bankrupt senator

[commodorenutt]

We now have business owners, and landlords of commercial premises voting on council elections - even if none of them reside in the area.

If they're allowed to vote, then why shouldn't anyone in the electorate/region who is a citizen over 18 be allowed to vote?

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by ronwest

Will your slogan be "Make Australia great again" ?

If so, you're a shoe-in

Your slogan is close but is incomplete and has a spelling error...should be:

"Ban shredded cheese. Make Australia grate again."

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by Iggle Piggle

Your slogan is close but is incomplete and has a spelling error...should be:

"Ban shredded cheese. Make Australia grate again."

Don't talk about convenient cheese like that.... its probably the second best invention since sliced bread, and I'm lactose intolerant. After reading one of the previous statement (I haven't looked it up and honestly won't even chase it up) but if anyone who has a gross income of less then 1200 a week (I make over that on a flat week, but I can control my income because I'm on an hourly rate and overtime is available, so I'm not the scum of the universe) to me it doesn't matter. People with book smarts, people with life skills, all should have the same say. Having bought a house in sydney and being mortgaged up to my eye balls and living off a small disposable income for years probably puts me in a lower situation then a "dole bludger" who lives in government housing and still manages to smoke a pack a day. Atleast I pay for the house, my car has no loan, the wifes is being paid off, and the boat has no finance on it.

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by superyob

Question. If a bankrupt person is not allowed to hold political office, should the unemployed be allowed to vote?

Elitism much?

The only mob of people I don't want to see voting are non Australian citizens.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

Elitism much?

The only mob of people I don't want to see voting are non Australian citizens.

Should be more of it. Because equality (a fictitious non existent concept)works so well?

[malazn mafia]

Do people who have a criminal record get disqualified from voting?

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

Do people who have a criminal record get disqualified from voting?

They get the same say as everyone else. You can't get an accurate cross section of the whole society if they choose who they allow to vote in my opinion. If a person either doesn't enrol or cops the fine for choosing not to vote then they lose their say. Nothing is worse then listing to a person who didn't vote carry on about politics.

[roddy1960]

G'day , Any chance of Pauline Hanson getting declared bankrupt.. what if the fish n chip shop goes under...
One way to get rid of this oddball woman that should be ashamed of what she craps on about.. That night on Q@A said it all for me..Silly silly woman..
One Nation will not ever be a power in this country..Too many fair minded people for that..
Re the senator...If that's the rules then that's the rules..Cheers Rod

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by superyob

Should be more of it. Because equality (a fictitious non existent concept)works so well?

Elitism breeds elitism and I'll be ****** if I ever live in a country where people look down on me for existing.

Oh wait...

Originally Posted by roddy1960

G'day , Any chance of Pauline Hanson getting declared bankrupt.. what if the fish n chip shop goes under...
One way to get rid of this oddball woman that should be ashamed of what she craps on about.. That night on Q@A said it all for me..Silly silly woman..
One Nation will not ever be a power in this country..Too many fair minded people for that..
Re the senator...If that's the rules then that's the rules..Cheers Rod

Obviously haven't lived in QLD then, way things are going here One Nation looks like being a serious player.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by superyob

Question. If a bankrupt person is not allowed to hold political office, should the unemployed be allowed to vote?

Seriously, why are you asking this question?

[b0son]

Someone who fails at running a business, not fit to run an electorate/country/etc. Someone who fails at being a productive member of society, not fit to help shape it electorally.

Yes yes, I'm well aware someone who isnt employed isnt necessarily not productive in other ways, or has been in the past. I'm just surprised others are having a tough time grasping the point superyob is making, but then, its probably confected outrage.

I think its a fair point. If you are a career welfare recipient, you probably shouldnt get a say come election time. You likely return nothing to society. Is it right you get a say in deciding how taxes are spent given you've never contributed any?

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

Seriously, why are you asking this question?

Just in case this is a genuine question, as I cannot ascertain the tone of it, I will answer. Rod Culleton was recently stripped of his senatorial duties because he is financially bankrupt. This obviously means that he can no longer agree to, or vote against legislative change for Australia. Yet people who have avoided work most of their lives and managed to bull**** their way into a pension (and there are many) can still have a say, via their undeserved vote, on the direction of Australia. In both cases, they are economically unviable, but those who have done nothing but suckled at the cream of someone else's wealth still get a say...

