• Ilandar@aussie.zoneEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        Ah I see, maybe this is a formatting error as you’re commenting from Mastodon. From my perspective it looked like you were directly replying to my comment. That was confusing as you didn’t appear to be responding to anything I’d said.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          I’m struggling to understand what’s going on here, even if I click up to view context. If we’re talking “two republican parties” with a lower case R, I’d think that would be Greens and (some of) Labor.

          If we’re talking about analogies to American politics, surely that would be LNP, One Nation, and United Australia Party, but the latter has just 1 Senator and zero state representatives, so maybe we’re ignoring it to get to 2 Republican parties. Or maybe they meant Liberal and National as two parties?

          Tagging @stepchook@mastodon.au, your interlocutor, for visibility.

          • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zoneEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            Riiiiiight I thought you meant in terms of politics and my response about the Greens was being sarcastic. Though the Greens and LNP get dragged into culture wars alot easier than Labor

            • Stephen Darby :ma_flag_aus:@mastodon.au
              1·
              3 months ago

              @unionagainstdhmo @Zagorath
              That is very insightful. obviously if the greens had more power, they would also end up having to strike more deals to get their bills passed. I understand that some compromise is how party politics works. Very sad that senator Payman had to go.

              Still allowed to voice my dissent over issues that bother me. The anti-protest laws suck. In WA the fines are $15,000 for disrupting normal activity. ‘Republican’ is a confusing word. the anti-protest laws are downright Cromwellian

          • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zoneEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            No, @Zagorath@aussie.zone did some analysis a while ago and found that Labor were overrepresented in parliament based on first preferences nationally, ignoring the electoral boundaries. The Greens, One Nation and various independents would have more representation in parliament if we didn’t use localities to determine the makeup of parliament

            • Stephen Darby :ma_flag_aus:@mastodon.au
              2·
              3 months ago

              @unionagainstdhmo
              I’m not about to vote liberal, but feel disappointed by some Labor decisions. The anti-protest law in particular seem to have bipartisan support despite democratic resistance. Protests over freedom of association were once the backbone of union membership and strength.

            • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
              1·
              3 months ago

              That’s true.

              The Greens proportionally deserve 18.4 seats, but have only 4.

              Labor deserves 48.9 seats but has 68.

              LNP deserves 53.6, but has 58.

              One Nation deserves 7.4, has 0.

              It’s actually a very easy calculation to do yourself. Literally just 150 × percentage 1st preference votes. Obviously it’s not perfect, because if you change the voting system you also change how parties campaign, which changes how the votes turn out. But it’s a good rough idea.

              But uhh…I’m not really sure how this is relevant to this thread.

              • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zoneEnglish
                2·
                3 months ago

                But uhh…I’m not really sure how this is relevant to this thread.

                Idk I was interpreting their comment as saying that Labor aren’t very popular which is true at least in terms of first preferences