http://vtr.aec.gov.au/

(Note, Liberal are still in front, so democracy cant be entirely dead yet, I believe there's still hope, if our ignorants will only open their eyes.)

I bought a few books yesterday, one which is pointless recommending to you really because I doubt any of you will be able to obtain a copy of it. Well, if you can, it's called...

Democracy and Treason in Australia by Alan Gourley

It was written in 1987, and just how accurate he was in so may ways.

It explains everything.

Being someone who did not vote in this election and therefore holding no particular bias to any side or party - I would add that should a Government form on the basis of the whims of a couple of independents representing a tiny portion of the people - it will indeed be a shambles of a democracy.

I would like to see a re-run of an election of voluntary voting of first-past-the-post - whoever gains a majority from that, should govern.

Quite simply, it's a people who uphold a nations democracy, not it's governments, though when you have governments unwilling to allow a people their say, or even right to vote on certain constitutional changes who set about controlling the media the way they currently are, this is far from ethical, and or even lawful with respects to our constitutional rights as Australian citizens.

Mellie, I think I am going to get the book "My Journey" which is Tony Blair's memoirs.

He is the first person who almost got me to vote Labour in 1997.
In the end I backed the Conservatives in that election but he was the first 'third way' politician who caused Labour to remove their old socialist values and become electable again.

Rudd's Labor aped what Blair did to success.

I think it'll be a good read.

Though he somebody chucked eggs at him yesterday at a book signing and some crackpot tried to make a 'citizen's arrest'!!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:16pm:


The mandate and authority to choose the next government rightfully passed to the Independents because neither of the two major parties offered a compelling argument on why they should allowed to form government. Who else should be allowed to decide? Someone has to make the decision. The two major parties are part of the problem. That is why the decision should be made by them.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:16pm:


I would not support a voluntary voting system. It allows extremists to propel their agenda into government. Religious fundamentalists like those in the U.S. would flood the stream of votes with their self-righteous and supremacist agenda. The Christian Bible Belt of Australia would be even bigger now if we had a voluntary voting system. Hatred of homosexuals would be stronger and more intense and there would be more racism. Religious fundamentalists and ethnic separatists would shout louder and louder. Success in elections would reinforce the zeal and fanaticism with which the extremists push their agenda.

Australia's compulsory voting system was designed by the British to stop this from happening. The following link is to a page that describes how the system works.

http://www.convictcreations.com/culture/politics.htm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 6:02pm:


Yes, I do. The question is, how are these other countries better off than Australia? Do they not have problems? Why should Australia's electoral system be replaced with their's? I don't see any compelling reason to replace the current electoral system.

Mnemonic wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 6:18pm:


I didn't say they were better off.

I was shooting down your argument that voluntary voting causes lunatic fringes to take hold of the system by giving you countless examples of countries with stable democracies.

I like the idea of people only voting if they choose to.

Forcing people to go to the polls is all a bit Mugabe for my liking.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 6:25pm:



You're falling into the trap of the USA being the only country in the world argument.

The US system is screwed on numerous fronts, none of them to do with voluntary voting.

What about all of the countries I listed?
Stable, moderate democracies - all with voluntary voting.

Is Holland in the pocket of the lunatic left or right?
Is Britain not a stable democracy?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 6:39pm:


But you would agree that switching to a voluntary system doesn't remotely jeopardise the stability of Australia's democracy and that voluntary voting is not the cause of the US system failures?

Northern Europe is the bedrock of stability.

Mnemonic wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 6:42pm:


Disagree.
It's your right to vote, it also should be your right not to vote.

If none of them are what you want, you should have the right to not even leave your house on election day.

Leaving the US aside, no other major country forces its people to the polls and all have stable democracies.

Mnemonic wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 6:52pm:


Why can't the AEC issue a smart card or similarly secure device to all Australians with a registered Tax File Number, so that come election or referendum day you can vote from the comfort of your home.  Couldn't be that difficult to instigate, nor particularly costly.

Only downside would be the lack of sausage sizzles, but you can always pop off to Bunnings or the local school fete for one of those.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 6:41pm:


But so is australia. we have probably the most stable system of govt in the world.

Quote:
-longweekend

I completely agree with longy, and while I recognise that there are some negatives connected to compulsory voting, on balance I firmly believe that the positives it also carries are enough to warrant our keeping voting compulsory.

Do a little internal debate for yourselves, and try and think of all the positives, and negatives, and see which side of the argument, you think wins.

I like the system we have and would not like to see it changed.

