You can’t elect a party on one issue, three entire election is multifaceted you can’t try claim because the greens said the were against genocide and no one voted for them it’s simply due to that.
The greens could have lost on any of their other policies with their views on genocide being ignored.
Look at America, good old “genocide Joe”, lost the election being supposedly pro genocide while trump was going to fix it.
No, I’m pointing out, again, about the reduction of votes they got. They are the only party with the potential for seats to support ending genocide. They had less votes and lost seats.
I’m not saying it was their only issue but it clearly wasn’t an important issue for Australians based on that.
If it was important to Australians, more would have voted for the greens. Australians either didn’t care or supported genocide instead.
It’s not like the USA where it was a hold your nose situation. We have preferential voting. If people cared about other issues, they could still preference the greens for their genocide stance, of they deemed it important. they did not.
Yes but governments can’t make massive changes in legislation easily and small incremental changes over time can achieve the same results.
Like they say, don’t let perfection be the enemy of good
Yes, I agree, but they were still the only party that were opposed to genocide and nobody cared enough to vote for them.
So whatever your views of the greens, the voters view of genocide was that it wasn’t important.
No, that’s wrong.
You can’t elect a party on one issue, three entire election is multifaceted you can’t try claim because the greens said the were against genocide and no one voted for them it’s simply due to that.
The greens could have lost on any of their other policies with their views on genocide being ignored.
Look at America, good old “genocide Joe”, lost the election being supposedly pro genocide while trump was going to fix it.
No one is elected on one issue
No, I’m saying that as the only party to be anti genocide, if Australians cared about it as an issue, their votes would have increased, not decreased.
Not based off of one issue.
Yes, based on many. However, that implies that people don’t care about the genocide, which is what ive repeatedly said.
If you want to be more precise, they cared about everything else more, which is a different way of saying they don’t care about it.
No you’re holding it up as a one item agenda, the marijuana party didn’t get in either but tons of cunts love weed
No, I’m pointing out, again, about the reduction of votes they got. They are the only party with the potential for seats to support ending genocide. They had less votes and lost seats.
I’m not saying it was their only issue but it clearly wasn’t an important issue for Australians based on that.
If it was important to Australians, more would have voted for the greens. Australians either didn’t care or supported genocide instead.
It’s not like the USA where it was a hold your nose situation. We have preferential voting. If people cared about other issues, they could still preference the greens for their genocide stance, of they deemed it important. they did not.