Election 2022

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Mine too...

The Greens have their place, but they're not someone I want holding the office of Prime Minister, but they do need a seat at the table to help "keep the bastards honest" and have some influence on environmental policy.

But they've become too extreme.

I guess I'm a realist too.

I'm the same. A lot of their policy ideas actually make good sense. But a lot of them are outright madness, and unfortunately the madness seems to outweigh the good sense.
 

SadKangaroo

New member
All just too depressing.
Yep...

The icing on that turd of a cake is what I'm hearing from internal polling from within the Labor war room.

They're not making any movement on the marginal Lib seats in QLD and of the 7 seats they need to gain to form an outright government (it's technically more than that, but reasons), some of their own marginals are in play, so 7 could increase to 14.

Albo is great one on one, talking to voters and even media people. Hell, he turned Kyle Sandilands ON AIR... He's got Carl from Today on board, but Carl is still shilling for the Libs because it's his job.

Albo's great at putting forward his/Labor vision for the country, something that is lacking from the Libs, not the ability to put forward their vision, but having one. It changes depending on who is the highest bidder.

But he has 9, 7, 10 and the ABC against him (see Leigh Sales interview with Scomo) plus the Fairfax and the Murdoch press.

UAP are lying their arses off in their ads, they'll likely place the Libs candidates in all their how to votes guides in 2nd preference again.

There is no "one on one".

It's such an uphill battle but it needs to be won.

Still early days yet and despite Albo coming out on top of the debate the other night, it's being painted as a Scomo win by the usual suspects, in one of the strangest ways from Paul Murray from SkyNews claiming Anthony Albanese only "won" the debate because he "alpha-maled" the PM with his body language and toxic masculinity...

I feel like Frank Grimes...

 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Mine too...

The Greens have their place, but they're not someone I want holding the office of Prime Minister, but they do need a seat at the table to help "keep the bastards honest" and have some influence on environmental policy.

But they've become too extreme.

I guess I'm a realist too.

I'm voting ALP 1 and Greens 1 in the Senate.

The ALP candidate for my area isa good woman. I've had some dealings with her and she really cares about her constituents. She's in a pretty safe seat, i'm glad to report.

But Greens 1 in the senate, definitely. I'm not as dismayed by some of their kookier policies as others. I don;t see them as particularly more extreme in a nice way that the current bunch of absolute bastards are in the other direction.

And they don't take money from big, nasty corporations. Like everyone else does.
 

SadKangaroo

New member
And they don't take money from big, nasty corporations. Like everyone else does.
That's a huge plus.

The only way to fix our democracy is to take the money out of politics, or at the least, make the politicians wear patches like race car drivers for those who sponsor them so at least we know at all times.
 

Cacatuoidea

New member
... Ban ALL political donations and ...
Unfortunately I'll never live long enough to see a Parliament that does that. The sad reality is that they're ALL in politics for the undeserved pay packets, and the unfettered desire to keep the respective Parties alive as thriving businesses. We won't even get a box marked "None of the above" on the ballot sheets.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Unfortunately I'll never live long enough to see a Parliament that does that. The sad reality is that they're ALL in politics for the undeserved pay packets, and the unfettered desire to keep the respective Parties alive as thriving businesses. We won't even get a box marked "None of the above" on the ballot sheets.

I don't think any of us will live long enough to see that, nor will our children.

I don't think that all get into politics for the pay packet (although many do) but I think the system is skewed to reward those who are. Those in it for profit will sell their souls to get more, that includes making deals with the devil. Those in it for genuine reasons won't survive long term as the more selfish one will do whatever they can to protect their profits.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
That's a huge plus.

The only way to fix our democracy is to take the money out of politics, or at the least, make the politicians wear patches like race car drivers for those who sponsor them so at least we know at all times.
If the US or Australia actually did have a direct/true democracy, instead of a representative(presidential and parliamentary) democracy, then there would be no need for money or lobbyists in politics. But, requiring every eligible voter to understand and vote on every government issue(taxes, military intervention, housing, utilities, laws, etc.) would be impractical and expensive. Therefore, we elect representatives to represent the needs of the majority. But, because of the apathy, ignorance, and indifference of the majority, our representatives are targeted by single issue lobbyists, and groups that don't always represent the interests/needs of the people.


