Getting a Yes Vote on the Inquiry

[RogerB]

RogerB has been mulling over the events in the Senate of late. And something from long, long ago sparked in his old head.

One of my gurus of nearly fifty years ago was a brilliant political-economist and scholar named Eric D. Butler. He wrote a book (actually many, but I cite only one here) titled: The Money Power versus Democracy.

It was published in 1948 by The Australian League of Rights, which Butler founded. It still operates in Melbourne here: http://www.alor.org/

What sparked in my head last night was that we have for the moment, on the last vote, been put down by Party Politics! Not by any other cause, or rationale . . . but corrupt, lazy, party politics.

And we have an answer . . . . yes, it takes a little work hey, what’s new? Though all it takes is adding another correct target to our strategy. Here’s the drill.

From page 10, The Money Power versus Democracy, by Eric D. Butler.

The section: The Futility of The Party System
Butler is citing “The Party System” (1912) by Hilaire Belloc & Cecil Chesterton.
“. . . While the parties dictate our democracy, the people have no power to get what they want. Nothing is left for them but to choose the least of three evils. In a really democratic government the initiative would come from the people. They would ask for certain things, and send men to parliament to represent their wishes. There is no machinery at present by which the people can raise a particular political question, however it may interest them, unless it is included in the program of one or other of the political parties.”

Butler states later on the same page: “If true democracy is to become a reality, the present party tyranny must be removed.”

Butler goes on to give the answers on how to handle the scenario. He begins in the section:

HOW TO MAKE DEMOCRACY EFFECTIVE​

I’ll cut his book short . . . but here is a sample:
Initially, Butler is talking about taking back the power of one’s own government from the “money power” (the commercial banking system that continuously screws our economy and government of the peoples), but this system was actually applied by the electorate in Queensland and Canada prior to WW2, but was subsequently forgotten after the war.

Bulter: “In other words, the electors in each electorate must organize their demand on a non-party basis, give their Member of Parliament clear instructions as to what they want, and have him understand that they are not concerned with his Party label—that unless he does what a majority of the electorate tell him, they will vote him out at the next election.
“. . . If the electors show them (the elected Representative) quite clearly that they will support them, irrespective of Party, just so long as they do as they are told, then control of the Member will be removed from the Party-machine and restored to the electors.”

The recent “no” vote in the Senate is party-politics as usual. It is action by incumbents more interested in covering their arses and not having to think or do any real work except keep themselves in office.

Lazy party-politics now has become our real and necessary target.

It is to be noted that it was the Independent and non-major party Members of the House that took the ethical stand to back and vote for an inquiry, to do some work, and to make for a better society in Australia by gathering the facts, via an inquiry, that would enable justice and the prosecution of malfeasance along with the prevention of its furtherance; and to also produce in law a better definition and management of how to prevent the system from being financially ripped off by pseudo, phony “religion” of which Scientology is only one (if the most egregious) example.

In my view, this is an agenda for our media friends to push . . . . recent events have demonstrated “Part Politics is a broken and corrupt system!” Real democracy and government for the people is based on our elected representatives doing the bidding of their true pay masters, the electorate who elected them to carry out honest representation of the electorate’s interests! Since party politics is broken, the answer is to vote for independents. Senator Xenophon is an example of the honest representation we Australians deserve.

Since this is election year, no? an assault on the major party politicians' culture of Members going along with the "Part-line" and the threat of them losing out because of it might just get them being honest for a change.

Scooter, you’re in Melbourne. The Australian League of Rights is based there. You should be able to pick up a copy of Butler’s book there .. . . or at least a photocopy from the library archives. If not, you guys in ACT certainly, and possibly in other major capital cities like Sydney, will be able to pick up such in the main public libraries. The National Library in Canberra, by law, had to have a copy of this book sent to it on publication. I picked my current copy up from microfilm in the New York Public Library Research Libraries.

I would recommend a read of this quick little gem for those interested . . . . it opens up a strategy for the persuasion of our elected representatives to do as they are “instructed” and promised to do—to represent out wishes and interests!

Carmel, my lovely, does this cheer you up?

RogerB

 

[Dulloldfart]

Isn't it easier to drop this broad one and go for a new Inquiry (or whatever) concerning the CofS alone that is far less dangerous a topic for a politician to vote on?

