#below the line

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Reviews: 2022 Victorian State Edition

Victoria goes to the polls on 26 November and there is a record number of candidates for both houses of the state parliament, so here I am to review the assortment of micro-parties crowding the ballot.

I reviewed the 2014 and 2018 state elections, and although I no longer live in Victoria, I think of Melbourne as home and some of this year’s micros are truly cooked, so I could not resist firing up the blog.

There is another reason I am keen to write these reviews. Victoria still uses anti-democratic Group Ticket Voting (GTV) above the line for the Legislative Council (upper house). To ensure your preferences go where you want them to go, you must vote below the line.

What is Group Ticket Voting? It is where a party registers its list of preferences—their “group ticket”. If you vote above the line on the big Legislative Council ballot, your preferences are distributed as per the group ticket of the party for which you voted 1. Unlike when voting for the Senate, any other preferences you mark above the line will be ignored.

This does not, and cannot, represent the will of voters. GTV means that 100% of preferences flow in the same direction; in reality, when people distribute their own preferences, even the most disciplined and organised campaign struggles to get more than 80% of voters for one party to nominate the same second preference, never mind third or subsequent preferences. GTV turns each election for the upper house into a lottery, and it doesn’t confer much long-term benefit upon the micro-parties that it elects either because, even if they gain supporters during their term, they find it very difficult to draw a winning ticket two elections in a row.

Moreover, few parties submit GTVs that are based on ideology alone and can be assumed to reflect the typical preferences of their voters. Most parties do deals with each other for favourable preferences. A party that arranges especially good deals can snag preferences from voters across the spectrum—almost all of whom do not know their preference is going there, nor would approve of it. This allows a party to snowball their way past rivals with much greater support to win a seat. A party with, say, 9% of the vote in one region can miss out on a seat to a party with only 2% because that latter party harvested preferences effectively. If you want to read more about this abysmal system, Antony Green and Ben Raue have both gone into detail. Victoria's GTVs were released yesterday, and Ben has written a piece today explaining the general trends that emerge from them.

At federal level, and in every other state, GTV has been abolished and better systems implemented that give voters control over their preferences. Every federal election since 2016 has been run under a system where voters specify their own preferences above the line. Western Australia ran the most recent state election with GTVs: last year, the Daylight Saving Party won a Legislative Council seat for Mining & Pastoral despite polling a grand total of 98 primary votes in that region. This absurdity prompted WA to abolish the system. Victoria’s parliament, however, has clung to GTV despite having plenty of opportunity for reform. This failure should shame the parliament and its politicians—and Kevin Bonham is doing his best to do so in his summary of party policies about GTV.

There is a simple way to avoid your preferences going on a magical mystery tour and potentially electing parties you dislike: VOTE BELOW THE LINE. This is extremely easy: you just need to give at least 5 preferences to individuals below the line. Any vote with fewer preferences below the line is not counted; you must preference at least 1–5. You can then give as many more preferences as you want. If you only want to give 5, give 5. If you want to preference everybody, preference everybody. It is entirely up to you and your vote will only go to the individuals to whom you allocate preferences, in the order you allocated them. Do not repeat or skip a number. If you stop preferencing at any point after 5, your vote exhausts at that point and plays no further part in the election. I encourage you to preference as far as possible because it maximises the power of your vote.

Group Ticket Voting only applies for the Legislative Council (the upper house, which is the house of review) on its big ballot with the thick line. There is no Group Ticket Voting for the Legislative Assembly (the lower house, where government is formed), and when voting for the Assembly you must number all squares without repeating or skipping a number.

My first reviews will be posted later today. They reflect my own biases as a green democratic socialist. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of any political party. As per usual, I will not review Labor, the Liberal/National coalition, or the Greens, because the sort of person interested in these reviews likely already has established opinions about those parties. I don’t review One Nation federally but I might tack them on at the end this year if I have the time. I am aiming to review every other party. Let’s go!

Every review will end with my recommendation of how favourably to preference a party. This is the recommendation system I will be using:

Good preference: a party with a positive overall platform that has few or no significant flaws for the left-wing voter.

Decent preference: a party with a generally positive overall platform but some reservations; or, a single-issue party with a good objective but by definition too limited in their scope to encompass the fullness of parliamentary business.

