LiberalLabor have little to fear from not voting : Melbourne Indymedia

Liberal and Labor have little fear from those who vote informal or advocate not voting. However smaller parties & independents do. The organisation Vote Nobody will damage parties like the Greens, Democrats & various Socialists & Independents. Voting Nobody will reduce their chance of having the balance of power in the Senate. This will increase the likelihood of expanding the nuclear, logging industry, Australias involvement in wars & harsher policies on refugees. If they were truly advocating Direct democracy they would put themselves forward to get a 50% of the voting population supporting their position. That would be democratic! How do we know that Vote Nobody is not a conspiracy by our rulers to sow apathy amongst the naive amongst us to increase the likelihood that parties or people advocating anything less than business as usual eg. the Greens/Socialists get any more power. Register as the Direct Democracy party, outline your policies and let the public decide.

You say, "Liberal and Labor have little fear from those who vote informal or advocate not voting. However smaller parties & independents do."

====================================

Rubbish smaller parties & independents do give preferences to Liberal & labor. So what is your point?

Besides that.

The Greens

Distribution of Greens Preferences
Election Average % vote % Preferences to Seats flowing to % Prefs to ALP
(Electorates) per Electorate Labor Coalition Labor Coalition Highest Lowest
1996 (102) n.a. 67.10 32.90 97 5 83.79 42.55
1998 (120) 3.1 73.28 26.72 120 .. 88.42 54.33
2001 (145) 5.0 74.83 25.17 144 1 90.23 42.77

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/minorprefs.htm

2004

Despite earlier claims by Senator Bob Brown that the Greens would gain the balance of power in the Senate, the Coalition performance across the nation was too even to make that a realistic outcome. The Greens won Senate seats in Western Australia and Tasmania, and came relatively close in Queensland and Victoria. The new Family First party won a Victorian seat and came close to a seat in Tasmania.

The Australian Democrats lost all of its seats being contested, and will have only four seats in the new Senate—the same number as the Greens. The single One Nation Senator was defeated.

Many people seemed to think that Bob Brown’s prediction of one million Green votes might be close to the mark, and appreciated that were this to happen, it was possible that the Greens would gain the balance of power in the Senate. It was clear that the major parties found common ground in their desire to avert this.

The Greens, Labor’s preferences and Family First

The Greens won seats in Western Australia and Tasmania, and came relatively close in Queensland and Victoria. In both Victoria and Tasmania, the Labor Party put the new Family First party ahead of the Greens on its Senate group voting ticket. The result of this decision in Victoria was that the Greens, with 8.8 per cent of the first preference vote, lost the sixth seat to Family First (1.9 per cent). Only the Nuclear Disarmament Party in New South Wales in 1987 has won a Senate seat with a lower primary vote (1.5 per cent). In Tasmania the Greens (13.3 per cent) barely hung on to defeat Family First (2.4 per cent) for the final seat.(87) Bob Brown had predicted that the Greens would gain the balance of power in the Senate, but the strong Coalition performance across the nation showed that to be an unrealistic prediction.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RB/2004-05/05rb13.htm

================================

Last time we lost the senate what will it be next time? Have you lost your arse yet or just your marbles?

The organisation Greens is total sham. Any minor party or independent who give their preferences to Liberal or Labor are your mortal enemies.

Why because they don't have any fear about going into a war of aggression. If you were in a war wouldn't you want some opposition? Someone to oppose it? Sure you would. But you're not in a war so it's okay if you filibuster your way through it.

So why would you preference people who wage wars off aggression or who do not oppose it? You wouldn't if you were a half decent person.

In otherworlds like the last 10 odd years you are willing to do it again, and again, and again. Until you get your face punched in.

The other point is that if all of the minor parties joined together then you may have some chance but that is not possible so that's where voting nobody comes in.

The opportunity for all those against the bad policies of Lib/Lab to vote against the totally flawed allegedly democratic system with the alleged
Two party' preferred system?

Because there is no such thing as a democratic two party preferred democracy. But that's what 90 per cent of the population are constantly told.

Why? Democracy is everybody.

