tcpip | The pre-election post...

The pre-election post...

OK, here's a pitch to the few of you out there who haven't made up their mind on how they're voting on Saturday. I'm not going to suggest who you vote for, but rather I will suggest who you shouldn't vote for.

Democracy is a system of government which was not won easily. People - invariably men - of power and property, fought tooth and nail to ensure that we "common folk" were not allowed to directly influence government. On the other side, rationalists argued that any person, when provided the opportunity to make an informed decision, is capable of correctly choosing their representative. Supported by the "intellectuals" of the day, and a bit of industrial muscle from the labour movement, we won that battle - and it wasn't that long ago.

However, when that principle of making informed decisions is taken away, you may as well not have elections at all. When there is a cynical excersise of mass deception in order to gain power, there is no democracy, merely a campaign of the biggest lie.

I ask you then, before you vote, to read the following. Yes, it's from an ALP site. But I've checked each quote carefully and they are accurate.

http://www.alp.org.au/features/lies.php

A vote for John Howard is, effectively, a license to lie. It is a vote that permits someone to deceive you. Don't do it.

(And cut-and-paste and forward this on to all who haven't made up their mind).

Via

adricongirl and

erudito - and from one of the more sensible people whom I've discussed such matters with, Brian Palmer's
political test (for this election)..

My results are: One Nation: 22%; National Party: 17%; Liberal Party: 31%; Labor Party: 77%; Democrats: 95%; Greens: 86%. It's probably how I'd vote as well...

Also from

adricongirl (who is obviously paying attention to this election)... According to Family First, followers must "pull down Satan's strongholds" which includes mosques, Freemasons' temples, brothels and bottle shops. Further, they've had to discipline a campaign volunteer who claimed that "lesbians are witches and should be burned to death". They have also decided that the lesbians (they do have a thing about them, don't they?) won't receive preferences.

They've also decided to propose an
annual fee on all Internet users to block at a server level things they find objectionable. On a related matter, Manhunt has been banned. *grumble*

Was very impressed by Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, both of which I finally got around to seeing with

caseopaya last Friday. Mike Moore does go straight to the source, and I like that. He's also been receiving some mail from
US troops in Iraq.

In other news, I fixed a very recalcitrant DHCP/ICS problem on Monday along with zone file problems for the website and email and on Wednesday my second meeting with DEWR representatives went really well. My business plan is considered "extremely viable". w00t! On Friday I hand it in..

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

One Nation%3ubjeubjeubjeubjeubjeubjeubjeubje5%
Liberal Party: 21%
Labor Party: 60%
Democrats: 84%
Greens: 84%

Scary - but which is scarier - that I'm equal on Democrats/Greens or that I put One Nation before the Nationals and Liberals?

Don't be too surprised. One Nation has "protectionist" and state-interventionist policies regarding for example, the sale of Telstra, our "free-trade" agreement with the United States, which has widespread support.

Effectively they are the party of 1950s Australia, both the good and the bad.. It's just that the bad is very, very bad.. ;-)

The Liberal candidate was at my station this morning doing a slimy sort of meet and greet. Not many people were interested. Pity you weren't there.... I merely muttered 'wanker' as I passed but I'm sure you would have had several questions for him.

Weird that he's having to campaign in Ripponlea.. I mean, that's Tory heartland, the system works very well for people in such places.

It has been suggested that the biggest swings to Labor in this election will be the safer, older, Liberal seats... Maybe we're in with a chance in Goldstein...

Someone has pointed out that the # of undecideds hasn't been this high since the Victorian election of 1999... And we know what happened then.

They're against bottle shops and lesbians? W-why that's everything I'm for!

Heheh... I thought something quite similar! I mean, how many votes do they think they'll get with that? Does anyone (with the exception of Biblical fundamentalists) really dislike lesbians?

The other thing that came to my mind is Indonesia.. Oh yeah, I can just see the reports in the Jakarta Post. "Australian politician calls Mosques Stronghold of Satan"

Stupid, just plain stupid...

Well, I'm against their "No booze and lesbians" policy but I am for their "Pissing off the Indonesians" policy. Damn, election day is so difficult!

Oh come now... The Indonesian version of Islam is just the version that should be enouraged... Calling them Satanic will just drive them into the arms of the fundamentalists, whereas at the moment, well, they're very liberal by my experience..