Paul

 

[RogerB]

Isn't it easier to drop this broad one and go for a new Inquiry (or whatever) concerning the CofS alone that is far less dangerous a topic for a politician to vote on?

Paul

Sure! . . . . I think Xeno might have been suckered into tacking his Scn inquiry request onto the other broader issue of new legal requirements . . . . .

And to revisit that territory would be a strategic error at this time.

But, using the strategy I write on above to put the heat on the Senate's main party members to begin to vote the honest issue when Xeno next raises the need of a specific inquiry into CofS malfeasance, violation of charter and law as a corrupt organiztion, would be a winning strategy.

We have two issues:
1) the "no" vote was corrupt party politics . . . blow the whistle on it
2) Scn is the poster child, bad example of deceitful use of the existing law which behavior needs investigation to the extent of the government being able to then enact correct legislation for the curtailment of such malfeasance and its further continuance by anyone.

Rog

 

[ScudMuffin]

The recent “no” vote in the Senate is party-politics as usual. It is action by incumbents more interested in covering their arses and not having to think or do any real work except keep themselves in office.

An MP's first job is to keep their job.

 

[Carmel]

Isn't it easier to drop this broad one and go for a new Inquiry (or whatever) concerning the CofS alone that is far less dangerous a topic for a politician to vote on?

Paul

Yeah, Paul. Listen to this short statement from Xen, on the day of the *no* vote. Next week Xen's intent is to put up a motion specifically on Scn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-S-ga5A680

Rog, thanks for your input. There is much on the cook, and and we all have reason to be fairly positive. Yeah, party-politics are in play here, and while that is a barrier, it's not something that can't or won't be overcome. And, while things are progressing as they are, nothing needs to happen *today*.

There are *never critics*, and *never Scios* in on this now. It's in a much bigger arena now, and there is more support than I've ever seen in this country. The *no* vote contributed to that.

Moving forward......

 

[Outethicsofficer]

I will get a copy of the book as I live in Canberra, another strategy at play cannot hurt the cause while this one we are moving forward on plays out.

James.

 

[Ned Kelly]

RogerB has been mulling over the events in the Senate of late. And something from long, long ago sparked in his old head.

One of my gurus of nearly fifty years ago was a brilliant political-economist and scholar named Eric D. Butler. He wrote a book (actually many, but I cite only one here) titled: The Money Power versus Democracy.

It was published in 1948 by The Australian League of Rights, which Butler founded. It still operates in Melbourne here: http://www.alor.org/

What sparked in my head last night was that we have for the moment, on the last vote, been put down by Party Politics! Not by any other cause, or rationale . . . but corrupt, lazy, party politics.

And we have an answer . . . . yes, it takes a little work hey, what’s new? Though all it takes is adding another correct target to our strategy. Here’s the drill.

From page 10, The Money Power versus Democracy, by Eric D. Butler.

The section: The Futility of The Party System
Butler is citing “The Party System” (1912) by Hilaire Belloc & Cecil Chesterton.
“. . . While the parties dictate our democracy, the people have no power to get what they want. Nothing is left for them but to choose the least of three evils. In a really democratic government the initiative would come from the people. They would ask for certain things, and send men to parliament to represent their wishes. There is no machinery at present by which the people can raise a particular political question, however it may interest them, unless it is included in the program of one or other of the political parties.”

Butler states later on the same page: “If true democracy is to become a reality, the present party tyranny must be removed.”

Butler goes on to give the answers on how to handle the scenario. He begins in the section:

HOW TO MAKE DEMOCRACY EFFECTIVE​

I’ll cut his book short . . . but here is a sample:
Initially, Butler is talking about taking back the power of one’s own government from the “money power” (the commercial banking system that continuously screws our economy and government of the peoples), but this system was actually applied by the electorate in Queensland and Canada prior to WW2, but was subsequently forgotten after the war.

Bulter: “In other words, the electors in each electorate must organize their demand on a non-party basis, give their Member of Parliament clear instructions as to what they want, and have him understand that they are not concerned with his Party label—that unless he does what a majority of the electorate tell him, they will vote him out at the next election.
“. . . If the electors show them (the elected Representative) quite clearly that they will support them, irrespective of Party, just so long as they do as they are told, then control of the Member will be removed from the Party-machine and restored to the electors.”

