There is a political party that has been created under an international basis of a confederation of national parties. It is called the "Draneian party." It comes from the word Dran (Jrahn in Jrahnitoan) and it means unity and truth or truth through unity as it may also be defined. It can also be defined as god as it is in the religion of Jrahnism under a monotheistic viewpoint and it can be indentified as simply as truth in the philosophical athiestic sense of mind. Currently the Draneian party houses members only in Europe (mainly Norway, France, and Turkey) and United States, but it would certainly like to grasp into Australia to help out the Australian people through its virtue of unity and truth rather than conspiracies, lies, and/or fragmentation which is quite oftenly seen through political pratice throughout the world.

The Draneian Party of any nation operates as a mean of establishing posts or small organizations which gather information from the people either willingly or through a passive investigation of catching information as it is told from the public out in the public. This is the very essence of Draneism which is never utilized in any other form of politics. Draneism uses the information it has acquired from the people and utilizes it as it is necessary to establish, re-establish, direct, or/and re-direct the government to affiliate through the wishes of the people to establish a flourishing society of national unity and regional autonomy with the conservation of its culture.

There is a list of ideas for Australia that the Draneian Party has considered. The Draneian Party won't take into any of its ideas without approval from the Australian people as the Draneian Party is neither oppressive nor outrageous. The Draneian Party is a fresh (new and hardly even a party) society of philosophical political analysists seeking to solve problems in the best interest of the people that constitutes with the most logical means.

Here is a small summary of the ideas already made for Australia. I am deeply sorry if my post has trailed off-topic. I am just simply trying to introduce something that could be seen relative in a sense of mind to this topic by what it represents.

The attachment seen is a map of Australia founded under the image of Draneism. It shows two large super-states (administrative region that is administrated through a collective union of states, sort of a like a confederation within a unitary or federal state) observed as Northern and Southern Australia. These super-states are further divided into states, which can be divided into provinces (regional areas in each state that holds a cultural distinction or may seek secession due to other reasons, it is a clever way of keeping a state together without having to divide that state into more states), and those provinces into counties and cities.

Australia would be administered much in the same way it is now, except with some minor differences.

1) The Australia would three leading office seats of executive administration. The first (Prime Minister) being a fixed elective position from national popular vote of domestic concerns nominated from the lower house of legislation from a position not pertaining to the current composition of members in the lower house of legislation. The second (Speaker) being a fixed elective position from of foreign concerns (war, diplomacy, and trade) that is nominated from the upper house of legislation from a position not pertaining to the current composition of members in the upper house of legislation. The third and final (Elected-Monarch) being a non-fixed or permanent until otherwise elected based on meritocratic principles in a national-wide popular vote. The Elected-Monarch has reserved emergency powers, ceremonial roles to act in representation of the nation as a whole, and the preserved authority to break up opposition that may occur between the other two ranking positions of executive authority. There is also a forth position, which serves as the highest ranking military official identified as the Marshall of Military Services. The Marshall is a presently commissioned officer that is elected by all other military personnel into his or her position based on merit and outstanding performance. The Marshall holds grounds of perserving the government during an emergency declared by the Parliament that entitles the Elected-Monarch his or her preserved authority until government can be restored.

2) Australia would have three houses of legislation, the Senate, the Chamber of Censors, and the House of Representatives. The Senate is the highest house of legislation (no freaking duh) and its representation is based on an equal distribution of three for each state and two for each territory. (One elected by popular vote in each state, one elected for ethnic minority (which can include women or men depending on the minority status placed on gender and disabled individuals this is of course established by each state on what they think should be the considered ethnic minority), and 1 individual elected into office by the state or territory's legislature) Territories wouldn't have to worry about an ethnic minority so much as they don't have so many people to consider such a proposal.

More to continue on the next pages.

2) "continued" The middle house of legislature would consist of Censors or representatives that are selected from political parties that have one an electional seat from a university. National, Capital, and state leveled universities or top and equally ranked colleges all take part in electing a member from their school and a political party of their choice. There are a reserved fixed number of 120 seats. The Universities and Colleges certainly cannot fit into that number altogether so the political parties after winning an election in a university can select a group of its own members to fill in the remaining seats based on percentage of univesities that have favored that political party. The role of the Censory is simply to establish rules of proceedure in the legislature and pass legislation sent from either the house or senate, however it cannot make legislature on its own except for the proceedure of conduct and such that is placed in the legislative branch. The lowest house is the house of representatives, which is affiliated with domestic issues of taxation and such. Its members are selected based on a numerical value based off the national population such as one representative for every one-hundred-thousand people and an additional representative for the remainder. The Super-States primarily take part in establishing the electorial districts for each election based on the population in each super state.