I know, I know, I'm just being factious. I'm in PNG - like I want Indonesia to be cranky at Australia.

Ahh, the problem of lack of tone in email...

I remember when I got off the plane in East Timor the broad smile when the customs people went through my bag and the first thing they pulled out was a copy of "New Internationalist" with the cover headline "West Papua Will Be Free!"..

Poor ol' Indonesia.. If only they were a democratic federation rather than a unitary state... I mean there's 300 languages in the place.. How can you possibly have a centralized government?

I see you your 300 and raise you Papua's 800 - and agree with your point on centralised government.

Speaking of which, what do you think of SBY, the new president? I'm not to keen, given him being chief of security in East Timor in the late 70s-early 80s, married to the daughter of the guy who invaded Papua and was quoted earlier this year saying security was more important than human rights.

Yeah, PNG does pretty well with the languages, doesn't it?

Agree with your comments about the new President and I'm equally suspicious of his background as well...

What Indonesia needs is a political movement dedicated to changing the entire country into a voluntary federation rather than separatist movements per se (I'd exclude those places which were forcibly integrated of course)... It's even remotely possible that with a federal structure Malaysia and - just imagine it - Singapore and Brunei could come to the party...

Wow, a pan-Malay federation... Wouldn't that make the white power people in Australia tremble?

Man, I would see China and America's governments shitting themselves as well. Because once an federation like that got off the ground, its economic power would have the rest of SE Asia knocking on their door and bang - South East Asian Economic Union is born.

You're right, I hadn't thought about China's and the US' reactions... The Chinese would undoubtably be worried on a cultural level - unfortunately the Malay people have traditionally used them as a scapegoat because they're so commercially minded, they work hard and there often communists :/

A SEAEU... Oh yeah, I'd like to see that..

Avoiding the political topic for the moment, congratulations on the business plan!

BTW I think the film of "Roger and Me" is going to be screening soon too - can't remember where I read that though...

Roger and Me is great... Saw that with Paula The MCF a couple of years ago... Tragically sad in a way.. How is it that United States, an amazing piece of real-estate, with such extraordinary wealth can end up with entire cities in such poverty?

Tragically sad in a way.. How is it that United States, an amazing piece of real-estate, with such extraordinary wealth can end up with entire cities in such poverty?

"Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" were the same, tragically sad. America just seems so good at ruining things doesn't it?

I still want to see "Time to go John" and "The Corporation" as well..... they should provide some rather interesting views

Congratulations on the business plan!!

"Roger and Me" is a very, very good film. "Pets or Meat" is a phrase that has stuck with my mother and I both, and we find ourself saying it to describe rather sad situations.

America is a crazy patchwork of haves and have-nots. Even the drive from Seattle to the ocean has you going in and out of cities that swing wild from horribly poor to very affluent.

Congratulations on the business plan!!

Thanks! It all looks good, I have about an hours worth of editing to do tomorrow and that's it...

America is a crazy patchwork of haves and have-nots. Even the drive from Seattle to the ocean has you going in and out of cities that swing wild from horribly poor to very affluent.

*shakes head* It's terrible.. I mean the country has a GDP/PPP of $37,800 USD... and a Gini coefficient of 41! By comparison (and it always makes a good comparison) Canada has GDP/PPP of $29,800 and a Gini coefficient of 31.5. What's most important however, is that the household income consumption for the lowest 10% is much higher in Canada than it is in the US. Interestingly, the highest 10% isn't that much lower.

It seems that Canada lets people become rich, but it doesn't punish the poor.

My comment isn't specificaly on point but it does pertain to Australia..

As my #1 Australian friend on my journal, I am writing to see if you have any information for me on Melbourne/Victoria area. I've yet to make the announcement on my journal yet but an opportunity has come up for me to relocate down to Australia for business around the new year and I'm starting to look around to try to gather some information.

Excellent news!

What do you want to know? Melbourne is a populus, cosmopolitan city, with some delightfully older buildings and beautiful parklands... It can be laid-back, quite civilized in many areas with a strong sense of community and with a lot of community resources.. It also tends to be the intellectual and political capital of Australia (Sydney, I must admit, is a lot better for tech toys and money - it is also a lot more expensive to live in).