Thanks Con. You've provided the evidence yourself in your lengthy comment in the article you quote from the ABC. It provides damning evidence that smaller parties whether of the right or left will be wiped out first by people not voting as is so unwittingly demonstrated by your example.

" 2004

Despite earlier claims by Senator Bob Brown that the Greens would gain the balance of power in the Senate, the Coalition performance across the nation was too even to make that a realistic outcome. The Greens won Senate seats in Western Australia and Tasmania, and came relatively close in Queensland and Victoria. The new Family First party won a Victorian seat and came close to a seat in Tasmania.

The Australian Democrats lost all of its seats being contested, and will have only four seats in the new Senate—the same number as the Greens. The single One Nation Senator was defeated.

Many people seemed to think that Bob Brown’s prediction of one million Green votes might be close to the mark, and appreciated that were this to happen, it was possible that the Greens would gain the balance of power in the Senate. It was clear that the major parties found common ground in their desire to avert this.

The evidence is clear as the nose on your face. Things got worse not better last time up against a war criminal, mind you?

The fact that preferences to Lib/Lab only lead to Lib/Lab are quite clear.

The fact that they could chop minor parties out of the contest for the Senate is damning.

The fact that they actually preferenced people who don't oppose war or draconian laws is damning.

The fact that they only got na, 3.1, 5, 8.8 per cent of the vote in consecutive years means you've only got another 100 years left to wait until you have your say.

Clearly it isn't going to happen for you. This is a fairytale in your own mind!

And of course you are going to wait until you get egg on your face again this federal election and for me to tell you so next federal election???

Don't you want things to change? Then how do you expect that to happen by doing the same thing again?

If you dont like the Greens because they preferenced Liberals or Labor dont vote for the Greens. Con, if you cant find another party or an independent that hasnt preferenced liberal or labor put yourself & your policies forward as a candidate or does that sound too much like direct democracy? Hey you can probably register your name as Con under deed poll but then all the voting nobodies would acuse you of selling out. But then again it might be just another Con.

Vote Nobody because Nobody cares and that's a fact!

The evidence is clear as .... the evidence you provided Con. keep the statistics coming just learn to hypothesise from them better. You argue:

"The fact that they only got na, 3.1, 5, 8.8 per cent of the vote in consecutive years means you've only got another 100 years left to wait until you have your say."

Im not sure if you are referring to Senate or house of Reps (minor detail Im sure). We all know statistics lie but using the on the ones you've quoted:
If the Greens have almost tripled their vote in 3 elections and if they were able to maintain that rate they'd have a majority (50% plus one Con) in 4 elections (12 years not 100 like you suggest) but of course with everybody supporting Nobody & following your advice the Greens will be wiped out long before Liberal or Labor.

Where will you be in 12 years even if under Lib/Lab? Without your Senate?

Sorry that doesn't wash or does it?

Lib/Lab threw the dummy on the Greens with Family First! Now do you get it? The Greens fall over backwoods to preference Labor and they fall over backwoods to preference Family First.

Do you at leas get the picture of why preference some party who doesn't even like you, really?

I think you've been shown the door, Con and Adam.

Please avail yourselves of it.

what about the NAT?

we all like NATs
small doses and large

but enough

NAT/LIB/LAB/GRN/DEM

fishing party, shooters party, smokers party, party party

PAULINE HANSON

socialists, socialists and some more socialists. communists?

CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS. Moral dictatorship. Hell on earth.

Independents. The undisclosed affiliation. Unknown.

Treat it as a game. Let's see if we can get some shit stirring revolutionary elected to parliament. Let them cause a ruckus in the parliaments.

Meanwhile, have you got your winter crops in? Frost resistant?

Seriously. The vote nobody campaign only makes sense if it is offering people alternatives to parliaments. A campaign that simply says 'don't vote' is irresponsible. It encourages apathy. The campaign must seek to build alternative structures and to empower people.

Whether one votes or doesn't vote doesn't really matter to all the work you are going to do for the 3 or so years between federal elections. The real message is Start forming autonomous groups and networks. Setup mutual aid. Replace the system that the parliaments govern.

I think you've got some explaining to do pr you don't sound so kewl! Please tell us how you propose to win and who you are voting for?

But they ask for more of the same to change it? Or they give up hope? This campaign is based on the UK and "Australian doctrine".