The recent “no” vote in the Senate is party-politics as usual. It is action by incumbents more interested in covering their arses and not having to think or do any real work except keep themselves in office.

Lazy party-politics now has become our real and necessary target.

It is to be noted that it was the Independent and non-major party Members of the House that took the ethical stand to back and vote for an inquiry, to do some work, and to make for a better society in Australia by gathering the facts, via an inquiry, that would enable justice and the prosecution of malfeasance along with the prevention of its furtherance; and to also produce in law a better definition and management of how to prevent the system from being financially ripped off by pseudo, phony “religion” of which Scientology is only one (if the most egregious) example.

In my view, this is an agenda for our media friends to push . . . . recent events have demonstrated “Part Politics is a broken and corrupt system!” Real democracy and government for the people is based on our elected representatives doing the bidding of their true pay masters, the electorate who elected them to carry out honest representation of the electorate’s interests! Since party politics is broken, the answer is to vote for independents. Senator Xenophon is an example of the honest representation we Australians deserve.

Since this is election year, no? an assault on the major party politicians' culture of Members going along with the "Part-line" and the threat of them losing out because of it might just get them being honest for a change.

Scooter, you’re in Melbourne. The Australian League of Rights is based there. You should be able to pick up a copy of Butler’s book there .. . . or at least a photocopy from the library archives. If not, you guys in ACT certainly, and possibly in other major capital cities like Sydney, will be able to pick up such in the main public libraries. The National Library in Canberra, by law, had to have a copy of this book sent to it on publication. I picked my current copy up from microfilm in the New York Public Library Research Libraries.

I would recommend a read of this quick little gem for those interested . . . . it opens up a strategy for the persuasion of our elected representatives to do as they are “instructed” and promised to do—to represent out wishes and interests!

Carmel, my lovely, does this cheer you up?

RogerB

Hey Roger, great post.

I have for a very long time been pissed with party politics in Australia. Our system is supposed to be a representative democracy and I do not think that we the people are being represented on the issues that are important to us.

Although I would love to see an outcome that you have developed a strategy for, I do not really see that it is a feasible one in the medium to short term.

First we would need to get enough independent pollys elected to parliament to alter the balance of power. To do that we would have to change the opinion of enough Australian voters on how they should vote to get enough independents elected to alter the balance of power in either of the houses of parliament. I can't see this happening without a) having enough independents running in enough marginal seats, and b) having enough money behind them to run effective campaigns.

An all out assault on the major party systems is asking for political “war”. Not literally, but if a bunch of independents for example ran on a platform that was seen to be based on the erosion of power of either of the major parties, then those powers would IMHO coalesce to take out the independents – they would do this anyway to just win or hold their seats.

The dual party system that both Australia and America have is fucked in my opinion and the only solution that I can see is the dismantling of political parties (will never happen) or that there is a 3rd party that gathers enough support to put the pressure on. However we have seen that happen before and those parties either become marginalised and seen as radical by mainstream voters or they end up in some form of coalition with either of the main parties. Even then when they are elected, their influence is marginalised by the main party.:confused2:

In my opinion the strategy that has the greatest chance of success is largely based on timing. It is a matter of Xenephon hanging in there and waiting for the right opportunity to make his move. This will be when a major piece of legislation that is important to the Government is trying to be pushed through and without Xenophons vote, it will fail. At this time he trades his vote for the government supporting an enquiry. Although this is a bit of a long shot, it is by no means out of the question with the Government not holding the balance of power in the Senate. If the other independent senators could be persuaded to come on board, then our odds are greatly improved.

 

[RogerB]

Hey Roger, great post.

I have for a very long time been pissed with party politics in Australia. Our system is supposed to be a representative democracy and I do not think that we the people are being represented on the issues that are important to us.

Although I would love to see an outcome that you have developed a strategy for, I do not really see that it is a feasible one in the medium to short term.

