HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Andrew.Robinson@anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 07:10:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.024031.20827@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
[Amongst a whole lot of other stuff]

>In any reasonable election process for most bodies I can think of, 
>to abstain is not considered a crime - in fact a positive. IF those
>for "compulsory voting" were to actually legitimise the de-facto
>current situation by changing the law to make just "turning up"
>compulsory as an explicit requirement. In addition, on the ballot
>paper, lets have a "none of the above" choice.
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Then the stupidity of the whole
>system would be readily evident and it would die a natural death. Instead,
>many people who really don't want to vote  - don't even realise that
>they can get their names crossed off and walk out, or
>feel intimidated under the eyes of others  - so they place
>an uniformed and ill-considered vote JUST to make people like you
>happy that "we get a 90% turn out". If nothing else, the sheer hypocracy
>and stupidity of it is downright annoying!

I tried arguing this line some time ago (the thread was called 'The Null
Option' or something, and received scant attention) and this seems as good a
place as any to try to resurrect it (are you still there Brian?)

The notion is that in order to extract the noise from the voting system, the
noise being the donkey votes, the informed informal votes, and the votes of
those who don't really care who they vote for but can't bear to not vote, we
should allow a null option on the card which excludes that vote from all
further preference allocations, and is tallied _and_ _reported_ as a null vote.

regardless,
Andrew

now hit d
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting.
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 02:25:55 GMT

phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

>             Yes, but in my opinion human nature is social; that is to work
>together and cooperate for the common good.

And what if I, an evil individualist capitalist, decide not to work together
with you for your common good?  Will you force me to comply by the methods
of totalitarian terror?

>             In our society, the ideology of capitalism dominates; the ideology
>of individualism, competition and divisivness. It is this which distorts 
>human nature, and leads to nationalism, wars, racism and sexism.
			    ^^^^^^^^^^^
This is unbelievable.  Nationalism is a collectivist concept.  Nothing can
be further from individualism.

	Daniel Lam
Newsgroups: aus.politics,soc.culture.australian
From: harsant@headplant.trl.OZ.AU (Dave Harsant)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Organization: Telecom Research Labs,Melbourne, Australia
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 08:24:41 GMT

In article <6084@otc.otca.oz> brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
    [a lot of good stuff]
>I also think it is objectionable that such an incredibly small requirement
>(attendance at a polling place on an election day) once every few years is
>perceived by some as an impost.  What a load of bollocks.  It is an
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>*incredibly* small price to pay for ensuring a healthy democracy,  and has,
>perhaps only in a small way, helped make Australia a peaceful and egalitarian
>society.
>

Hear! Hear!

--
Dave Harsant,
Telecom (Australia) Research Laboratories  |  d.harsant@trl.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics,soc.culture.australian
From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:13:58 GMT

suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:

>In article <1992Jul24.051632.23265@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:
>>suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>>
>>>.... The British haven't imposed this compulsory voting
>>>fiasco - so presumably they aren't convinced that the imposition is
>>>worth it.
>>
>>No British _Government_ has been convinced that the introduction of
>>compulsory voting would be in its _own_ interests.  This is not 
>>quite the same thing.
>But given that the British have had significant periods of
>both Labour and Conservative governments - its suggests that niether
>see themselves seriously dis-advantaged by non-compulsory voting.

You miss my point.  Both of the major parties in the UK believe that
they can manipulate the electorate to their own advantage (when in 
government) through the choice of election date.  Neither party sees
any advantage to itself in giving up the chance to do this.

>Hence I am simply questioning the assertion that compulsory voting
>is necessary to ensure fairness to Labour here (as the original thread began)
>or, indeed, any other party here.

That wasn't my assertion, and I certainly don't see compulsory voting as
offering any advantage to either side of politics.  What it does do is
prevent either side from taking an advantage by a choice of date.

Geoff Miller (g-miller@adfa.oz.au) | "The first duty of power is to perpetuate
Computer Centre                    | itself.  The first duty of free men is to
Australian Defence Force Academy   | resist it."  Mike Resnick
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Democrats' Economic recovery Plan
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 05:10:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.013900.20601@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.004402.8458@trl.oz.au> c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris
O'Neill) writes:
>>The Democrats idea for funding jobs with a tax increase causes no net
economic
>>stimulus.  The extra spending on some jobs is balanced by the spending
>>reduction caused by the tax increase.  The necessary action for a recovery is
a
>>deficit of appropriate size for an appropriate period of time. The Government
>>is running a deficit which will bring about a recovery eventually, but it
will
>>take a long time.
>>
>>One of the main defects in Governments' economic management is
deficit/surplus
>>control.  It is one of the main reasons why we had a boom in 88/89 followed
by
>>this bust.  The Government should have run a higher surplus (and lower
interest
>>rates) in those years.  This would have meant higher taxes so would have been
>>politically difficult.  Perhaps the main problem is that proper economic
>>management is politically difficult.
>>
>I agree wholeheartedly with the last part of the last paragraph:
>``The Government should have run a higher surplus........''
>I also agree with your criticism of the democrats' approach in
>that higher taxes to fund (phoney) government jobs
>to kick start the economy is just as likely to strangle it.
>However, any suggestion that we need a further deficit to
>attempt to mortgage our way out of this one is just as dangerous.

