HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:59:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.132532.164999@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
writes:

>No, this exactly why it should be compulsory. I have already
>argued as to the need for everyone to vote to ensure equal
>value. In NZ 88% turned out when it became optional, but
>what if that 88% are the educated, finacially fortunate 88%.
>They will not see any problems in the economy and so there
>will be nothing done for the 12% that don't vote, and so in
>time they come to believe voting is useless and the thing
>perpetuates and in more time there kids get no education or
>job opportunities and so cant/dont vote and eventually the
>crime rate goes up and the 88% scream why haven't you done
>anything about this criminal element and people get put in
>jail and lose their right to vote.

This general line of argument suggests that non-compulsory voting follows a
"Tragedy of the Commons" situation, i.e. because of the trouble it takes to
vote, individuals may decide that this trouble is more than it's worth.  The
"Tragedy" in this case is that if enough people act this way then the majority
don't get the Government they want.

Compulsory voting removes the motivation that can cause a "Tragedy of the
Commons".

Chris O'Neill
Telecom Research
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:18:31 CST

suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:


>The point is that 1) the responsibility is only in your imagination
>                  2) democracy doesn't come tumbling down in USA, UK....
>                     just because they don't have compulsory voting

Both the UK and the US have a history of having highly
unrepresentative governments. Thatcher stayed in power for
a long time withonly 38% of the vote of those who actually
voted. Similarly, how many black/gay/female congersdroids
are there? The fact is that in the US you have to have an
awful amount of money behind you to have a chance of getting
elected. That is hardly equal access and yes I would say
that democracy has failed.

As for I have no responsibility. Sounds like the argument
the economic irrationalists make about market forces.
Elect me to government so I can do little, have all the
privilages but no responsability for the economy, I'm going
to take myself out of the loop, and when it all fails in the
worst recession since the depression, it's not my fault it
is the market.

Bullshit, gutless Bullshit.

Michael

--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Power of Senate _ WAS Re: implication of GST
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 3 Nov 92 09:50:48 CST
 <1992Oct21.042557.285@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> 
 <1992Oct26.093618.164877@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> <1992Oct30.001539.16479@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>

suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:

>But the whole basis of my argument is ASSUMING that is the scenario
>after the next election.
>Moreover, what's this obsession with PRIMARY vote. If I happen
>to vote 1 Libs and 2. National (or visa versa) it is still clearly
>a vote for GST.
In which case the primary vote (LIB) would give a true
(or at least as close as we could get without a referendum)
indication of whether you want a GST or not.

>>You seem to have a mental block simply because we,
>>like others, define the word government as
>>government <=> majority in the house of reps.

>You seem to have a mental block in skipping those parts of my
>postings where I say that we are talking about a true mandate
>not just a situation wherthe result is more due to electoral
>boundaries.
This is the first time you have made that clear at all.

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh)
Subject: Re: Vic Ministers Get $20,000 pay rise.
Organization: CSIRO, Division of Information Technology, Melbourne
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 21:22:52 GMT

In article <721401662.AA08738@csource.oz.au> Joe.Slater@f351.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Joe Slater) writes:
>Um, Labor was the one calling the divisions. It's a time-wasting tactic used
>primarily by Oppositions and by Governments in trouble. Why would this
>Government call one? I think this rather destroys your conspiracy theory.

Are you sure? The ABC news noted last night that the Government was
calling Divisions during the debate on the Workcare bill during its
passage through the Council. The Government was using the delays to
get legal advice on the effect of the admendments it was making to
the bill.

andrew waugh
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: ALP in the Lead
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:55:57 CST
Distribution: aus

hoconnel@iti.org (Heath O'Connell) writes:

>	Well there's something to look forward to. 

It is certainly somewhat of a relief, but I am looking for
an improvement not just more of the same.