First we would need to get enough independent pollys elected to parliament to alter the balance of power. To do that we would have to change the opinion of enough Australian voters on how they should vote to get enough independents elected to alter the balance of power in either of the houses of parliament. I can't see this happening without a) having enough independents running in enough marginal seats, and b) having enough money behind them to run effective campaigns.

Firstly, Ned, thanks for the fulsome reply. But this last point is not so. Read the book, as well as re-read the little bit I cited . . . . what is required is the candidates and/or existing members (whether in a main party or no) knowing that their electorate demands honest representation . . . . of course this demand is actually missing in Oz and the US . . . . hence the public get shafted.

But it is also true that "the public" does not understand these dogs are in law their paid servants . . . . they are elected to represent the wish of the electorate and can be voted out for dereliction of duty . . . . but the public are too lazy to coordinate and use their power in this regard.

Though I will tell you I have lived long enough to see this in successful action . . . . the American civil rights victory was not won by riots in the streets, even though such made good media . . . it was won in the Courts (Thurgood Marshall being the legal genius behind it, later to become a stellar member of the Supreme Court) and in the ballot box. The take-over of American politics by the "Christian Right" is another example . . . though they blew their power when they misused it and reasonable people rebelled against Newt Gingrich's style of the way things should be.

An all out assault on the major party systems is asking for political “war”. Not literally, but if a bunch of independents for example ran on a platform that was seen to be based on the erosion of power of either of the major parties, then those powers would IMHO coalesce to take out the independents – they would do this anyway to just win or hold their seats.

No, no, the plan works because you deal with each of the individuals standing for office, whether in a main party or not, on the same basis . . . . indeed, in Canada, in Queensland and a region in England where this was successful you actually have the person standing for office undertake in writing that he will represent you on specific issues in order to get your group vote. He knows that betrayal of that pledge will oust him from office next election.

The dual party system that both Australia and America have is fucked in my opinion and the only solution that I can see is the dismantling of political parties (will never happen) or that there is a 3rd party that gathers enough support to put the pressure on. However we have seen that happen before and those parties either become marginalised and seen as radical by mainstream voters or they end up in some form of coalition with either of the main parties. Even then when they are elected, their influence is marginalised by the main party.:confused2:

No, as above. Screw dealing with the party . . . you deal with the/your individual representative! You don't care which party he's in, or whether he's in a party on not.

In my opinion the strategy that has the greatest chance of success is largely based on timing. It is a matter of Xenephon hanging in there and waiting for the right opportunity to make his move. This will be when a major piece of legislation that is important to the Government is trying to be pushed through and without Xenophons vote, it will fail. At this time he trades his vote for the government supporting an enquiry. Although this is a bit of a long shot, it is by no means out of the question with the Government not holding the balance of power in the Senate. If the other independent senators could be persuaded to come on board, then our odds are greatly improved.

Yes, this will work, and is classically used here in the the USA to get bullshit issues passed in to law.

Carmel is correct . . . . at this moment, and she is on top of what is going on, there are other priorities for our efforts. My thought is that this philosophy and piece of political history could be used by our intrepid press and media to blow the whistle on the corrupt party-machine political system . . . to put the heat on some in marginal seats that the electorate might likely react to dereliction of duty on their part on this vital issue the press has raised of the malfeasance of the CofS.

The press is the correct venue at this moment of urgency to put the individual parliamentary member on notice that he has a duty to not only vote his conscience, but to listen to and vote in accordance with the public will . . . . and to point out that the electorate should remember those at election time who fail in their duty.

Politics is a PR game and an opinion making game as much as it is a number of votes game.

R

 

[RogerB]

Yeah, Paul. Listen to this short statement from Xen, on the day of the *no* vote. Next week Xen's intent is to put up a motion specifically on Scn.

Snipped . . .

Rog, thanks for your input. There is much on the cook, and and we all have reason to be fairly positive. Yeah, party-politics are in play here, and while that is a barrier, it's not something that can't or won't be overcome. And, while things are progressing as they are, nothing needs to happen *today*.

There are *never critics*, and *never Scios* in on this now. It's in a much bigger arena now, and there is more support than I've ever seen in this country. The *no* vote contributed to that.

Moving forward......

Yes, my reading of it is that the "no" on the issue presented has actually worked in our specific favor.