So in your opinion the 13 billion dollar deficit (or whatever it is) that we
now have is a catastrophe.

>A deficit is nothing more than living on borrowed money. If the
>borrowed mony is not ultimately used to make us more productive nationally

It would be difficult for the unemployed to be any more unproductive than they
are now.

>then we are throwing extra money away. Money that we, and subsequent 
>generations will have to effectively pay back.
>The government has a far more

in your opinion

> effective strategy in simply ensuring
>that the minimum cost is placed upon employers. The current government,
>by introducing the training guarantee levy, the superannuation levy, ....
>is actively doing the opposite. If they abolished these levies and
>put that money into the workers pockets NOW, we'd have more
>of an appropriate stimulus than simply funding phoney jobs.

Those actions are necessary, but they are not sufficient action for tackling a
recesssion.  Unless the economy magically starts to act according to Say's law,
the recession will last a very long time without demand stimulus caused by a
deficit (which is now being run at 13 billion dollars per annum).  Say's law
implies that there can be no involuntary unemployment because wage rates will
fall to whatever level is necessary to eliminate involuntary unemployment.

Note also that a deficit doesn't necessarily imply increased Government
spending, it can also mean reduced taxes.

Chris O'Neill
From: ianp@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: TELNET TO PEGASUS
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:53:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:peg:996200250:000:322
Nf-From: peg.UUCP!ianp    Jul 22 08:53:00 1992


/* Written  8:52 am  Jul 22, 1992 by ianp in peg:aus.aarnet */
/* ---------- "TELNET TO PEGASUS" ---------- */

Please note that telnet access to Pegasus Networks is
now available, at our new address: 192.131.13.1
An account on our system is needed to gain access. 
Contact support@peg.pegasus.oz.au for further details.
From: losway@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Integrating Direct Democracy with t
Date: 27 Jul 92 03:18:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:cluster.cs.su.oz.au:5294:peg:996200253:000:2497
Nf-From: peg.pegasus.oz.au!losway    Jul 26 22:18:00 1992


>>Because it would ensure a more truthful democratic action, it
>>could be seen as more important than the conventional result 
>and
>>so this disparity could easily be exploited.
>
>Could you clarify what you mean by this.
 
Politicians don't always react to a desired change because they 
are convinced by its rational/moral/ethical argument (some would 
say, never). They do so because it fits within their own 
political agenda, and the particular issue may only be the 
catalyst. Therefore, if their position should be threatened by 
something as definite and obvious as a CV initiated proposal, 
there could be an attempt to denigrate the process itself or its 
representatives during the course of the debate (see for example 
the reaction to the Lord Mayor's initiated report on the Sydney 
City Council's activities). I'm not saying this should be a 
reason for NOT having CV, rather that it won't be all plain 
sailing.
 
>>Secondly, there is a more philosophical consideration. We may
>>not like politicians, or their intellectual environment, ... 
>>Would not CV inspired referenda remove the safeguard against 
>>hasty deals, vested initiatives,
>>and pre-emptive agendas?
 
>I take your point, but the current system often leads to 
>inertia where there should be decision-making, and haste when 
>there should be a careful weighing of the options.  The present 
>government has had its fair share of hasty deals (pay TV, 
>airline sales)...
 
Quite so. The point about further debate creating a more 
productive environment is a valid one, and overall I too see 
more advantages than disadvantages in a CV system.
 
Regarding the general safeguards, leading right up to the 
Constitution, I agree that there are flaws in the one we 
currently have. Not because it had been misguided at the time 
(far from it), but because certain factors have changed in the 
meantime, and quite dramatically so. Our present conditions are 
not very stable, they are highly dynamic, and they must be 
approached with a clear and detached mind. I would hope that we 
are eventually getting to the point where a criticism of a 
current status is not automatically seen as a condemnation of 
those who have acted in the past.
 