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:53:35 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.76.2

suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:

>In article <brian.721368211@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>In relation to my suggestion that his linking of the compulsory voting
>debate to the non-compulsory registration and examples of voter
>disenfanchisement in the US was promoting a conspiracy theory to
>support his cause.
>>>>	Really?  Where did I make such a statement?  Unless you can produce 
>>>>such a statement from me I'd recommend that you apologise.  I do believe that you
>>>>have, in your zealous rush to attack all and sundry who have offered an
>>>>alternative opinion to your own, you have mixed me up with someone else. 
>>
>>	As you don't seem able to offer such an example I presume that you
>>will apologise? 
>>>OK so you tell me why you mentioned obstacles being put in the way
>>>of people voting in the US if you weren't trying to suggest the same
>>>was going to happen here? If you weren't suggesting the possibility
>>>of a conspiracy then why did you mention it?
>>
>>	As a means to illustrate what could be the possible outcome of
>>your seeming headlong rush towards a voluntary voting system of the style
>>which is favoured overseas (and apparently by yourself).  You seem to

	(I do wish that you would put a blank line between the quoted and your
own text, it makes it much easier to read you know)

>So the possible outcome could be a open the doors to a conspiracy
>to defraud voters of their basic rights. I owe you no apology.

	No I beg to differ.  I said that it was a "possible outcome", not as you
are implying here, and elsewhere, a "certain outcome" of an already existant
conspiracy.  Therefore you do owe me, IMO an apology and until you provide one,
this discussion is at an end.



--
Brian Ross_____Brian@Coombs.anu.edu.au________________________________________
	"Three discoveries are essential to the contented and civilised life -
sex, wine, and bookshops, by no means necessarily in that order."
_________________________________Tony Baker, Adelaide Review, October 1992____
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: Compulsory voting (Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?)
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:44:21 GMT

mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:

>Most people would agree that to have a truly democratic
>system	
>	Everyone must have the right and practical ability to vote
>	Everyone's vote must count equally.

I don't think so. Such a system does not exist, and never will, but
there are plenty of systems that are democratic. I cannot even imagine
what you think the difference between "democratic" and "truly
democratic" to be.

Who is "everyone"? Do you include lunatics? Do you include criminals? Do
you include children?

What do you mean by "count equally"? If 80% of people vote for X, and I,
along with the other 20%, vote for Y, then X will be elected. Therefore
those people who voted for X got the representative they wanted, while I
and my mates didn't. Our votes didn't count at all, let alone equally.

If you live in Queensland, your vote can't get rid of Senator Button,
because he is a Senator from another state. There is no known voting
system that can help when the candidates in your area are bozos and the
people who will be more powerful have a different constituency.

The only way in which everybody's vote could count equally would be if
everybody elected one representative. That representative would have to
be the voter, and, of course, everybody would have be of equal ability.

Counts equally" rolls off the toungue so easily precisely because it is
so meaningless.

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
From: rakesh@mame.mu.OZ.AU (Rakesh DESAI)
Subject: Australia's Debt
Keywords: Debt, Economy, GDP
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:02:27 GMT

This thursday I read an interesting letter to Editor in Age.  I forgot
the name of the writer, but it sums up as follows.

Australia has a foreign debt of the order of $150 billion.  That amounts
to 38% of Gross Domestic Product.  Ten years ago the same no. amounted
to 17%.  According to writer if this figure reaches beyond 50% than
there will be grave crisis.  Govt will have to stop spending i.e. lot of
welfares will have to go.  Govt may have to devalue dollar and in short
it will become absolute gloomy affair.  Further he writes neither
Liberal nor Labor are addressing how they are going to pull us out of
this mess.

My question to people with knowledge of economics on the net is,  is
this debt crisis really as grave as it sounds?  Are we going the same
way as Brazil did a few years ago?  What is remeady?  Cut Govt
expenditure or open up everything for foreign investors?

Replies welcome.

