SA Footy

How do you see political advertising?

Booney wrote:How do you see political advertising?

With my eyes -

Reckon political advertising should be banned. By that I mean ads on the telly and the like. I'm OK with signs on stobie poles saying 'vote for X.'

There's plenty of political advertising that goes on every day in the news and media, and on the election trail. If you need a 30 second ad laced with spin to help you work out which party best aligns with your values, you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.

Funnily enough, I wrote an editorial seeking some election gravy from our local candidates two weeks ago, at the conclusion, I asked them to, if nothing else, promise a ban on corflutes for electioneering.

Lo and behold, this week one of our local candidates has suggested they should be banned:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 8240eaee66

I'm glad someone's listening.

Magellan wrote:Reckon political advertising should be banned. By that I mean ads on the telly and the like. I'm OK with signs on stobie poles saying 'vote for X.'

There's plenty of political advertising that goes on every day in the news and media, and on the election trail. If you need a 30 second ad laced with spin to help you work out which party best aligns with your values, you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.

I think you are right but also you would have to ask how effective the tv ads are in this day and age.

In a time of Netflix, downloads and the ability to record you shows via hd recorders how many ads to we actually see. Even in some cases people when watching the news will watchi it 10 mins later and zip the ads. If course there is the generation that this technology hasnt reached but thats is getting smaller and the cost of the political ads seems to be more and more wasted.

Also in an age when social media is so powerful do, do the ads really get there message across?

In the age of digital media, and with so many outlets, the "consumer" is in many ways - harder to reach than ever. Like a dollar for every person who has told me print media is dead. So if you can't reach the consumer like you used to on TV (when there were only 3 commercial stations) how do you reach them? TV is the most fragmented market of all. Foxtel, Netflix etc.... So what becomes the "common" points..... Stobie Poles, and yes you guessed it.... your letterbox, Get ready for the plethora of leaflets. At the end of the day, the Greens, MR X et al.... can tell me all they want about themselves, they won't get my vote!

Dogwatcher wrote:Funnily enough, I wrote an editorial seeking some election gravy from our local candidates two weeks ago, at the conclusion, I asked them to, if nothing else, promise a ban on corflutes for electioneering.

Lo and behold, this week one of our local candidates has suggested they should be banned:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 8240eaee66

I'm glad someone's listening.

He's still putting them up though

Just like Mark Butler writing to the State Govt saying Transforming Health is a crock to appease his voters. It achieved a lot, didn't it......

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Funnily enough, I wrote an editorial seeking some election gravy from our local candidates two weeks ago, at the conclusion, I asked them to, if nothing else, promise a ban on corflutes for electioneering.

Lo and behold, this week one of our local candidates has suggested they should be banned:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 8240eaee66

I'm glad someone's listening.

He's still putting them up though

Just like Mark Butler writing to the State Govt saying Transforming Health is a crock to appease his voters. It achieved a lot, didn't it......

Champion did acknowledge that fact in the piece.
It would be brave of someone to not put them up, to be honest. If I was a candidate, as long as everyone else was putting them up, I would be.
And...while people hate them, I think they're actually the most effective way of a candidate getting their name and face out to the public.
The numbers of people unaware of who their local member is, or even what party represents their region is quite appalling - take the corflutes away and I guarantee you that awareness would be even worse.

This yarn reflects that: http://www.bunyippress.com.au/in-my-opinion-70/

Here's an extract from it:

Just to give you an idea, two women walked towards me in the Woolworths shopping precinct, with a pair of children in tow, so I asked them their opinion on the upcoming federal election.
“No idea about no election, I don’t get into it, I don’t like it and I think it is ridiculous,” the first woman replied.
“Don’t you think it’s a privilege to be able to choose the leaders of our country?” I asked.
Astonishingly, her friend piped in “Don’t you vote?” – I thought I had recruited someone to my side of the argument.
My glimmer of hope was short-lived.
“You’re lucky you don’t vote, I got made to vote when I was 16 and have been made to vote ever since then,” the other woman said.
Coming around, the first woman asked with new-found assurance, “Is this to do with that Donald Trump dude?”
“No, sorry, he’s American,” I replied, completely bewildered.
“So, who are we in Australia?” she asked.
Assuming we hadn’t jumped to a debate on nationality, I explained that Malcolm Turnbull is our current Prime Minister, but we are going to an election on July 2.
“Oh, okay, is he like John Howard?” she said.
To finish, my case study into understanding Australia’s opinions on politics said “I have no idea about these people – I vote John Howard, that’s it”.