Formerly disinterested publics are now aware that there is a serious issue at hand and are wondering why the F*** is government not acting?

I well remember the change of scenario as it developed in Melbourne in the 1960's . . . it began as a Who TF are/is this Scn thing, to Oh shit they look bad, to government is talking about it but not acting, to government being embarrassed into acting.

It was a sobering experience . . . and I speak of it from the "victim's" perspective on that one

The difference here is that it is not a vested interest pushing for an inquiry . . . it is former members and former believers who have been victimized calling attention to the crimes to be investigated.

BIG difference.

This thing will run its course to its successful conclusion . . . and in our favor on the side of truth and justice.

Rog

 

[Ned Kelly]

Hey Rog,

First I would like to say that I don't want to but into a scene that Carmel has got well in hand. I suppose my response to you was based on the fact that I AM very pissed with the 2 Party system that we have in Australia and was compelled to jump in with an opinion.

I see your point that if enough of the elected individuals are getting enough pressure from enough of their constituents to know that if they do not act then they will lose their seat or at least suffer significant PR damage, that it becomes a lot harder for a polly to just vote the party line.

I think major changes such as those you refered to can be catalysed by public opinion and of course the media. But someone within the parliament will need to champion the cause (Xenephon) and there will need to be enough others to be willing to jump on board.

I agree that if a motion was tabled that was specifically targeting the Co$ then it is far more likely to garner that support.

I will bow to your superior knowledge in these matters.

 

[degraded being]

I am not really politico savvy but want to comment.

In the present political system a tiny minority of the population (ex scientologists and anti-scientologists) *have* gotten a lot of attention and help from some politicians, so the big general premise about not getting anything you want which has been stated or implied is not true.

You do not get everything you want served up exactly when you want it. How could it possibly work for *everyone* that way.?

Trying to change the face of politics with wacky simplistic ideas is not the goal AFAIK; it is to get enough public awareness to show that politicians must regard the Scientology issues important to their political health -and hopefully, important ethically in doing their duty as representatives of the public.

 

[AnonyMary]

This is an excellent thread. Strategy is everything and CoS knows this, too. I personally hate politcs but with anything that requires consensus, one must play the game with strategies to win. Butler's book sounds like a good read. Thanks, Roger.

I think Xenophon, as demonstrated in that radio interview Carmel posted ( ) shows that, while politics are at play in the senate, Mr. Xenophon is one or more steps ahead in strategies. I really love this guy for all he's doiing and for his perseverence and astute, level headed manner in which he presents this cause to the public.

Mary McConnell

 

[Panda Termint]

Speaking of strategy; the CofS will always attempt to colour any mention of an Inquiry so as to create the apparency of it having application to a much broader sphere of society.

They want other religions and special interest groups to feel threatened by the idea of an Inquiry, that's how the CofS has defeated almost every attempt to inquire into them in the past.

It wasn't the scientologists who defeated certain clauses of the Psychological Practices Bill of NSW, it was the alarmed Hypnotherapists/Fringe-Practitioners who were blissfully unaware of the fact that they were being run by the scientologists.

 

[Carmel]

,snip>
First I would like to say that I don't want to but into a scene that Carmel has got well in hand.
<snip>

Oh no, no, no! - I hope I haven't said anything to give you that idea, or anyone the idea that they could possibly "butt in" with this endeavour.....Not the case! Not at all.

I do believe that Xen and his crew (with our help at times) does have the matter in hand, and/or at least has strategies in place for all sorts of contingencies, with a longer term objective in mind. In saying that though, we forward everything and anything which may assist him, he is open and appreciative of our ideas/input, as well as appreciative of resources here on ESMB and elsewhere.

Everything and anything that is offered is considered. That which has been offered in the past has helped get things to where they are today, so keep it rolling.

 

[scooter]

Oh no, no, no! - I hope I haven't said anything to give you that idea, or anyone the idea that they could possibly "butt in" with this endeavour.....Not the case! Not at all.

I do believe that Xen and his crew (with our help at times) does have the matter in hand, and/or at least has strategies in place for all sorts of contingencies, with a longer term objective in mind. In saying that though, we forward everything and anything which may assist him, he is open and appreciative of our ideas/input, as well as appreciative of resources here on ESMB and elsewhere.