2nd Renaissance - Beyond Industrial Capitalism and Nation States
Go forward in peace. And always remember the line from Gravity's Rainbow: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/115092.php

Read for yourself.

And is in context with what is happening here. No Senate? COAG? Endless War? Draconian Law? No opposition? What's that? Plenty of people suffering and a few fat pigs. We may be in a worse situation even.

We don't live in a democracy. But doing more of the same won't change it either.

What we cannot change is the fact that we cannot broadcast to the 90 percent of the, as you say "a broader social movement" or the community who has an 'interest' to keep its status quo and lots of well paid helpers.

But we can change what we do and spread the understanding and the knowledge to a broader community that's what we are here for aren't we?

Our movement does confront all aspects of Capitalism and provide an alternative read it in the above link for yourself.

Besides that our political system has become grossly unfair and on that basis we can protest without getting hurt and boycott the vote. It has and does work.

Nobody wins Welsh election!
As a result of yesterday's Welsh election results nobody did win!
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/144552.php

The proof of a good effort is in the pudding not in the propaganda.

We are staunchly defending our human rights, civil rights, and democratic rights. The feds broke that agreement we had with them and our constitution and chose to pre emptively attack others and provide us with draconian laws.

90 percenet of us have never agreed to those things with the federal gov't.

===================================

Getting A Divorce From Federalism
It takes two to tango. In the event that either party to an agreement, such as the basis of a system of representative democracy, breaks both its spirit and its principles, the relationship can be legitimately severed. This need not involve a revolution or an overthrow of the current power elites. It is simply a matter of separation. Of going off in different directions, and to different futures. Neither party has the legal right to prevent the other from separating from the agreement. Constitutional lawyers or not, once the fundamental basis of the agreement has been destroyed by criminal acts, the whole deal can be called off. The days when the church could enforce matrimonial relationships for life, have long gone. Similarly, the power of constitutions to enforce the permanency of government / citizen relationships, is passing into history. In the event that a Federal government develops into the ultimate organised crime, the citizens of that decayed democracy have an inalienable right to secede from that federation.

Negotiating The Separation
The following mock dialogue illustrates the arguments involved in a region, state, or city within a federation opting to secede from the relationship, on the grounds of undemocratic processes and deep criminality in the administration having invalidated the basis of an existing constitutional agreement.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/108175.php

Is they're not together in their aim so their force is lessend. But by all voting Nobody then Every minor party wins because they're all joined together.

All of them together is one serious major party against the losers running the country.

You dig?

So it is what they prefer that counts. And all roads lead to Lib/Lab.

Minor parties get paid well and stand up in Parliament on some issues to our benefit but they have no power and it will always be the case because the two party system is rigged.

Why wouldn't anyone promote a well-paid job regardless of their powers?

They get a well-paid job and you watch. How is that implemented into you 'say' about what is going on? Zip.

People without powers should not be standing up in parliament arguing against issues they cannot do anything about but to cry for mercy. They need power to restrain power.

Give them all a job but they have no power not even between themselves.

Why couldn't they all decide to sacrifice no power and join together for some power so that those who are dictating can be overcome?

It is either that or just vote for losers in small numbers all your life.

hey Con/hasan, in a system where voting places candidates in power what do you hope to achieve by refraining from the vote.

in order for such an infantile strategy to be effective it MUST apply across the board otherwise a handful of voters woud determine the government.

recess is over now hasan/Con, finger painting is next, whoopppeee !!!

LAMER!

and take the rest of the idiot lamers (ant, Kevin, Parrot) with you .. bloody retards

It's not just about making a mockery of the farce that is "representative" democracy. It's also about producing more spoiled ballot papers with "Nobody" scrawled across them than the official winning candidate, thus undermining their "legitimacy" (as if they ever had any) to push the same old business-friendly, community-trashing policies that they always do, regardless of who gets in. But whoever wins, ordinary people always lose! Nobody will change that, so vote for Nobody next Federal Election.

