One vote One candidate

[keith]

How many people would be in favour of stopping preferences in our voting system. ? If I vote for Bill my vote does'nt end up with John because Bill did'nt get the numbers and he promised John could have his number of votes for a consideration.
One vote One candidate. And make all Goverment bodies accountable not just at the ballot but also in the courts ?

[buzz]

You are, of course Keith, are so right. But that was the intention all along.

Tell me, what do you think of the following as a contention?

Proportional prefential voting was specifically introduced to depress the influence of the majority. In fact the entitre minority rights movement has been promoted for this reason.

Now, this does not mean that the rights of minorities should not be protected. There are better and more appropriate ways, such as accommodating these within the electorate itself through having government by informed electoral consensus (government by the people for the people; democracy). You can access this in detail by checking out ISBN 1-9210-0517-3.

Promoting the rights of minorities in a context of government by lobby, which is what we have now, is a prescription for divide and rule, and eventually, tyranny. We can see this now, for example, as the imposed and entirely undemocratic Policy of Multiculturalism has given rise to conflict between radical Muslims and the wider Australian community.

Other cultures have been informed by government that we Australians spontaneously produced the Policy of Multiculturalism, and they are now outraged that we seem to be backing away from it... after migrants were conned into coming here. Understandably, they are angry at our hypocrisy.

The truth is, of course, that we Australians were never consulted. The policy was dumped on us vis a vis a manipulative and out-of-control United Nations New World Order seeking bureaucracy. If we had been consulted there would have been a resounding NO to the proposal. (In point of fact, under the Constitution this should have happened, but it didn't, which means the policy was illegally implemented.

We know this, if our memories are intact, by the results of the national poll which followed Pauline Hanson's 1996 maiden speech to the House of Representatives. 93% of the population agreed with her assertions, which must have included the then migrant population as well. Obviously there has been some manipulation of poll-taking going on since then.

(Having said that, it should be noted that, in fact, Hanson's words then and later were entirely written by John Pasquerelli. After she sacked Pasquerelli her budding megalomania and lack of comprehension on most issues became obvious). What happened with One Nation happens in all parties. Behind the scenes powers write the script and shape the policies. Instead of the parties representing the people the parties try to sell the policies of their manipulators to the people. It gets worse. I we look up who contributes to parties we find that the same powerful interests contribute equally to both major parties. Which is why, disregarding what they say, both the ALP and the Coalition implement the same policies... the globalisation of Australia.

What all of this tells us, or should tell us, is that political parties cannot represent electorates, that is, us.

In the context of today's politics political campaigns are expensive and these are paid for mostly by large contributors who are the real power behind political parties. Within the first three years of a successful candidate's career, if not before (preselection) he or she is told bluntly that his first loyalty is to the Party, not the electorate. How can this be called democracy?

It doesn't really matter which system of voting we have, the real issue is that we are voting for someone who cannot and will not represent us.

So, who will represent us? Obviously, only one can. The independent.

The party people lash out whenever this is pointed out, and chorus loudly at the electorate "It's no good voting for an independent. He will have no power when he gets into parliament. The parties will outnumber him so he won't be able to do anything for you. He will be powerless".

The truth is, the parties do nothing for us anyway. Their argument is a non sequitur. Their claim is not true.

The independent says exactly what he wants to say and, if there are other independents in Parliament thay can swing the two party system around with the balance of power. In fact a handful of coordinated independents could conceivably take over the Parliament of Australia and force it to represent the views of the electorate.

But we can't have that can we?

So, the recommended approach for an activist constituent? Interview all the independents and identify which one will faithfully represent his electorate. Then campaign on his bahalf, telling the electorate that he (or she) is the only candidate who will represent them, and that later, there will be a link up of other such candidates.

[fusil]

That good old anti-democratic system 'First Past the Post' or only count votes once results in unrepresentative government.

Say Smith, Jones, Smythe and Jonesley stand for election.

Smith gets 28%

Jones gets 26%

Smythe gets 24%

Jonesly gets 22%

Under First Past...Smith gets elected even though 72% of the electors hated his guts and would have ranked him last under Preferential voting.

Proportional Representation is the way to go.

Fusil.