[Igor Antunov]

The NSW Liberal Government will support moves to give business owners in Sydney city two votes at the 2016 council elections in a move that has the potential to unseat incumbent lord mayor Clover Moore.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/nsw-g ... ons-2014-8

Yay I have two businesses registered in my name, i.e I get 4 votes. Fuck you peasants.

But seriously, can we drag these unproductive Bourgeoisie cunts out in the streets and shoot them already? I grow tired of this shit.

[pugsville]

Isnt this already the case in the city of Melbounre?

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCo ... sRoll.aspx

[Igor Antunov]

And? At this rate it is going to become the case in federal elections.

[Rei Murasame]

Just as a quick question, what was the average voter going to do with these votes if they had them on an equal playing field along the businesses?

Quite often, we hear complaints about vote-rigging and other improprieties in various countries, and then when the vote is actually given to people on an even playing field, they immediately turn around and squander it anyway.

[Igor Antunov]

Depends on your own view regarding the participating parties in question. In this case business owners are going to vote Liberal, and liberals are anti-Australian interests, so that is detrimental to the country as a whole. They are a cliche hell-bent on serving their international corporate owners, not the public here.

[Rei Murasame]

Fair enough. If that's the case, then basically the situation is bad and you do need to fix it.

[Drlee]

American to Australia. How do you like us now?

I seriously thought Australians were smarter than this. Perhaps the popular view of Australians as beer-soaked-blow-hards is the real deal.

You need a constitution. Put this in the suggestion box. One person one vote.

[Rejn]

Depends on your own view regarding the participating parties in question. In this case business owners are going to vote Liberal, and liberals are anti-Australian interests, so that is detrimental to the country as a whole. They are a cliche hell-bent on serving their international corporate owners, not the public here.

Igor, this is about the City of Sydney council elections. Not North Sydney, not Willoughby, not Kuringai. City of Sydney.

Even the most conservative businessmen who live or own businesses there are probably going to vote Labor.

Just as a quick question, what was the average voter going to do with these votes if they had them on an equal playing field along the businesses?

Quite often, we hear complaints about vote-rigging and other improprieties in various countries, and then when the vote is actually given to people on an even playing field, they immediately turn around and squander it anyway.

Australia has mandatory voting in most elections, but you're still not wrong. There are quite a few people who prefer to cop the fine and stay home.

American to Australia. How do you like us now?

I seriously thought Australians were smarter than this. Perhaps the popular view of Australians as beer-soaked-blow-hards is the real deal.

You need a constitution. Put this in the suggestion box. One person one vote.

I'm opposed to the proposal, but it's not like there's a lack of sense in it. Council legislation almost always pertains to businesses, and hardly anything affects residents.

[Drlee]

Council legislation almost always pertains to businesses, and hardly anything affects residents.

You mean other than they rely on these businesses, and the council to regulate them. Businesses are not people. People vote. This is not a hard concept. It would strike any American as the height of lunacy.

[Lightman]

This sounds like some bizarre perversion of a soviet.

[Rejn]

You mean other than they rely on these businesses, and the council to regulate them. Businesses are not people. People vote. This is not a hard concept. It would strike any American as the height of lunacy.

Just because they rely on them doesn't mean it's a good or a right thing for them to have voting power with their regulators. With businesses, the regulations tend to concern restaurants and not supermarkets anyway.

I have a feeling business interests in the city are more about development applications, but I can't see how significant any increase in voting power will have for them.

[Capitalist]

In Australia when one refers to a capital city, such as Sydney or Melbourne, they are refering to the group of city councils regarded as being a part of the capital city. As Rejn pointed out, this decision effects Sydney City Council. It does not affect the councils in the Greater Sydney area.

Up until the mid 1990's, the councils incorporating the Central Business Districts of the capital cities consisted primarily of commerial and industrial interests - few people lived in the CBD themselves. With the closure and relocation of many old industries during this time most of the old industrial land was bought up and developed into apartments. Today the majority of those who live in these apartments would be singles or childless couples earning income in the top tax brackets (ie $100,000 +). So trying to argue that this decision is a case of the "Bourgeoisie" versus "Proletariat" is somewhat redundant.

I think that the current practice of allowing non-residential business owners to vote in Sydney City Council elections is fair since most of the decisions made by the council relate to the operation of businesses in the area. I don't understand the logic behind the new decision. What I think this decision demonstrates is another reason why we shouldn't have compulsory voting at any level of government in Australia.