[fringe_dweller]

Originally Posted by AJames

Odd observations and some questions.

Why does the Labour Party call itself the Labor Party without the "u"?

Even my spell checker writing this post says it is with the "u", and I thought in Australia we use the British version of the spelling.

If the word "colour" is correct instead of the Americanised "color", then why not "Labour" instead of their usage of "Labor"?

Is it all an American plot, or does Johnny and Kev think they're running for the Aussie Pres?

I think it was in the early 20th century, when there was a huge 'everything american' was in fashion, as it periodically is here, the brits are still 'labour

Originally Posted by AJames

Secondly. If we live in a so-called free democracy, and we are supposed yo have free will to choose what we want to do, then why is it compulsory for every Aussie to vote on polling day?

I find this arguement extremly offensive and disingenous when I hear it constantly sprouted by neocons and the general conservatives, why is it such a burning issue to them, surely theres more important things? I dont hear people complaining they have to sit for their drivers licence, register their dogs, pay the rego on their car - why does the right wing side of politics constantly harp and dog whistle about this, why coz the right wingers are the biggest nutters and most passionate about control, and are always garaunteed to vote (not to mention the fundie bring on the apocaplypse so i can go to heavan religous nutters instructing/directing/ordering there flocks to do so, while the lazy handout commies are nursing their hangovers witness the US, more people voted for american idol than the national elections!

Originally Posted by AJames

Thirdly, if you want to post a postal vote, why are you expected to add and pay for a postage stamp when you register to get a ballot paper? Yet when you get the ballot paper and send it back it is postage paid?

AJames

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Why even call the Labour/Labor party such when clearly they also have evolved to represent a broader more diverse group of interests... developers are hardly ones notion of "Labour" or "Labor" yet they provide I suspect the bulk of contribution to that party..and to the other party.

you could say why are the liberals called that!? when they are anything but 'liberal' in the US sense of the word

Originally Posted by AJames

In the arguments towards any defence of politics and the idea of representative democracy, is still always is based that their actual need and existence is held solely in the hands of the people. This is the grand illusion.
As the idea of democracies comes from the original Athenian Greeks, where the people voted on their elected officials and on many social issues using black and white coloured stones, which were placed in a large pot. Simply the majority would prevail - everyone equal (or guilty) for the decision. The problem in a short time became corruption, where artificial votes were manufactured or individuals would vote many times.
It is interesting that the concept of democracy, we have the basic democratic right for all individuals to influence the future for themselves and even towards the whole species - only to find change is really based more on the decisions of only a fractional minority of elected officials at the immense cost of sacrificing real input into the process of the future direction and course of the democracy.
In my view, the central problem with today's democracy(s) is the huge reality gap between the elected officials and the people who have elect them. For me the given representation by any election process is a two-edged sword. Only a few will represent the whole, but once they are voted in, they become the prime sources (and targets) of the conflict, because they are hidden away from the real desires of those who voted for them, and are completely isolated for those that voted against them.
It has always seemed odd to me that anyone not believing in these basic premises will be quickly swept under the carpet - immediately labelled as; Ie. A communist, socialist, extremist or troublemaker. Yet it will always first be the politician, who in defence of his politics, will immediately point-out the diametric view, stating the worst case scenario, being extremes like anarchy, political decay and loss of a particular way of life. In Australia's case this is the presumed demise of the whole Westminster System.
Such views are clearly portrayed this way because any kind of political change would likely transfer the ambitions and power base held by the incumbent politicians (and their parties), and place more direct control and choice among the electors. Defence for the established political systems given by many parliamentary bodies (or any elected body), is that many decisions are often either needed to be made quickly (Ie. Economics, natural disasters or wars, etc.) or that some matters must be decided in the whole population's best interest (Crime, health, ethics, etc.).
Conflicting with this is that political power cannot be held in perpetuity. For politicians to survive, decisions also have to be towards their power base - the party, the branch of the party and the people - else they cannot implement there policies nor be re-elected. Unfortunately, the paradigm of the party-based system also means the person in not the "best man" or "best skilled" for the job, but who happened to be savvy enough or had the most charisma to get nominated to contest the election. Thus another failure of democracy is that many of the very best possible representatives who could contribute more for their country, have overrun by those that are either power grabbing perennial politicians or nominees from a sometimes biassed party-political process. Again this process overrides control directly by the people.
What worries me is that in Australia, few are even willing to debate or challenge the current policies. Ie. The sedition laws or restrictions of freedom, liberty or even assembly.
We are all quite literally happy to "bow-down" to the dictates of the few we do elect, based only on the deluded premise that those we elect will always act in our best interest - like an adult holding the hand of a child as they cross the road. It always seems that when the voters get complacent it always follows that there is an erosion of people's democracy and freedom - governments imposing their will for the "best interests of the population". The government views this - if they are not interested we must be doing the right thing - so we will go a little further.
In reality though, more often than not, voting really only is "bowing down" to the policies following the party-line, favouring the dictates of those who are powerful enough to persuade or influence a group of like-minded people to follow certain policies. Although it is quite true that people are free to join parties, most never do, either because they often feel they do not have the capacity to formulate ideas, or that they don't have the time or the means of having influence to change things for the better - either for their community, party or country.
Such two-levelled democracy greatly weakens the individual's ability to change.
Another second significant failure is the wrongly implemented concept of the referendums - rules to change any policy. These referendums were supposed to enable changes to the Society or their rules, but have been neutered by requiring two-thirds and majority, flagrant division on party lines, and a population not being able to ask or decide on the question. Referendums instead of being are ultimately controlled by the parliament, and this is made worse by the politicians knowing how to exploit it. Ie. John Howard (and the Liberals) controlled the two referendum questions in November 1999 by asking the divisive and indirect question of some republican model ; instead of the vox populi question "Should Australia become a republic?" - then develop models of its adoption - and not the other way around.

coz he's 'mean and tricky' and takes the electorate for mugs, he has been right so far

Originally Posted by AJames

One of the modern suggestions to solving all these problems is the so-called neo-democracies, a future availed in the uses of information and computer technology. In this world elections, referendums and polls are made by computer input via a unique personal identification signature - either by some password, identicard, using the individuals DNA coding or iris/fingerprint matching the voter to the vote. Advances in technology have the ability of making the process foolproof, but requires dedication by the Government to impliement it. As more of the population become proficient in using computers and media, they become more able to interact with the election process and can make real decisions towards the political process.

At least they have done this for the visually impaired voters.

AJames

strangley that would involve the re-invention of the australia card by stealth, and they have in in the offing, but is on the backburner till after the election i believe - but your right, that would take the i cant drag my lazy arse off to the polling booth every 3 years (should be 4) crowd i got more important things than paying respect to what thousands of people died and struggled for in my name - oh but I can go to anzac day ceremomies!

I agree with alex Your damn good AJames impressive!