Technically, no.
You're attendance confirms your intention to vote, and fulfils your obligations. After all of the votes are counted, a certain percentage are discarded due to errors, and any attendees who do not put a ballot paper in the box are noted as a discrepancy in the turnout vs votes cast and tallied with the informal votes.
So, there really is no secret to this.
At the end of the day though, it's pretty poor form, and you really only have yourself to blame when the government turns out to be crap... but then again, this is no worse than those who vote for a party simply because that's what their demographic always does, or to vote with the people most likely to win, or to vote simply to get the incumbents out of office, or those you fall for the media hype and the vapid election "promises" that are given simply to fool you into casting your vote thoughtlessly. In all cases, no thought goes into it and such voters merely contribute to the endless cycle of crap governance.
Now imagine what would happen if people were truly "informed", and cast their votes based on both conscience and logic! Yeah, it's a pipe dream... but who knows... the universe is a pretty weird place so maybe it might happen by accident some day!:-P
Actually, the preferences system is about as fair and as democratic as it can get. The only time it seems to fail is when a party you voted for passes preferences to another party that you personally wouldn't have endorsed. The thing is, you can choose to allocate your preferences yourself, or elect the party to do it for you. Ultimately it always comes down to your choice, and if you give away your voting preference rights to someone else, you've only yourself to blame if you don't like the choices, or can't be bothered filling out the ballot forms properly. It's up to the individual to check that they filled the ballot papers out properly, and if you make a mistake, you are entitled to destroy the ballot paper you ruined and get a fresh one.
So in actual fact, passing preferences empowers the voter, and empowers the minor parties because in the case of a party, they can make deals to trade for power. For example, the Geens are really aiming to get as much control over the senate as they can. They know that they won't get the balance of power in the lower house, so they deal away their preferences with the Labour party in order to gain concessions, and to boost their profile so that in following elections, they have more publicly allocated campaign funding and a greater appeal to the public because their visibility is greater.
Where our system does fail us, is in that we have a perception that we are voting for a person to lead our country, but as recent events have shown, we are only voting in members to represent ourselves locally, and it is up to the parliament to determine who should represent it, usually decided entirely by the party in power at the time. So while many thought they had elected Kevin Rudd to lead us, they had forgotten they had only voted for their party member and by default granted that party member the right to vote on the constituents' behalf who the Prime Minister would be. For mine, I'd prefer a third form where you could list your preferences for preferred head of state. PM/President/whatever, to avoid the sort of political shenanigans that occurred so recently.
The two-party majority system that we seem to have is really the fault of the people. If you REALLY want the system to change, you need to use your vote to signal that change, not simply vote for the person you think would win anyway, or vote for the opposition simply to get the incumbents out of power. Your individual vote might not seem like much, but if everyone votes sensibly then the combination turns out to be truly powerful thing, and a responsibility that shouldn't be treated so lightly, especially when you know that there are so many places in the world without our freedoms. So you can moan as much as you like about the alleged unfairness of your system, but count yourself lucky that you actually have the right to do so, and if you want to protect that right, you need to vote to do so.
Oh, and if you think our system is so undemocratic, compare this to the system used in the USA, where only a handful of states actually wield the power to change the government because they get more "votes" than the other states, and where the individual cannot allocate a preference vote if their preferred candidate doesn't win.
Yes, our last few governments have a lot to answer for, and yes, we seem to be losing our rights all the time... and yes, that is the collective fault of the public who voted the bastards in! And yet, in spite of all of that I still feel like we are the lucky country (yes, I've lived in MUCH worse), and if you really want to change things, you have the right and the individual responsibility to do so.
I've seen great maths/physics experts who were lousy programmers, and some self taught people who were brilliant... and naturally I've seen the opposite too. What you really need is a person with a skill set that is appropriate for the role that they are to fill. Myself, my math skills are basic at best, while my application of logic is quite solid - or so I've been told, and in my personal case, I work with Physics PHD's who understand the math way better than I do, but make the most elementary design mistakes if left to manage a project by themselves, this in spite of their having 6-10 years of programming "experience". My role largely involves writing APIs, and is very people-oriented, so I find that I don't need the same level of math that my colleagues need. Their role is to design algorithms, and yes, to dumb them down somewhat so that I and others in the team can make better use of such things so that our work integrates well with what our DSP engineers do. I wouldn't be suited for something as math oriented as game theory, whereas I think my colleagues would actually be better suited to such a role. I can however design and build relatively complex information systems, which tends to benefit more from a skill set where logic and people skills are more prominent.
It really is a case of "It depends". If you're unsure and would like to keep your options wide open before you dive into the programming deep end, then yes, I'd suggest you delve into the maths a bit, and see where it leads you. If you already know where your career is going, you can always learn more as you go, pick up the skills you need along the way to make yourself more marketable. For my own roles, I've wished I studied more psychology (never thought I'd actually ever admit to that!!)... but that's just because of the nature of the type of products I've worked on.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow... so we're now going to have to redefine EVERYTHING!!!!
:-P
OMG is now Oh My Gravity!
Religious texts now begin with 'And gravity said, "Let there be light!".
But sadly, my middle aged body will continue to be a victim of gravity!