rakesh

ps on the same line I read US has debt of US$ 4000 billion and it
amounts to some 52% of GDP.   Does that mean US$ need to be devalued?
--
************************************************************************
*   Rakesh Desai, Mech & Manf Eng, Uni of Melbourne, Parkville,Vic 3052*
*   email : rakesh@ecr.mu.oz.au   * (03) 344 6728                      *
************************************************************************
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 07:30:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.132532.164999@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>
>
>Brendan>are usually "too afraid to speak out".  They do this because they often don't
>Brendan>have any actual evidence to support their cause.  I mean, if they did have
>Brendan>evidence they would use it, wouldn't they?
>>THAT'S EXACTLY the tactics used by the PROPONENTS of compulsory voting.
>>You are clearly afraid of letting the people decide whether to attend or not.
>
>No, this exactly why it should be compulsory. I have already
>argued as to the need for everyone to vote to ensure equal
>value. In NZ 88% turned out when it became optional, but
>what if that 88% are the educated, finacially fortunate 88%.
>They will not see any problems in the economy and so there
>will be nothing done for the 12% that don't vote, and so in
and if the 12% who didn't see the need to vote now are forced
to vote for party X on a whim as they fill in the form then party X
can (falsly) claim a 12% greater mandate. I'd rather know there were
12% who couldn't choose than mask it by compulsory voting.
>time they come to believe voting is useless and the thing
>perpetuates and in more time there kids get no education or
>job opportunities and so cant/dont vote and eventually the
>crime rate goes up and the 88% scream why haven't you done
>anything about this criminal element and people get put in
>jail and lose their right to vote.
>
>Great system, makes the USA a good third world country to
>live in for some.
You attribute this to compulsory voting?
>
>We are lucky in Australia that the government can not afford
>to ignore any group in the community.
Yeah? Gee, when did all the pressure groups we see on TV disappear?
Give us a break? ANY GROUP? Oh what magical powers this compulsory
voting does bestow upon us. 1) without it we'd be EXACTLY like America
2) Suddenly our govt takles care of every group.
Only one question? When did all of this take effect - must have been sleeping?
d.s.
-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:21:15 CST
 <1992Nov2.135535.11020@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au> <brian.720755433@coombs> 
 <1992Nov3.103057.2949@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> <1992Nov4.085327.4172@darwin.ntu.edu.au>

b_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Brian Duke) writes:

>Compulsory voting places an obligation on the authorities to provide these
>polling booths where people live. Without it there would be a tendency
>to say "They don't have to vote. If they really want to they can spend
>all week getting to the polling booth".

Precisely, without compulsory voting you don't have equal
access nor equal voting power (value).


--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:38:04 GMT

in article <1992Nov4.234114.8324@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) says:
> What about sanctioning the right to abstain? You can't really claim that 
> the present system recognises this.

Once again, I'd have no problem with this, as long as it is still compulsory
to attend a polling booth to do it and have your name crossed off.

> Any obligation is onerous if it is for no purpose.

Well, it's your perogative to judge that all sociological studies that have
linked optional voting with disenfranchisement of minority groups, the poor
and poorly educated is an insufficient case for making polling place
attendance compulsory.

However, just because *you* judge it as an insufficent case doesn't mean it
is.  If you can present a case to Parliament to change the law then good luck
to you.

> Clearly, compulsion to vote and compulsion to wear seat belts are not things
> that protect the community in same ways.

No, but why single out compulsory voting from any other compuslory
requirement for living in Australia?

> You've just said it wasn't compulsory for them to actually vote and now you
> defend the present system for making them vote.  Which way is it?

I defend the system for attendance.  If I've used the word "voting" loosely
I meant "polling place attendance".

>>If a referendum was held on this issue, would you unconditionally accept the
>>result?  How long for?
> Yes - forever.

Well, compulsory polling place attendance was implicity agreed by the
population at large when the States agreed to Federation.  Are you now saying
that that's not good enough?  You've just said the will of the people should
be accepted "forever".

Or doesn't this count because you weren't born before Federation?  Or doesn't
this count because the vote wasn't explicit, in which case - do you suggest we
explicitly vote on every single issue to come before Parliament?  If not, why
should compulsory polling place attendance receive attention over every other
single issue?  It's hardly the most burning social issue in Australia at the
moment that needs attention.

>>At least I hope I haven't insulted *you*.
> You have. You claim to know what's best for me and deny me a fundamental
> right - to abstain with dignity

Not once have I suggested such a thing.  You have manufactured such a
suggestion in your head.

-- 
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | This space
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | for lease
Network Access |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-3299   | pending new
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | .sig
From: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Period between PM election win and taking office
Keywords: PM, election
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:20:42 GMT
Reply-To: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au
Distribution: aus

In <1992Nov4.054331.28756@ucc.su.OZ.AU> mikef@dph1.health.su.OZ.AU writes:

>ceremony but would not agree that it was longer. I also thought that we do
>not have a PM elect but rather that the newly elected PM assumes office
>immediately after the election win, that is after the opposition has
>conceded defeat.

I think the new PM is not until the old one resigns and the GG appoints
a successor. This may take days, or hours. Whitlam and Cairns were at
work the day after they were elected or some such, and worked as a 2 man
government until a full cabinet was sworn in some days later. Usually
there is not quite such a rush, but in reality the PM-elect has the
moral authority of the office effective immediately.

