HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Organization: Monash University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:04:21 GMT

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.
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.
d.s.

Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting.
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:20:47 GMT

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

>            You seem to have some sort of blind spot regarding Stalinism.
>Stalinism is the mirror image of nazism. It is extreme right-wing politics and
>is diametrically oppossed to socialism. I don't know how many times I have to
>say it: USSR, China, Cuba, the Eastern Bloc, North Korea, Vietnam. None of
>these countries are or ever have been socialist.

Yes, but they are what happens whenever someone tries to install
socialism. Whether or not they *are* socialism is irrelevant. Whenever
someone tries to set up a socialist state they create an utter disaster.
You can imagine whatever virtues for socialism you like, but you can't
get there from here.

cheers,

--
Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.edu.au
+61 7 36 54012   (w)  Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477  (fax) Qld 4072  Australia
Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit.  -- Seneca
Newsgroups: aus.politics,soc.culture.australian
From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Subject: Re: Democrats' Economic recovery Plan
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 04:37:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.004402.8458@trl.oz.au> c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill) writes:
>In article <5429@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>>In article <996200239@peg> ksowada@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:
>>>z    Establish a national car registration scheme, under which
>>>fixed registration and compulsory third party insurance fees
>>>would be abolished and replaced with a revenue-neutral
>>>increase in petrol excise of 16.5 cents per litre.  Uniform
>>>road laws would also be introduced.
>>
>>Appart from the inflationary affect of this excise (in addition
>>to your previous levy I assume), this "revenue neutral" increase
>
>Revenue neutral means it causes no inflation.

No it doesn't, it means that they will spend all that they receive,
they just happen to mess around with the mix of who pays and who receives.
In this case they make car/truck ownership cheaper, but the use more expensive.
This will have an inflationary affect because of the increase in transport
costs. These costs will be greater because transport industries tend to
have very few trucks/trains/buses/ships/planes sitting idle in a garage and
tend to do quite a bit of driving ... hence revenue nuetral does not
imply 0 inflation. It will however, make it really cheap to keep a
car in the garage and this tremendous stimulus to the economy will
probably more than balance out the increased transportation costs
that this move will cause, not to mention the huge numbers of jobs
created by making idle transport cheap. In my opinion, this is the
best part of the Democrats proposal and certainly sets them apart from
the major parties.
From: hoconnel@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Heath O'Connell)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Making people vote.
Date: 29 Jul 92 04:58:58 GMT


haines@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (Andrew Haines, Civil, 1/113) writes:


>>I am saying: 1. There are a large number of people who don't want to vote

>I don't see any evidence for that.  If you mean the informal vote rate (5 -
>10% ?), it's hardly "a large number" and can be explained by complexity of
>the voting system and disillusionment (probably more with the parties/
>candidates on offer rather than the electoral system).
        This is not a valid way of measuring (informal vote rate). The
question is: how many people would be there if they didn't have to be?


>Threat of a $20 or so fine is hardly a major "crime".  And if compulsory
>voting is agreed to have more pluses than negatives (as was decided at the
>original Constitutional Convention), then it SHOULD be a crime.
        What are these plusses? (It's $50, by the way.)


>When the law was first introduced agreed.  But now it's in, my (admittedly
>conservative) view is: The onus is on those who want to change the law to
>show why their change is better. (ie if it ain't broke don't fix it!)
        Why not have a referendum?

>Unless the electoral system is so corrupt that compulsory vs non-compulsory
>becomes irrelevant, you will still have to turn up to vote in person.  But
>with compulsory voting it is clearer that voting is an OBLIGATION to the
>State, rather than a RIGHT that you can sell.
        Jawohl, mein Fuhrer!

>>Yep. They are the 30% that actually have something they WANT to say.

>Sorry.  Hadn't noticed a hugely better grade of politician in the U.S.
>than here myself.  Thought I'd even heard rumours of general dissatisfaction
>with sitting members.  Must have dreamt it.
        I'd say that is pretty much independent of optional voting.


>I am NOT concerned with "getting a 90% turn out".  I AM concerned with
>living in a viable society.  For a healthy democracy I believe that it is
>better that voting is seen as an OBLIGATION as well as a RIGHT.
        So why not convince people of the benefits of voting, not just forcing
them to vote? If people thought it was doing some good, they might feel
obliged.

--
		hoconnel@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au
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 02:29:58 GMT

phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>      What facts?  Socialism has never existed in the world (since pre-class
>society days). Russia was for a short time a workers' state until Stalin took
>power in a counter-revolution.

It was Lenin who built up the apparatus of state terror.  His regime
murdered hundreds of thousands.  The only differences between Lenin
and Stalin, other than that of scale, was that the former only
murdered ordinary peasants and workers while the latter murdered
Party members as well.  Trotsky, too, was a mass murderer, while he
had power.

Maybe you'd like to tell us how many people, and whom, you will murder
when you have your revolution.