Middling preference: a party with a balance of positive and negative qualities, or a party with a decent platform undermined by a notably terrible policy or characteristic.

Weak or no preference: a party with more negatives than positives. In the Legislative Assembly, you must number all squares, and these parties should receive as bad a preference as possible. In the Legislative Council, you should vote below the line and either give this party a poor preference or let your vote exhaust before reaching it. I recommend preferencing fully, but you may wish to stop rather than express preferences between varying gradations of undesirability.

This schema is flexible; I may, for instance, suggest a “middling to decent preference”.

[hsmagazine254]

How To Get Rid Of Negative Energy (Part 2) - Positive Reflection Of The Week

Harnessing The Elements: Fire & Air Techniques For Energy Clearing FIRE-BASED TECHNIQUES Fire is sometimes an effective clearing ally. As with water, you can use fire in your energy-cleansing practises by using candles, burning objects yourself, and using visualization. It can be dangerous because it is so strong, so always, always use common sense and caution. You’ve probably seen people write…

[fuckyeahchinesefashion]

first-person perspective tour of love&deepspace exhibition at shanghai bw2024 comic-con part 4

players interact with sylus, rafayel, xavier, zayne

[koboldfactory]

Some doodles of my pathfinder kobold, Agnes:

silly image with gore below the break

featuring @wrenzyarts 's Sephi

[nonbinoclard]

i have so many thoughts and feelings about this conversation. extra doodles and notes under cut

(ages are wrong btw lmao, i checked. sorry for the grungey look, these are basically sketchbook pics badly edited 🫰)

I just started a new playthru last weekend with a PHYS build and had the conversation with Cuno abt Cunoesse. It always guts me to be honest, but that was the first time I've ever seen this particular check. It hurts even more now 🫠

what always kills me (in a good way) is how many characters we interact with have such a rich history of their own, and you can only get a small glimpse of it in the context of your investigation and random conversations with people.

________________________________________

its so fucking frustrating (imo) in her case because we know these AWFUL, INTENSE but, like, totally out of context things about her past (from Cuno's perspective) with NO extra info to connect the dots.

I have so many questions; We know she's been in at least one snuff millieu, but is that all that happened? How did this happen? Did she ever have a happy childhood? Did she kill a kid? If she did, why? And did she ever do it again?

I'm going on and on, point is, we hear all this stuff out of order, out of context, and we never get to know the full story. we just see the aftermath of all of it, in this tiny bundle of rage and fear.

idk. you can argue everyone's in a really shitty spot, but i just really feel for her. something really horrible happened, and nobody seemed to care except for another kid like 2 yrs older than her (who, honestly, isnt much better off than she is, but cares enough to try to help. brb crying).

i miiight come back to this later to add some other thoughts or headcanons, or maybe i should just make a new post...

[pumpkster]

[taxonomicons]

AITA: I (6000+ M) took a long distance job offer after my (6000+ M) kissed me, now he thinks I don’t love him

Hey Reddit, throwaway because I have quite nosy coworkers that know my other account. I have been at this heavenly company for a really long time but a couple years ago they fired me for being involved with someone from a rival company. Now he’s my best friend. He also got fired but he never really like his company anyway and doesn’t seem that upset about it. He lost his apartment though so he’s been coming over a lot more often so he doesn’t have to sleep in his car.

The problem is that the company I used to work for offered me a senior position out of the blue, which has basically been my dream since I can remember. I knew it would mean being away from my best friend though so I worked out a deal to have him come with me, and the company actually offered to hire us both. When I went to tell him the good news he blew up at me and said this isn’t what he wanted and he’d rather start over somewhere new. When I told him this is better for both of us he kissed me and stormed off. We’ve been companions, friends, whatever you would call it for ages but we’ve never kissed before.

After he stormed out he waited by his car but I didn’t go after him. I don’t know if it was the anger or the fear of what he might say but I couldn’t face him. I still took the job and left him because I can’t miss this opportunity even if it means losing him, and this is where I think I might be TA. I’m really frustrated that I stuck my neck out and got both of us jobs again, and he won’t even consider it. Especially after he’s been at my place so much and clearly wants to be more than friends I feel like it only makes sense for us to both work together again. We are such a good team and I don’t understand why he think abandoning our lives makes more sense then trying to repair the ones we’ve got. I really love him and don’t want to hurt his feelings but now he’s not talking to me. Was it wrong to take the job even though I know I can fix things and make it better for him?