As Tulsi Gabbard found out the hard way, that trying to campaign to take money out of politics, or to stop the revolving door to private industry appointments, IS JUST POLITICAL SUICIDE. The government will always control the narrative that it wants people to hear. It's propaganda experts can frame any dissenting narrative as being disloyal, uninformed, or as being just dangerous.

Unfortunately, the majority of Australians couldn't collectively agree on the price of petrol. We are a nation that determines its truths, by how frequently it is represented over the media. The majority of people in society are politically indifferent, ignorant, apathetic, or just plain lazy in holding their representatives accountable. So, the last thing that any government representative wants, is for the people to realize just how powerful their vote is. Representative must be accountable for their inactions, as well as their actions. If they don't deliver, they're out.

At the end of the day, it is the people who are responsible for the government they have!
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
But, requiring every eligible voter to understand and vote on every government issue(taxes, military intervention, housing, utilities, laws, etc.) would be impractical and expensive.

there is no need for that. Voters need only vote for the issues they care about. Majority wins on every 'ballot' . That way you are less likely to get those that have no interest on the military for example, voting on issues to do with the military. Whereas those whose life is the military would be more inclined to vote on issues affecting them.

Sure it's not perfect ... but neither is our current system.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
there is no need for that. Voters need only vote for the issues they care about. Majority wins on every 'ballot' . That way you are less likely to get those that have no interest on the military for example, voting on issues to do with the military. Whereas those whose life is the military would be more inclined to vote on issues affecting them.

Sure it's not perfect ... but neither is our current system.
There is no need for what? There ARE no true/direct democracies in existence. Because, it "would be impractical and expensive.". I think the examples I posited("..taxes, military intervention, housing, utilities, laws, etc.), should be of interest to the majority of Australians. Are you suggesting that voters should ignore issues/policies that they have no interests in? What are some examples of these types of policies?

Not sure what you mean by, "majority wins on every ballot". To my knowledge, only candidates/parties are represented on the federal ballot box. Not issues and policies. And, since Australia uses a mandatory preferential voting system, theoretically, your vote could elect your least preferred candidate. So "majority" is relative at best.

This reminded me of a world talent contest where Guy Sebastian represented Australia. The judges couldn't vote for the performer representing their own country(they automatically received the maximum votes). So they would just give the higher marks to the worst performers in other countries. Unfortunately, all the judges did the same thing. Hoping that some of the judges would cast high votes for their performer. But as expected, the worst performer won(IMHO).

The media can manufacture public interest. If the media characterizes crimes as being out of control without context, law and order will become the majority's interests. If the media characterizes foreign immigration as taking more Australian jobs without context, then immigration will become the new interest for the majority. If the media claims that 4 yo need to be vaccinated against a new "killer" flu, then that will be the interest of the majority.

I agree with you, that if you mean the daily operations of the military(which I wasn't talking about), then it is definitely of no interest to me. But deploying Australian troops to fight unnecessary wars, is definitely of interest to me.
 
Last edited:

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Are you suggesting that voters should ignore issues/policies that they have no interests in?

no, I'm suggesting that there is no need to make them vote on EVERY bill if they are not interested. Make voting on the bills optional.

Whilst people should be interested in those things you listed, the reality is that many do not give a shit.


Not sure what you mean by, "majority wins on every ballot".
we were discussing voting on bills in parliament in a direct democracy, not our current system.

The media can manufacture public interest.
The media can and does manufacture public interest now. Whats the difference? In a direct democracy it would be up to the person presenting the bill to sell it. If he can't sell it to the public than it most likely was not that great to start with.


I agree with you, that if you mean the daily operations of the military
no, not what I meant at all.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
no, I'm suggesting that there is no need to make them vote on EVERY bill if they are not interested. Make voting on the bills optional.
Are you suggesting that our legislators/representatives should vote only on the bills that they are interested in? I thought ALL bills/legislations had some level of benefit to all Australians(or the majority). Why should we pay our MP's a basic salary of almost 190K to make voting on ANY bill optional. If they're this lazy, then they can have their well-paid staff do all the research and advise them.

