RE: Neither's Core Principles???
[DK] The description of Neither! given on its website is: >Neither! is a broad coalition of people and groups fighting for Proportional >Representation in Australia. We seek to smash the two party system. [AL] I cringe when I see that description as we are not (yet) a broad coalition of people and groups at all. [DK] Whilst I support smashing the two party system, I need convincing that Proportional Representation is the best replacement. It is certainly not the ONLY replacement that would make a significant improvement, so I suggest broadening Neither's stated aims to include other viable possibilities (e.g. Citizens Intitiated Referenda). [AL] Fair enough, you and/or many, many others would need to be convinced of that (or convince others to take a different approach), before any kind of broad coalition could be formed with that as an agreed basis. The best way to achieve that is not by pretending that it already exists, as that web page did, but the way that you Alister Air are going about it, by raising these sort of questions for serious discussion. [DK] Rewritten, the statement may need to be as general as: "Neither! is a broad coalition of people and groups fighting to smash the two party system in Australia. We seek to install a system of government more responsive to the wishes of the people." [AL] I disagree. More general statements always look superficially more attractive because everyone can agree on them. But the agreement then becomes meaningless because they have not actually agreed on anything but a willingness to make a general statement. In this case the general statement "We seek to install a system of government more responsive to the wishes of the people" could easily lead to a chorus of "me too" from everyone in Australia without actually posing any challenge whatever to the two party system. There has to be some concrete program for smashing the two party system that people can either agree or disagree with. Then we have to persuade them to agree with both the objective and that concrete program for achieving it or else adopt some other concrete program that we CAN persuade people to agree with or else abandon hope of smashing the two party system. [DK] Proportional Representation is not perfect, not without problems of its own. [AL] Agreed. But if we try to propose a perfect system without problems of its own we shall never agree on what it is and certainly never achieve it. If the overall goal is to smash the two party system, then the question is whether a concrete goal of PR or some other concrete goal (eg CIR or CIR + PR) is the appropriate concrete means to achieve that goal. I believe PR precisely answers the question of how to smash the two party system - no more and no less. It does not (and could not) ensure that government will be responsive to the wishes of the people or any other such thing. But it does ensure that government and politics generally will not be dominated entirely by two political parties and therefore that the "two party system" cannot continue. It does that very simply by ensuring that every party is represented in proportion to its strength. Given that the two parties have already declined to less than 80% support it ensures that future governments would be minority governments whose ability to enact their legislative program would depend on their winning majorities in actual political debates (and behind the scenes manouvres) rather than every decision being pre-determined by which of two parties won elections held every few years. That is precisely what is required to smash the two party system - no more and no less. [DK] For example it eliminates the (theoretical) representative of me and the area where I live... so if there is something I want to complain about locally, who do I go to see? I can't imagine someone elected by numbers coming from all over a state or country being particularly responsive to local concerns. [AL] This argument has been and will be an obstacle to the adoption of PR, so it is important that we develop a clear answer to it (or find some other way to smash the two party system). My view is that the answer already given by Electoral Reform Societies is adequate and just needs to be widely explained. Under PR any group with a quota (say 70,000) can be represented. If people want to be represented on the basis of the area in which they live then they will get together to elect a local representative. This would I think be unusual in a modern industrial society and would only happen in rural areas but if for example a local area community of say 250,000 voters had only 40,000 voters who were more interested in non-local representation then the 210,000 who want local representation could elect 3 representatives with similar or different views on how that area should be represented. Even an area with only 80,000 voters, of whom 10,000 were concerned primarily with non-local representation could still have 5
Re: Neither's Core Principles???