VOTE NOBODY!
[VOTING IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF POWER, BUT AN ADMISSION OF POWERLESSNESS.
WHOEVER YOU VOTE FOR, THE GOVERNMENT ALWAYS WINS. ]

NEVER MIND THE BALLOTS!
Instead of the current system of pseudo-democracy we believe in Direct democracy which is based on equal participation. In order to be free & happy, we need to run our communities, our workplaces & our own lives. Freedom is a way of organising society in which everyone has an equal say on how things are run. Freedom is about standing up for ourselves and resisting unfairness; it is about sharing resource so everyone has what they need and it’s about creating a more peaceful world where we are free from poverty, violence and war. Free people believe there are alternatives to the current political system where a minority force their decisions on a majority and where a few people hold all the power and wealth. We want accountable delegates rather than careerist politicians, shared ownership rather than private profit, human need rather than economic growth, & mutual aid rather than Investors Rights Agreements. Politicians say “vote for me!” We say VOTE NOBODY!
And start organising for ourselves!

WE’RE VOTING NOBODY BECAUSE...
”Choosing between politicians in our fake democracy is like choosing between Coke and Pepsi – they’re all the same, just with slightly different packaging” “Putting an ‘X’ in a box every 4 or 5 years is not real democracy. I’m fed up of seeing politicians forgetting about the promises they made to improve our lives once they’re in power.”

“I’m sick of accepting the least worst candidate. Every one of us deserves to have a say in the way our own lives are run. I’m voting nobody and starting to represent myself!”

“Nobody on the ballot represents me, and the very nature of the system means Nobody ever will. Nobody cares about the things we’re really passionate about, and nobody will fight for them except us”

“All politicians are liars - they’ll all keep privatizing everything and crapping on ordinary people”

Vote for Nobody for Victory and remember the Ants.....
Show them that we're not happy with the current system of unfairness this Federal Election. Help get the word out and pass this on to all your networks.

Ordinary folk feel powerless in the face of the organised deception and exploitation that is being practised by an unholy alliance of taker-thinking governments, corporations and media networks. Individually, ordinary people seem and feel so insignificant that their voice can be, and generally is, ignored. Individually, ordinary people lack financial and other resources to confront the legions of lawyers that the Feds and corporations can muster, and they correctly assess their chances in the adversarial and often corrupt 'justice' systems of the dominant Level 3 Civilization, as very slim indeed.

Collectively, however, ordinary citizens have two huge levers that they can use to not only make their views heard, but also make them prevail. These too-little-used levers are:

* Superior Numbers - that can far outweigh the power of governments and corporations to counter and control the resultant force of public opinion and resolve.

* Communal Communication Abilities - That enable ordinary people to carry on dialogue, share and refine ideas, and formulate common goals and strategies for achieving them.

Ants are individually puny opponents for small vertebrates and even humans yet, army ants, fire ants, and others, are fully capable of attacking and killing much larger prey, if they are hungry enough or angry enough. The strength of the ants lies in their superior numbers and their instinctive hive model of organisation.

The natural, some would say instinctive, organisation model for humans is the tribe. But there is no suggestion here of attacking or harming the less numerous members of big government and big business organisations that are structured along institutional and militarist lines. Any physical attack on the forces of the OWO would not only violate the sixth commandment, it would fail to advance humanity or benefit society in any way. No, the conflict between the OWO and the rest of us is a battle of ideas and, as such, it holds great potential as a transformational force that will benefit all of humanity - even those people who are presently on the side of federalism, capitalism and a creeping totalitarian control of the many by a few.

If several dozen people decide to renounce their citizenship and cease to pay taxes or show allegiance to a federation, they will have a problem. Once several thousand people decide to take such action the ownership of the problem will start to shift towards the Feds and away from the secessionists. Should a few million families elect to abandon the old federal system and form one or more free cities, there will be very little that governments can do about it, at least in the sense of physical coercion and application of legal provisions and the rule of law. There will just be too many leaver-givers, as there can often be too many ants facing much larger and seemingly more powerful opponents.

Considerable communication will be required to raise awareness of the issues and options surrounding the abandonment of the failed political and economic models of industrial capitalism, and the creation of a Level 4 Civilization from a rising wave of spike technologies. Such dialogue needs to be between us citizens of the deteriorating federations that are becoming more and more totalitarian. There is little point attempting to lobby politicians or gain 'air time' in the mainstream media, those sectors of society are no longer taking any instructions from the likes of you and I.

