange between Barnaby Joyce and Christine Milne on Sunrise and cringed every time Milne tried to distance herself from the Greens policy.

Barnaby would say “Barnaby would say “The Greens want death taxes” Milne would reply “no we don’t”, Barnaby: “But it’s in your policy position”. Milne: “No it’s not” Barnaby: “Here, it’s written here” Milne: “…… (insert goldfish impersonation and attempt to change the subject)”

This happened on a few issues.

I think that Barnaby Joyce looking like a balanced political player and potentially a strong member of a future government after a debate with a senior member of the Greens says more about the quality of the Greens than the Nats.

Erg0: Aye – I’m sure we skew very much younger than the average elector.

Of course all of you who vote for the Greens are quite happy with this little bit of policy?

*gasp*

All those ‘vulnerable and often frail old people’ – who are sitting on more than $5m.

. <- smallest violin

Sampling 0.1 percent of the ACT’s population is always a good statistical indicator…

Statistics – you fail at it.

Confidence level: 95%
Confidence interval: +/- 5%
Population: 351,200 (ACT population June 2009 – can use number of voters if you like (~225,000), sample won’t size change)
Sample size required: 384

JessicaNumber: This is true, which is why the reputable polling outfits demographically weight their responses. So if they find that, say, mid-twenties females are underrepresented in their sample, they’ll weight those responses higher.

(This weighting does increase the margin of error a little, too).

bd84 said :

caf said :

Roy Morgan have released a poll showing:

In ACT: ALP 41.5% (up 0.7%), L-NP 27% (down 7.2%), Greens 27% (up 5.5%) and Others 4.5% (up 1%). This would most likely result in one ACT ALP Senator and one Greens Senator.

(The sample size was 446, giving a margin of error of 4.1%, and the poll was conducted over February – July).

Sampling 0.1 percent of the ACT’s population is always a good statistical indicator..

Roy Morgan Research was the outfit that did the polls prior to the 2001 election claiming the Labor party would sweep into power. That was, of course, the Tampa/Sept 11 election which saw John Howard and the Liberals sweep back into office with an increased majority.

This result is probably more interesting for what it says about the RiotACT readership than anything else.

Sif the sampling is random! What time were they contacted? How were they contacted? How was the question asked? Do they screen their calls? Do they own a phone? Do they live in a house? Do they work in an office? Do they even OWN a BODY???

bd84: It’s not great, but it’s not as bad as it sounds. The statistics of sampling say that (as long as the sampling is random) there’s a 95% chance that the true result lies within +/- 4.1% of the 27% given for both Liberal and Green.

To get about a 2% margin of error requires a sample size of around 2000. The returns rapidly dimish the higher you go.

Interestingly, as long as you’re sampling less then about 5% of the population, the margin of error is pretty much independent of population size.

Jim Jones said :

Holden Caulfield said :

I’ll vote for the one that’s gonna stop them boat people stealing all our jobs.

TERK ER JERBS!!!

THEY DERK OUR JERBS!!!

But then I remember how that episode finished.

bd84 said :

Do the greens actually have any policies?

They published a hefty little policy booklet – on only 50 per cent recycled paper, imported from Europe … good enough apparently …

If Lin Hatfield Dodds wins the second ACT seat (she won’t) she would be the least intelligent senator in a senate that also include Senator Conroy. That’s not easy to do.

I do support the Greens on their environmental and IT policies, which is good enough for me to ignore their abhorrent economic policies. So I think I will give my first preference to the Greens number two candidate (Hannah Parris) so that the Greens get my ~$2.50 and I don’t risk supporting Dodds.

Howler said :

The ALP might be in for a shock over what they did to Kevin Rudd!

No they wont.

caf said :

Roy Morgan have released a poll showing:

In ACT: ALP 41.5% (up 0.7%), L-NP 27% (down 7.2%), Greens 27% (up 5.5%) and Others 4.5% (up 1%). This would most likely result in one ACT ALP Senator and one Greens Senator.

(The sample size was 446, giving a margin of error of 4.1%, and the poll was conducted over February – July).

Sampling 0.1 percent of the ACT’s population is always a good statistical indicator..

Do the greens actually have any policies? Other than the “stop the public service cuts” line? I haven’t seen them come out with anything realistic or sensible yet, so with a lack of normal political indicators you could try voting based on how good looking each candidate was. But that case the electoral commission would have to cut Lin off the ballot paper all together as she is morbidly obese, that can’t be a good role model for anyone in our community.

The Greens are going right down the bottom of the ballot paper where they belong, even below the labor candidate and any other random parties that will never get enough votes to have an impact.

icantbelieveitsnotbutter said :

What about Kerrie Tucker, she was alright?

Yes Lin’s definitely not the only example of the Greens picking up intelligent, organised and altruistic candidates. People dismiss the Greens as inexperienced but you can only examine the candidate and the policies.

