The pre-election post...

[tcpip]

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..

Comments

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

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?

[feedthefetish.livejournal.com]

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

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

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..

[feedthefetish.livejournal.com]

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?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

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.

[feedthefetish.livejournal.com]

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.

[feedthefetish.livejournal.com]

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.