Everything and anything that is offered is considered. That which has been offered in the past has helped get things to where they are today, so keep it rolling.

Yep, what she said.

You don't have to CSW here, it's a democracy!

 

[Thrak]

I just wanted to say I think some of you Aussie's and Kiwi's here are some of the sanest and most inspirational people I've ever met. If anybody can fend off this "contagion of aberration" you guys can.

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Firstly, Ned, thanks for the fulsome reply. But this last point is not so. Read the book, as well as re-read the little bit I cited . . . . what is required is the candidates and/or existing members (whether in a main party or no) knowing that their electorate demands honest representation . . . . of course this demand is actually missing in Oz and the US . . . . hence the public get shafted.

But it is also true that "the public" does not understand these dogs are in law their paid servants . . . . they are elected to represent the wish of the electorate and can be voted out for dereliction of duty . . . . but the public are too lazy to coordinate and use their power in this regard.

Though I will tell you I have lived long enough to see this in successful action . . . . the American civil rights victory was not won by riots in the streets, even though such made good media . . . it was won in the Courts (Thurgood Marshall being the legal genius behind it, later to become a stellar member of the Supreme Court) and in the ballot box. The take-over of American politics by the "Christian Right" is another example . . . though they blew their power when they misused it and reasonable people rebelled against Newt Gingrich's style of the way things should be.

Perhaps you have hit the nail on the head. BOTH of the major parties are kowtowing to the Australian Fundamentalist "Christian Right" and an investigation into one religion regarding what it does with its Tax-free money may well lead to subsequent investigations into what other religions do with their Tax-free money. I understand that HillSong is very profitable.

It was my mis-understanding that the NIV Bible was the modern defacto standard. After all, "copyright" on the original has well and truly expired, but no! Now there's "copyright" on the translation, hence money (not truth) is the prime motivation.

No, no, the plan works because you deal with each of the individuals standing for office, whether in a main party or not, on the same basis . . . . indeed, in Canada, in Queensland and a region in England where this was successful you actually have the person standing for office undertake in writing that he will represent you on specific issues in order to get your group vote. He knows that betrayal of that pledge will oust him from office next election.

No, as above. Screw dealing with the party . . . you deal with the/your individual representative! You don't care which party he's in, or whether he's in a party on not.

Yes, this will work, and is classically used here in the the USA to get bullshit issues passed in to law.

Carmel is correct . . . . at this moment, and she is on top of what is going on, there are other priorities for our efforts. My thought is that this philosophy and piece of political history could be used by our intrepid press and media to blow the whistle on the corrupt party-machine political system . . . to put the heat on some in marginal seats that the electorate might likely react to dereliction of duty on their part on this vital issue the press has raised of the malfeasance of the CofS.

The press is the correct venue at this moment of urgency to put the individual parliamentary member on notice that he has a duty to not only vote his conscience, but to listen to and vote in accordance with the public will . . . . and to point out that the electorate should remember those at election time who fail in their duty.

Politics is a PR game and an opinion making game as much as it is a number of votes game.

R

The operating basis you propose is for what "The Democrats" allegedly stand. So, when the whole of the Australian electorate had made its opinion on the GST very clear, why did Meg Lees betray them?

 

[RogerB]

The Simplicity of It

The workability of Eric Butler's plan is that it does not take a "majority" of the electorate, nor vast numbers.

If, for example, the press via its Op Ed pages and also in the letters to the Editor column there were continued comment to the effect that the current misuse of the political party system is perverting the democratic/political process; and that honest politics would be for the elected representatives to actually represent the will of the electorate and not the dictates of "leadership" . . . . and such media comment carried citation and reference to Butler's work, you'd have the individual polly standing for election on notice his voters are alert to his conduct.

Now, one analyzes the winning margin of each elected member. I'm out of date on the Oz scene on this, but my memory tells me many of the elected members had majorities of less than 5% . . . . You guys still have that wonderfully complex system of "preference votes" going on down there?

