atw: Re: OT: Grumbling About Elections... vote NONE OF THE ABOVE [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Bob Trussler <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:48:26 +1000
Peter,
Years ago - mid 1980s about - we had the 'Sun Ripened Warm Tomato Party'
in the ACT, along with the 'Lets Have a Party' and the 'Party Party Party',
and maybe others.
At that time, the ACT was just getting self government. The rules to
register a party were easily met. After the major parties realised that
"just anyone" could easily register a party, the rules were changed.
Surely to stifle democracy!
I was told that the rules were being changed during the election campaign!
Now, just anyone can register a new party BUT ONLY IF they can guarantee
several hundred party members or supporters, or whatever. The electoral
office contacts each supporter to make sure. Which means that it is very
hard to do.
For existing parties, there is a different set of rules that are easy to
comply with.
To me, the changes to the rules are quite immoral and anti-democratic.
Hmmph
Bob Trussler
On 20 August 2012 11:26, <Peter.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >The system is wrong. The system is corrupt. The system is not just
> amoral, it is immoral. I will not be forced to conform to a flawed,
> corrupt and immoral system.
> > End of story.
>
> Christine:
>
> Unlike some who support compulsory voting as it is, I have to say I think
> you have a point.
>
> But saying a system that is flawed is "corrupt", "amoral" and "immoral"
> is really a bit much. And suggesting then that I am "embedded" in
> corruption demeans me without cause. You've just gone over the top
> there.
>
> Voting systems don't have morals. They may be flawed, badly designed,
> unworkable. But corruption, amorality, and immorality are characteristics
> of the people who misuse them, design them deliberately for the wrong
> purpose, and enforce them that way etc.
>
> [BTW you don't have to conform to the system in all aspects. For a
> start, just get older -- then you don't have to vote. Voting is not
> compulsory for those of us who are really mature. So would you say I
> have grown out of immorality, corruption and amorality now ? ( Of course
> not -- I'm still desperately trying to sin, although I'm avoiding the
> amorality and corruption bits, thank you.)]
>
> As for the system flaw: I happen to agree with you that a compulsory
> voting system is wrong and wrong-headed and badly designed if it does not
> have adequate safeguards, and our system is in that category, as far as I'm
> concerned. And systems that do not have adequate safeguards can be
> exploited by people who are incompetent and lazy or even immoral, amoral,
> corrupt etc. Chances are in most cases, however, that incompetence and
> indolence have more followers than corruption. That's almost a corollary
> of Ockam's Razor.
>
> To illustrate what I mean, let me jump to the Simple Solution:
>
> It can all be mostly fixed if we allow a formal vote for "NONE OF THE
> ABOVE" every time we have compulsory voting.
>
> It is not good enough, as some seem to suggest, that you are forced to
> cast an informal vote if you disagree with all choices, and that informal
> vote is treated as though it has no defined meaning -- it is really treated
> as a mistake. You are right to object to the lack of choice that is
> implied in the easy option of an informal vote.
>
> (BTW -- while it was until 1998 an offence to advocate a deliberate
> informal vote, following the Langer case, the law was amended. It is not
> an offence to cast a deliberate informal vote -- and nor should it be,
> given secret ballot rights.).
>
> The prospect of a formal tally for explicit and formal votes for NONE OF
> THE ABOVE might go a lot further to redress some system balance than might
> at first be evident, but think of it this way:
>
> 1. At present we have major parties with officials who are only too
> willing to claim victory and justification of their
> immorality/corruption/indolence/exploitation of prejudice because they can
> point to relatively large percentages of formal votes.
>
> 2. If you consider that before we had compulsory voting (ie pre 1925
> elections) a reasonable %age of the enrolled population who voted was
> around 65 - 70%, we can assume that outright compulsion potentially
> accounts for about 30% of the vote. [This is more or less in line with
> many of the results in the majority of democratic voting systems -- non
> compulsory ones.]
>
> 3. In more recent years, in some areas, I'd suggest that a non-compulsory
> election would have been lucky to pick up a 50% vote.
>
> 4. Imagine the impact on all the major parties if a NONE OF THE ABOVE vote
> was permitted and could rise as high as even 25-30%. For that matter, try
> 10%! Jobs for the Boys would be starting to look really sick.
> Performance indicators might suddenly change. And if there's one thing we
> need at present in all parties, it's a case of those boys looking really as
> sick as they are, and their KPIs (excuse my language) changing.
>
> At times, I have been tempted to actually start a party called "None of
> the Above" and see what votes (and preferences) I could pick up.
>
> I still think it might be worth a try.... but first you'd have to convince
> a pretty conservative Electoral Commission to accept the party name. Now
> THERE's an exercise.
>
>
>
> *Peter M*
>
> --
> This message contains privileged and confidential information only
> for use by the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this message, you must not disseminate, copy or use
> it in any manner. If you have received this message in error,
> please advise the sender by reply e-mail. Please ensure all
> e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or
> using.
>
>
--
Bob Trussler
Other related posts:
