Australia’s slide towards totalitarianism

It is said that voluntary voting causes the major political parties to become polarized, while compulsory voting leads to centralization. 

One of the benefits of so-called polarization is that when the parties are polarized it presents a clear choice for the electorate. This makes it easier for the people to tell the difference between the parties and make an informed decision. Also, when the parties are polarized, the end result of their policy debate is balance, since the average of the two poles falls at the centre.

However, a problem that is said to arise from polarization is that it makes it more difficult for the parties to reach compromise and legislate. Unless one of the major parties has a significant majority, it is difficult for the parties to pass legislation.

People who see this as a problem argue that it should be easier for the government to pass legislation and bring about change. They see the confrontational nature of partisan politics with its inherent conflict and debate as an obstacle or obstruction to progress. They prefer it when all parties agree and the government is free to rule. Some call this type of cooperation as the ‘third way’, which to this writer sounds more like the ‘third reich’.

Some people ignore or even crave an all-powerful government. They don’t seem to realize that the more centralized the power structure is, the less accountable the government is to the people.

When people think of polarization they imagine the poles are communism and fascism, but communism and fascism actually reside at one pole. The pole where the people have no freedom and the government has ultimate power: totalitarianism. The other pole is anarchy.

Compulsory voting sees a convergence of political thought but this doesn’t occur at the centre, it occurs at one extreme. The convergence occurs towards the totalitarian end of the spectrum, putting upwards pressure on the size and power of government. Centralized political thought empowers government and weakens the people.

In a centralized system where both major parties reside at a single pole, dangerous ideologies thrive. They thrive under the mask of centrality or neutrality. They thrive behind the veil of agreement or balance. They thrive because the people are left in the dark, thinking that if both of the major parties agree, then it must be right. And besides, what choice do they have?

People have less choice when the parties are centralized because it is harder for them to tell the difference. They must choose between the better of two evils.

When the parties exist at different poles, the ruling class is divided. They are in conflict and this conflict places more power in the hands of the people.

The political parties should be in competition, not a duopoly. Not centralized.

When the parties exist at a single pole, it steals our power away, whether the centralization is a result of fascism, communism or a compulsory-voting-duopoly such as ours.

Every day that goes by our government competes with the opposition to legislate. It’s a race to see who can legislate the most. And if the Liberals win it will be more of the same. Both parties crave power, even though they have different methods of achieving it.

Under voluntary voting, leaders who cannot inform, inspire, motivate, educate and ultimately empower the electorate using peaceful means, are replaced by leaders who can – true democratic leaders.

Under voluntary voting leaders must empower the electorate, which means they must promote freedom. They must sell freedom. They must defend and protect freedom.

Voluntary voting will reverse our slide towards totalitarianism.

Jason Kent

Free Our Right To Vote

Comments

[Anthony]

1.

I support voluntary voting it is a civic responsibility like jury duty also you mention & just because a leader can 'inspire, motivate, educate & ultimately empower the electorate' doesn't make them a good leader Obama comes to mind

[barry]

2.

Only those who have never experienced the loss of freedom , are blind to the consequences of totalitarianism.
Sadly , Australia is full of them .

[kraka]

3.

A Government big enough to give everything is big enough to take it back. It should be taught at all schools. The push towards voluntary voting and small government needs to start at school-sadly the public, and increasingly the private, education system is geared towards, indeed run, by left leaning types who try to brainwash the kids with their politcally correct we can all live in utopia mantra that is quite simply at odds with human history. Until the education system is taken back by the middle we are, sadly, stuck with the same level of mediocrity in government we have now that would not be acceptable in the private/corporate world.Time to vote a business person into power.

[barry]

4.

Quote:-[Time to vote a business person into power.]

Running a country is like running a business.

Australia is in the mess it is in because The Left , and the Academia, who have infiltrated the halls of Parliament , have no idea except make stupid laws that hinder the lives of milions of people, to satisfy their irrationally stupid minds, which are so fogged up from living in a fantasy land , they have no idea of reality.

Why anybody would want to bite the hand that feeds them , and provides the quality of life they have on offer,is just plain stupidity.

An overloaded government full of idiotic beaurocrats wil eventually destroy a country.As is seen in Australia today .And is blatantly obvious by the stupidity of the rules these braindead fools, who seem to think they have some kind of superiority over the masses, keep coming up with.

As seen recently , a simple example , when a woman was issued a fine for talking on a mobile phone while walking down the street pushing her child in a pram.

If that's the extent of the intelligence that's running this country ,( and I've worked around them , head in the clouds , and dumb as asses, one of which I watched trying to put a spirit level on water to see which way it was running.Just for example), is it any wonder Australia is sliding into oblivion?