Here's the drill then, you only have to round up, in the case of a 5% majority, 3% of the votes to bring huge pressure "or else" on the guys standing for office. A 3% swing against an incumbant for betrayal of his pledge to represent your issue as agreed would result in a swing of 6% in favor of the opponent (minus 3% from the baddy and giving that 3% as a plus to the goody causes a net effect of 6% difference in tally as a percent of the votes to each candidate)

By the way, this book of Butler's is also an eye-opener to many on the issue of what it is that's screwing up our economies and how it's done by whom

Rog

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

The workability of Eric Butler's plan is that it does not take a "majority" of the electorate, nor vast numbers.

If, for example, the press via its Op Ed pages and also in the letters to the Editor column there were continued comment to the effect that the current misuse of the political party system is perverting the democratic/political process; and that honest politics would be for the elected representatives to actually represent the will of the electorate and not the dictates of "leadership" . . . . and such media comment carried citation and reference to Butler's work, you'd have the individual polly standing for election on notice his voters are alert to his conduct.

Now, one analyzes the winning margin of each elected member. I'm out of date on the Oz scene on this, but my memory tells me many of the elected members had majorities of less than 5% . . . . You guys still have that wonderfully complex system of "preference votes" going on down there?

Here's the drill then, you only have to round up, in the case of a 5% majority, 3% of the votes to bring huge pressure "or else" on the guys standing for office. A 3% swing against an incumbant for betrayal of his pledge to represent your issue as agreed would result in a swing of 6% in favor of the opponent (minus 3% from the baddy and giving that 3% as a plus to the goody causes a net effect of 6% difference in tally as a percent of the votes to each candidate)

By the way, this book of Butler's is also an eye-opener to many on the issue of what it is that's screwing up our economies and how it's done by whom

Rog

There is nothing wrong with the "preference" system, if only people were educated in how to use it properly. They usually fill out their preference according to their chosen candidate because they don't realize that they can think for themselves.

When I get to the polling location, I have already made up my mind on WHO and WHY, so none of those last-minute "Votes Regges" who sit just outside the minimum distance from the premises never get to give me their propaganda sheets.

When it comes to the Senate (now a sheet so huge that we refer to it as the Table Cloth), it says you only have to number from 1-22 (or thereabouts) on the theory that they've already crossed the threshold of First Choice vs Preferences. I still sit their for however long it takes to fill in all 200+ numbers in order to make absolutely sure that I put The Far Right Christian Fascists (oops, Fundamentalists) at the VERY bottom of the list.

 

[RogerB]

There is nothing wrong with the "preference" system, if only people were educated in how to use it properly. They usually fill out their preference according to their chosen candidate because they don't realize that they can think for themselves.

When I get to the polling location, I have already made up my mind on WHO and WHY, so none of those last-minute "Votes Regges" who sit just outside the minimum distance from the premises never get to give me their propaganda sheets.

When it comes to the Senate (now a sheet so huge that we refer to it as the Table Cloth), it says you only have to number from 1-22 (or thereabouts) on the theory that they've already crossed the threshold of First Choice vs Preferences. I still sit their for however long it takes to fill in all 200+ numbers in order to make absolutely sure that I put The Far Right Christian Fascists (oops, Fundamentalists) at the VERY bottom of the list.

Now there's a man (or lady?) taking his job as a citizen seriously!

Of course in Oz, voting is mandatory (was when I was last there, is it still?) . . . . so at least everyone votes . . . some irresponsibly, others with care and responsibility.

In the UK and USA it's a case of vote if you care :confused2: stay in front of the TV if you don't

But basically, it is time the citizenry took back control of their government . . . the issue in beginning to be raised in the US.

I sent this info on Butler and the plan to Ross Perot when he was running for President . . . . not that I thought he'd win that office . . . . but imagine what good he could have done with his "United We Stand" party mustering 20+% of the vote had that 20% been organized by his group and done what I proposed . . . . you'd have had pollies doing as instructed by those who contracted with them for representation . . . per what the game truly is!

Instead, Perot did his dance of withdrawing due to alleged threats against his daughter's wedding . . . then months later re-entering the race to lost support from those who felt he betrayed trust.

What a wonderful opportunity missed . . . . .

Ron Paul might be the next great hope for a return to voter control of government in the voters' interest.

We'll see . . . .

PS: I don't vote in the US, not being a citizen . . . but I like making trouble!

RogerB