Edit: for everyone asking why he wouldn’t want to work it’s because he’s worked for this company before and they fired him and a bunch of coworkers for trying to unionize/question higher management.

Edit 2: Okay I’m trying to respond to as many of these as I can but I get it I’m the asshole. I am going to go after him and try to make things right as soon as I get off work. Will post update soon.

[angelsarthaven]

Fucking ROUGH sketch of @wolfertinger666's bunny boy Salem (this was bound to happen sooner or later I've been itching to draw him for a WHILE)

Still figuring out my sketching a bit, but they're coming along a lot quicker now atleast haha

[izzyspussy]

the fact that they made it illegal to make ads louder than programs on tv in 2010 but haven't updated it to apply the same regulation to streaming. who do i have to call.

[snek-eyes]

See you in hell.

[ID: A series of gifs from the Good Omens 2.2 minisode "A Companion to Owls."

Sitis looks disbelieving as she says, "…No. God wouldn't!" Crowley gives an exaggerated frown and replies, "Are you sure?"

Sitis looks horrified and says, "But they've done nothing! They're innocent!" Crowley nods impassively: "So were the goats." Sitis stares at him in horror.

In the cellar, Aziraphale looks back over his shoulder, seeming offended. "God's [side], of course!" Crowley reclines, raising his eyebrows and nodding. "Oh, really. Same God that wants me to whack the kids?"

Aziraphale looks very uncertain, and slowly says, "…Yes. But…" Crowley grins slowly, gesturing to Aziraphale and saying, "That's just how it started for me."

Back in the house, Sitis looks devastated and desperate. "If my children are dead, then… I will curse God, and—"

Crowley swings abruptly around the doorframe and rushes over to interrupt Sitis. "WHOA! That never ends well."

At the cliff's edge overlooking the sea, Aziraphale looks on the verge of tears but determined. "Well. I'm ready to go." Crowley asks: "Go where?" Aziraphale swallows. "To hell."

Crowley sits down on the rock and says, "I'm not taking you to hell, Angel." Aziraphale looks over at him, his tearful expression turning confused. "Why not?" Crowley replies mildly, "Well, I don't think you'd like it."

End ID.]

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XIX (NSW 2023): Ungrouped Independents

Phew! I was worried I had started my reviews too late to cover all the Legislative Council candidates before election day. Life might have got in the way, but here we go: the final review!

At the far right of your large Legislative Council ballot paper, you will find a column of 11 ungrouped independents below the line. These are people running solo campaigns without a running mate, so they do not get a separate column below the line nor a square above the line. The only way to vote for any of these candidates is to vote below the line. This means none of the 11 has a chance of winning a seat, but they’re always interesting to look at anyway.

I covered one of the ungrouped candidates, Colleen Fuller, when reviewing the Indigenous–Aboriginal Party of Australia. She’s second in the list of ungrouped indies. Let’s run through the other 10 in ballot order.

Stefan Prasad (Facebook profile)

Recommendation: weak or no preference

Prasad has done a politics degree but he does not seem to have learnt much about how to campaign effectively. He has a limited web presence and an even more spare policy platform. A Facebook post urges people that “if you don't know who to for Vote for, Vote for me!!” This is not a very compelling pitch. In response to a reply asking for his policies, he says that “since the needs of the NSW constituents are ever changing, I didnt think it was necessary to provide a set of fixed policies, policies need to change in accordance to the needs of the people”. Yep, this is a policy-free space from a guy who does not seem to stand for anything.

Warren Grzic (Facebook)

Recommendation: decent preference

Grzic is a bit of a serial candidate—he has stood in state and federal elections before, both as an independent and for Sustainable Australia. I haven’t reviewed him previously but here’s last year’s b_auspol review. He’s a big fan of greater investment in railways—to quote from a page he made for the 2022 federal election, “Expand railway networks across Australia to fight traffic and pollution and climate change”. This is pretty much the quickest way to get me onside and he pushes railways and public transport more than anything else. Indeed, he’s not just focused on one aspect of the system but makes comments on urban commuter networks, freight rail, and long-needed regional upgrades alike.