That is pretty much it except for an independent judicial with a superior judicial tribunal court and a inferior appointed high court of justices that serve as advisors, substitutes, and such for the Superior Court Justices, a constitutional branch to protect the rights of the people from the abuse of the government that is headed by a chancellor nominated by the tribunal and elected by the people, and an electorial branch to keep the election process independent from the executive that may seek to abuse and fraud it to it's advantage.

And above in the attachment you can see the idea proposal of establishing more states.

My general idea is to establish two super-states. One which will encompass the region of Australia dominated by the English language and the other dominated by the aboriginal languages. The super-states do not divide up the country, yet rather unite various regions base on their own affiliation and distinction. Most of what you see is the establishing more territories and two or more states. Most of the territories are grouped together to establish the Northern Australian Super-State.

I placed named for each new state/territory based on what I thought at the time was the most appropriate.

By the way, I'm not Australian. I'm an American, but because I'm a cosmopolitan and consider all humans to be of bunch of tribes under one greatly diverse race that we should look together and work together as fellow human beings rather than as something any less than such so we can fix these problems that still effect each other even if they are seen as just seperate instances and concerns. Also, I hope my grammar wasn't any bit incomprehensive for any of you. Ciao

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2007 at 4:06pm:


I've been working this idea up with the Norwegians, so I don't think it is really much of a contradiction if you set up the lower house to only be concerned about domestic issues.

Quote:


Because if I did then what would I call both of them together and under terms that I could use in other countries?

I prefer super-state, since there is no other term to use. I could use Canton if you want, but canton is generally the same as a state or province. Perhaps prefection or union fits the bill?

Maybe you should have Northern Australia be redubbed as "The Outback" or "Australian Outback."

But I wouldn't consider issuing in "The People" for any identity, because that is entirely communist or Maoistic/Stalinistic. I would rather use a different identity if I were you.

Quote:


That's quite true, but look at the United States. The president chooses his own generals to say whatever he wants just so that the Americans can continue their B.S. occupation in Iraq. So I hope that had cleared it up for you. Also, the highest ranking military personnel is completely subordinate to the Speaker, which therefore makes the entire military suborinate of the people, since they were the ones that elected the Speaker.

Quote:


I'm simply just announcing current ideas. These aren't any means static and will probably be changed in due time by ideas presented by actual citizens.

freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2007 at 4:31pm:


I could also ask to divide Russia up into Siberia and European Russia, which would seperate 70% of Russia that had only 20% of the population. It is a reasonable condition that could allow Russia admitance into the E.U. Why not used a similar idea when it comes to establishing an aboriginal state out of Australia?

Besides it will eventually grow in size as more aboriginals decide to migrate there, increasing its population up to at least half a million. If laws were indited that would strongly consider a large population boom for aboriginal people, then you would see a boast of 20% of population throughout all of Australia rather than in the single digits of a percentile. Does this make better sense to you?

What exactly are you proposing?

[quote author=freediver link=1188021047/0#5 date=1188269688]I'm not proposing anything. Would white people be allowed into the aboriginal state?[/quote]

Well I would like to hear your ideas if you have any to share.

Yes Anglo-men would be allowed in the aboriginal state. But the migration of the peach-man, which you call the white-man would have to be considered by the aboriginals on how many can immigrate into that land. 

If the Aboriginal people decided to not have any "whites" in their populace then it is sort of out of my hands, although I would go at it in the best of my ability to sort the whole issue out so that the "whiteman" or anyone who isn't "aboriginal" can travel/live in that region. But it is hard to say how successful I would be if I am not even at least successful gaining momentum in establishing this political party in Australia.

You could say the situation involving how popular the Draneian party is in Australia will determine how the Draneian party can serve in the interest of racial equality in Australia after it has gain some grounds of some sort.

A = B it is that simple

freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2007 at 11:03am:


LOL! I will not deny that it seems very much so. I'm guessing you are either an aboriginal, someone who cares about the aboriginals, or someone worried about the aboriginals. Well anyways, to make it most correct. It would be much harder to establish and aboriginal state out of areas that are by far more dominated by the Anglo-Australian population. What do you propose I do? Seek to remove them when it is quite certain that most of them will not move.

And there are ways to to turn rotting land into prosperious land. Don't forget this isn't the 19th or 20th century. We do have the technology. The only true question is if people will ever use it for their advantage. For instance, it is quite certainly possible due to their being a large desert in the center of Australia that there might be oil there like there is in Saudi Arabia (one huge desert) and Iran (many areas of desert like environmental areas). The aboriginals could prosper from oil there or there might be a sort of plant or animal that has a certain by product that could seem useful in the field of science and medicine that we haven't yet discovered. Certainly there must be something that will unite the regions as one in economic terms and that alone is substantial. But yes most of that area is quite unfertile and such, but it is already most inhabited by aboriginals. Why not make a state out of it?