Yes, all in all I think we should be getting serious about how 
to incorporate technology into our lives, and that means the 
governmental process as well. It seems that the system itself is 
the easy part; how to get it off the ground - THAT'S the 
challenge!
 
peter w.
Newsgroups: aus.politics,soc.culture.australian
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.politics,soc.culture.australian
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Date: 26 Jul 92 08:39:59 GMT

in article <1992Jul24.024031.20827@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) says:
> Ultimately, the greater good has to be related to the number of INFORMED
> and ACTUALLY REASONED votes.

Non-compulsory voting tends to disenfranchise the poor, the less-well
educated, and the socially disadvantaged.  They generally aren't motivated to
vote, unless there is some gentle prodding (compulsory voting).

Now, if you think the views of these people, however informed or uninformed
they are, are not "worthwhile" then fine, but please don't dress it up with
some pseudo-intellectual argument against compulsory voting.  I would tend to
call it snobbery.

In most nations comparable with ours, certainly the two mentioned most often
in this discussion where voting is optional (UK and USA), they have been ruled
most of the time by conservative governments, the Tories in the UK and the
Republicans in USA.  Those who vote are *not* representational of the
population, and tend to be educated and in higher income brackets.  This
produces policies that are, to a large extent, self serving, and further
disenfrachise those who did *not* elect them.

Now, if you want to entrench the Liberal Party in Australia, fine, but at
least be honest and just come out and say it.  However, I don't see how 
engineering a permanent bias in political representation can be good for a
country.  I mean, ten years of economic rationalism in the UK and USA has
really helped the poor and uneducated in those countries, hasn't it?

Australia has had reasonably equal representation over the years.  At least
Australia has an enlightened social welfare system and universal health cover,
and I think this helps social cohesion.  These would have been unlikely if
we'd only ever had conservative governments.  Everyone benefits by not having
a warring, class-divided society.

I thought the idea of democracy was to have representation that reflects the
will of all, not just some subsection.  I refuse to place less value on the
opinions of those who you say are "uninformed" when it comes to democracy.
I find it the height of arrogance to suggest what they think, even if its
only about the size of the single-mum's pension, is unimportant, or "noise"
in the electoral process.

I also think it is objectionable that such an incredibly small requirement
(attendance at a polling place on an election day) once every few years is
perceived by some as an impost.  What a load of bollocks.  It is an
*incredibly* small price to pay for ensuring a healthy democracy,  and has,
perhaps only in a small way, helped make Australia a peaceful and egalitarian
society.

-- 
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | What does
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | your
Services R&D   |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-FAXX   | company
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | export?
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Subject: Re: Superstar?
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:24:44 GMT

awhenan@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Ashley Whenan) writes:
> You truly do have a strange rhetoric.  How can you possible say the real story
> is in the bible, when it has been translated a good many times from it's
> original writings (Hebrew -> Olde English etc etc).  The interpretation made

You need to find out how the bible was translated.  You may disagree with
what it says, but there is no denying that the translation we have today is
as accurate as possible from the original manuscripts.  (There was no Old
English translation, btw.)  The modern translations are based on original
manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew with some extra info from any other old
translations (e.g Septuagint).  Most bibles will also tell you where there
is any disagreement between various manuscripts.  It may be an enlightening
experience for you to have a look at some of these.  The differences are
usually very trivial.

So, you can say that you don't believe what the bible says about Jesus, but
given that it is the primary source our knowledge of him, don't you think it's
reasonable to say it is more likely to be correct than Superstar, or any
other ficticious work?

regards,
    Callum
-- 
Callum Gibson                           callum@bain3.bain.oz.au
Eyeball Temporary Analyst/Programmer    BH : +61 2 258 1620
Fixed Income Division                   Fax: +61 2 258 1128
Bain & CO, Sydney, Australia.           AH : :-)
From: kerr@redgum.ucnv.edu.au (r.kerr)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Superstar?
Keywords: humanism
Date: 27 Jul 92 04:52:57 GMT
Organization: UCNV, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia

In article <awhenan.712137503@adelphi> awhenan@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Ashley Whenan) writes:
>pope@physics.su.OZ.AU (The Nightstalker) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul19.231825.13006@bain3.bain.oz.au> callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson) writes:
>>>Am I expecting too much of Superstar?  Sure, it's meant to be entertainment.
>>>thought about Jesus", as if they've heard the real story.  Well, the real
>>>story is in the Bible, not on a CD.

>>Yes, and no.  What else could you expect from a secular writer???  Perhaps his
>>attitudes towards christianity came through in the writing.  Obviously he
>>missed the point!
>>Indeed, the real story is in the bible, and in our lives if we are responsible
>>believers and followers.