But let’s consider his other priorities. He supports striking nurses and better investment in staffing throughout the healthcare sector. He wants better management of water infrastructure. I’m a little unsure about his attitude on development and housing—his prior SusAus involvement makes me wonder if there’s a bit of NIMBYism, but if there is, it’s not prominent. I’m also not clear exactly what he wants when he calls for the tax system to be simplified: is this an inane demand for flat taxes, or untangling arcane parts of the tax code? All in all I’m favourably disposed towards him but with some queries.

Van Huynh (website)

Recommendation: middling to decent preference

Van George Huynh—his website is votegeorge dot org but the name on the ballot will be Van Huynh—offers an ambitious and eccentric plan for NSW. The first thing you see when opening his website is that “we will win this war on inflation” but oh boy his ambitions go well beyond beating inflation. He wants to “Convert Chatswood into the new world financial capital”, create a new Silicon Valley stretching from the North Shore to the Central Coast, establish major new business centres in Sydney suburbs and the Illawarra, build more universities, found a “cinema of Australia” in Newcastle and “one of the world largest entertainment centre in the state's outback near Griffith”, and much more. He would add two new public holidays: Multicultural Day in February and “Christ Day” on 31 July (mate you are aware of Christmas, right?).

Some of his ideas are good, some are complete pie-in-the-sky, some are best left unrealised. I suggest a middling to decent preference if you’re voting below the line because he is far better than a lot of the racists and cookers clogging the ballot.

Archie Lea

Recommendation: weak or no preference

Lea stood at the 2021 Upper Hunter by-election as an independent and came last in a crowded field of 13. He had previously run for Fred Nile’s now defunct Christian Democratic Party in 2016 and 2019, a big red flag. In his entry in the NSWEC’s register of candidates, he describes himself as an “Independent Christian conservative for member of Legislative Council. Independent Candidate.” It’s hard to find much more on him. At the 2021 by-election his HTV was openly pro-coal and pro-mining. Naturally I think poorly of a conservative anti-environmental candidate.

Michelle Martin (how-to-vote card)

Recommendation: weak or no preference

Martin has not made much information available online. She was listed fourth on the UAP’s Senate ticket for NSW at last year’s federal election, so that’s a bad sign. Her HTV is in milder language than many cookers, but “ensure your health choices are YOURS” leans very much towards anti-vaxxer and anti-fluoride suspicion of effective public health measures. Her open rejection of digital IDs and “cashless society” refers to two tropes currently prevalent in Australia’s conspiracist circles. She is best avoided.

Lee Howe (website)

Recommendation: decent to good preference

Howe is running on a platform of “vote 1 homes first”. She wants a fairer and more equitable society achieved through “access to safe, suitable and affordable housing”. She highlights that only 9% of rentals in NSW are affordable for those with very low incomes and that rental stress is widespread. Expanding public housing stock is a major priority for her, alongside repairing existing public housing to modern standards. She wants new developments to contain at least 15% social and affordable housing, with specific targets for houses for elderly and Indigenous people. She would abolish “no grounds” evictions, place caps on annual rent increases, and otherwise pursue positive reforms to protect tenants’ rights. Her approach is neither urbanist nor NIMBY, but focused on addressing poverty, homelessness, and insecure housing. She’s a little bit of a single-issue candidate, which always makes me hesitant, but in this case her core issue speaks to a range of policy areas.

Mick Allen (website)

Recommendation: middling to decent preference

Well this fella is entertaining. His campaign page is “Mad Mick for a Better World”. It has links to some specific policy pages… and then just a bunch of photos of his sustainable garden and the wildlife in it. It’s wonderfully eccentric. What do his policies cover? He is concerned with climate change and wants to act on UN IPCC reports—or at least “tak[e] their recommendations into consideration”. It’s no more specific than that. He’s justly angry that women still earn on average less than men: “it is bloody stupid they haven’t got it [equal pay] yet”. He suggests “We should be learning more about Aboriginal culture”, without specifying how this might occur other than that Indigenous knowledge should inform more environmental planning. He wants to stop public housing being demolished or sold, and he has very nebulous concerns about redevelopment in Blacktown that has some possible NIMBY vibes. Finally, he wants to limit vaping to reduce how many children vape—by making it subscription-only! These are all pretty simple thought bubbles, but on the other hand there’s more here than some parties and much of it trends in the right direction. Seems harmless enough.