I reckon the greens have a good show of getting a seat in the senate this time. Kerrie Tucker was unlucky last election and wouldn’t it be ironic if Kate Lundy lost HER seat and not Gary Humphries as widely assumed.

The ALP might be in for a shock over what they did to Kevin Rudd!

Roy Morgan have released a poll showing:

In ACT: ALP 41.5% (up 0.7%), L-NP 27% (down 7.2%), Greens 27% (up 5.5%) and Others 4.5% (up 1%). This would most likely result in one ACT ALP Senator and one Greens Senator.

(The sample size was 446, giving a margin of error of 4.1%, and the poll was conducted over February – July).

Holden Caulfield said :

I’ll vote for the one that’s gonna stop them boat people stealing all our jobs.

TERK ER JERBS!!!

Wow, that was just like voting, and she won, wow if that happens in a big way through this election, I might never be called a dole bludger in my life, ever again 🙂

Did I ever tell you fellow rioters, how much I love voting.

I had to pre pol, just to take my vote as far away from the right as my little ballot paper would carry me 🙂

Greens 1, then, allllllllllllll the way down the bottom, liberal, so far past 1, well you know last, where if my vote counts, should retire the theives.

I’v been locked up, for protesting, by mistake so my daughter could be stolen, still, very very angry about that gary.

Toni, when you, as I hope you do, you know loose the election. I, unfortunately caught you drooling all over a little girl who said she would have voted for you, You perhaps should lower the voting age to, if you can fill out your name and address, you can vote 🙂

I wanna make your wish come true toni, however, if that little girl wasn’t you know, one of yours, I think she only said that to get rid of you, I could be wrong, but if I were that little girl, and I knew what a lier you are, and what you are talking about doing to the dole.

You’ve obviously got connections toni, and wealth, why take power, why don’t you go somewhere where you aren’t gonna hurt anyone, you can afford it, me and everyone I know I thinking about $6000, that we don’t have to have a baby for, thinking, labors getting it, the have forgotten what it feels like to be poor, and are probably sick of being attacked from the right for trying to help the lumpenproletariat.

Don’t give up, I hope the Greens give you a mandate to clean up the scum on the right, I think I’m begining to enjoy politics in a hole new way 🙂

JessicaNumber said :

I’m not surprised to see Lin Hatfield Dodds looking so popular. I spent 3 years working in the not for profit sector (health area) and I’ve always heard Lin described as a successful manager with a good grasp of policy.

It’s great to see the Greens finding a candidate with experience in running a successful organisation and a genuine passion for doing what’s right.

It also probably helps the Greens that Canberra voters are politically aware and understand that they can give first preference to Greens (or even the silly party) without “throwing away their vote” as preferences have equal weight. I’ve also heard Canberra people tell me that they will vote Green knowing that there will never be a Greens majority in Parliament because they see the value in having just a few Greens in Parliament to represent the human interest (even if they don’t necessarily trust a Greens Government).

What about Kerrie Tucker, she was alright?

I’m tired of Aborigines taking everybody’s jobs!

No doubt the Nanny State ,Ban everything and piss on Australians ‘Implied?” rights crew will get in regardless of who wins. Pretty soon helmets will be compulsory for pedestrians.

F**k that shit I’m voting for Norris

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkudKzFo7zs

p1 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

I’ll vote for the one that’s gonna stop them boat people stealing all our jobs.

The Taliban?

Haha, good response. They’ll do!

Why isn’t there an option in the poll for “I’ll draw a penis on the ballot paper”?

Eyl said :

Its kinda sad that there is no real good candidates this election….

Or even a few genuine loonies to liven things up.

Greens. How the heck else are we going to get the ACT in on the pork?

I do not take this poll seriously.
Seriously.

Holden Caulfield said :

I’ll vote for the one that’s gonna stop them boat people stealing all our jobs.

The Taliban?

Its kinda sad that there is no real good candidates this election….

I’ll vote for the one that’s gonna stop them boat people stealing all our jobs.

Aye, the problem with internet polls is that they’re self-selecting and not demographically weighted.

I’m not surprised to see Lin Hatfield Dodds looking so popular. I spent 3 years working in the not for profit sector (health area) and I’ve always heard Lin described as a successful manager with a good grasp of policy.

It’s great to see the Greens finding a candidate with experience in running a successful organisation and a genuine passion for doing what’s right.

It also probably helps the Greens that Canberra voters are politically aware and understand that they can give first preference to Greens (or even the silly party) without “throwing away their vote” as preferences have equal weight. I’ve also heard Canberra people tell me that they will vote Green knowing that there will never be a Greens majority in Parliament because they see the value in having just a few Greens in Parliament to represent the human interest (even if they don’t necessarily trust a Greens Government).