>You truly do have a strange rhetoric.  How can you possible say the real story
>is in the bible, when it has been translated a good many times from it's
>original writings (Hebrew -> Olde English etc etc).

Bzzzt.  Wrong.  Most modern translations of the New Testament are made from
manuscripts that were produced within decades of the originals, some
probably from the orignals (in fact we may even have an original, how
could you tell?)

You're describing a paraphrased version of the Bible.  They do exist,
the J.B. Phillips version for instance, but nobody takes them
seriously.

>The interpretation made in Jesus Christ Super Star is just as valid as
>any other version.

You can't compare them at all.  The New International Version or The New
American Standard Version are scholarly translations of contemporary
documents that claim to be eyewitness accounts.  JCSS is a fanciful
piece of theatrical invention.

>If you claim that your bible is the real story, then you are no less secular
>than the writers of JCSS.  For that matter, how can one ever criticise the
>working of M.Scorcese's film "The Last Temptation of Christ" on the grounds
>of secularism or dare I say it, heresy.

Well... given that both of those works are technically secular and
heretical I have no problem with saying that they are.

I don't think that either should be supressed, but if we're going to
discuss their relevance to the Bible we at least ought to recognise that
the biblical accounts are the primary source and that they are corruptions
of that source.  Let's at least get that much right.

Regards, Richard.  (kerr@redgum.ucnv.oz.au) <-- Note new address
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Subject: Re: Superstar?
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 06:36:35 GMT

callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson) writes:
> as accurate as possible from the original manuscripts.  (There was no Old
> English translation, btw.)  The modern translations are based on original

As has been pointed out to me in email, I need to correct and/or clarify
this point.  There was an Old English translation by King Alfred the Great.
I suppose there may have been many translations into many languages that I
don't know about so my original statement is quite a blanket one.  What I
refer to, however, is popular and well-known versions, and that there is
no chain effect where a trasnslation is propagated through different languages
without ever referring to the original.

regards,
    Callum
-- 
Callum Gibson                           callum@bain3.bain.oz.au
Eyeball Temporary Analyst/Programmer    BH : +61 2 258 1620
Fixed Income Division                   Fax: +61 2 258 1128
Bain & CO, Sydney, Australia.           AH : :-)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ins358d@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Richard Lee)
Subject: Does anyone know anything about WCC or the Ecumenical Movement?
Organization: Monash University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:32:14 GMT

Greetings.

Dear readers on the network,

A lot of things have been said (concerning religion etc.)  Is there anyone out
there knows anything about the WCC (the World Council of Churches) and the
Ecumenical Movement?  

If the reader knows about it, what is your understanding about these groups?

I hope that through the response of readers will shed some light on the 
understanding of others.

Thanks

Richard

From: Stephen.Allen@f522.n635.z3.fidonet.org (Stephen Allen)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Superstar?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:53:00 +1000

 > Superstar does show is how to make Jesus innocuous enough to
 > be acceptable,
 > in that I think it leaves people with no felt need to resolve
 > in their minds
 > who he is. Since he is, in fact, God's Logos, a challenge to
 > the world,
 > it therefore misrepresents him.

How can you misrepresent someone when there's no consensus as to what he
was ? Depending on your belief system he is either the Son of God or a mere 
prophet or a paranoid schizophrenic or even a fictional character like Santa 
Claus.

:-)  
 
 * Origin: from After Dark 61-3-336-3460 (3:635/522)

Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: reb@ausom.oz.au (Richard Brodie)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: The Bible
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:24:26 GMT
Reply-To: reb%ausom.oz@sol.cc.deakin.oz.au
Organization: AUSOM - The Apple Users Society of Melbourne

As I understand it the Catholics only had the apocrypha canonised during the
council of Trent which was held to make official policy in the light of the
reformation.  This means that the books weren't considered "scripture" by
them before this time, but rather as extremely helpful [D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C"extremely helpful".  This is still
the official view of many protestant churches, well they are considered as
recommended reading by the Anglican church, I caj't realy speak for the other
denominations.  As for the septuagint, yes it was the most widely used OT
because Greek was the common language for most of the known world.  It is
interesting to note that apparently the book of Job was shortened considerably
during the translation into greek for the septuagint (apparently because there
was no greek equivalent for some of the concepts).

Richard Brodie
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ins358d@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Richard Lee)
Subject: WCC and Ecumenical Movement (?)
Organization: Monash University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:39:55 GMT

Dear readers on the net,

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone out there on the network heard 
of the WCC (World Council of Churches) and the Ecumenical Movement?

If so, please respond so that others may benefit from your understanding of
these groups.

Thanks,

Richard
Newsgroups: aus.religion