Furthermore:

I really can't see how this question is so offensive to some. I guess I must be worse than Hitler for asking a question in The Bar For non Automotive Related Chat that won't garner instant agreement from the usual virtue signalling clowns who are not used to opposing points of view...

[superyob]

Originally Posted by b0son

Someone who fails at running a business, not fit to run an electorate/country/etc. Someone who fails at being a productive member of society, not fit to help shape it electorally.

Yes yes, I'm well aware someone who isnt employed isnt necessarily not productive in other ways, or has been in the past. I'm just surprised others are having a tough time grasping the point superyob is making, but then, its probably confected outrage.

I think its a fair point. If you are a career welfare recipient, you probably shouldnt get a say come election time. You likely return nothing to society. Is it right you get a say in deciding how taxes are spent given you've never contributed any?

Thank you b0son...

[CJR09]

FYI I see the point being made and in many ways agree - but for arguments sake:

Just because one is employed does not mean one is productive in society.

Generally in broad terms those who are unproductive in society tend to suffer mental illness in one form or another, to some extent or another.

Why should they be discriminated against when there are plenty around that rort the system from within - ie doing SFA in an 'employed' position?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by superyob

Furthermore:

I really can't see how this question is so offensive to some. I guess I must be worse than Hitler for asking a question in The Bar For non Automotive Related Chat that won't garner instant agreement from the usual virtue signalling clowns who are not used to opposing points of view...

I put forward the idea that we have an opt in hidden section of the forum dedicated to political discussion where those who want to discuss such sensitive topics can without threads being locked or having to skirt around the edges of the rules.

It can be locked/hidden so only those who want access to it can access and or see it.

[danzvtil]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

I put forward the idea that we have an opt in hidden section of the forum dedicated to political discussion where those who want to discuss such sensitive topics can without threads being locked or having to skirt around the edges of the rules.

It can be locked/hidden so only those who want access to it can access and or see it.

I thought every thread was already opt in-IE-I see the thread heading and click on it.
Maybe mods could ad a symbol into the heading of a political thread.....

[jpblue1000]

Stay at home mums and dads are economically unemployed, carers, pensioners, recent school leavers, disabled, and those temporarily between jobs are all unemployed. There are people who are chronically unemployed through choice or action but, these people represent a small percentage. Testing your hypothesis, how long must you be 'unemployed' to loose the right to vote and help shape the future of your country. Just on election day, a week, a month? Of course most unemployed haven't broken any rules, the employment economy has failed them, the economy was led by politicians who's policy may be failing the unemployed, and to remove their right to have a say may damage their future prospects in preventing fair representation through democratic election. Of course a sliming down of the altruist sentiment of Australian society means even less support at election time for those in need.
Then an unemployed person has a one in 14,000,000 say in the governance of the country. A senator one in 400? Thus the legal credentials of a politician must be upheld. A bankrupt has broken laws, commercial, social and moral, by not re-paying debt. This act appears to be regarded as heinous by australian culture, it probably threatens the lend-borrow tenant.
I see a slippery slope in ideas of preventing equal members of society from voting. If the unemployed are stopped, who's to say women aren't next, or those who earn too little, or those with opposing views? The precedent would be set, the pool of ideas reduced, for what, an ideology of extremism and meanness!
JP

[CJR09]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Stay at home mums and dads are economically unemployed, carers, pensioners, recent school leavers, disabled, and those temporarily between jobs are all unemployed. There are people who are chronically unemployed through choice or action but, these people represent a small percentage. Testing your hypothesis, how long must you be 'unemployed' to loose the right to vote and help shape the future of your country. Just on election day, a week, a month? Of course most unemployed haven't broken any rules, the employment economy has failed them, the economy was led by politicians who's policy may be failing the unemployed, and to remove their right to have a say may damage their future prospects in preventing fair representation through democratic election. Of course a sliming down of the altruist sentiment of Australian society means even less support at election time for those in need.
Then an unemployed person has a one in 14,000,000 say in the governance of the country. A senator one in 400? Thus the legal credentials of a politician must be upheld. A bankrupt has broken laws, commercial, social and moral, by not re-paying debt. This act appears to be regarded as heinous by australian culture, it probably threatens the lend-borrow tenant.
I see a slippery slope in ideas of preventing equal members of society from voting. If the unemployed are stopped, who's to say women aren't next, or those who earn too little, or those with opposing views? The precedent would be set, the pool of ideas reduced, for what, an ideology of extremism and meanness!
JP