	Daniel Lam
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Democrats' Economic recovery Plan
Organization: Monash University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:30:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.051048.6613@trl.oz.au> c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill) writes:
>So in your opinion the 13 billion dollar deficit (or whatever it is) that we
>now have is a catastrophe.
Well not a catastrophe. But I'm not exactly keen on the implications.
>
>>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.
Agreed. So what? Employing them to do unproductive work doesn't make them
any more productive either.
>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.
So are you advocating Hewson's wage reduction? That seems to be the way
you're now arguing? Why does the demand stimulus *have to be* caused
by a deficit (increase)? Why can't it be by us producing goods
at a price the world wants to pay rather than simply printing
or borrowing extra money to pay ourselves with. That's the type
of thinking that's got us in the mess in the first place.
>
>Note also that a deficit doesn't necessarily imply increased Government
>spending, it can also mean reduced taxes.
I prefer lower taxes since that gives them less money to waste
but I don't want any more debt, period. If they reduce taxes you are just
forcing me/us to borrow more money. A large part of our ``lack of surplus
money'' to fuel demand with is from our already high interest payments.
You want to increase it!

You are more than welcome to take out
a personal loan for say $30k and employ a couple
of people with it. But don't ask me to help you pay off the loan.
See you in Argentina.
d.s.
Xref: sparky aus.politics:1188 soc.culture.australian:3721
From: hoconnel@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Heath O'Connell)
Newsgroups: aus.politics,soc.culture.australian
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Date: 27 Jul 92 08:17:20 GMT
Followup-To: aus.politics

brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:


>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).
	Shouldn't the emphasis be on persuading them of the benefits of
voting, not just gentle proding (do it or be fined).

>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.
	Who's views are worthwhile? Snobbery is probably a little harsh, and
really seems to be harking back to some sort of 'Libs are only interested in
the rich' mentality. Has it ever been shown that people in the lower end of
the economic spectrum are generally less likely to voye, or is it just one of
those 'we know what's best for them' assumptions so beloved by the well-to-do
Left.


>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.
	But you seem to have a huge, lethargic set who vote Labor by default
entirely because of compulsion. Entrenching Labor is 'beneficial' entrenching
the Liberal Party (if this is what optional voting would do) 'engineers a
permanent bias'. You seem to be saying keeping Labor in is beneficial.


>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,
	i.e. Labor victories.

>  and has,
>perhaps only in a small way, helped make Australia a peaceful and egalitarian
>society.

	Apathy has also helped.
--
		hoconnel@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.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: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:16:32 GMT

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.

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: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: Youth wages
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 06:56:06 GMT

kerry@citr.uq.oz.au (Kerry Raymond) writes:

>This made me wonder. How many people would give up work if they could
>receive unemployment benefits? Many two-income families can't survive on
>one income but would they survive on one and a young-person's dole
>worth of income? The net cost in social security would be the same
>but perhaps by doing the "immoral" thing of paying unemployment benefits
>to people with working partners, there might be significant social gains
>(e.g. greater self-esteem, less crime, etc). One financial incentive
>for the Govt might be reduced demand for Govt-sponsored child care.

Sounds strange in the Australian context, but in countries where people
have to pay for unemployment insurance and other things
that just get paid out of consolidated revenue here (e.g. Germany), this
is what happens. Having a working spouse is no barrier to receiving
unemployment benefits. Of course, not looking for a job is!

On the subject of people just going through the motions to stay on the
dole, I read a wonderful job application aiming at just that a little
while ago. The applicant started off by telling all the things about
himself that might prejudice an employer against him first (perhaps in
the hope of being able to sue for discrimination?) and the "references"
that were included were actually all his letters of dismissal!

cheers,


--
Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.edu.au
+61 7 36 54012   (w)  Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477  (fax) Qld 4072  Australia
Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit.  -- Seneca
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 07:15:28 GMT

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

>In article <1992Jul27.031358.2911@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:
>>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.
>Well, in the first sentence you have just shot down the main
>argument of those for compulsory voting.

Perhaps you could read what I wrote.  Compulsory voting does not _offer_
any advantage to either side of politics, it prevents either side from
_taking_ an advantage and thereby provides a benefit to the people as 
a whole.  I did not claim this was the only benefit of compulsory voting
(in fact, I believe that Australia does have a higher level of political
knowledge and involvement than the UK, where voting is not compulsory),
I merely corrected an incorrect assertion (yours, I believe) regarding
the failure to impose compulsory voting _in_ _the_ _UK_.

>The second "advantage" can be gained by far simpler and less intrusive
>means.

True.  For example, we could remove from governments their current
discretion over the timing of elections.  However, this has other
consequences, which could be discussed in a separate thread.

>It also leads to me wonder why, in view of your first line, you insist
>on shadow-boxing.

I insist on trying to correct ignorance where I find it.  I'm probably
wasting my time.

