What are you voting for? : Melbourne Indymedia

Labor are not going to change anything much, even if they got up. But that is not the mass media plan.

They want John Howard back and they have the power to get him back.

Okay you all separate and run off into groups of minor parties each giving their preferences to Lib/Lab because all roads lead to Lib/Lab.

Then what? Mass media manipulation, polls, slander, innuendo, and repeated propaganda. Repeated propaganda, fear, plots, bribes, etc.

With no Senate you can't afford to get this wrong. The corporations and mass media will do everything they can to get John Howard or Peter Costello re elected and Labor is no alternative you know it.

If you do the same thing as you did last time then why shouldn't you get the same thing as you did last time? A war criminal pm!!!

Mr Speaker that is the question? There are too many holes in your safety net.

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

The Greens

The Greens won't save you!

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?

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 of aggression or who do not oppose it? You wouldn't if you were a half decent person. In other words 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 to boycott the election. To vote against Lib/Lab and protest the totally flawed allegedly democratic 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.

If you're going to vote for a minor party insist that they don't preference warmongers and human rights abusers, at the very least. Otherwise you might see our point and boycott the vote because in reality I don't think any minor party can afford not to send their preferences to Lib/Lab to have some chance of maintaining their alleged status.

In other developments:

Write off Lib/Lab, says Nobody' director
"I don't think there's a difference between Australians wanting a strong opposition and Australians finally deciding to vote for Nobody because there is no leadership and definitely no opposition," he said.
http://adelaide.indymedia.org/newswire/display/58535/index.php

Nobody gains ground in latest poll
"There is a momentum now heading in the direction of Nobody because Nobody does it better, sometimes I wish someone could," he said.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/145848.php

Lib/Lab might 'lose support' amid opinion poll slump
Nobody is playing down its big lead over the Lib/Lab war criminal government in the latest Indypoll.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/145569_comment.php#145577

Nobody scores 20pc lead: poll
"On all the future challenges, illegal and degrading wars, crimes against humanity, torture, kidnapping, political scapegoating, draconian laws, nuclear issues, climate change, housing, education, health, skills, no work choices, ensuring our future, environment sustainability by using renewable energy, the government is really looking backwards rather than looking forwards for Australia's future," he said.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/145569.php

Poll shows 'mood for change'
A vote for Nobody is a Vote for Everybody. Boycott the election because Nobody represents you! Adam Ant!
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/145276.php

Related:

Nobody will change that!
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

Bush (Custer) Last Stand In Iraq - War Drums in Washington
The majority of American citizens have the delusion that they actually decide who governs them, when in practice the Democrats and Republicans are only two wings of the same ruling class that owns Congress, just as it owns the land, the banks and big corporations, the newspapers, and radio and television companies.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/02/139901.php

Stop Voting - Stop Supporting Pseudo Democracies
Just as communicating with the Feds about abandoning the way we live now is a futile process that only buttresses the legitimacy of old ways of thinking and living, continuing to vote within centralised political processes only reinforces their continuing relevance. Citizens who continue to reside within totalitarian-democracies can, at least partly, abandon them by not voting at elections that will never lead to abundance and a better way of living.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/113003.php

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/2007/05/144670_comment.php#144749
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/108175.php

Not Revolution, But Abandonment
The process of gaining full freedom from nation states will not involve revolution or civil disobedience. It will thus be beyond the power of federal governments to attack or control.

Daniel Quinn, writing in Beyond Civilization, Humanity's Next Great Adventure, puts the situation into sharp focus. Quinn uses the analogy of an aircraft in trouble, he argues that in such a situation nobody wants to shoot or overthrow the pilot, they only want a parachute and an open door. As Quinn sees it, governments always have countermeasures in place to put down any attack on their authority and power from within (aircraft pilots might have a double locked door between their cockpit and the main cabin, as well as weapons to use if they are attacked by passengers), but governments never have any defences against abandonment (a line of passengers with chutes exiting the external door of the main cabin).

Quinn contends that while governments can imagine a revolution they can't imagine abandonment. As he puts it, "..even if it could imagine abandonment , it couldn't defend against it, because abandonment isn't an attack, it's just a discontinuance of support."
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/106136.php