Although there is no revolution or uprising being contemplated here, and no harm to the agents of the OWO, it can be expected that federal authorities will actively discourage such dialogue between 'their' citizens. Any attempt to inform people and raise awareness is likely to be branded as subversive. But this charge can only be made from the viewpoint of the established order. The alternative, and eventually the majority, view will be that individuals have an intrinsic right to free speech and free assembly.

The Roman Church didn't much like Martin Luther's actions in nailing his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Church, nor his criticisms of the sale of indulgences by church officials. They did not view his translation of the Bible into High German as a good thing either, since this enabled more people to read it and understand how it had come to be misrepresented by clergy who could read Latin, and who 'translated' the holy text from their pulpits, to parishioners who were unable to read the Bible for themselves.

What Luther and others in the Reformation did was to start people all over Germany, and eventually most of Europe, talking amongst themselves, about the true basis of the Gospel. In combination with the introduction of moveable type printing presses the Reformation led to much higher levels of intercommunication and dialogue among ordinary people. Once that process had begun it gathered pace like a snowball rolling down a hill. The rest, as they say, is history.

Presently, the Internet is serving the same purpose of connecting information and ideas across national boundaries, between ordinary people, and apart from and beyond the propaganda agendas of the mainstream media. You and I can now find all sorts of facts on the Internet that are never likely to be published or broadcast anywhere else. It is as if knowledge and understanding that was previously only recorded in a language we could neither reach nor read has suddenly been released in hundreds of thousands of web pages which are in plain English (or whatever other tongue we might speak).

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/112747.php

You say,

"NAT/LIB/LAB ?
by flicker Wednesday May 30, 2007 at 02:24 PM

what about the NAT?

we all like NATs
small doses and large

but enough

NAT/LIB/LAB/GRN/DEM

fishing party, shooters party, smokers party, party party

PAULINE HANSON

socialists, socialists and some more socialists. communists?

CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS. Moral dictatorship. Hell on earth.

Independents. The undisclosed affiliation. Unknown.

Treat it as a game. Let's see if we can get some shit stirring revolutionary elected to parliament. Let them cause a ruckus in the parliaments.

Meanwhile, have you got your winter crops in? Frost resistant?"

=============================

So show me the common goal of the all of the above parties in your rant?

Aint that the problem they're all going off in small parties in different directions. How are they going to claim something?

We'll all not vote, vote informal or vote for a minor party and the other brain washed society drowned out by the media with two party preferred Lib/Lab ads will vote for either of them, cause there two busy to notice.

Nobody Voting versus Donkey Voting?

You would think that despite all its shortcomings Voting Nobody would still be preferable to Donkey Voting? Send a message eh for a whole lot of ??? urrh the people who count votes..... to record as Informal. Yep thats all your silly gesture will do.
Now if you actually suceeded in persuading a sizeable number of the population to Vote Nobody (counted as Informal) you would still have to compete with the Donkey Vote (the people who number every ballot paper 1 to 4, 5 or whatever) in descending order. The end result of Voting Nobody would be an increase in the proportion of candidates elected purely by chance.

That formula is for brain dead idiots no more questions needs to be asked.

That's why you'll just end up with Lib/Lab not enough brains to work out that it is people like you who legitimize a flawed process like a sheeple that are willing to fight to the death for the same thing they had last time.

You don't want change you want the same as you had last time.

Last time you got a war criminal.

how many people do we need to have voting nobody before it actually changes something?

How about everybody writes 'Myself' on the ballot instead of 'nobody'?

Nobody's has more chance because they're in greater numbers, than any minor party ever was or will be, and your preferences go to you not to your mortal enemy.

====================

In the recent NSW Election a definite chain of command was in evidence: Socialist Alliance functioned as cheerleaders for the Greens, and the Greens supported Labor. Both organisations promoted illusions that Labor could be pressured at the ballot box, and that it represented a “lesser evil” to the Liberals. In line with this, the Greens concluded a preference deal with Labor’s state executive, while Socialist Alliance allocated first preferences to the Greens and second preferences to Labor.
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/node/50784