after waking today I realised my mind must have been at work all night

the electoral process popped into my head and a statement was issued forth without explanation or introduction

Statement : make voting non compulsory, every voter should pay money to vote

well, I couldn’t believe it, I had to sit down, then I started pacing and thinking like never before

I resisted it – Shirley voting should be free at least – what if you were too poor to afford 5 dollars (for example) to vote?

well thinking on it a little more the statement wasn’t so stupid afterall

lets put it this way – paying to vote is the best way for a democracy to function and i’ll explain further, keeping people who don’t want to vote out of the electoral process is the best way for society to function.

people who don’t want to vote will have spent little lime thinking about how they will vote , if they are not thinking about how they want the society they live in to function at any practical level then what’s the point?

the people do vote should pay 5 dollars to vote – this keeps the other type of idiot out of the ballot box, if you don’t have 5 dollars to rub together then there is probably a very good reason for it.

for the other people that do have the money to pay for anything in any macdonalds the world of voting is opened up

by paying for the act of voting you are paying for a service/ product – if the government goes back on their election promises you can demand your money back, if they don’t provide a service that they should – you get your money back. you get a receipt that proves YOU paid for the act of voting – this means that when you go to vote YOU have to prove who YOU are. a plain old receipt is not suffice – it will have to have YOUR name on it

“stop the boats” – money can be asked for as a refund

“there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” – refund

by making voting a bona fide transaction the promises made by the service provider is covered by consumer law, it stops governments from doing stupid things

most

if you are paying to vote – will you really vote for any old political party?

i said it was radical but when you look at the positives you’ll see it makes sense

it forces you to “purchase” the best service provider possible because you are using your money to do it

you might just use this money and give it to a charity you nominate on that day – when you get your refund you take it back from the government per se.

we have grown used to the idea that we can be reckless about voting, handing over YOUR money, to vote the government in that YOU want makes YOU be a little less careless and will crystallise in your mind how you will vote.

A simpler solution would be to ban political parties and all politicians chosen or sacked by their electorate. They would then have to listen to the people for their political survival rather than factions within a political party with their own agenda.

Even more radical.
A pollie is only in office for the % of their vote then the next highest for their % etc.

Tamb said:

Even more radical.
A pollie is only in office for the % of their vote then the next highest for their % etc.

They are placed there by their political party. The electorate has no say in the matter, nor can they be easily removed, especially in safe seats, whereas individuals can.

>..like never before

I know those three words are in george thorogood song, strung together in that sequence.

I’m saying that a polies seat goes to the next highest polling candidate after the %age of the first candidates time has elapsed.
e.g. Labor wins a seat with 2/3 of the vote so they have the seat for 2/3 of the term i.e. 2 years. After that time the NLP candidate gets the seat for the remainder of the time i.e. 1 year.

Tamb said:

I’m saying that a polies seat goes to the next highest polling candidate after the %age of the first candidates time has elapsed.
e.g. Labor wins a seat with 2/3 of the vote so they have the seat for 2/3 of the term i.e. 2 years. After that time the NLP candidate gets the seat for the remainder of the time i.e. 1 year.

Sorry, I thought you were commenting on my first post, but really you are suggesting a third system. That’s democracy for you.

Yes mate I came into the discussion a bit late & missed lots of the early posts.
A third radical suggestion was my contribution.

>..lets put it this way – paying to vote is the best way for a democracy to function and i’ll explain further, keeping people who don’t want to vote out of the electoral process is the best way for society to function….”

How do you define “don’t want to vote”, and “best way for society to function”. It’s not like anyone wakes on the day wild with enthusiasm with some “best way for society to function” concept fully developed that near suits most or all.

And just what if the arrangement then evolves to incline some to not want to vote?

Wouldn’t we just end up with parties paying people to vote for them.
No advertising just straight payments. Might even be cheaper.

I think this is probably the most right wing idea I’ve seen on this forum since the days when digitalradio, a genuine according-to-Hoyle Nazi, was on board.

SO yeah … well done.

transition said:

>..lets put it this way – paying to vote is the best way for a democracy to function and i’ll explain further, keeping people who don’t want to vote out of the electoral process is the best way for society to function….”

How do you define “don’t want to vote”, and “best way for society to function”. It’s not like anyone wakes on the day wild with enthusiasm with some “best way for society to function” concept fully developed that near suits most or all.

And just what if the arrangement then evolves to incline some to not want to vote?

Most democratic countries do not have compulsory voting and they seem to manage. If people are either very pleased with their candidate, or very displeased with them and want them out, then they will make sure they vote. Those who don’t care one way or the other will only distort the general feeling of the community, or at least those they wish to represent them

dv said:

I think this is probably the most right wing idea I’ve seen on this forum since the days when digitalradio, a genuine according-to-Hoyle Nazi, was on board.

SO yeah … well done.

I think we have a mix of views and political leanings.

I think wookie has crashed together something resembling the way it is, taken some poisonous ideological nonsense from some subterranian aspects of notional noise to do with the failures that exist in the present system, then come up with ‘more of the same’ is the fix.

>Those who don’t care one way or the other will only distort the general feeling of the community, or at least those they wish to represent them.

And what do mean by “don’t care”, that all that don’t want to vote don’t care about what?

dv said:

I think this is probably the most right wing idea I’ve seen on this forum since the days when digitalradio, a genuine according-to-Hoyle Nazi, was on board.

SO yeah … well done.

Take any position you like, as long as your interest is constructive discussion and you can acknowledge if you are wrong, I’ll have time to hear you out. As far as I am concerned, as long as the general population develops the ability to identify when it is being misled and respond as a unit, then progress will be made.

transition said:

>Those who don’t care one way or the other will only distort the general feeling of the community, or at least those they wish to represent them.

And what do mean by “don’t care”, that all that don’t want to vote don’t care about what?

If people care enough to want to change something that a politician represents, then they are far more likely to make the effort to vote, than someone who does not care.

I think it was Skiptic Peat who said Atheism is the opiate of the people.

poikilotherm said:

>If people care enough to want to change something that a politician represents, then they are far more likely to make the effort to vote, than someone who does not care.

Do you think double digit IQs should vote?

Many of the apparent weaknesses of our system were intentionally included as fail safe type mechanisms. Our systems as a whole were designed in another time with dissimilar requirements to our contemporary ones. It is patently obvious that the entire system is well and truly due for a definitive review and overhaul.

I believe that with compulsory voting people know the have to vote so they pay some attention to the barrage of political advertising & vote accordingly.

transition said:

>If people care enough to want to change something that a politician represents, then they are far more likely to make the effort to vote, than someone who does not care.

Do you think double digit IQs should vote?

How else are they to communicate with their triple digit IQ counterparts?

transition said:

>If people care enough to want to change something that a politician represents, then they are far more likely to make the effort to vote, than someone who does not care.

Do you think double digit IQs should vote?

They do now, so why not if they are interested.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Many of the apparent weaknesses of our system were intentionally included as fail safe type mechanisms. Our systems as a whole were designed in another time with dissimilar requirements to our contemporary ones. It is patently obvious that the entire system is well and truly due for a definitive review and overhaul.

Certainly agree with that statement.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Many of the apparent weaknesses of our system were intentionally included as fail safe type mechanisms. Our systems as a whole were designed in another time with dissimilar requirements to our contemporary ones. It is patently obvious that the entire system is well and truly due for a definitive review and overhaul.

As is parliamentry procedure

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I think this is probably the most right wing idea I’ve seen on this forum since the days when digitalradio, a genuine according-to-Hoyle Nazi, was on board.

SO yeah … well done.

I think we have a mix of views and political leanings.

We do, but this idea is so retrograde that it is way out there, out past One Nation or Rise Up Australia or anything like that. Basically wants to take us back about 130 years.

Tamb said:

I believe that with compulsory voting people know the have to vote so they pay some attention to the barrage of political advertising & vote accordingly.

Ah, an optimist.

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

I believe that with compulsory voting people know the have to vote so they pay some attention to the barrage of political advertising & vote accordingly.

Ah, an optimist.

The ads are on before & after reality shows the catch the double digit voters.

Tamb said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Many of the apparent weaknesses of our system were intentionally included as fail safe type mechanisms. Our systems as a whole were designed in another time with dissimilar requirements to our contemporary ones. It is patently obvious that the entire system is well and truly due for a definitive review and overhaul.

As is parliamentry procedure

When is the last time a parliament produced something ‘positively’ definitive?

>They do now, so why not if they are interested.

Personally I don’t see any serious problems with what is. For the most part we all vote (or don’t vote) for mostly what is that already works.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I think this is probably the most right wing idea I’ve seen on this forum since the days when digitalradio, a genuine according-to-Hoyle Nazi, was on board.

SO yeah … well done.

I think we have a mix of views and political leanings.

We do, but this idea is so retrograde that it is way out there, out past One Nation or Rise Up Australia or anything like that. Basically wants to take us back about 130 years.

We have three political systems mentioned here and all differ considerably from each other, as most likely do those who propose them. In other words the thread seems to have broadened.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Tamb said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Many of the apparent weaknesses of our system were intentionally included as fail safe type mechanisms. Our systems as a whole were designed in another time with dissimilar requirements to our contemporary ones. It is patently obvious that the entire system is well and truly due for a definitive review and overhaul.

As is parliamentry procedure

When is the last time a parliament produced something ‘positively’ definitive?

Last pollies pay rise debate.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

I think we have a mix of views and political leanings.

We do, but this idea is so retrograde that it is way out there, out past One Nation or Rise Up Australia or anything like that. Basically wants to take us back about 130 years.

We have three political systems mentioned here and all differ considerably from each other, as most likely do those who propose them. In other words the thread seems to have broadened.

I am referring to wookie’s OP.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Many of the apparent weaknesses of our system were intentionally included as fail safe type mechanisms. Our systems as a whole were designed in another time with dissimilar requirements to our contemporary ones. It is patently obvious that the entire system is well and truly due for a definitive review and overhaul.

Who would you trust to perform that overhaul?

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

I believe that with compulsory voting people know the have to vote so they pay some attention to the barrage of political advertising & vote accordingly.

Ah, an optimist.

The ads are on before & after reality shows the catch the double digit voters.

And as they are required to vote, the ads will probably influence the election outcome. Whereas if they did not have to vote, would they do so?

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Many of the apparent weaknesses of our system were intentionally included as fail safe type mechanisms. Our systems as a whole were designed in another time with dissimilar requirements to our contemporary ones. It is patently obvious that the entire system is well and truly due for a definitive review and overhaul.

Who would you trust to perform that overhaul?

The Greens and Family First.

Tamb said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Tamb said:

As is parliamentry procedure

When is the last time a parliament produced something ‘positively’ definitive?

Last pollies pay rise debate.

The requisite to the inclusion of ‘positively’ here is that it apply to the general population. Course, there is a prevalent culture among the lawyer/politician trades that they are the norm and everyone else the aberrations that must be weeded out!

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

Ah, an optimist.

The ads are on before & after reality shows the catch the double digit voters.

And as they are required to vote, the ads will probably influence the election outcome. Whereas if they did not have to vote, would they do so?

Ads are supposed to influence the election outcome.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

We do, but this idea is so retrograde that it is way out there, out past One Nation or Rise Up Australia or anything like that. Basically wants to take us back about 130 years.

We have three political systems mentioned here and all differ considerably from each other, as most likely do those who propose them. In other words the thread seems to have broadened.

I am referring to wookie’s OP.

I realise that, but the way you presented was very general.

>I believe that with compulsory voting people know the have to vote so they pay some attention to the barrage of political advertising & vote accordingly.

Attention to the fact you have to go in and get your name marked off, or you get a small fine really is all if you don’t post back a half convincing excuse. And they do accept excuses.

Peak Warming Man said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Many of the apparent weaknesses of our system were intentionally included as fail safe type mechanisms. Our systems as a whole were designed in another time with dissimilar requirements to our contemporary ones. It is patently obvious that the entire system is well and truly due for a definitive review and overhaul.

Who would you trust to perform that overhaul?

The Greens and Family First.

Pauline Hanson

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Many of the apparent weaknesses of our system were intentionally included as fail safe type mechanisms. Our systems as a whole were designed in another time with dissimilar requirements to our contemporary ones. It is patently obvious that the entire system is well and truly due for a definitive review and overhaul.

Who would you trust to perform that overhaul?

Not who, what? The cumulative common sense of forumite discussion. ;)

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

The ads are on before & after reality shows the catch the double digit voters.

And as they are required to vote, the ads will probably influence the election outcome. Whereas if they did not have to vote, would they do so?

Ads are supposed to influence the election outcome.

But only if the people want to vote.

transition said:

>I believe that with compulsory voting people know the have to vote so they pay some attention to the barrage of political advertising & vote accordingly.

Attention to the fact you have to go in and get your name marked off, or you get a small fine really is all if you don’t post back a half convincing excuse. And they do accept excuses.

True. They do. My Mum was excused because she wanted to vote for “That nice Mr Menzies” in 1995.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Many of the apparent weaknesses of our system were intentionally included as fail safe type mechanisms. Our systems as a whole were designed in another time with dissimilar requirements to our contemporary ones. It is patently obvious that the entire system is well and truly due for a definitive review and overhaul.

Who would you trust to perform that overhaul?

Not who, what? The cumulative common sense of forumite discussion. ;)

The original ‘senates’ were simply public forums

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Many of the apparent weaknesses of our system were intentionally included as fail safe type mechanisms. Our systems as a whole were designed in another time with dissimilar requirements to our contemporary ones. It is patently obvious that the entire system is well and truly due for a definitive review and overhaul.

Who would you trust to perform that overhaul?

Not who, what? The cumulative common sense of forumite discussion. ;)

In a democracy, then surely the people should decide via a common vote.

PermeateFree said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Who would you trust to perform that overhaul?

Not who, what? The cumulative common sense of forumite discussion. ;)

In a democracy, then surely the people should decide via a common vote.

Like a referendum. Sadly the wording of referendums is determined by the pollies.
Remember the Republic referendum?

Anyway it’s not like governments run the country, they more protect the many other aspects that could be said to run the country, if you brought them alttogether conceptually, which’d be a distorted view anyway IMO.

Peak Warming Man said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Many of the apparent weaknesses of our system were intentionally included as fail safe type mechanisms. Our systems as a whole were designed in another time with dissimilar requirements to our contemporary ones. It is patently obvious that the entire system is well and truly due for a definitive review and overhaul.

Who would you trust to perform that overhaul?

The Greens and Family First.

You forgot the Christian Democrats.

PermeateFree said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Who would you trust to perform that overhaul?

Not who, what? The cumulative common sense of forumite discussion. ;)

In a democracy, then surely the people should decide via a common vote.

Common sense doesn’t work by vote. Long term dedicated application to critical public discussion develops an awareness of subject matter that is both accurate and shared by a greater population than oneself. The more people who are experienced with differentiating critical results, the less prone the population is to being misled.

Skeptic Pete said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Who would you trust to perform that overhaul?

The Greens and Family First.

You forgot the Christian Democrats.

Nah, they are main stream, well in Europe they are.
Ruled Germany since the wall came down, that’s why Germany is doing so well.

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Not who, what? The cumulative common sense of forumite discussion. ;)

In a democracy, then surely the people should decide via a common vote.

Like a referendum. Sadly the wording of referendums is determined by the pollies.
Remember the Republic referendum?

We are talking about a change to the political system, so why not start with that one.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

PermeateFree said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Not who, what? The cumulative common sense of forumite discussion. ;)

In a democracy, then surely the people should decide via a common vote.

Common sense doesn’t work by vote. Long term dedicated application to critical public discussion develops an awareness of subject matter that is both accurate and shared by a greater population than oneself. The more people who are experienced with differentiating critical results, the less prone the population is to being misled.

The critical aspect is promoting greater inclusion in public affairs of the individual and rejecting elitism as an appropriate generic solution.

transition said:

Anyway it’s not like governments run the country, they more protect the many other aspects that could be said to run the country, if you brought them alttogether conceptually, which’d be a distorted view anyway IMO.

Yes, there are some beauties in the current batch.

Peak Warming Man said:

Nah, they are main stream, well in Europe they are.
Ruled Germany since the wall came down, that’s why Germany is doing so well.

Europe! I’m talking about the Most Reverend Honourable Fred Nile.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

PermeateFree said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Not who, what? The cumulative common sense of forumite discussion. ;)

In a democracy, then surely the people should decide via a common vote.

Common sense doesn’t work by vote. Long term dedicated application to critical public discussion develops an awareness of subject matter that is both accurate and shared by a greater population than oneself. The more people who are experienced with differentiating critical results, the less prone the population is to being misled.

Don’t think anyone is talking about the education of the public, but what now counts as education from political parties draws a very long bow. It would be great if the facts were stated.

>Yes, there are some beauties in the current batch.

Was more thinking along the lines of something analogous to subsidiarity.

Peak Warming Man said:

Skeptic Pete said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The Greens and Family First.

You forgot the Christian Democrats.

Nah, they are main stream, well in Europe they are.
Ruled Germany since the wall came down, that’s why Germany is doing so well.

You’d be hard pressed to find any ideological similarity between Merkel and Nile

Don’t think anyone is talking about the education of the public, but what now counts as education from political parties draws a very long bow. It would be great if the facts were stated.

Yes. Gaol terms for pollies who lie with their electoral promises.

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

In a democracy, then surely the people should decide via a common vote.

Like a referendum. Sadly the wording of referendums is determined by the pollies.
Remember the Republic referendum?

And if the people vote the wrong way we’ll have a cultural revolution, a proper revolution, the people can be re-educated.
Many will die but as Philip Adams once said, “Sometimes you need to murder a hundred for the good of a thousand”

We are talking about a change to the political system, so why not start with that one.

PermeateFree said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

PermeateFree said:

In a democracy, then surely the people should decide via a common vote.

Common sense doesn’t work by vote. Long term dedicated application to critical public discussion develops an awareness of subject matter that is both accurate and shared by a greater population than oneself. The more people who are experienced with differentiating critical results, the less prone the population is to being misled.

Don’t think anyone is talking about the education of the public, but what now counts as education from political parties draws a very long bow. It would be great if the facts were stated.

I wasn’t promoting public education. Rather, public inclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

“Subsidiarity is an organising principle of decentralisation, stating that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralised authority capable of addressing that matter effectively”

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Skeptic Pete said:

You forgot the Christian Democrats.

Nah, they are main stream, well in Europe they are.
Ruled Germany since the wall came down, that’s why Germany is doing so well.

You’d be hard pressed to find any ideological similarity between Merkel and Nile

They’ve both had their phones bugged.

Tamb said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Nah, they are main stream, well in Europe they are.
Ruled Germany since the wall came down, that’s why Germany is doing so well.

You’d be hard pressed to find any ideological similarity between Merkel and Nile

They’ve both had their phones bugged.

Classic.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

PermeateFree said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Common sense doesn’t work by vote. Long term dedicated application to critical public discussion develops an awareness of subject matter that is both accurate and shared by a greater population than oneself. The more people who are experienced with differentiating critical results, the less prone the population is to being misled.

Don’t think anyone is talking about the education of the public, but what now counts as education from political parties draws a very long bow. It would be great if the facts were stated.

I wasn’t promoting public education. Rather, public inclusion.

I don’t think we differ by much.

The philosophy exhibited in this passage is the basis of the need for public rejection of the standards that politicians hold the public too. We do not owe them our personal transition to a way of life that they are comfortable with. They owe us acknowledgement that they serve us and we owe them NOTHING OTHER THAN SUPERVISION!!!

One day, the father of a very wealthy family took his son on a trip to the country with the express purpose of showing him how poor people live.

They spent a couple of days and nights on the farm of what would be considered a very poor family.

On their return from their trip, the father asked his son, “How was the trip?”

“It was great, Dad.”

“Did you see how poor people live?” the father asked.

“Oh yeah,” said the son.

“So, tell me, what did you learn from the trip?” asked the father.

The son answered:

“I saw that we have one dog and they had four.

We have a pool that reaches to the middle of our garden and they have a creek that has no end.

We have imported lanterns in our garden and they have the stars at night.

Our patio reaches to the front yard and they have the whole horizon.

We have a small piece of land to live on and they have fields that go beyond our sight.

We have servants who serve us, but they serve others.

We buy our food, but they grow theirs.

We have walls around our property to protect us, they have friends to protect them.”

The boy’s father was speechless.

Then his son added, “Thanks Dad for showing me how poor we are.”

Isn’t perspective a wonderful thing?

Makes you wonder what would happen if we all gave thanks for everything we have, instead of worrying about what we don’t have.

I’m not surprised Wookie has bailed out of this thread, it’s gone a bit weird.

A greater value placed on humility would go a long way in the world………..

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m not surprised Wookie has bailed out of this thread, it’s gone a bit weird.

He is only preparing himself to out-weird the competition!

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m not surprised Wookie has bailed out of this thread, it’s gone a bit weird.

He is only preparing himself to out-weird the competition!

Guess weird is better than stupid.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Skeptic Pete said:

You forgot the Christian Democrats.

Nah, they are main stream, well in Europe they are.
Ruled Germany since the wall came down, that’s why Germany is doing so well.

You’d be hard pressed to find any ideological similarity between Merkel and Nile

“Ruled Germany since the wall came down,”
Note that the Social Democrats were in power from 1998 to 2005.

The Trickle Down Effect!

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Trickle Down Effect!

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Or political parties.

dv said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Nah, they are main stream, well in Europe they are.
Ruled Germany since the wall came down, that’s why Germany is doing so well.

You’d be hard pressed to find any ideological similarity between Merkel and Nile

“Ruled Germany since the wall came down,”
Note that the Social Democrats were in power from 1998 to 2005.

And if I don’t note this?

OCDC said:

dv said:

dv said:

You’d be hard pressed to find any ideological similarity between Merkel and Nile

“Ruled Germany since the wall came down,”
Note that the Social Democrats were in power from 1998 to 2005.

And if I don’t note this?

Chaos is come again

dv said:

OCDC said:

dv said:

“Ruled Germany since the wall came down,”
Note that the Social Democrats were in power from 1998 to 2005.

And if I don’t note this?

Chaos is come again

Excellent.

dv said:

OCDC said:

dv said:

“Ruled Germany since the wall came down,”
Note that the Social Democrats were in power from 1998 to 2005.

And if I don’t note this?

Chaos is come again

This time don’t call in Maxwell Smart!

L: Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.
Old Man: {rises to his feet) Not to men like you.
L: (smiles) There are no men like me.
Old Man: There are always men like you.
L: Look to your elder, people. Let him be an example. (Aims scepter at old man, Rogers deflects blast back at L)
Rogers: You know, the last time I was in Germany and saw a man standing above everybody else, we ended up disagreeing.
L: The soldier. A man out of time.
Rogers: I’m not the one who’s out of time.

Now this is funny,
I’ll give those up the back a clue, the sound and the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpDjbul0WyE

Pretty good gig eh, standing around with your arms folded looking surly.

dv said:

Pretty good gig eh, standing around with your arms folded looking surly.

That’s all I ever do, and hope to God I’m not expected to actually examine a patient or participate in CPR.

ROFL, fittingly, most of them are indeed dancing out of time.

dv said:

Pretty good gig eh, standing around with your arms folded looking surly.

That’s not the funny part, well all the videos from the sixties are a bit funny but.

Yay.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Pretty good gig eh, standing around with your arms folded looking surly.

That’s not the funny part, well all the videos from the sixties are a bit funny but.

Yeah nah I got your point.

Can’t say I have heard of Farlowe, but then I stopped watching music television once the Baird Televisor was phased out.

Peak Warming Man said:

Now this is funny,
I’ll give those up the back a clue, the sound and the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpDjbul0WyE

What a strange face :/

Just looked up Farlowe on WP … he now resembles Bricktop from the movie Snatch.

Chris Farlow had the definitive version of that song, The Rolling Stones did a cover version and are now widely associated with it by people who weren’t there man.

Tamb said:

Wouldn’t we just end up with parties paying people to vote for them.
No advertising just straight payments. Might even be cheaper.

this already happens – governments make “promises” to give some people money back through tax rebates and other incentives.

the receipt system formalises the promises made – you get your money back if the government doesn’t live up to its promises

Don’t worry Wookie, the day when a government is elected without making a single definitive breakable promise is not far off.

I have seen one bloke clearly drunk , wearing shorts and thongs – that’s it no wallet no nuthin, blood pouring from the back of his head, with a few missing teeth walk in and vote. he had been engrossed into talking with some chick who was handing out and still couldn’t vote for the candidate he was meant to vote for (as he walked out he called out to the chick he had spoken to he had voted – voted for X, Y and X,Z he couldn’t remember exactly who he was meant to vote for by the time he got to the box and by pure chance X was the first name of two politically opposed candidates)

we must discourage the idiot from voting – the only reason he was there was because he didn’t want to be fined – we must stop that perversion of the electoral syste. let those who want to take part in society, let those that don’t live their own lives on whatever terms they see fit.

if you turn up with no means of paying (assuming you haven’t paid on-line beforehand) then they’ll let you “vote” and then essentially throw it in the bin afterwards if you can’t understand basic explanations of how the voting system works. in simple terms you have no money management skills to be eligible to vote.

transition said:

>If people care enough to want to change something that a politician represents, then they are far more likely to make the effort to vote, than someone who does not care.

Do you think double digit IQs should vote?

of course -as long as they want to vote and can stump up 5 dollars to vote, this is the litmus test.

transition said:

>They do now, so why not if they are interested.

Personally I don’t see any serious problems with what is. For the most part we all vote (or don’t vote) for mostly what is that already works.

like massive mismanagement of money?

digital boxsets – 350 million dollars

potplants – 1 million

seasprite – 1 billion (or more)

Afghanistan/ Iraq – a war we started yet could neither win nor finish. in reality perhaps 50 billion dollars once the real costs are uncovered)

theres too much money at stake to keep voting in governments that can’t deliver on the back of stupidity and ignorance

party_pants said:

poikilotherm said:

you shouldn’t encourage people with no desire to vote and not enough brains to cobble together 5 dollars to vote in an important process

the AEC mentioned that one senate seat came down to ONE vote

with the margarines between candidates being so slim you can see how important that only those willing to spread their votes well should be encouraged to vote

wookiemeister said:

the AEC mentioned that one senate seat came down to ONE vote

with the margarines between candidates being so slim you can see how important that only those willing to spread their votes well should be encouraged to vote

The candidates might have to butter up the electors.

There you go – fixed it for you.

“you shouldn’t encourage people with not enough brains make a reasonable decision to vote in an important process”

wookiemeister said:

you shouldn’t encourage people with no desire to vote and not enough brains to cobble together 5 dollars to vote in an important process

its a matter of sorting the sheep from the goats

why allow an election to go down the toilet thanks to someone who knows nothing of the “issues” being forced to vote.

if you can’t afford 5 dollars then you’ve most likely make an amazing number gaffs in life choices and might prefer to buy booze or any other drug of choice than to vote.

if people are paying to vote they might take it a little more seriously – my bets are that they will

when you are laying down money for something suddenly the whole process becomes relevant and important,

wookiemeister said:

you shouldn’t encourage people with no desire to vote and not enough brains to cobble together 5 dollars to vote in an important process

More importantly, this concept that there is any appropriateness in evaluating private individuals in such a manner should be made abhorrent. A public personality must rely on this sort of feedback to remain in step with those he/she claims to represent. A culture of throwing these assumptions about in such an arrogant and self congratulatory manner is simply public masturbation of the highest order.

wookiemeister said:

if you can’t afford 5 dollars then you’ve most likely make an amazing number gaffs in life choices and might prefer to buy booze or any other drug of choice than to vote.

So if someone is in a position to spend $5 to vote or spend it on their family eating, they should vote?

I don’t agree with your position.

wookiemeister said:

you shouldn’t encourage people with no desire to vote and not enough brains to cobble together 5 dollars to vote in an important process

In my view the person who cannot cobble 5 dollars together their vote should be worth twice an ordinary vote. They are the sort of people usually disenfranchised and need all the help and listening they can get from govt.

It always annoys me when people dictate that only a certain class or intellect of person should be entitled to vote.

Skunkworks said:

wookiemeister said:

you shouldn’t encourage people with no desire to vote and not enough brains to cobble together 5 dollars to vote in an important process

In my view the person who cannot cobble 5 dollars together their vote should be worth twice an ordinary vote. They are the sort of people usually disenfranchised and need all the help and listening they can get from govt.

It always annoys me when people dictate that only a certain class or intellect of person should be entitled to vote.

those that don’t want to vote and are happy to be off the electoral role (i have met them), those that don’t have their finances to gather 5 dollars? they can’t afford anything from macdonalds – strange people to be sure – they don’t exist. you don’t want to pay a tokenistic fee to a charity to be allowed to vote?

Obviousman said:

wookiemeister said:

if you can’t afford 5 dollars then you’ve most likely make an amazing number gaffs in life choices and might prefer to buy booze or any other drug of choice than to vote.

So if someone is in a position to spend $5 to vote or spend it on their family eating, they should vote?

I don’t agree with your position.

these people don’t exist

I have walked into a pub and had someone hitting me up to give me money to allow them to gamble more money back

if you can’t afford 5 dollars you are already out of the loop one way or the other anyway.

you want to vote? try to save up 5 dollars over three years – or are people so desperate that they couldn’t save 5 dollars over 5 years, maybe they could open a special savings account to allow them to save up a whole 5 dollars?

wookiemeister said:

those that don’t want to vote and are happy to be off the electoral role (i have met them), those that don’t have their finances to gather 5 dollars? they can’t afford anything from macdonalds – strange people to be sure – they don’t exist. you don’t want to pay a tokenistic fee to a charity to be allowed to vote?

Nope. Voting should be free and easily available. And compulsory, a rare example where I am actually for compulsion.

making voting compulsory puts a spanner in the works of responsible government, you are dancing to the tune of the idiot.

Your philosophies are exclusionary Wookie. The reality is that the more we can functionally included others in our decisions the greater the robustness of the results.

wookiemeister said:

making voting compulsory puts a spanner in the works of responsible government, you are dancing to the tune of the idiot.

people in glass houses………

Riff-in-Thyme said:

wookiemeister said:

making voting compulsory puts a spanner in the works of responsible government, you are dancing to the tune of the idiot.

people in glass houses………

from what I can tell you are the living manifestation of that tune!!!

no offense intended, but have you ever listened to yourself wookie? seriously?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Your philosophies are exclusionary Wookie. The reality is that the more we can functionally included others in our decisions the greater the robustness of the results.

from what I’ve seen around 80 percent of the voting public don’t want to be there / don’t know what they are voting for/ don’t care.

wookiemeister said:

making voting compulsory puts a spanner in the works of responsible government, you are dancing to the tune of the idiot.

Unlike many here I don’t think there are that many idiots around. People seem to think someone is an idiot because they dress in a way they don’t like, are overweight, cant spell, etc. My experience is most people are pretty smart and smart enough at least to vote in a way that will not be detrimental to themselves.

wookiemeister said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Your philosophies are exclusionary Wookie. The reality is that the more we can functionally included others in our decisions the greater the robustness of the results.

from what I’ve seen around 80 percent of the voting public don’t want to be there / don’t know what they are voting for/ don’t care.

100% due to the long fought battle against inclusiveness waged by the elites of the world since before Aesop was being rogered by the fukwits!

Riff-in-Thyme said:

wookiemeister said:

making voting compulsory puts a spanner in the works of responsible government, you are dancing to the tune of the idiot.

people in glass houses………

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private—as opposed to public—affairs. Idiocy was the natural state of ignorance into which all persons were born and its opposite, citizenship, was effected through formalized education. In Athenian democracy, idiots were born and citizens were made through education (although citizenship was also largely hereditary). “Idiot” originally referred to “layman, person lacking professional skill”, “person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning”. Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), was considered dishonorable. “Idiots” were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

wookiemeister said:

making voting compulsory puts a spanner in the works of responsible government, you are dancing to the tune of the idiot.

people in glass houses………

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private—as opposed to public—affairs. Idiocy was the natural state of ignorance into which all persons were born and its opposite, citizenship, was effected through formalized education. In Athenian democracy, idiots were born and citizens were made through education (although citizenship was also largely hereditary). “Idiot” originally referred to “layman, person lacking professional skill”, “person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning”. Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), was considered dishonorable. “Idiots” were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters.

wookiemeister said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Your philosophies are exclusionary Wookie. The reality is that the more we can functionally included others in our decisions the greater the robustness of the results.

from what I’ve seen around 80 percent of the voting public don’t want to be there / don’t know what they are voting for/ don’t care.

My daughter always rings me on the morning of an election to ask me who she should vote for

here here!

Skunkworks said:

wookiemeister said:

making voting compulsory puts a spanner in the works of responsible government, you are dancing to the tune of the idiot.

Unlike many here I don’t think there are that many idiots around. People seem to think someone is an idiot because they dress in a way they don’t like, are overweight, cant spell, etc. My experience is most people are pretty smart and smart enough at least to vote in a way that will not be detrimental to themselves.

Skeptic Pete said:

My daughter always rings me on the morning of an election to ask me who she should vote for

You can give her my number if she wants a second opinion.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

here here!

Skunkworks said:

wookiemeister said:

making voting compulsory puts a spanner in the works of responsible government, you are dancing to the tune of the idiot.

Unlike many here I don’t think there are that many idiots around. People seem to think someone is an idiot because they dress in a way they don’t like, are overweight, cant spell, etc. My experience is most people are pretty smart and smart enough at least to vote in a way that will not be detrimental to themselves.

but that mind might only be trained and be useful in one particular field. people who might excel in one field of thought might not be as successful in any other field.

the destruction of the state always come with the destruction of the education system as this attacks the core values of any successful society

I think we should be paid to put up with that lot

I’m beginning to like the original Democratic system in ancient Athens. Select the leader from those who wish to rule by lottery. Random selection.

wookiemeister said:

Obviousman said:

wookiemeister said:

if you can’t afford 5 dollars then you’ve most likely make an amazing number gaffs in life choices and might prefer to buy booze or any other drug of choice than to vote.

So if someone is in a position to spend $5 to vote or spend it on their family eating, they should vote?

I don’t agree with your position.

these people don’t exist

You are so far out of touch with the world it is pointless talking to you.

mollwollfumble said:

I’m beginning to like the original Democratic system in ancient Athens. Select the leader from those who wish to rule by lottery. Random selection.

they knew how to get rid of them too sometimes for the good

pericles was a problem – he banned voting rights for non Athenian offspring (dad and mum had to both Athenian to have Athenian offspring) then diddled himself by having a kid by a non Athenian and getting them to twist the rules

That quote of Albert’s (if accurate) would have to be seen in the context of his broader social philosophy, which if done puts a different spin on the likely meaning of it as contrasted with what the average reader might extract from it.

dv said:

I think this is probably the most right wing idea I’ve seen on this forum since the days when digitalradio, a genuine according-to-Hoyle Nazi, was on board.

SO yeah … well done.

You give him too much credit dv.

I mean it’s just a very much scaled down version of how things used to be before poor people had the vote.

>Do you think double digit IQs should vote?

Since, by definition, they make up about 50% of the population, it might seem to be reasonable to allow them to vote.

Inspired by wookiemeister, I have a radical proposal of my own.

Before the election each party would be required to publish details of their proposed levels of taxation for the next three years, which would be binding on the winning party. If they wanted to change tax levels, they would need to call an election.

The votes for each party would then be factored by their total tax take divided by the average tax take.

This would counter the current trend where all parties try to hide their taxation, leading to ridiculous policy decisions and a general lack of socially responsible policy.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Inspired by wookiemeister, I have a radical proposal of my own.

Before the election each party would be required to publish details of their proposed levels of taxation for the next three years, which would be binding on the winning party. If they wanted to change tax levels, they would need to call an election.

The votes for each party would then be factored by their total tax take divided by the average tax take.

This would counter the current trend where all parties try to hide their taxation, leading to ridiculous policy decisions and a general lack of socially responsible policy.

OK provided taxation included levys & other undefined “taxes”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Inspired by wookiemeister, I have a radical proposal of my own.

Before the election each party would be required to publish details of their proposed levels of taxation for the next three years, which would be binding on the winning party. If they wanted to change tax levels, they would need to call an election.

The votes for each party would then be factored by their total tax take divided by the average tax take.

This would counter the current trend where all parties try to hide their taxation, leading to ridiculous policy decisions and a general lack of socially responsible policy.

The tax take is volatile and subject to change as general economic conditions change. They can’t be predicted, only forecast, and the forecasts are notoriously unreliable. The only thing that can they say is what the tax rates will be, but they can’t predict three years in advance what the tax take will be.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Inspired by wookiemeister, I have a radical proposal of my own.

Before the election each party would be required to publish details of their proposed levels of taxation for the next three years, which would be binding on the winning party. If they wanted to change tax levels, they would need to call an election.

The votes for each party would then be factored by their total tax take divided by the average tax take.

This would counter the current trend where all parties try to hide their taxation, leading to ridiculous policy decisions and a general lack of socially responsible policy.

The tax take is volatile and subject to change as general economic conditions change. They can’t be predicted, only forecast, and the forecasts are notoriously unreliable. The only thing that can they say is what the tax rates will be, but they can’t predict three years in advance what the tax take will be.

In that case they should do what household does uses its brains and balls to come up with strategies to make do with what money it has

We can’t keep funding every harebrained scheme like digital box sets and buying back old fishing boats because they might be used to smuggle budgies into Australia . (Fire fighting drones will be of the highest national priority though)

The government will have to make do with what it’s got.

I still think we should be paid to listen to them

I’m owed a lot of money

and I also need to be compensated for the emotional abuse caused by recent electoral behavior