All you need is a beaurocracy full of these nuts, combined with a group of medievil crackpots who seem to think everybody on the planet should have nothing , "except themselves",( it's called communism), and away goes your country, back a hundred years or so. And the next couple of generations have to lift it back to whence it came from , just so they again can look to a better future.
And, of course, a healthy dose of "apathy "just helps the nutters along.

A Prime Example, just have a look at the Mayor of Sydney, and see what "She's" doing for that fine city.

[Dallas Beaufort]

5.

Adding to the policy and legislative pile does not make a man or for that matter a woman politician. Reducing life's burdens would be a good start after 250 years of political baggage bracket creep as low hanging fruit are few and far between.

[Janet H. Thompson]

6.

I'm against compulsory voting, but the slide toward totalitarianism is much more involved than simply ending it.

[Jason]

7.

No doubt, but ending compulsory voting and giving all Australians the freedom to vote is the first step. Then the politicians will need to promote freedom... otherwise, how else will they motivate people to vote?

[dB]

8.

I think there is plenty of evidence for your point that mandatory voting (combined with our two part system) results in both sides hugging the same positions.

Look at global warming for instance. Both sides of politics in Australia are fully committed to a 5% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020. If you don't believe in AGW, who do you vote for? Family First maybe?

[David Capper]

9.

Of course the Weimar Republic had, I believe, voluntary voting and a proportional rather than preferential voting system (which underpins the two party system). They did not really help prevent its slide towards totalitarianism. A number of historians would suggest that they help grease the wheels.

[ibbit]

10.

Jason, this is an interesting and thought-provoking article.

I deplore both compulsory voting AND preferential voting. Both should be abolished, but won't because it obviously suits the parties to do back room deals out of sight of voters.

I wonder how many people who voted for the major parties in Dennison foresaw that they would elect an independent?

Does that mean our duopoly is bad? The two main parties are – or were, pretty distinct in philosophy. It could be the lack of honesty and openness, it could be poor policy; it could be bad salesmanship. It could be some or all of these compounded by our electoral system, which makes politics look so grubby, so bad and incurs such a lack of trust.

Currently however, we see both major parties united against the public in their support for GW – particularly the RET bipartisan stance - which has unleashed the nonsensical and expensive policies of the green fringe party. This is no good thing as it is expensive, quixotic and hurts the ordinary person politicians are elected to represent.

The PM is presently promising incredibly expensive programmes, education for example, without explaining how they will be funded. This appears to be democratic, but I think it is not.

The entitlement mentality besetting the community is well understood and means the PM is knowingly pandering to that, making it very difficult for a new government to do other than carry out her wishes.

If elected, the opposing party, which has, at bottom, a very different philosophy is forced to abide by the current government’s policies or risk the wrath of the electorate as in Queensland presently. This, to my mind, illustrates an element of the “slide toward totalitarianism” albeit aided and abetted by an unthinking and deliberately ill informed public when it comes to the financial realities involved.
.
The main fly in the ointment - whether the parties be polarized or centralized, are the twin questions of honesty and openness. Without these, surely any system is compromised or easily corrupted.

We already see some anti-democratic tendencies are alive and well in Australia today and this, in spite of us being in no way an echo of Bevan’s Wales or early Australia. I refer to the near anarchy of union behaviour presently.

It is not democratic for a minister to ignore this behaviour or union flouting of the law. Nor is it democratic to have an IR policy, which sets up a disequilibrium between unions – I in 5 workers - and business.

Just thinking through some of the practical issues illustrating the theoretical concepts put forward in the article makes one see just how bad our present system appears to be. It also makes one see that other than democracy is at work in Australia.

Would changing our electoral system alter any of this? Without a major political culture change to openness, honesty, fairness, consistency, clear and adequate policy information and respect for the will of the electorate by politicians of all persuasions, probably not.

Does this mean politicians should be subservient to the electorate? No! In areas of national security, trade, the economy to name a few, logically the government must hold sway, as it must honour its election platform. If this is not always possible, then clear, explanation must be given to the public, not obfuscation and implausibility.

Governments are elected to govern but when promises, which were a crucial part of their election platform, are broken the electorate has the right to make its displeasure clear. If government refuses to listen, then there should be a recall mechanism available to the populace to remove such a government.

Could such changes ever happen? Not likely. The only game alive and well in town at the moment seems to be the power game to which the public are appended as duped pawns. Could non-compulsory voting alter this? Possibly with other cultural changes.

Jason, this is an interesting and thought-provoking article.

I deplore both compulsory voting AND preferential voting. Both should be abolished, but won't because it obviously suits the parties to do back room deals out of sight of voters.

I wonder how many people who voted for the major parties in Dennison foresaw that they would elect an independent?

Does that mean our duopoly is bad? The two main parties are – or were, pretty distinct in philosophy. It could be the lack of honesty and openness, it could be poor policy; it could be bad salesmanship. It could be some or all of these compounded by our electoral system, which makes politics look so grubby, so bad and incurs such a lack of trust.

