David Arthur, Greens Candidate, Maryborough

[tanzi]

In response to the question:
"What have you done and/or what are you planning to do, to stop the
Traveston Crossing Dam?

David Arthur replied:

In my response to the TCD EIS, I condemned the TCD proposal as unnecessary, and far more expensive than rainwater tanks plus fresh water recovery from treated effluent.

My candidacy in this campaign is driven more than anything else by my visceral opposition to TCD; so long as Q ALP intend to pointlessly devastate Mary R valley, I cannot be other than opposed to Q ALP.

[westholme]

Does that mean that he won't be preferencing the ALP? I sure hope so.
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[tanzi]

Hi westholme

David has said he going to recommend Vote 1 to Greens voters in Maryborough.

Of course it's up to these individual voters whether they decide to follow David's advice and Vote 1 only, or whether they number more of the boxes and allocate their preference to one of the other candidates.

Tanzi

[westholme]

Hi Tanzi, yeah, that's the thing with preferences. I am a little ashamed to admit it, but three elections ago (maybe four???) I cared very little about who was elected. I was indeed one of those masses that showed no interest in politics and wished I didn't even have to vote. (Of course I have changed my ways since becoming a real grown up ). I never read hand outs and voted for whoever reached me and whoever didn't sound like a tosspot. If they looked trustworthy I voted for them, or, worse still (which is how Beattie and Bligh held the reins for so long) if they hadn't seemed to do anything wrong by me personally, then I'd think "Oh well, what harm has this person done me?"....a familiar face I suppose.
As I said, I am ashamed that I was so ignorant, but in my defense, it was when I was a footless & fancy free youth. When the only thing that factored in my life was where we were going clubbing that weekend or which band was playing. And that I should be with girlfriends having pre-partying drinks on a Saturday arvo instead of going to the poll booths. (Ah, the days of innocence).
Where am I going with this you ask..? That leads me to my greatest shame....
I had never had voting explained to me properly. I had no idea about this 'vote 1' thing. It was the common belief that you voted 1 through to whatever..and as a result I picked that person most fmailiar and then numbered the others based on if I'd heard of them before (sometimes I even voted for the marijuana party because it was funny...I was young..forgive me).

The moral to my story? I don't think all preferencing is made by choice. Sometimes people are just in a hurry to vote and so they vote familiar names, or favourite person and party's in order. They don't even realise they are preferencing. I have struck people my entire life who vote this way also, it is a very common thing to do. I think preferencing sucks. It should only be one tick in one box as far as I'm concerned because the masses are not into politics and going to a poll booth on a Saturday arvo is just something that get's in the way of fun. They can't be bothered learning how to better make their vote count. They don't understand preferencing so don't realise that a vote for Green's is a vote for Labour if they don't put a 1 in the Green box.
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[imackay]

Westholme I sure as ever agree that a lot of people don't understand the system of optional preferential voting. It emerges each election where may seem to thing that a vote for Greens somehow gets transformed into a vote for Labor. Your last sentence sort of implied this and needs to be totally cleared up.
Preferences are always the voter's and in optional preferential the voter can give as many or as few as he or she chooses.

A party may make a suggestion for preferences but it is just that.. a suggestion, a request, the voter does what best fits their decision.
If you vote 1 for greens and go no further, then that's it for your vote, it is "exhausted". It doesn't get "given to " anyone because you didn't give a second choice.
If, on the other hand, you decided to vote Green 1 and LNP 2nd, and the Green vote was lower and their preferences were distributed, your vote would go to LNP as that was the choice you indicated.

I tried to explain all this in the last newsletter but I still hear many folk who plainly don't understand how it works.

[Rev Watt]

[westholme]

Thanks for forgiving me Rev Watt. I have now officially cleansed my soul.

And thanks Ian, for the extra info. Was that the STMR newsletter, sorry, didn't get it. I used to be on the list but asked to be taken off it when my email address was displayed in one too many 'non-blind' mail outs. Bit of a breach of privacy that.