We are told to forget about the USA as an example so ok How about one of the other bastions of democracy the UK where a recent election was won with about 20% of the nations vote.

Aparently if 25% of the people approve of you its a landslide victory - only 75% hate you.

Its good to see those who lean mostly on the left who believe in the merits of compulsory voting and come out saying so.

stryder wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:53pm:


If they didn't, they would lose a good percentage of the leftwing vote, traditionally inhabited by the young, the lazy, the idealists and the stupid. You might still get the idealists in there, but the rest would be too busy pulling cones on the couch if they didn't have to

AND A VERY COLD WAR. 

Yahoon wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:59pm:



You are aware that it was introduced by a right wing govewrnment because they thought that they would get an advantage out of it by making those lazy well to do people who thought they were above having to vote be involved.

deepthought wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:58pm:


That would be a very "purist" definition of political freedom and it makes it sound almost fundamentalist. We already have political freedom. What I want is freedom from oppression, domination and persecution and I have that too.

deepthought wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:58pm:


Could paying taxes an infringement of your basic rights?

stryder wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:53pm:


I don't think any of us, left or right want to see our constitutional rights deflowered anymore than they have been.

With respects to this book I'm reading, I'm glad I found it and began reading it before seeing the link, because as much as I hate to admit it, (being agnostic)...I probably would have been reluctant on account of my own prejudice to read this little book had I seen it's link first.

Now, where are we:-some 25 years later and he was right on the mark.

What this man says is eerily truthful, and to this day, no politician has challenged him on what he saw coming, and in retrospect, this has indeed happened, and is happening now as we speak.

Clearly a very intelligent, insightful and concerned individual.


Also, I am pleased I was able to find an online copy for you lot to read...  because this book is well and truly out of print now, I was very fortunate to find my copy in an antique book shop yesterday.

The second I began reading it, I knew it was the real deal, and knew this man knew exactly what he was talking about when he wrote this book, given he was writing about what he saw coming one quarter of a century before it happened, was writing about what's happening now in the way of Australian politics, and the corruption of both democracy, and our constitution.

Quote:


Absolutely.

VOTING - not a right but a RESPONSIBILITY

================================================

Oh boy, and its 100% right, its the CLEAREST point, Australia has had a successful democracy, LETS MAKE SURE IT REMAINS THAT WAY.

The irony of how so many post-communist states actually emphasise the voluntary nature of voting.

Don't let the 'voluntary' concept of voting fool you into thinking it's about civil liberties, when in fact, it's their intention that a vast majority of those who may think they are exercising choice, this or have little understanding, or ambition/desire to learn about politics see voting as a waste of their time.

A chore, something they needn't bother with due to a nanny-state taking care of things for them in the absence of their vote.

They would much rather we were busying ourselves with other things, than exercising our democratic right to vote.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 11:16pm:


Spot on!

.....  And blank voting is the next worst thing.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 11:00pm:


We, as Australians have a right to participate in the political process.  Equally we should have the choice whether to exercise that right or not.

This is a basic right in a democratic state.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege and this privilege can be withdrawn if we do not comply with the Traffic Act or other related codes.

It is your definition of a 'right' which is broad.

We actually have few rights.  Much of what we do is controlled by legislation, such as driving.

But voting is one of those rights.  That right should be ours to exercise if we were to fairly describe our political sytem as free.

Let us now look at an article by Christopher Dawson in The Australian (20/11/1985) referring to comments by Professor Mark Cooray, Associate Professor of Law at Macquarie University:

The Government should not be allowed to get away with a passage of the Bill in Parliament in order to prevent and stifle public opinion and deceive the public.

"It fails to substantiate, advance or improve any of our existing rights or freedoms," he says. "It tends to devalue some of them by exclusion.

"The document is a propaganda exercise to present a selected package of rights as the totality of rights which we require. Thereby the stage is set for the gradual de-recognition and eventual abrogation of fundamental liberties and rights through social engineering and the gradual destruction of the liberal democratic system."

"The exclusion of property rights from the Bill deprives the document of much of its effective content and reduces it to the level of a socialist program on human rights.

"In societies which deny the right to hold, enjoy and productively use private property, citizens are dependent for their employment and livelihood on the government. They have therefore no capacity to oppose the government or to exercise their fundamental political rights.

"The exclusion of property rights . . . is a deliberate omission from a document designed to promote a socialist agenda.

". . . Why is the Government refusing to submit the Bill to the people?

Is it because of the Left's traditional mistrust of the electorate? If so, it has no moral authority to speak on behalf of the Australian people . . ."