Technically, no. You're attendance confirms your intention to vote, and fulfils your obligations. After all of the votes are counted, a certain percentage are discarded due to errors, and any attendees who do not put a ballot paper in the box are noted as a discrepancy in the turnout vs votes cast and tallied with the informal votes.
:-P
So, there really is no secret to this.
At the end of the day though, it's pretty poor form, and you really only have yourself to blame when the government turns out to be crap... but then again, this is no worse than those who vote for a party simply because that's what their demographic always does, or to vote with the people most likely to win, or to vote simply to get the incumbents out of office, or those you fall for the media hype and the vapid election "promises" that are given simply to fool you into casting your vote thoughtlessly. In all cases, no thought goes into it and such voters merely contribute to the endless cycle of crap governance.
Now imagine what would happen if people were truly "informed", and cast their votes based on both conscience and logic! Yeah, it's a pipe dream... but who knows... the universe is a pretty weird place so maybe it might happen by accident some day!
Actually, the preferences system is about as fair and as democratic as it can get. The only time it seems to fail is when a party you voted for passes preferences to another party that you personally wouldn't have endorsed. The thing is, you can choose to allocate your preferences yourself, or elect the party to do it for you. Ultimately it always comes down to your choice, and if you give away your voting preference rights to someone else, you've only yourself to blame if you don't like the choices, or can't be bothered filling out the ballot forms properly. It's up to the individual to check that they filled the ballot papers out properly, and if you make a mistake, you are entitled to destroy the ballot paper you ruined and get a fresh one.
So in actual fact, passing preferences empowers the voter, and empowers the minor parties because in the case of a party, they can make deals to trade for power. For example, the Geens are really aiming to get as much control over the senate as they can. They know that they won't get the balance of power in the lower house, so they deal away their preferences with the Labour party in order to gain concessions, and to boost their profile so that in following elections, they have more publicly allocated campaign funding and a greater appeal to the public because their visibility is greater.
Where our system does fail us, is in that we have a perception that we are voting for a person to lead our country, but as recent events have shown, we are only voting in members to represent ourselves locally, and it is up to the parliament to determine who should represent it, usually decided entirely by the party in power at the time. So while many thought they had elected Kevin Rudd to lead us, they had forgotten they had only voted for their party member and by default granted that party member the right to vote on the constituents' behalf who the Prime Minister would be. For mine, I'd prefer a third form where you could list your preferences for preferred head of state. PM/President/whatever, to avoid the sort of political shenanigans that occurred so recently.
The two-party majority system that we seem to have is really the fault of the people. If you REALLY want the system to change, you need to use your vote to signal that change, not simply vote for the person you think would win anyway, or vote for the opposition simply to get the incumbents out of power. Your individual vote might not seem like much, but if everyone votes sensibly then the combination turns out to be truly powerful thing, and a responsibility that shouldn't be treated so lightly, especially when you know that there are so many places in the world without our freedoms. So you can moan as much as you like about the alleged unfairness of your system, but count yourself lucky that you actually have the right to do so, and if you want to protect that right, you need to vote to do so.
Oh, and if you think our system is so undemocratic, compare this to the system used in the USA, where only a handful of states actually wield the power to change the government because they get more "votes" than the other states, and where the individual cannot allocate a preference vote if their preferred candidate doesn't win. Yes, our last few governments have a lot to answer for, and yes, we seem to be losing our rights all the time... and yes, that is the collective fault of the public who voted the bastards in! And yet, in spite of all of that I still feel like we are the lucky country (yes, I've lived in MUCH worse), and if you really want to change things, you have the right and the individual responsibility to do so.
It's April 2nd here, you insensitive clods!
This is merely 4-D vapour-ware!!!
/. for too long now!
Oh, and the obligatory:
In Soviet Russia, 4th dimension displaces YOU!!
And dare I:
Gone is the Beowulf cluster. Now we pay homage to the mighty Beowulf Dimension!!
Sigh! I think I've been reading
I've seen great maths/physics experts who were lousy programmers, and some self taught people who were brilliant... and naturally I've seen the opposite too. What you really need is a person with a skill set that is appropriate for the role that they are to fill. Myself, my math skills are basic at best, while my application of logic is quite solid - or so I've been told, and in my personal case, I work with Physics PHD's who understand the math way better than I do, but make the most elementary design mistakes if left to manage a project by themselves, this in spite of their having 6-10 years of programming "experience". My role largely involves writing APIs, and is very people-oriented, so I find that I don't need the same level of math that my colleagues need. Their role is to design algorithms, and yes, to dumb them down somewhat so that I and others in the team can make better use of such things so that our work integrates well with what our DSP engineers do. I wouldn't be suited for something as math oriented as game theory, whereas I think my colleagues would actually be better suited to such a role. I can however design and build relatively complex information systems, which tends to benefit more from a skill set where logic and people skills are more prominent. It really is a case of "It depends". If you're unsure and would like to keep your options wide open before you dive into the programming deep end, then yes, I'd suggest you delve into the maths a bit, and see where it leads you. If you already know where your career is going, you can always learn more as you go, pick up the skills you need along the way to make yourself more marketable. For my own roles, I've wished I studied more psychology (never thought I'd actually ever admit to that!!)... but that's just because of the nature of the type of products I've worked on.