One other factor. Melbourne has seriously strange weather. Often it will be warm and sunny in the morning, pouring rain and freezing cold by the middle of the day, and sunny again by late afternoon. No, that doesn't make any sense, but it's true!

I've gone ahead and drafted a short email to you.

I got something similar (Greens marginally ahead of Democrats). My reasons for favouring Greens over Dems are based less on their philosophies than on my faith in their ability to do something about those philosophies.

True... But in Vic the Dem ticket is headed by Jessica Healy, a highly competent 19 year old compared to the Greens' David Ristrom who's a little dull in my opinion...

The other mitigating problem is that I want the Greens to get a high # of first preference votes simply for lobbying purposes.

The idealist in me says to vote for the best candidate, the pragmatist says to vote for the best party. I'm still not quite sure which of those two counts for more...

Something I do every election time, instead of shoving my political opinions down other people's throats, is ask people to explain what the Australian levels of government are. Then if they can answer that I ask them how they are made up. Following that filter, or the first one, I ask them which level of government is responsible for what function. If we get further in the conversation I'll sometimes ask other questions like if they know the difference between a referendum and an election, or, the varying differences in the authority of State Govenors versus the Govenor General. I might then ask about preferential vote distribution and how it differs from a 'first past them post' system in a democracy. I'm sure you get the point and the line the questions take. I try to talk to people of all ages and backgrounds, try not to be offensive (which is sometimes hard for me), I am never interested in how someone votes when I ask them about these things and I try to reinforce that I'm taking the subjective component out of things and just want some objective answers.

What was super interesting about this election time for me is that most the people I talked to had no clue as to what the difference was between local, state and federal government and the few that did couldn't tell me how they were made up and why. Most of them had little to no idea as to which level of government was responsible for what functions or what the parties on their ballot paper in their electorate stood for. Most of people who volunteered who they vote for (something I never ask anyone about btw) they used the leader of the party (eg: 'Howard', 'Latham', 'Brown', etc) as the identifier. I'd then point out that we don't have presidential style elections and that unless they are enrolled to vote in seat of the elected leader of the party that they were indeed voting for a 'party' and a candidate elected by that party in their electorate - not the leader of that party. Very few people confidently said "I know that" when I pointed it out to them. Most people identified with the Prime Minister being the most powerful person in the country not even realising that laws are passed by the Senate and that we have a Governor General who has the power to sack the PM.

I do this little exercise to shield myself from the emotions (the subjective) of the election as being something I should celebrate or get disappointed about because of all the people who voted not every single one of them actually knew objectively what they were doing or what framework (ie. our constitution) they were doing it in. Not their fault and something I can't blame them for, so they have an opinion and that's what they use to influence their vote. In a democracy, everyone's opinion is valuable and can not be judged as right or wrong - all you can do in a democracy is count it and give everyone equal respect for their opinion. The good ol' "I might not agree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" stands firm with me, otherwise democracy itself fails.

My opinion on how to improve one of the soundest democracies in the world (ie: the Australian one) is that we should all have to sit an exam, or attend classes, on the basic construction of our government (specified in the constitution) before we're put on the electoral role. We should also get a government publication regularly (not something we have to go to find) that spells out who is responsible for what, and a short form report on where the money that is collected in taxes is *actually* distributed.

That's my take on the election (and every other election for that matter). As a suggestion, try asking one new person each day about how our democracy is structured and I think you'll find the collective result as super interesting as I do.

This is quite a sensible strategy, and perhaps you'll excuse the moment of desperation in my post. I really was trying to wake people up.

On Saturday I know that I won one vote because I was the only person standing around who could explain to a punter how the preferential voting system (HoR) and multi-member proportional representation system worked.

I half-jokingly suggested during the tally that perhaps it should be a requirement for Senate candidates to pass a test on on how Senate voting works before they're allowed to stand. A rather wry older AEC counter remarked "You could apply that to a lot of things".

And therein does lie the problem. After all, at the end of the day, democracy is a system of government where the knowledgeable and the ignorant are accorded equal weight. Education may seem be answer, but is that possible in a world of increased and increasing complexity? Is the answer therefore to accept simplistic results of possibly dishonest political marketing campaigns? Or is there a method to simplify and decentralize democracy?