-Original Message- From: David Kidd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sunday, 25 October 1998 5:51 PM Subject: Neither's Core Principles??? >The description of Neither! given on its website is: >>Neither! is a broad coalition of people and groups fighting for >Proportional >Representation in Australia. We seek to smash the two party >system. > >Whilst I support smashing the two party system, I need convincing that >Proportional Representation is the best replacement. It is certainly not >the ONLY replacement that would make a significant improvement, so I suggest >broadening Neither's stated aims to include other viable possibilities (e.g. >Citizens Intitiated Referenda). > >Rewritten, the statement may need to be as general as: >"Neither! is a broad coalition of people and groups fighting to smash the >two party system in Australia. We seek to install a system of government >more responsive to the wishes of the people." > >Proportional Representation is not perfect, not without problems of its own. >For example it eliminates the (theoretical) representative of me and the >area where I live... so if there is something I want to complain about >locally, who do I go to see? I can't imagine someone elected by numbers >coming from all over a state or country being particularly responsive to >local concerns. > >On the other hand it is said of CIR that it doesn't matter who wins >government... their errors can be overridden by referenda initiated by the >people. And there are probably other improvements to the current system that >may appeal to members. > >However, there is another issue of perhaps greater importance, mentioned in >several other postings to this list but not spelled out as one of Neither's >core objectives. > >I refer to the ceaseless propaganda campaign the population is subjected to >by the mass media (aided by big business and politicians of course). How >can any correct decision be made democratically whilst the people are being >mislead and subjected to subtle coercion all the time? If any proof is >needed, consider how such a large percentage of voters can be conned into >giving their primary votes to the major parties. > >So, is Neither willing to tackle the media head-on? Without winning this >battle first, I can't see the establishment allowing you to achieve your >other aims. Well, not in our lifetimes anyway! Right there in the last two paragraphs is the whole crux of the matter Dave; there is another problem - an enemy far more insidious than that above. Here is a quote from a bloke who knows the problem first hand; one who was successful in this century at beating the corporate state: 'This is what the masses have done and continue to do to such people. So, what can I - a poor bedouin - hope for a modern city of insanity? People snap at me whenever they see me: build us a better house! Get us a better telephone line! Build us a road upon the sea! Make a public park for us! Catch oceans of fish for us! Write down a magic spell to protect us! Officiate at our wedding!. Kill this dog, and buy us a cat! A poor, lost bedouin, without even a birth certificate, with his staff upon his shoulder. A bedouin, who will not stop for a red light, nor be afraid when a policeman takes hold of him.' The quote is from a book by Qaddafi called 'Escape to Hell', and tells of a people too stupid to even help themselves, even though he gave their country back to them. Why are the poor poor and slaves slaves - they prefer it that way. It was the Roman mobs on the dole that wanted the bread and circuses, not Caesar. > >Dave >-- >David Kidd Webmaster http://dkd.net E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Maryborough, Queensland 4650, Australia Phone (07) 4122 1120 > > > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list send an email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject. > >For help with this mailing list, look at >http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm >
Neither's Core Principles???
The description of Neither! given on its website is: >Neither! is a broad coalition of people and groups fighting for Proportional >Representation in Australia. We seek to smash the two party system. Whilst I support smashing the two party system, I need convincing that Proportional Representation is the best replacement. It is certainly not the ONLY replacement that would make a significant improvement, so I suggest broadening Neither's stated aims to include other viable possibilities (e.g. Citizens Intitiated Referenda). Rewritten, the statement may need to be as general as: "Neither! is a broad coalition of people and groups fighting to smash the two party system in Australia. We seek to install a system of government more responsive to the wishes of the people." Proportional Representation is not perfect, not without problems of its own. For example it eliminates the (theoretical) representative of me and the area where I live... so if there is something I want to complain about locally, who do I go to see? I can't imagine someone elected by numbers coming from all over a state or country being particularly responsive to local concerns. On the other hand it is said of CIR that it doesn't matter who wins government... their errors can be overridden by referenda initiated by the people. And there are probably other improvements to the current system that may appeal to members. However, there is another issue of perhaps greater importance, mentioned in several other postings to this list but not spelled out as one of Neither's core objectives. I refer to the ceaseless propaganda campaign the population is subjected to by the mass media (aided by big business and politicians of course). How can any correct decision be made democratically whilst the people are being mislead and subjected to subtle coercion all the time? If any proof is needed, consider how such a large percentage of voters can be conned into giving their primary votes to the major parties. So, is Neither willing to tackle the media head-on? Without winning this battle first, I can't see the establishment allowing you to achieve your other aims. Well, not in our lifetimes anyway! Dave -- David Kidd Webmaster http://dkd.net E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maryborough, Queensland 4650, Australia Phone (07) 4122 1120