R Cheetham

Recommendation: weak or no preference

I can find virtually no information about the candidate R Cheetham, whose registration details with the NSWEC indicate this is short for Ruth Cheetham. I cannot find a social media profile or website for a Ruth Cheetham that is definitively this candidate. She is, however, aligned with Lee Howe: one of Howe’s HTVs is authorised for both her and Cheetham, with Howe 1 and Cheetham 2. It’s strange that Howe and Cheetham didn’t run as grouped independents to get their own column on the ballot. This alliance implies Cheetham is also concerned with the social and affordable housing issues that underpin Howe’s campaign, but it's certainly not a given. The joint Howe and Cheetham HTV indicates that they feel they both have the most in common with Labor, Greens, Animal Justice, and the Public Education Party. That’s promising but again tells the prospective voter nothing about Cheetham. In the absence of any substantive information, if you’re voting below the line and preferencing fully, I’d suggest Cheetham get a weak preference but one above the cookers, fundies, and similar crackpots. If she wanted better preferences, she should have campaigned more effectively.

Guitang Lu (website)

Recommendation: weak to middling preference

Guitang Lu, a migration lawyer who in some documents also goes by the name Luke, is running on a platform of anti-racism and anti-bullying. It is based on his own experiences, which he describes here. It is the most detailed part of his site. His policies on anti-racism focus largely on remedies relevant to his complaints, but they are beneficial more broadly and extend to gender discrimination as well as racial discrimination. A bit of a single-issue candidate, but an important issue and my initial impressions were positive.

I was, however, concerned by his how-to-vote card and his instructions to potential voters. He tells voters to “Just give me ONE – 1”, or to vote below the line 1–15. The crucial word here is “or”. There is no square above the line to just vote 1 for Lu. Any voter who interprets his advice in such a way they only vote 1 for him will not cast a valid vote, as you can only vote for him below the line, in which case you must distribute 15 preferences. Worse, his HTV’s suggestion for preferences is bizarre: he suggests preferencing the top 7 candidates from the Public Education Party, which is fine, then… the top 7 candidates from the anti-vax lunatics at Informed Medical Options. This gives me serious cause for pause. I was going to suggest a decent preference for Lu but this advice to voters is misleading and implies sympathy with cookers.

George Potkonyak (website)

Recommendation: weak or no preference

Potkonyak is standing as an independent on behalf of Capellia Children Inc. It’s hard not to view him as a bit paranoid when you read “the NSW Liberal government has sold your children into the hands of the so called ‘charities’ (private subcontractors)”, as in child protection agencies. It gets worse: he has been struck off as a lawyer on the basis of professional misconduct. He is described as misinterpreting relevant legislation, behaving offensively in court, misleading the court, and “consistently engaged” in conduct “falling short of the standard of competence and diligence expected of a reasonably competent legal practitioner”. Oooof.

I think we can safely ignore anything this guy has to say. He also has a quixotic account on academia dot edu, a for-profit site which obtained its dot edu domain before this address was restricted to educational institutions. I can’t say I’m in a hurry to read his piece about whether Jesus was born of a virgin. (h/t to the author of the aforementioned b­_auspol blog, who hasn’t had time to do reviews this election but confirmed my bad vibes here)

[homestuckinthebutt]

"My love, return to me soon. I’ve begun to forget what you look like..."

Jaya is my favorite ship ever they're just so tragic<33

[yourlittlettoy]

😇 Why don’t you come join me in bed? I have something sensitive just for you~

[drawbauchery]

RAHHHHHH KIIBO BOMB 💣💥💥💥💥💥💥 HAPPY BIRTHDAY 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎁🎈🎂🧇

(I’ve been hoarding these for months waiting for an optimal time to strike 😈)

AH?!?!? AAHH!!!??!?? 0A0

[iron-sparrow]

⸺ it all just goes away

[orionsangel86]

How cool is it that so many people across both hemispheres got to witness something usually reserved for a much smaller area all because the sun is throwing a huge tantrum right now. Just throwing out huuuge amounts of energy and our planet is like cool lets make pretty colours in the sky with that. Thats called turning a negative into a positive on a celestial scale 😌. We should be more like Earth lmao