|
Post by spinifex on Apr 12, 2019 14:56:22 GMT 10
Did it last year and the system produced results that generally matched my expectations, with the odd revelation.
This year? The result was so unpredictable and self contradicting that:
a) I may as well have been consulting a homeless meth-head for advice. OR
b) I could be schizophrenic. OR
c) I recklessly removed my tin foil hat for too long, was abducted by aliens and replaced with an imposter during the time I took the survey ... and then returned without memory of the events. OR
d) The system correctly deduced that I think the major parties and leaders are all so dismal there is no logical direction to take and the results in different sections were randomly assigned.
|
|
|
Post by jonasparker on Apr 14, 2019 3:28:13 GMT 10
Homeless meth heads? Paranoid schizophrenics? Aliens? Sounds like the Democrat Party in the US!
|
|
paranoia
Senior Member
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 1,252
Email: para@ausprep.org
|
Post by paranoia on Apr 18, 2019 22:00:06 GMT 10
A few quick points on the ABCs vote compass.
The results are not determined by the parties previous actions, policies or votes.
The ABC political people (or whatever media groups are commissioning the survey) generate a list of questions based on what they feel will be relevant to the upcoming election and give this over to Vox Pop Labs.
These lists are passed on to the political parties so that they can provide their answer. These are mostly yes/no questions and there is no opportunity for nuance.
Party strategists/policy leaders sit around and decide their answers to the questions, independent on their previous actions/votes and submit this to Vox Pop Labs.
You then answer the same questions and it gives you how many hits/misses you get.
In short, you're given a match to how the parties want you to see them, not how you see them/how they are. Makes it pretty easy to see in such a divided election you would be surprised at the results.
|
|
blueshoes
Senior Member
Posts: 608
Likes: 698
Location: Regional Dan-istan
|
Post by blueshoes on Apr 22, 2019 14:59:24 GMT 10
I'm curious to know whether anyone gets better, worse or same results using how2vote instead of VoteCompass? I *think* it uses different data on the back end www.how2vote.com.au/poll/
|
|
paranoia
Senior Member
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 1,252
Email: para@ausprep.org
|
Post by paranoia on Apr 22, 2019 15:49:37 GMT 10
I did find it to have closer results to my expectations. What I particularly liked about how2vote is they show their working out. It links you to the divisions it's using to determine that. It's not always clear what a vote one way or the other means as there's always a lot more going on in parliament than the blurb of the bill.
One could agree with the idea behind the bill but feel it had flawed implementation. You either vote for the bad legislation, or be labeled as someone who is opposed to the bills concept. Wedge bills in this past parliament were everywhere and even using actual votes, it's difficult to work out what parties stand for.
Mind you... this is on purpose so you listen to the propaganda.
Always best to pick a few issues and read deeply into that, including things like senate committee reports & dissenting reports.
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Apr 27, 2019 11:17:21 GMT 10
I'm curious to know whether anyone gets better, worse or same results using how2vote instead of VoteCompass? I *think* it uses different data on the back end www.how2vote.com.au/poll/I got a different result using how2vote compared to vote compass. The result is still surprising though ... I prefer the way the questions are presented in H2V but there are still some dodgy ones IMO that are open to interpretation. Also note the use of suggestive language as in the example below: "Landholders should have the right to refuse mining exploration on their land, meaning underground natural resources which are owned by the taxpayer may never be discovered or exploited" Firstly the minerals are not owned by taxpayers. They are owned by The Crown - the Acts say so. Also ... exploited is a negative term. Why not say 'developed'? I like to play 'pick the bias' when pollies and media do speeches/reporting and, depending on how they want the audience to react to the topic, switch between using the terms 'Government' funding and 'taxpayer' funding. For example Welfare recipients in negative reporting are always referred to as wasting 'taxpayer funds' but schools and hospitals in positive reporting receive 'government funding'. Its a subtle method of influencing the listeners perception/response. Farmers only receive 'government funded' drought assistance. But dodgy pollies rort 'taxpayers' when they get caught doing extravagant things on their work accounts. The term 'government funding' should never be used. The truth is it is all taxpayer funded. There is also a misleading question about company tax: 'Should companies have a lower tax rate'. Considering many large companies have fantastic tax minimisation opportunities and strategies and some of the very biggest barely pay ANY tax ... that is a pointless question. The rate is irrelevant. I'd be happy to drop the rate by half ... providing ... Laws and policies change so they actually pay some tax.
|
|
|
Post by SA Hunter on Apr 28, 2019 10:53:44 GMT 10
I was just happy my results had the Greens last!!!!!
|
|