--
When soldiers form lines or hollow squares, you call it reason.
When wild geese in flight take the form of a letter V, you say instinct.
When the homogeneous atoms of a mineral arrange themselves into shapes
mathematically perfect you have nothing to say. You have not even invented a name to conceal your heroic unreason."
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Vic Ministers Get $20,000 pay rise.
Organization: Monash University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:14:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.234724.12932@trl.oz.au> c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill) writes:
>What we have set out to do is test the hypothesis that Liberal governments are
>usually only fair to the rich.  The $100 house tax is evidence that confirms
>that hypothesis.
The $100 tax is less fair to the poor than most other taxes. We agree.
The petrol tax is less fair to the poor than most other taxes. We agree.
The $100 tax is less fair to those that own houses than those that rent.
We agree.
At the end of the day. Those are the agreed facts. Moreover, the pyramid
petrol tax cost the vast majority of victorians (including the poor
who don't own a house) around about $33 per year while the $100 tax
will only cost them what trickles down in higher rents. We agree that is going
to be marginal in the short term because of the rental market. If you want
to argue that they will pay almost the same in the long term because
the "rich always pass it on" then you must accept that the whole basis
of your argument is moot because any higher tax on the rich will
then be passed on to the poor. I also suggest that its much easier
to escape the flow on effects of a ONE OFF charge to a depressed market
than a continual charge that impacts directly the cost of every
goods and service (petrol).
Thus I am sure that any *reasonable person* would see the *evidence* this
way:
                    Poor who rent       Poor who buy           Rich
Labor tax (petrol)   $33 per year (ave)   (33 year average)  (33 per year ave)
     (Pyramid only)    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                         Per Driving PERSON NOT household.

Liberal             Virtually zero        $100               $100
If we have two *poor* people buying a house and both driving to work
then they pay $66 per year AVERAGE.
If we have two *poor* people renting and driving then they pay no
tax under Libs tax but same under Kirners.
Given that the majority of the really poor are at the left (pun?) end then I
can't see how you can claim a definite *HUGE* bias either way. 
Now if you are only saying that the $100 tax is not as wise as they could have
chosen, then we agree. I trust we also agree that Kirner was also not
as wise in her petrol tax.
However, if you want to threshold this
evidence to make your global statment that the Libs
are usually only fair to the rich, then, gain, you see only black and white.
d.s.
-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
From: Joe.Slater@f351.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1992 18:10:00

Sunday November 01 1992, Ms D Alexander writes to All:

MDA> In article <1cqgc9INN4f9@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au> hoconnel@iti.org
MDA> (Heath O'Connell) writes:
>>
>> Apparently not everyone gets the government he, or she, deserves

MDA> I'm surprised that this is so, given that there were plenty of
MDA> people screaming about it all prior to the election.  This phenomenon
MDA> gives credence to those who claim that the electorateis incapable of
MDA> making a rational decision, and voted for a change - any
MDA> change,without paying due regard to what that change might entail.

Of course, it could be that they rationally considered the alternative, and
decided that the Liberals were better than Labor. Complaining about it at this
stage is irrelevant; I am sure that if there were an election held tomorrow,
Jeff Kennett would still get a majority. A much smaller one, perhaps, but still
a majority. The true horror of the Labor years is still coming to light.

jds

 * Origin: What horrors wait for me in this, the Phantom's Opera? (3:632/351)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: ccla@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Lee Askew)
Subject: Barcodes and 666
Organization: James Cook University
Distribution: aus
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 00:09:15 GMT

The other night I went to a Jeff Beachem(sp?) seminar on end times, and
very interesting it was, well worth going!!

But a few things bothered me. He said that barcodes are based on the
number 666.

Could someone explain this?? Any explanation would be greatly
appreciated..

Thanks Lee.
ccla@manta.jcu.edu.au

Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: greyham@research.canon.oz.au (Graham Stoney)
Subject: Re: Barcodes and 666
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:52:37 GMT

ccla@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Lee Askew) writes:
>The other night I went to a Jeff Beachem(sp?) seminar on end times, and
>very interesting it was, well worth going!!

>But a few things bothered me. He said that barcodes are based on the
>number 666.

>Could someone explain this?? Any explanation would be greatly
>appreciated..

The same claim was made by the mob that brought us the end of the world a
couple of weeks ago, and we know what happened to them. Looney tunes.
How they arrived at it, I don't know; but it was pretty funny when I first
read about it in one of their pamphlets.

regs,
Graham
Newsgroups: aus.religion