why to vote no

[passionpop]

last itme there was a referendum on daylight savings in this state, the cry was that it is better for the environment. people were using more of the suns natural energy to light thier home rather than lights. since then, energy saving lights have been made compusory. also it has been provent that daylight savings actually increases energy use.

daylight savings has no relivance in this day and age. many places like california and even South Australia have started debating removing dayinglight savings because it is a nuisance and a waste of time. we are in an increasingly 24 hour society and with less people being the traditional 9-5, there isn't the same energy strains as there was in say the 1980s

we are in perth, a place where many businesses set up their australian office so they can deal with both australia and asia. we will lose that advantage. will this mean more jobs will go offshore? well if we vote for daylight savings and they do, then I will be happy enough to say 'I told you so'

there was only a select few who wanted daylight savings, is that enough to change it for everyone? do we all have to believe in god because a select few 7th day adventist push that agenda, no. then why do we all have to have daylight savings? why cant the people who want to get up early just... get up early....

there are people that say that if we vote yes, the issue will be dead and we will never have to vote for it again... until in 2 years time we vote to change the dates that daylight savings begins and ends, then in 10 years time when everyone has actually started rolling back daylight savings, we wll vote again as to if we want to keep it. todays vote will not end this issue and it will not end the referendums, it is just a new beginning. 

vote NO if you dont want daylight savings. Vote NO if you might have kids one day, because they wont adjust to daylight savings unless you get rollershutters.  Vote NO unless you genuinely want daylight savings for a legitimate reason, not because you selfishly want me to get my arse out of bed when you want to get up. 

thankyou

Comments

[lotus79.livejournal.com]

ITAWTP

Death to artificial time!

[firvulag.livejournal.com]

'select few' - so how many is enough then? 50%? 66%? 75%? if it goes through (50%+) when does the majority stop being 'just a select few'?

Also, the referendum is only to see if the populace want it. It then has to actually go through parliament, but I'm pretty sure that's a rubber stamping process.

I'm hoping that it isn't the last referendum regardless of the result. Mostly because the populace doesn't stay the same and the reason behind things changes also. 17 years adds a heck of a lot of new voters, not to mention loses a lot of old voters. The demographics change and people's priorities move.

Also, I grew up in a state with daylight savings, and never had an issue with it. I've never understood the issue with not being able to get the kids to bed etc that all the parents over here seem to have.

[ducts.livejournal.com]

One needs to resist the urge to hold a referendum as soon as you think you can scrape 51% together. (a) they're expensive, you don't want it flipping back if support falls a notch or two; (b) you might be wrong, we've now have four rejections in a row, all pretty wishy-washy; and (c) you're setting yourself up to piss off 49% of the electorate.

So... how long do you reckon is a good time until the next one? Should it include another "trial"?

[firvulag.livejournal.com]

well, given that over 27.5% of the voting populace hadn't had a chance to vote before, that's a pretty large section of the populace. (age group stats from the waec website, so doesn't include people older than 35 that moved to WA after the last referendum)

I think this time was fair. the previous 2 were probably far too close together (9 and 8 years) but 17 years is quite a while, and with probably a 30% change in voters is likely to get a large enough change that it's worth finding out the views.

I personally didn't like the question, as I think it runs for a month too long, but didn't stop me voting yes so we can just change the dates later. As with all referendums, the actual question always makes a difference as whoever wrote it has their bias in the actual question, rather than just asking real questions.

1. do you want daylight savings?
2. do you want it starting at x time
3. do you want it ending at y time

Not like a referendum with 51% in favour means it will come in, or 55% against will stop it. How many voted against extended trading again, yet we're still about to have a trial of a form of that.

As for how long is 'long enough', Once 25% of the populace is not the same as it was at the previous one is probably enough, but no sooner. On such a divisive topic as DLS, 10 years is ok, but 15 would be closer to the 25% that I mentioned.

[ducts.livejournal.com]

Only 25% populace change? If there's a further 25% or so that change their mind, some to YES, some to NO, that's guaranteeing another wishy-washy result, it's not going to go from an increased NO to a strong YES in that time.

I agree that the questions aren't ideal, that's a real problem that we can't have a one shot choice ranking three or four options, only "YES" and "NO". (unlike the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method )

The extended trading (and the Republic) also had poor YES/NO referendum questions - how about "Do you believe that the Western Australian community benefits from trading hour restrictions?".

What I hate more is the rule changes. I'm relieved that despite WA having a "trial" every time DST has been proposed, we've still had fewer start/stop rule changes than the states that have wanted DST! A referendum rolled into a regular election, perhaps, but I don't want another "trial" in 15 years.

[jakie-em.livejournal.com]

i remember the last referendum

[jakie-em.livejournal.com]

environmentally, in perth it is wrong. see the only time it is really any difference is really about late march to start feb, but for the energy you save on lighting say, you will use 10 fold on air con because you will come home effectively earlier, the house will be warmer and you will put on the air con when you come home, or if you left it on all day (bad you) igt will work harder for while it is hotter to cool the house.

daylight savings costs everyone money. how? well primary producers have an hour less 3 days a week to get their goods ready for market (because taking three day old veggies to market is generally bad) so there is less produce available for market. less produce means higher costs. OK it is a gross generalisation because foods that take longer to spoil like garlic, onions and potatoes may remain steady or go down slightly, but everything else... but then even if it is light when you get home from the market, you aren't going to go back in to the garden.

sorry I am trying to find the 'savings' in daylight savings and I am yet to find it.

[grassynoel.livejournal.com]

Both the yes and no campaigns as written up in the paper had some very bogus reasons for supporting them.

The official yes campaign should have paid for the referendum.

[jakie-em.livejournal.com]

I havent seen a yes campaign point that I couldn't counter or prove as totally false. the no campaign is 'well if it aint broke dont fix it'

unless you realy want a change, you should vote no. same as for the de-regulating trading hours, unless you think you will use it, vote no, though the trading hours one I think should be open to 16 year olds because it effects them more seeing they will be working all the shitty hours

[shadzane.livejournal.com]

Here in Colorado, USA, daylight savings time used to be OK, until the started it 4 weeks earler a few years ago. Now it takes forever for me to get used to it every spring...

And studies have shown that it doesn't save energy, because people waste more energy driving around doing an extra hour of errands after work than they save on lighting. However, it will probably never change, since many of the errands involve shopping, so stores won't want to give up the sales boost...

[jakie-em.livejournal.com]

thats the next argument we have in Perth... deregulating shopping hours