https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12438845/Voice-referendum-trick.html
Peak stupidity
wookiemeister said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12438845/Voice-referendum-trick.htmlPeak stupidity
https://www.aap.com.au/uncategorised/voice-referendum-trick-question-claim-is-complete-nonsense/
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12438845/Voice-referendum-trick.htmlPeak stupidity
https://www.aap.com.au/uncategorised/voice-referendum-trick-question-claim-is-complete-nonsense/
No one asks you to prove who you are when you vote
It leaves any democratic process wide open to fraud
wookiemeister said:
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12438845/Voice-referendum-trick.htmlPeak stupidity
https://www.aap.com.au/uncategorised/voice-referendum-trick-question-claim-is-complete-nonsense/
There’s no electoral security anywayNo one asks you to prove who you are when you vote
It leaves any democratic process wide open to fraud
You have evidence that this has occurred in Australia?
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:
roughbarked said:https://www.aap.com.au/uncategorised/voice-referendum-trick-question-claim-is-complete-nonsense/
There’s no electoral security anywayNo one asks you to prove who you are when you vote
It leaves any democratic process wide open to fraud
You have evidence that this has occurred in Australia?
wookiemeister said:
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:There’s no electoral security anyway
No one asks you to prove who you are when you vote
It leaves any democratic process wide open to fraud
You have evidence that this has occurred in Australia?
Yes – my eyes
Are you Jesus?
wookiemeister said:
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:There’s no electoral security anyway
No one asks you to prove who you are when you vote
It leaves any democratic process wide open to fraud
You have evidence that this has occurred in Australia?
Yes – my eyes
Until that fateful day I thought electoral fraud was a conspiracy theory
Electoral fraud works
wookiemeister said:
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:There’s no electoral security anyway
No one asks you to prove who you are when you vote
It leaves any democratic process wide open to fraud
You have evidence that this has occurred in Australia?
Yes – my eyes
Do the experiment and try vote more than once next time…
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12438845/Voice-referendum-trick.htmlPeak stupidity
https://www.aap.com.au/uncategorised/voice-referendum-trick-question-claim-is-complete-nonsense/
To be fair, that responds to a different peak stupidity.
Here is the officila response to the Daily Mail peak stupidity:
“We expect the vast, vast majority of voters to follow those instructions.
The formality rules for referendums has been the same for a long period of time – this includes ‘savings provisions’ (the ability to count a vote where the instructions have not been followed but the voter’s intention is clear). Savings provisions exist for federal elections as well. The AEC does not have any discretion to simply ignore savings provisions. They are a long-standing legislative requirement. Since 1988 the AEC has followed legal advice regarding the application of savings provisions to ‘ticks’ and ‘crosses’ on referendum ballot papers (over 30 years and multiple referendums). This is not new.
The issue with a cross is that on many forms people in Australia use in daily life, and in some other languages, a cross represents a ‘check mark’ indicating yes – it is therefore open to interpretation as to whether the cross denotes approval or disapproval. A clear ‘tick’ can be interpreted as denoting approval for the proposal.
A clear ‘y’ or ‘n’ can indicate the voter’s intent – however if the handwriting is unclear it could risk an informal vote. This is why the Commissioner, and the AEC will be very clear and regular with our communication that people need to write the word ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in English, in full. “
Witty Rejoinder said:
wookiemeister said:
roughbarked said:You have evidence that this has occurred in Australia?
Yes – my eyesDo the experiment and try vote more than once next time…
It should or would get picked up as your name is ticked off in the electoral roll.
You might be able to vote in other people’s name but that also should get detected in the same way unless they don’t vote.
You could I suppose vote on behalf of other people who don’t want to vote but you’d have to go to a different location each time
… and you can never have too many views of
The Rev Dodgson said:
… and you can never have too many views of
Yeah. That one’s quite clever.
When a Sydney radio talk show ratbag (not J Laws, but some right-wing wacker) was going on about ‘electoral fraud and people voting multiple times’ (to the benefit of the ALP and other ‘lefties), he dared people who’d done such things to call him and declare it.
Several did ring him, and say that they had voted multiple times.
Funny thing was, they were all L/NP voters. And quite proud of what they’d done.
roughbarked said:
Ogmog said:
1st GOP DUHbate
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12438845/Voice-referendum-trick.htmlPeak stupidity
https://www.aap.com.au/uncategorised/voice-referendum-trick-question-claim-is-complete-nonsense/
To be fair, that responds to a different peak stupidity.
Here is the officila response to the Daily Mail peak stupidity:
“We expect the vast, vast majority of voters to follow those instructions.
The formality rules for referendums has been the same for a long period of time – this includes ‘savings provisions’ (the ability to count a vote where the instructions have not been followed but the voter’s intention is clear). Savings provisions exist for federal elections as well. The AEC does not have any discretion to simply ignore savings provisions. They are a long-standing legislative requirement. Since 1988 the AEC has followed legal advice regarding the application of savings provisions to ‘ticks’ and ‘crosses’ on referendum ballot papers (over 30 years and multiple referendums). This is not new.
The issue with a cross is that on many forms people in Australia use in daily life, and in some other languages, a cross represents a ‘check mark’ indicating yes – it is therefore open to interpretation as to whether the cross denotes approval or disapproval. A clear ‘tick’ can be interpreted as denoting approval for the proposal.
