Blackberry
8th October 2004, 15:16
Don't vote, say candidates
Joseph Toscano and Steve Reghenzani are Senate candidates with a difference: they won't be voting for themselves. In fact, they won't be voting for anyone - and they want Victorians to follow their lead.
Both anarchists advocate a system of "direct democracy" as opposed to representative government.
Mr Reghenzani will vote informally while Dr Toscano is not even enrolled to vote.
At his campaign launch at the State Library this week, Dr Toscano said prospective voters should "follow their conscience" on Saturday.
"We're encouraging people to vote informal if they don't believe in the system," he said.
"Real power (in the present system) doesn't lie in Parliament - it lies in the boardrooms of national and transnational corporations," he said.
"That's why many of the policies of both political parties are very similar."
Despite differences between the major parties on a range of issues from taxation to ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, Dr Toscano denied that informal voting was a cop-out.
Advertisement Advertisement
"What we're doing is making a decision regarding our participation in a system which we believe cannot deliver the goods," he said. He said that voters should have the right not to vote.
Voting at federal elections is compulsory.
Those with a sincere religious conviction against voting are not required to vote. Voters not in Australia on polling day will also avoid having a penalty notice issued against them.
An obscure provision of the Commonwealth Electoral Act that allowed voters for the House of Representatives to vote one for their candidate of choice and then two for every other candidate - thereby stopping any flow of preferences to, say, the major parties - has been amended.
Voters who wish to vote formally in the lower house must now place sequential numbers against each candidate's name.
Source: The Age (8/10) (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089497024.html)
-----
I thought I would copy and paste something different to start off the topic. You can always rely on anarchists -- the reliable indefatigable agitators of any hierarchical society -- to provide us with something different, and that is what that campaign is doing.
*****
What I want to discuss is the results of the Federal Election; before, during, and after.
It seems very likely that John Howard and the Liberal/National Parties coalition will get a fourth term in office when Australian voters go to the polling booths today. He has changed the Australian political culture in his eight years far too much, in my view, to see voters turn out in droves for Mark Latham, although I do see an upswing for the Australian Greens.
Australians very much see Howard's stance on security as "tough" and a Latham and Australian Labor Party view "weaker", although I myself find the ALP's way of dealing with the issue -- such as pulling troops out of Iraq, and distancing Australian involvement in far away imperialist adventures in favour of concentrating on friendly neighbour relationships to "combat terrorism" at home -- as a touch more sensible.
This election will be somewhat significant for the American election. A Howard defeat will be a blow to George W. Bush's re-election chances since Mark Latham has been advocating a change in the "imbalanced" relationship in the Australian/American alliance. He wants an alliance between the two nations that is "equal" and that will not suit Bush's agenda when it comes to waging further invasions.
A Latham victory would also further inflict damage done to the occupation by the result of the Spanish election and the consequent pull-out of their troops, which is also his policy for Australia. What will even further help that discrediting process is that Australia is America's closest and most important allies, according to Bush, and are very recognisable "western" nation, as opposed to Spain, so an Australian pull-out would be even more significant, even if Australia's contribution to the Iraq occupation is minimal.
Joseph Toscano and Steve Reghenzani are Senate candidates with a difference: they won't be voting for themselves. In fact, they won't be voting for anyone - and they want Victorians to follow their lead.
Both anarchists advocate a system of "direct democracy" as opposed to representative government.
Mr Reghenzani will vote informally while Dr Toscano is not even enrolled to vote.
At his campaign launch at the State Library this week, Dr Toscano said prospective voters should "follow their conscience" on Saturday.
"We're encouraging people to vote informal if they don't believe in the system," he said.
"Real power (in the present system) doesn't lie in Parliament - it lies in the boardrooms of national and transnational corporations," he said.
"That's why many of the policies of both political parties are very similar."
Despite differences between the major parties on a range of issues from taxation to ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, Dr Toscano denied that informal voting was a cop-out.
Advertisement Advertisement
"What we're doing is making a decision regarding our participation in a system which we believe cannot deliver the goods," he said. He said that voters should have the right not to vote.
Voting at federal elections is compulsory.
Those with a sincere religious conviction against voting are not required to vote. Voters not in Australia on polling day will also avoid having a penalty notice issued against them.
An obscure provision of the Commonwealth Electoral Act that allowed voters for the House of Representatives to vote one for their candidate of choice and then two for every other candidate - thereby stopping any flow of preferences to, say, the major parties - has been amended.
Voters who wish to vote formally in the lower house must now place sequential numbers against each candidate's name.
Source: The Age (8/10) (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/07/1097089497024.html)
-----
I thought I would copy and paste something different to start off the topic. You can always rely on anarchists -- the reliable indefatigable agitators of any hierarchical society -- to provide us with something different, and that is what that campaign is doing.
*****
What I want to discuss is the results of the Federal Election; before, during, and after.
It seems very likely that John Howard and the Liberal/National Parties coalition will get a fourth term in office when Australian voters go to the polling booths today. He has changed the Australian political culture in his eight years far too much, in my view, to see voters turn out in droves for Mark Latham, although I do see an upswing for the Australian Greens.
Australians very much see Howard's stance on security as "tough" and a Latham and Australian Labor Party view "weaker", although I myself find the ALP's way of dealing with the issue -- such as pulling troops out of Iraq, and distancing Australian involvement in far away imperialist adventures in favour of concentrating on friendly neighbour relationships to "combat terrorism" at home -- as a touch more sensible.
This election will be somewhat significant for the American election. A Howard defeat will be a blow to George W. Bush's re-election chances since Mark Latham has been advocating a change in the "imbalanced" relationship in the Australian/American alliance. He wants an alliance between the two nations that is "equal" and that will not suit Bush's agenda when it comes to waging further invasions.
A Latham victory would also further inflict damage done to the occupation by the result of the Spanish election and the consequent pull-out of their troops, which is also his policy for Australia. What will even further help that discrediting process is that Australia is America's closest and most important allies, according to Bush, and are very recognisable "western" nation, as opposed to Spain, so an Australian pull-out would be even more significant, even if Australia's contribution to the Iraq occupation is minimal.