Here, here

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by superyob

Just in case this is a genuine question, as I cannot ascertain the tone of it, I will answer. Rod Culleton was recently stripped of his senatorial duties because he is financially bankrupt. This obviously means that he can no longer agree to, or vote against legislative change for Australia. Yet people who have avoided work most of their lives and managed to bull**** their way into a pension (and there are many) can still have a say, via their undeserved vote, on the direction of Australia. In both cases, they are economically unviable, but those who have done nothing but suckled at the cream of someone else's wealth still get a say...

The measure of an advanced society is how well it treats it's most vulnerable citizens and those who have less than us.

I can't believe you would want exclude someone because they lost their job or are ill. We are a society, we take the good with the bad.

Should we stop paying benefits to everyone because a few are rorting?
How about all the rorting going on with the family tax benefits, childcare, medicare etc etc perpetrated by the middle/upper class. Do we stop politicians voting because they are corrupt too? Businessmen who avoid tax??

How about nobody vote because we all have something in our closet from days gone by.

Rod Cullerton was stripped of his senate seat because he had a larceny conviction. Convicted persons may not stand for parliament I believe.

[Franco Cozzo]

If anything make voting optional rather than compulsory IMO.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

If anything make voting optional rather than compulsory IMO.

I think the opposite, I believe everyone should have a say in our political makeup.

Some years I haven't wanted to vote for any of our local members due to the lot being incompetent, so I've just voted donkey instead of giving them my endorsement.

Compulsory gets the lazy off their bums.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

I think the opposite, I believe everyone should have a say in our political makeup.

Some years I haven't wanted to vote for any of our local members due to the lot being incompetent, so I've just voted donkey instead of giving them my endorsement.

Compulsory gets the lazy off their bums.

I avoided the AEC and their electoral roll from 2008-2013, then I became somewhat interested in politics after my trade school got shafted.

I still think it should be optional, if you want to vote then you vote, if you don't then you don't.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

Rod Cullerton was stripped of his senate seat because he had a larceny conviction. Convicted persons may not stand for parliament I believe.

And is that fair? If we live by the principle of repaying your debt to society via the courts, then surely you should get a clean slate? If that's not the case, then that speaks volumes about court verdicts versus societal expectation, a whole other can of worms.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

The measure of an advanced society is how well it treats it's most vulnerable citizens and those who have less than us.

I can't believe you would want exclude someone because they lost their job or are ill. We are a society, we take the good with the bad.

Should we stop paying benefits to everyone because a few are rorting?
How about all the rorting going on with the family tax benefits, childcare, medicare etc etc perpetrated by the middle/upper class. Do we stop politicians voting because they are corrupt too? Businessmen who avoid tax??

How about nobody vote because we all have something in our closet from days gone by.

Rod Cullerton was stripped of his senate seat because he had a larceny conviction. Convicted persons may not stand for parliament I believe.

I asked a question. About a certain group of people. This did not include the categories you are intent on virtue signalling about. Notice how I have broken this paragraph into short sentences. Easy to understand...

[superyob]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Stay at home mums and dads are economically unemployed, carers, pensioners, recent school leavers, disabled, and those temporarily between jobs are all unemployed. There are people who are chronically unemployed through choice or action but, these people represent a small percentage. Testing your hypothesis, how long must you be 'unemployed' to loose the right to vote and help shape the future of your country. Just on election day, a week, a month? Of course most unemployed haven't broken any rules, the employment economy has failed them, the economy was led by politicians who's policy may be failing the unemployed, and to remove their right to have a say may damage their future prospects in preventing fair representation through democratic election. Of course a sliming down of the altruist sentiment of Australian society means even less support at election time for those in need.
Then an unemployed person has a one in 14,000,000 say in the governance of the country. A senator one in 400? Thus the legal credentials of a politician must be upheld. A bankrupt has broken laws, commercial, social and moral, by not re-paying debt. This act appears to be regarded as heinous by australian culture, it probably threatens the lend-borrow tenant.
I see a slippery slope in ideas of preventing equal members of society from voting. If the unemployed are stopped, who's to say women aren't next, or those who earn too little, or those with opposing views? The precedent would be set, the pool of ideas reduced, for what, an ideology of extremism and meanness!
JP

Wonderful argument JP, but I mentioned none of these in my original question which was about the parasites working the system. That is what I originally meant in my earlier posts...

