84 replies to this topic

[Scales]

an there in lies th problem with our stuid mandatory voting systm... people who dont really care voting. now why wasnt there a yes know and dgaf option? then all the people who dont care arent counted as they have said themselves- they couldnt care less so why is their 'no' vote allowed? really their 'no or yes' vote is a waste and there can never be a correct poll/vote as everyone is made to do it, if it wasnt compulsory then the people who cared and voted would indicate a true vote, not a 10% variance when 45% of the voting population is in the dont care category. Old fogies will eventually die off, sooner rather than later, and the new generation can bring wa out of the dark ages!! lol

[Meghan]

I'm disappointed that DST didn't get voted in, more because Western Australia seems opposed to change just because it is change than anything else. I didn't hear a lot of good arguments for the no vote.

But, time is 100% abstract anyway so it doesn't entirely matter.

Having sunlight for a few more hours after finishing work is nice, but when I'm working full time I'll probably have the luxury of electing to start early and leave early if I want to.

Oh well.

My dogs didn't like daylight saving (What, it's food time what are you doing?!), so at least they're happy I guess!

[dazzabozza]

... more because Western Australia seems opposed to change just because it is change than anything else...

Totally agree with u there Meghan. Lots of people base their decisions in life purely based on their "fear of change". Sometimes we've got to step "out of the box" and grow a little

Daz

[effan07]

My dogs didn't like daylight saving (What, it's food time what are you doing?!), so at least they're happy I guess!

Lol exactly like my dog, he runs around with his bowl in his mouth yelping and hitting our door with the bowl, then he puts it down to see if we are watching .
Quite funny really.
Anyway, looks like the yes vote is winning on our local pole.

Cheers Evan

[Trekrider]

more because Western Australia seems opposed to change just because it is change than anything else.

I'm not sure I agree with you that it was resistance to change - for me voting No WAS voting for change.

I grew up with DST (over 40 years of it) and like most of the people I knew I hated it. I then moved to WA and found out there was no DST and was really happy about it, as was my wife. Then they bring in the three year trial (boo hoo) but thankfully (as far as I'm concerned) the vote was no.

When I spoke to friends back in the UK and said WA was voting on it they all said they wished they could vote on it too - but they don't get the chance (I wonder why).

I see people say that they should keep having votes until the yes camp win - then what? No more votes? Why?

Why don't they let the rest of the country vote on it? Probably because they know that like WA the majority of people probably don't want it in the first place.

The thing I really don't understand is how Matt Birney can say he tried to get what people wanted and introduce DST - I've got news for you Mr Birney, the majority of people clearly DON'T want it!

[Ronny]

The poll results here are pretty interesting, just out of curiousity, could we also add a thing where you can put your age bracket?

[dazzabozza]

The poll results here are pretty interesting, just out of curiousity, could we also add a thing where you can put your age bracket?

Poll recreated Ronny with the age brackets. Just means everyone that already voted has to do so again

Daz

[Ronny]

Cheers Daz

Didn't realise you'd have to recreate the poll, thought you could just add to it

Sorry guys

[Trekrider]

Poll recreated Ronny with the age brackets. Just means everyone that already voted has to do so again

Daz

Hi Daz,

I thought Ronny was asking for the poll to show age against vote to see if it the no voters were older than the yes voters? Is this kind of vote even possible?

Plus, what if your age is 18?

[Donna]

Dazz...you changed things....boo fricketty hoo...how will we cope?? Better go back to the old poll...it was safer and we all understood it

LOL

Regards,

Donna

[captaincurly]

well I think it's safe to say this will be a very debatle topic over the next few months
just to be clear, wasn't saying I want another vote, was just saying it's inevitable
unfortunately, they're the government.
they can keep holding referendums until we say yes.
democracy at it's finest.

[Trekrider]

unfortunately, they're the government.
they can keep holding referendums until we say yes.
democracy at it's finest.

As my father used to say - "It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always get in" - think about it

[dazzabozza]

Hi Daz,

I thought Ronny was asking for the poll to show age against vote to see if it the no voters were older than the yes voters? Is this kind of vote even possible?

Plus, what if your age is 18?

OK let me re-work the poll, stop your votes for the next 5 mins! lol

[dazzabozza]

Done. Re-vote again! Sorry

I've left the original YES/NO so we can see an overall percentage.

Added the same YES/NO with the Age Bracket to give some more detailed stats.


Daz

[Neakit]

after what is it now 3 referendums wa still says NO

[marie90]

an there in lies th problem with our stuid mandatory voting systm... people who dont really care voting. now why wasnt there a yes know and dgaf option? then all the people who dont care arent counted as they have said themselves- they couldnt care less so why is their 'no' vote allowed?

I am assuming this is at my comment. When I said I didnt mind, that doesnt mean i dont care. I voted NO because thats what I would prefer..... HOWEVER, if the polls had the majority of YES votes then I would of adapted to it and wouldnt kick up a stink about it. Thats what I meant by it. Just clearing it up

Marie

[Donna]

Hi Marie and everyone,

I don't think that writer's comment was meant for you personally. It is part of the analysis of this year's referendum and an observation that can be made on many polls. I also made a similar comment before that one, and before you made your post.

Our compulsory voting system impacts on the result when the swinging voters or the neutral voters don't take a strong stance. As a result of that phenomenon we don't really get a representative vote. The swingers tend to be swayed by the arguments that they hear. Depending on what circles they move in, media they listen too etc they will make decision based on that. So the stronger campaigns or those who pull the heart strings the strongest tend to win the vote.

If we had non compulsory voting, it would only be those who felt strongly and only the true "stakeholders" that would vote. In that way we would get to see what those who really did care about the result wanted.

Non compulsory voting is not without problems either. In the US sometimes only 26% of the population vote and I don't need to tell you the implications of that!! No moderation, with a tendency for those with extreme ideas more likely to vote than the comfortable middle classes or those in poverty...a dangerous situation.

Democracy is by no means fair, impartial or without influence....I think that might have been the thrust of that writers' comments, not a response to your comment.

Regards,

Donna

[Ronny]

I don't know if it's just me but the poll results don't make sense?

In the top half it says, YES= 10 and NO= 13

But in the bottom half, it's the other way around?

[dazzabozza]

Yup I noticed that too. It seems some ppl were confused and voted differently in each section

Could just remove the top poll I reckon and keep the age one.

[Ronny]

I agree, it's easier and more accurate lol.