Three points:
Are we voting for Donald Trump?
I was made to vote at 16?
I vote for John Howard, that's it?

You'll have trouble defending the demographic in your area if you keep publishing that sort of material!

Booney wrote:You'll have trouble defending the demographic in your area if you keep publishing that sort of material!

We need a quote from Peter Dutton about this......

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Booney wrote:You'll have trouble defending the demographic in your area if you keep publishing that sort of material!

We need a quote from Peter Dutton about this......

Booney wrote:You'll have trouble defending the demographic in your area if you keep publishing that sort of material!

Sadly, I think its reflective of voters across the nation.
Bet if I duck down to the Far Canal shopping centre, you'd get much of the same.

Dogwatcher wrote:

Booney wrote:You'll have trouble defending the demographic in your area if you keep publishing that sort of material!

Sadly, I think its reflective of voters across the nation.
Bet if I duck down to the Far Canal shopping centre, you'd get much of the same.

Probably would, yes. Although I'm not sure they'd give you anything on Trump.

Probably get something about Gary Johanson!

And that folks, is why voting should be non-compulsory.

Q. wrote:And that folks, is why voting should be non-compulsory.

No way I have to disagree, is it because some choose to vote for the side you don't like i.e. Howard? The only winners with non-compulsory voting would be the big end of town. It's the poor and the disenfranchised that think their vote would mean nothing, their voice doesn't deserve to be heard so a lot wouldn't bother. Have you ever met a well off person who doesn't think their opinion means something? It would favour one side of politics heavily, the right.

It doesn't matter if some vote against their own best interests that's their choice but it's not exactly some huge burden to vote (or at worst pretend to) once every three years federally and once every four years state wise.

Gozu wrote:

Q. wrote:And that folks, is why voting should be non-compulsory.

No way I have to disagree, is it because some choose to vote for the side you don't like i.e. Howard? The only winners with non-compulsory voting would be the big end of town. It's the poor and the disenfranchised that think their vote would mean nothing, their voice doesn't deserve to be heard so a lot wouldn't bother. Have you ever met a well off person who doesn't think their opinion means something? It would favour one side of politics heavily, the right.

It doesn't matter if some vote against their own best interests that's their choice but it's not exactly some huge burden to vote (or at worst pretend to) once every three years federally and once every four years state wise.

I completely agree, the powers of persuasion ( read $$$$ ) would out weigh the plight or desire to change from the needy. Money talks, every time.

Gozu wrote:

Q. wrote:And that folks, is why voting should be non-compulsory.

No way I have to disagree, is it because some choose to vote for the side you don't like i.e. Howard? The only winners with non-compulsory voting would be the big end of town. It's the poor and the disenfranchised that think their vote would mean nothing, their voice doesn't deserve to be heard so a lot wouldn't bother. Have you ever met a well off person who doesn't think their opinion means something? It would favour one side of politics heavily, the right.

It doesn't matter if some vote against their own best interests that's their choice but it's not exactly some huge burden to vote (or at worst pretend to) once every three years federally and once every four years state wise.

Uh no.

If people don't give a ****, why should they be made to vote?

Q. wrote:
Uh no.

If people don't give a ****, why should they be made to vote?

So their voice can be heard and they feel like they are a part of society.

Q. wrote:

Gozu wrote:

Q. wrote:And that folks, is why voting should be non-compulsory.

No way I have to disagree, is it because some choose to vote for the side you don't like i.e. Howard? The only winners with non-compulsory voting would be the big end of town. It's the poor and the disenfranchised that think their vote would mean nothing, their voice doesn't deserve to be heard so a lot wouldn't bother. Have you ever met a well off person who doesn't think their opinion means something? It would favour one side of politics heavily, the right.

It doesn't matter if some vote against their own best interests that's their choice but it's not exactly some huge burden to vote (or at worst pretend to) once every three years federally and once every four years state wise.

Uh no.

If people don't give a ****, why should they be made to vote?

Technically they are not made to vote - just to front up and get their name crossed off, though I guess you may not be allowed to take your voting slip home to save on toilet paper...

I agree non-compulsory voting tends to favour the motivated and interested groups who see themselves as having something to gain.

However, I'm more concerned about the media manipulating the voters, which is why I'd like to see only a few non-contiguous seats come up for election each year over a 5 year cycle so that the media and advertising budget has less effect and candidates would actually have to engage on the issues with the local electors face to face in local halls to win their vote.

I love the idea that party politics may die out under such a system.

With the vanilla flavor of most candidates you could argue "party politics" is already dead.