A clear ‘y’ or ‘n’ can indicate the voter’s intent – however if the handwriting is unclear it could risk an informal vote. This is why the Commissioner, and the AEC will be very clear and regular with our communication that people need to write the word ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in English, in full. “
Peter Dutton to complain to AEC about tick and cross Voice referendum voting
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:https://www.aap.com.au/uncategorised/voice-referendum-trick-question-claim-is-complete-nonsense/
To be fair, that responds to a different peak stupidity.
Here is the officila response to the Daily Mail peak stupidity:
“We expect the vast, vast majority of voters to follow those instructions.
The formality rules for referendums has been the same for a long period of time – this includes ‘savings provisions’ (the ability to count a vote where the instructions have not been followed but the voter’s intention is clear). Savings provisions exist for federal elections as well. The AEC does not have any discretion to simply ignore savings provisions. They are a long-standing legislative requirement. Since 1988 the AEC has followed legal advice regarding the application of savings provisions to ‘ticks’ and ‘crosses’ on referendum ballot papers (over 30 years and multiple referendums). This is not new.
The issue with a cross is that on many forms people in Australia use in daily life, and in some other languages, a cross represents a ‘check mark’ indicating yes – it is therefore open to interpretation as to whether the cross denotes approval or disapproval. A clear ‘tick’ can be interpreted as denoting approval for the proposal.
A clear ‘y’ or ‘n’ can indicate the voter’s intent – however if the handwriting is unclear it could risk an informal vote. This is why the Commissioner, and the AEC will be very clear and regular with our communication that people need to write the word ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in English, in full. “
Peter Dutton to complain to AEC about tick and cross Voice referendum voting
I wonder why Mr. D has not expressed his outrage on this before.
Surely he knew about it?
Why write yes or no, why couldn’t they do it so any kid could understand?
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
Ogmog said:
1st GOP DUHbate
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqK-Hq-UkAAUu8r?format=jpg
Send him to Russia. Putin wouldn’t let him last two months.
roughbarked said:
Send him to Russia. Putin wouldn’t let him last two months.
Let his pal Vlad send a private plane to go fetch him.
“Peak stupidity”.
I assure you, we’re nowhere near peak stupidity yet.
Voting is just a placebo anyway. Even the president of the USA has no real power. eg. I don’t see Americans saying how great Obamacare is now.
Ogmog said:
Presidential Mug-Shot
it doesn’t look like a generic mugshot. like he isn’t standing up straight against a wall.
sarahs mum said:
Ogmog said:
Presidential Mug-Shot
it doesn’t look like a generic mugshot. like he isn’t standing up straight against a wall.
Sheriff just said, “OK Mr Trump, if you can just try to look as evil as you possibly can…”
mollwollfumble said:
“Peak stupidity”.I assure you, we’re nowhere near peak stupidity yet.
Voting is just a placebo anyway. Even the president of the USA has no real power. eg. I don’t see Americans saying how great Obamacare is now.
Fear of being labelled a commie
mollwollfumble said:
“Peak stupidity”.I assure you, we’re nowhere near peak stupidity yet.
Voting is just a placebo anyway. Even the president of the USA has no real power. eg. I don’t see Americans saying how great Obamacare is now.
I do.
dv said:
mollwollfumble said:
“Peak stupidity”.I assure you, we’re nowhere near peak stupidity yet.
Voting is just a placebo anyway. Even the president of the USA has no real power. eg. I don’t see Americans saying how great Obamacare is now.
I do.
Still a lot that don’t like it.
Imagine the achievement felt that you’ve convinced people that affordable mostly government funded healthcare is socialist and therefore wrong and not being able to afford it is patriotic.
Bubblecar said:
sarahs mum said:
Ogmog said:
Presidential Mug-Shot
it doesn’t look like a generic mugshot. like he isn’t standing up straight against a wall.
Sheriff just said, “OK Mr Trump, if you can just try to look as evil as you possibly can…”
it goes with his recent threat;
“If You Go After Me, I’m Coming After You,”
Ogmog said:
Bubblecar said:
sarahs mum said:it doesn’t look like a generic mugshot. like he isn’t standing up straight against a wall.
Sheriff just said, “OK Mr Trump, if you can just try to look as evil as you possibly can…”
it goes with his recent threat;
“If You Go After Me, I’m Coming After You,”
My friend Putin taught me that, those days in each others arms in his dacha drunk on wodka
sarahs mum said:
Ogmog said:
Presidential Mug-Shot
it doesn’t look like a generic mugshot. like he isn’t standing up straight against a wall.
Trump is incapable of doing anything straight.
captain_spalding said:
sarahs mum said:
Ogmog said:
Presidential Mug-Shot
it doesn’t look like a generic mugshot. like he isn’t standing up straight against a wall.
Trump is incapable of doing anything straight.
dv said:
mollwollfumble said:
“Peak stupidity”.I assure you, we’re nowhere near peak stupidity yet.
Voting is just a placebo anyway. Even the president of the USA has no real power. eg. I don’t see Americans saying how great Obamacare is now.
I do.
Seriously;
people didn’t “like it”
~ until they GOT IT ~
but screamed bloody murder
when they tried to take it back.
btw
SOCIAL does not necessarily equate with Socialism
it can also mean For the People
as it does in the case of “SOCIAL SECURITY”
The AFFORDABLE Care Act was not immediately understood
especially when it was derisively called/labeled “OBAMA Care” :-P
until it went into action helping people who couldn’t afford insurance
then soon turned into one of the best laws put into action rescuing people
from bankruptcy/ruination and loss of homes and property which then became
one of the most positive/popular actions of one of the most POPULAR Presidents
in fact, Mr Obama now quips that he proudly embraces the epithet ““OBAMA CARE” ;-)