Education may seem be answer, but is that possible in a world of increased and increasing complexity?

I know this may sound like a cop out answer but I think the key is the KISS principle for the system itself - not adding layers of complication to the education of a mass audience who may or may not be capable of digesting and understanding the system. The good ol' "Do we work for the system or does the system work for us" phrase comes to mind here. The more complicated and fuzzy it gets the less people will have a chance of understanding it. I think the number of people who think they understand it compared with the number who actually understand it is way too high. Once that balance tips and there are more people who actually understand the flaws in the system something will be done about changing the system.

That said: Things are happening. Read on.

I'm not sure about methods to simplify or decentralise democracy (that's a massive statement right there anyway) but there is certainly a lot of effort going into scrutinizing our current system which, in itself (in my opinion), is healthy.

Although I hate to use subjective references (such as the media and opinion based articles), there is a lead in reference here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2524 which has links to the current "Democratic Audit of Australia". These efforts largely being coordinated by ANU: http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/index.htm I would suggest a thumb through this page also: http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/debates.htm

It could be argued that a university based within our country doing this sort of a

Great links! Thanks for that... I was wondering what Barry Hindess was up to these days.

You're right about the KISS principle. Part of the reason I espouse a point of view common to Thomas Jefferson and Hannah Arendt - decentralize, decentralize, decentralize democracy - until everybody can have their say in a formal decision-making institution..

No worries re: links

Again I want to highlight that finding objective references is becoming increasingly hard.

I don't know if you know who Terry McCran (sp.?) is but I heard him on the radio last night slamming the media up here in Sydney for being biased during the election. He's called for a review of editorial practices in the media. I think you and I know that the bias goes higher up the food chain than the editors. The challenge is that people believe what they read in the media (back the ignorant theory mentioned above in this thread) - that's why I try to not use media references with people because it taints things.

I'm wondering what bias (if any) came out of the Melbourne media during the election by your observations?

Terry McCrann is a conservative economist (actually, I'm not sure of his formal qualifications, if any) who writes for the tabloid media. A bit of an Alan Jones type of character.

As for Melbourne, well the Herald-Sun, as always, supported the Coalition and spent most of their time condemning the Greens' drug policies. The Age, nominially the more liberal of the papers also supported the Coalition which caused a very notable backlash among its readers.

Very interesting. Conversely, the media up here is under scrutiny for it's starch support of the ALP and damming reports on the current government.

In fact, an article this Monday morning in the the SMH labled all people who voted for the coallition as "toads". Something which caused a back-lash of readers up here too. The SMH typically weighs in at a middle-left to centre position and The Telegraph is typically a little more left leaning on federal issues and central on state issues, but this time round it was hard to tell the Telegraph from the SMH.

Terry McCrann's comments / criticisms were (and trying to keep my objective hat on) fair in my opinion this time round. Even up until polling day you could have been forgiven for believing that the ALP were going to win with a huge land-slide based on the journo coverage.

The outcome of all of this is that the print media up here has lost a significant amount of credability, and deservedly so in my opinion. Whilst I may have enjoyed their comentary and take on things I secretly underneath remeber thinking about three weeks ago that it was going to blow up intheir faces at some point down the track.

It could be argued that a university based within our country doing this sort of activity is a bit of a crock but at least it's happening and it appears as though they are drawing on international input.

Lastly on: Is the answer therefore to accept simplistic results of possibly dishonest political marketing campaigns?

In my opinion, telling lies should be illegal. Full stop. I don't care who you are or where you come from (regardless of parlimentary privlege or any other excuse you want to come up with) the instant dishonesty creeps into political campaigns (of any persuasion) credibility begins to erode. I think we saw this from both major parties in the election just gone.

Note here I'm not giving my opinion on political parties changing their minds and not articulating that clearly (which I believe happens too often). Essentially I've come full circle in the answer to your question, whilst ever the lies are there and heresay is used as a reference over objectivity, the people smart enough to seek objective references will not out number the those who believe the lies or opinions of others and the outcome will be determined the way it is now - thus your statement of democracy is a system of government where the knowledgeable and the ignorant are accorded equal weight.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The pre-election post...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject