[DG]
I'm not sure what being a member of Neither entails -- I am merely a
list
subscriber.
[AL]
My understanding is that everyone is just a list subscriber until they
send their membership fee ($10 at present). We will have to setup a
national constitution and our own voting rules etc (which will have to
provide for people with no email access on important issues).
Meanwhile this open mailing list provides a better means for getting
started than the member's meetings that weren't happening and will
eventually settle down (perhaps with other mailing lists) to work
out concrete details which can be advertized on the web site.
[DG]
I should also make clear that I am a member of the Australian
Democrats, and add that parties mean nothing to me except as policy
instruments and arenas of struggle for democratic principle. I joined
the
AD in 1991 when (in WA at least, and to a fair extent in the rest of the
country) it was run on very democratic lines. There was a power
broker-led
putsch in the period 1993-1994 leading to expulsion of most of the
democratic elements in this State, and a tendency for the more
democratic-minded (nationally and especially in WA) to drift out. I
escaped
the axe by a bizarre freak of luck, as a result of having temporarily
withdrawn from the leading body in WA at the time. I'll remain a
member
and make moderate efforts to avoid expulsion because democratic struggle
goes on in all arenas and this one happens to be one which I know and in
which I am known (among some, it is with extreme disfavour). Since
being a
member of any other political party is an expellable (and easily
detectable!) offence I won't join one.
I have observed with great interest and no surprise the shock-horror in
the
party-oriented (as distinct from policy-oriented) ranks in the
Australian
Democrats when Albert Langer went public in a push for voluntary
allocation
of preferences by electors. If this took on, it would make nonsense of
all
the backroom horsetrading between power brokers of the Australian
Democrats
and power brokers of the other parties -- especially LabLib -- over
allocation by the parties of electors' preference. If Albert Langer
were to
get away with this outrage, dammit the party would have to *earn* all
its
votes, both primary votes and preferences. Civilisation as we know it
would
go out the window. Careers would be at risk.
[AL]
Although I understand the above being the reason behind the Democrats
bizarre support for propping up the two party system by illegal coercion
I am curious about what we need to do to help Democrat members change
that party policy. Is it your estimate that Democrat members are widely
aware that their party has supported the ALP and Coalition on this and
do you expect them to change that policy? What can Neither do about it?
On a related matter, for the same reason I suspect that the Greens are
more likely to wake up and start seriously fighting for PR than the
Democrats
who seem happy enough to remain the "half" of the "two and a half party
system"
doing preference deals. Are the Democrats a write off on this or they
likely
to end up seriously fighting for PR?
Likewise, what can Neither do to persuade both the Democrats and Greens
to take this up as a fight rather than just a wish (and One Nation for
that matter)?