I do believe it is quite possible to benefit from that land in way or another either by using whats there and by chance benefiting or use technology and establish something that can be prosperious. They could benefit as a tourist economy by providing tours for people interested in the large diversity of animals and plants that live in Australia and not found on the costal areas that are dominated by Anglo-Australians.

I would also like to add from that statement above that you could also removed dumpings (poop) from treatment water and use it as fertilizer for farming or for re-forestization to repair the wildlife after something that took place (lets say a hurricane or typhoon or man made actions) that destroyed much of it. However you need an extremely accurate, reliable, and sensitive system that can filter out the human droppings from other agents (such as gasoline that might be poured down a toilet or someone dumb enough to drop a toothbrush or wedding ring down the drain) and water so that the nothing unwanted becomes used for fertilizer and water can be re-used and re-consumed from that which was previously consumed. And when I mean consumed, I mean used in the facility for whatever reason before being sent down the drain.

Quote:


Actually I think it is necessary for a farmer to develope some sort of bachelor's degree in agriculture or animal domestication in order to became a farmer. Otherwise it is very likely he is doomed to fail and I think the amount of assitance for a farmer should be equal for what they have contributed. But any farmer should have assitance from a dought at least once per owner or generation (whichever comes first). So lets say William Turner has drought assistance at the age of 33 when he started his farm and then kicks the bucket at the age of 57 with his 22 year old son is in charge of running the farm. Should William Turner Junior be pentalized for his father having assistance before his birth. Needless to say, if a farm needs drought assistance the amount given besides the generation/century thing should be equal to what they give out in consumption of other people. Because lets say that farm is the only agricultural source of food within an entire county. If it goes down then the whole county goes down. Therefore, further assitance must be met by the country and additional if it can be mustered by the government to keep the farm going, but only for as much as it is contributing. If a farm is contributing on a massive scale, then certainly it should be given a lot of assitance in the event of a drought because it has become a vital concern issue for the entire country. Of course no farm is this significant, but I am just portraying the importance of certain farms to certain regions and for certain circumstances of why such farms should be given additional assitance. Or they should be fined for the assistance required. Be in dept until they can pay back.

Quote:


Agreed. We need to stop overpopulating or else we will end eating each other for food. LOL! Hmm... Australian Bacon. LOL!

Quote:


I concure.

Quote:


Godly damn do I agree with this principle. In fact it is nearly the very idea of Draneism = United Truth.

But I do have some differences (well they may be differences)

You see my idea is to create a five-branched government like in Taiwan and Venezuela. But you have a Pariamentary-Presidential system of two prime minister like figures and a president. The President acts as the tie breaker between the two prime minister, one of which is in control of foreign issues and the other with domestic concerns. They are all elected by the people, though the means of which they get nominated differ. Then you have a tricameral legislature with a popularly elected assembly or house, a senate for federalized concerns, and third (chamber of censors) which cuts off any disputes between the two. The third is an elected, independent Judicial Branch. The Forth is a constitutional branch that works on protecting the citizens from the abuse of the government (Libertarian idea). And the final branch is the Electorial, which is in charge of maintaining the electorial process seperate of the other branches of the government. The use of the electorial branch is key-wise eccential in insuring that such concerns debated in a popular forum are met and then resulted to show where the system should run. Now the way the system should run is that domestic concerns are presented to a representative who then presents them to the house. The house will vote on approving this issue for legislation and may present such to the people as a needed approval not to necessarily approve or disapprove the bill, but to show how the bill should be written. So that there is no hidden little tibit in the law that acts out against the people when it is suppose to be beneficial for the people. Get what I'm saying?

What do you propose I do? Seek to remove them when it is quite certain that most of them will not move.

I still haven't figured out what you hope to achieve with this scheme. It seems like change for the sake of change.

And there are ways to to turn rotting land into prosperious land.

There are of course limitations, including economic. There's no point spending thousands of dollars greening a patch of desert to grow 50c worth of potatoes.

For instance, it is quite certainly possible due to their being a large desert in the center of Australia that there might be oil there like there is in Saudi Arabia

Are you saying that the desert is somehow a cause of the oil?

I would like to keep the discussion of the two parties separate, so that the threads are a more useful reference to people looking into them. You should raise the SPA issues here:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1177228122

or start a new thread.

Why do you think it is a scheme

Do you object to that description?

why do you think my party is like a change for the sake of change?

Because I see no purpose in the proposed changes.

Honestly why would you assume that I would say that oil is always found in a desert?

It was just an odd way to introduce the idea. It's like saying there might be gold under a potato field because there was gold under overseas potato fields.

Why are you trying to become such a pest?

I am just trying to understand the proposals. If you think that is being a pest, that is your problem. I'm surprised you aren't glad for the opportunity to promote the benefits.

You know very well that I was comparing my issues with your own "if that is even your own party" to show you that my party is virtually the same and shame on you for ignoring that truth.

How is it the same?