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
Xref: sparky aus.politics:1204 soc.culture.australian:3779
From: suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Newsgroups: aus.politics,soc.culture.australian
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Date: 30 Jul 92 04:24:37 GMT
Organization: Monash University

In article <6107@otc.otca.oz> brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
>I suspect substantially less than 10% of voters would choose a null option if
>it was offered, and this figure would be higher in economic downturns and
>lower during economic booms.  All that would tell us is that peolple are less
>enchanted with governments during recessions.  Tell us something we don't
>know.
>
>Anyway, a de-facto null option is already provided.  Place a blank ballot
>into the box.
Fine - let's legitimise the ``de-facto''. Then we will see about your
10% figure.
In all fairness, I am only for the above option whilst voting remains
compulsory. 
However, it does tell you something you don't know (how many people
actually vote for a candidate because they believe that to do otherwise
is breaking the law). More importantly, it recognises the fact that
to abstain can be an appropriate action.
As an aside, I think it would drastically reduce the Democrat vote. That
would at least tell them something they don't already seem to know.

d.s.
From: brad@winnie.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Brad Alexander )
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Capitalism (Was: Re: Compulsory Voting.)
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:38:25 GMT
Distribution: aus

<dyfl.712205601@munagin>(Daniel Lam) writes:
   ... debate deleted ...

>How can you be so blind?  Individual economic freedom has always brought
>prosperity; government intervention has always destroyed it.  That's why
>socialist countries are so poor.

I'd think that this would be a very difficult statement to prove. There are many
cases where relative prosperity has occured both during and after quite massive
government intervention (e.g. pre and post war Germany/F.D.R., Wartime U.S.,
Australia in the 50's).

There have also been cases where economies that were reasonably unfettered by 
government have fallen into quite deep holes (U.S. in the 1930's, Australia in
the 1890's). 

Economies (no matter what form they might take) are incredibly complicated 
things.  They have to endure shocks (like a quadupling of the price of oil), 
they have to put up with problems arising from mass psychology (runs on banks,
speculative booms, pessimistic business outlook). Things are complicated even 
further by the lack of perfect knowledge, by the separation of act of earning 
and the act of purchasing. Finally, there is the problem of inflation.  

All of these things (including inflation) can occur without any government
intervention. I can't see how it can be shown that laissez-faire capitalism is
better than all other alternatives under these condition
Xref: sparky aus.politics:1201 soc.culture.australian:3775
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.politics,soc.culture.australian
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting/PR
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:44:16 GMT

in article <1992Jul28.043322.17698@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) says:
> make abstension a well publicised and officially sanctioned option by
> placing a ``vote for no-one'' option on the ballot paper.

If you think this provision would lead to some kind of social revolution then
I think you might be disappointed.

It would only measure some relatively abstract 'disaffection' level, would
provide no useful information, and would not assist the formation of
government policy.  In short, it serves no useful purpose and produces no
useful output.

Governments already have a very good handle on disaffection and cynicism
levels in the community.  Their polling enables then to get a much better
measure of why this is so, and over what issues, much better than an all
encompassing unidimensional 'null' option would ever provide (which is
after-the-fact anyway).

I suspect substantially less than 10% of voters would choose a null option if
it was offered, and this figure would be higher in economic downturns and
lower during economic booms.  All that would tell us is that peolple are less
enchanted with governments during recessions.  Tell us something we don't
know.

Anyway, a de-facto null option is already provided.  Place a blank ballot
into the box.
-- 
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)287-3299   | company
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | export?
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty7.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: primitive communism 200 years ago?
Organization: Monash University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:10:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.101335.89478@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>days a year on the land owned by the feudal lord. Under capitalism the boss
>neither owns the worker or is entitled to physically punish the worker who
>refuses to work, but because the capitalist controls the means of production
>the worker is forced to work for a wage that is set at less than the value of
>the goods they produce.
Not necessarily so. In a given company, at a given time, many workers
receive wages greater than their contribution. Moreover, where a company
makes a loss, these workers are probably very much the majority.
In any event, even if the company is collectively owned, a given
worker will often receive a wage less than the value of the goods
they produce because 1) money has to be re-invested
                     2) in any complex organization its virtually
                        impossible to accurately determine the contribution
                        of a given worker exactly
                     3) producing goods requires risk associated with estimating
                        the demand
                      4) the factories and goods don't just materialise out
                         of nowhere. To design, construct, even conceptualise,
                          the need for a factory is work and the people who do
                         it require (deserve) to be paid - capitalist or not.~r
                         If I design a computer chip that you produce for me/us
                         then I want a cut - comrade or capitalist.
>
>      In each case the exploiting class controls all the wealth that is left
>over after the elementary needs of the worker are met, i.e. the exploiting
>class controls the surplus that society produces.
Well that all depends upon how you define elementary needs. Apparently,
the ``elementary needs'' of the average Australian worker is a couple
of orders of magnitude above the elementary needs of the chinese worker
- gee that's real exploitation!
>
>       However, for the bulk of human history (from about 100,000 until about
>5,000 years ago), the means of production weren't sufficient for society to
>produce a surplus. All members of these hunter/gatherer societies cooperated so
>that all members could survive. This is primitive communism. Class societies
>developed when the forces of production were sufficient to produce a surplus
>for that society.
Rubbish. The old noble savage theory. It's not sufficient for
you to re-write modern history. You want to invent anthropology
as well! Good old tony hartin's politically correct (and sanitised)
version of ancient history now available in paperback.
d.s.