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

I think the opposite, I believe everyone should have a say in our political makeup.

Some years I haven't wanted to vote for any of our local members due to the lot being incompetent, so I've just voted donkey instead of giving them my endorsement.

Compulsory gets the lazy off their bums.

A donkey vote is not giving you a say. It is just gives extra votes for the first name in the raffle/draw of ballot selection.

It sways votes that are not representative of the electorate.
That raffle for that first position is known to get a certain percentage of the votes from those voters that are disinterested and lazy.

Better to do an informal vote if you just need your name crossed off the roll..

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

I avoided the AEC and their electoral roll from 2008-2013, then I became somewhat interested in politics after my trade school got shafted.

I still think it should be optional, if you want to vote then you vote, if you don't then you don't.

This is why voting should remain compulsory. If everyone cruised through life with not a worry in the world, then only those with an agenda would vote, & thus twist the system to suit their agenda.

Originally Posted by superyob

Question. If a bankrupt person is not allowed to hold political office, should the unemployed be allowed to vote?

Your original question was fairly open on the term 'unemployed'.

Originally Posted by superyob

The question popped into my head concerning Rod Culleton's bankruptcy and resulting ineligibility to be a senate representative. So I asked if you can't serve while bankrupt, should those drawing unemployment also be ineligible to have a vote. Both presumably have no economic power..

Your follow-up did not further clarify the term 'unemployed'.

Originally Posted by superyob

All I was asking is that if one cannot lead if one is economically unable, should one be able to have a say in the direction of the country's government while one is presumably economically unable.

Your 3rd post did not further clarify the term 'unemployed'.

Originally Posted by superyob

I think my original question is clear enough...

Your 4th post did not further clarify the term 'unemployed'.

Originally Posted by superyob

What is so offensive about my question JD?

Or are we only allowed to ask questions that will keep the usual echo chamber of the supporters of a particular narrative in virtue signalling, in agreement???

Your 5th post did not further clarify the term 'unemployed'.

I have worked and paid taxes all my life, since I left school many years ago. In that time, many in a generation of able bodied men have chosen to become long term parasites, living off the cream of other people's wealth. Why should they get the same voting rights???

And while you are sputtering with indignation at the very nerve of me asking such a question, give me facts as to why you disagree, not emotional feel good virtue signalling rhetoric...

Six posts in, you finally allude to what you mean by 'unemployed'. You certainly beat about the bush for the first five responses, much like Honourable Members do.

Your repeated assumptions and assertions that responders will respond with 'emotional feel good virtue signalling rhetoric' seems to be emotional feel good virtue signalling rhetoric on your own part.

I certainly hope that in your profession you are never made redundant and as a result end up long-term unemployed.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

A donkey vote is not giving you a say. It is just gives extra votes for the first name in the raffle/draw of ballot selection.

It sways votes that are not representative of the electorate.
That raffle for that first position is known to get a certain percentage of the votes from those voters that are disinterested and lazy.

Better to do an informal vote if you just need your name crossed off the roll..

I went into the local elections and drew 11th out of 11th on the ballot paper, if I got 1st position I would have won heaps of donkey votes, as in significant amount of votes.

[superyob]

Thank you Ghia5L. What can I say? I am a bad man. I guess I was not clear there but I know of more than a few gibmedats who rort the system. They are my main gripe and have possibly slanted my view of the unemployed in general...

[ianxy351]

Interesting discussion.

I dont see any correlation between voting and being barred from holding political office. The two are quite different. A undischarged bankrupt can continue to vote but cant hold certain public office positions. I dont see the relationship to whether an unemployed person should be able to vote or not - an unemployed person isnt a bankrupt.

It is common for bankrupts to be barred from a range of positions. For example, many CEO contracts include a provision that automatically terminates the employment if the person becomes bankrupt. As mentioned previously, the Constitution has included a bar to undischarged bankrupts holding public office since Federation. I have a recollection that the Corporations Law may include barriers for company directors in respect to bankruptcy.

So, i dont think you can conflate bankruptcy and the right to vote. They are different and dont cross over.