All legislators/representatives should be required to vote YEA, NAY, or ABSTAIN, on ALL bills/proposals introduced into parliament. And, they should explain their vote. We need to know where our representatives stand on any issue/bill.

Whilst people should be interested in those things you listed, the reality is that many do not give a shit.
If reality means, that the majority of Australians don't give a shit about taxes, fuel costs, cost of living, food/services costs, infrastructural costs, housing and rent increases, etc., then they are apathetic masochists. Who simply enjoy whining and bitching, rather than doing anything about it.

we were discussing voting on bills in parliament in a direct democracy, not our current system.
NO. I stated that no direct democracy exists in the world, and explained why(twice). The context was about money in politics. In a direct democracy, it would be much harder to bribe all of the voters individually. But, in a representative(presidential, parliamentary) democracy, only one person needs to be "wined and dined". That was my point.

The media can and does manufacture public interest now. Whats the difference? In a direct democracy it would be up to the person presenting the bill to sell it. If he can't sell it to the public than it most likely was not that great to start with.
First, let's agree that a good bill, in theory, should NOT need to be sold to anyone. It should be able to stand on its own merits and its own details. The messenger should be irrelevant. But to answer your question. In a direct democracy ONE person is not going to reach out to over 15M voting Australians with his message. However the media can put out their message to many more Australians, many times a day. And their interpretation of the message may be completely different than that of the author's message. So, simply blaming the seller for not selling the product, is a bit simplistic. IMO.

Tulsi Gabbard's message was to completely stop all regime-change wars by America, bring those soldiers home, and use the war-money($Billions) to support urgent housing, infrastructures, education, jobs, etc., programs at home. Even though her message ticked all of the boxes, the media assaulted her loyalty(she was a major), her religion, her gender, her nationality, and even her integrity. The slurs became the headlines, and her message became the footnote. It was never about the message(bill). It was always been about who you know, and who knows you.

no, not what I meant at all.
Did you mean that Australians should not be interested in where our troops are sent, or why?
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Are you suggesting that our legislators/representatives should vote only on the bills that they are interested in?
what fucking legislators? We are talking about what would happen in a DIRECT DEMOCRACY. In a DD, there is no need for 'legislators' as you currently know them.

In a direct democracy ONE person is not going to reach out to over 15M voting Australians with his message.
He won't need to. Others that support the bill will sell it for him.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
what fucking legislators? We are talking about what would happen in a DIRECT DEMOCRACY. In a DD, there is no need for 'legislators' as you currently know them.


He won't need to. Others that support the bill will sell it for him.
In the beginning, I thought that you and your mates were only good at gas-lighting people, misrepresenting their comments, ignoring their facts, or just changing the goal posts until people stop wasting their time. But I now realize that you really don't understand what I'm saying. And use these tools to hide this fact.

I only mentioned a DD in response to a comment about money in politics! Totally ignored the context. I said that no DD even existed in the world. Again, completely ignored. I even explained why a DD would be impractical and expensive to have. Also ignored!

I mentioned that we have a representative(presidential or parliamentary) democracy. This would include LEGISLATORS, REPRESENTATIVES, POLITICIANS, etc., by definition. Clearly not understood or ignored.

If you believe that your representatives should be able to pick and choose which bills/legislature/proposals they want to vote on, then I disagree. They are public servants, and are paid to legislate on our behalf, for fuck's sake!

voters need only vote for the issues they care about. Majority wins on every 'ballot' . That way you are less likely to get those that have no interest on the military for example,
Again I ask. What are some of the issues/bills/proposals on the federal ballot box that voters can directly vote on(where the majority wins)? OH! And, I'm talking about a representative democracy(not DD). Maybe you can also give some examples of issues that most Australians would have no interest in? Or, issues that would have very little effect on their lives? Surely, there must be some policies/bills you can cite as an example(agriculture, public health, travel and tourism, hospitality, fuel prices, taxation, national security, housing and education, immigration, jobs, infrastructure, etc.)?

He won't need to. Others that support the bill will sell it for him.
This sounds like gibberish to me. How can others (in a DD) support a bill that they know nothing about? And, why would others need to sell the bill to the person who created it in the first place? Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.
 
Top