Rev Watt was right. I was trying to say that I don't beleive voters realise they have a choice and I don't beleive voters put a great deal of thought into their vote. I also know that so many voters don't care to learn because they want to remain ignorant. Why bother learning something when you only have to do it once every three years or so. (Not my thoughts anymore).

It is only since this dam announcement (oh, and once against Hueson's - forgotten even how to spell his name - GST, fat lot of good that did us), that I bothered to realise how important it was that I put more thought into it. And it was definitely since the dam announcement that I understood how much of an honour it was to vote and I think anyone who doesn't choose to vote is a bit of a goose.

However, though I was trying to say all that, I do understand that my 'vote for Green is a vote for Labour' may have hit a sore point with Green voters who will not be giving a preference vote to the ALP. Sorry about that.
It is very hard to get over the sting of the Greens helping Labour to win seats last election, including Hervey Bay.
I'm sure that a lot more people would actually vote Greens if they understood that if they put a 1 in the Green members box then that vote would never go somewhere else. It was for Greens alone. I'd be very interested in seeing how many votes they truly garner if they detached themselves from the preferencing roundabout.

I personally don't care to learn too much about how to preference as, just like last election, my vote appears as a 1 in one box and that is all. If I want that person to represent us locally then they are the only one I vote for. That's why the whole preferences thing seems like a big ridiculous mess. That's why I think it should be struck from existence. If you want someone to lead then vote for them and them alone. That gives a true representation of who people want to represent them locally and as Premier.
So many preferences being given to this person or that person can mislead governments into thinking they have more support on their policies then they actually do (as evidenced by Beattie getting in so many times on the back of Green preferences).

P.S
With some discussions /and no doubt some eventual debate - which is healthy - about voting, and Greens and LNP and Greens preferences going to ALP etc.. starting to appear on the forum... I'd like to take this opportunity to clear up this misconception that was perpetuated by certain Brisbane Greens that came on this forum last election.
No matter how many times I said that I was not some dyed in the wool Nats supporter I kept being branded as such. Even Darren E was branded as such, just because we thought that the Brisbane Greens members shouldn't be coming to the forum and condemning locals for admitting they wanted Springborg to get in so the dam could be knocked on the head. I told them that I had even voted Greens once when I lived in Buderim for a while, but it was ignored. I was hung, drawn and quartered for being some hardcore Nationals member, which I am not and never have been. I admitted openly that I chose to vote for Gibson last election because I thought he was the man for the job and that was all. If I didn't want Springie to get in then I would probably even have a close look at Kent Hutton this year, but the fact of the matter is that I want a change of Government and so..well...Hutton won't give me that. A Green member can only be a bum on seat in parliament and if the ALP get's back in then it is my understanding that the dam has progressed too far for bums on seats in parliament to stop it. State Parliament has already passed the Traveston Crossing dam (because ALP hold the majority seats). Only a change in government can stop the dam now..and if the ALP get in, then only the Feds can stop it.

I am open to any information that anyone has about how a minority ALP lead government can be stopped from proceeding with the TC Dam. And I'm not being facetious. If I am wrong about the dam having gone too far at State level for bums on seats who are against the dam to stop it, then I really want to learn.

If this dam didn't exist, then maybe I wouldn't vote for Gibson this year, but, lucky for him perhaps, I do want this dam cancelled. This year I would like the LNP to lead the state for this reason.
A vote for the LNP - to me - is a vote to have this dam cancelled once and for all.
There are no if's or but's about it. If Springie get's in this time then within months the dam will be finished, done, caput.
So please, this election, don't brand me as some Nats supporter trying to recruit. That is so not me. Those that knew me thought it was laughable that the Greens on this forum - the one's that disappeared after the last election was over - had even labelled me as such a thing. Everyone has a right to express who they might be interested in, in this election, just as they did last election. Hopefully those more fanatical and aggressive Greens that aren't even from around here and haven't cared about the issue since the last election was over, are not going to come on the forum this time and harass people who didn't want to vote for them.
So, just wanted to get that cleared up and out in the open.
Peace out everyone!)
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"