Currently however, we see both major parties united against the public in their support for GW – particularly the RET bipartisan stance - which has unleashed the nonsensical and expensive policies of the green fringe party. This is no good thing as it is expensive, quixotic and hurts the ordinary person politicians are elected to represent.

The PM is presently promising incredibly expensive programmes, education for example, without explaining how they will be funded. This appears to be democratic, but I think it is not.

The entitlement mentality besetting the community is well understood and means the PM is knowingly pandering to that, making it very difficult for a new government to do other than carry out her wishes.

If elected, the opposing party, which has, at bottom, a very different philosophy is forced to abide by the current government’s policies or risk the wrath of the electorate as in Queensland presently. This, to my mind, illustrates an element of the “slide toward totalitarianism” albeit aided and abetted by an unthinking and deliberately ill informed public when it comes to the financial realities involved.
.
The main fly in the ointment - whether the parties be polarized or centralized, are the twin questions of honesty and openness. Without these, surely any system is compromised or easily corrupted.

We already see some anti-democratic tendencies are alive and well in Australia today and this, in spite of us being in no way an echo of Bevan’s Wales or early Australia. I refer to the near anarchy of union behaviour presently.

It is not democratic for a minister to ignore this behaviour or union flouting of the law. Nor is it democratic to have an IR policy, which sets up a disequilibrium between unions – I in 5 workers - and business.

Just thinking through some of the practical issues illustrating the theoretical concepts put forward in the article makes one see just how bad our present system appears to be. It also makes one see that other than democracy is at work in Australia.

Would changing our electoral system alter any of this? Without a major political culture change to openness, honesty, fairness, consistency, clear and adequate policy information and respect for the will of the electorate by politicians of all persuasions, probably not.

Does this mean politicians should be subservient to the electorate? No! In areas of national security, trade, the economy to name a few, logically the government must hold sway, as it must honour its election platform. If this is not always possible, then clear, explanation must be given to the public, not obfuscation and implausibility.

Governments are elected to govern but when promises, which were a crucial part of their election platform, are broken the electorate has the right to make its displeasure clear. If government refuses to listen, then there should be a recall mechanism available to the populace to remove such a government.

Could such changes ever happen? Not likely. The only game alive and well in town at the moment seems to be the power game to which the public are appended as duped pawns. Could non-compulsory voting alter this? Possibly with other cultural changes.

Jason, this is an interesting and thought-provoking article.

I deplore both compulsory voting AND preferential voting. Both should be abolished, but won't because it obviously suits the parties to do back room deals out of sight of voters.

I wonder how many people who voted for the major parties in Dennison foresaw that they would elect an independent?

Does that mean our duopoly is bad? The two main parties are – or were, pretty distinct in philosophy. It could be the lack of honesty and openness, it could be poor policy; it could be bad salesmanship. It could be some or all of these compounded by our electoral system, which makes politics look so grubby, so bad and incurs such a lack of trust.

Currently however, we see both major parties united against the public in their support for GW – particularly the RET bipartisan stance - which has unleashed the nonsensical and expensive policies of the green fringe party. This is no good thing as it is expensive, quixotic and hurts the ordinary person politicians are elected to represent.

The PM is presently promising incredibly expensive programmes, education for example, without explaining how they will be funded. This appears to be democratic, but I think it is not.

The entitlement mentality besetting the community is well understood and means the PM is knowingly pandering to that, making it very difficult for a new government to do other than carry out her wishes.

cont...

[Jason]

11.

Compulsory voting means politicians must all attract the same central group of swinging voters, so unless a politician wants to lead Australia to nowhere and maintain the status quo, they may feel the need to lie to be elected. It would be better if they stayed out of politics and led change from a different platform - one they does not require lies to succeed. How can a libertarian, for example, suceed in a system such as ours? In a system where freedom is only understood on a spectrum between communism and fascism.

[Driftforge]

12.

The primary force moving governments from freedom to totalitarianism is parasitism. On the left we call this communism, on the right we call it fascism. The process is the same, just the host is different.

Now your hypothesis here is that voluntary voting leads to more freedom. I can't see evidence around the world in support of that, and much that disputes it. But that aside, look at what that arrangement does for the parasites.

Under a centrist, compulsory form of voting, the tendency is for the parasite to switch hosts upon change of government. This means that the parasites must be flexible enough to do so, and not overtly committed to one host.

Under an extremist, non-compuslory form of voting, the tendency is for the parasite to develop a deep, corrupting relationship with their host party and to be cast out for the period when their host is out of power.

Voluntary voting will inevitably lead to a more virulent form of corruption, as opposed to the steady established form you get under compulsory voting. Both forms can take you to totalitarianism.

Voluntary voting is not the solution to this problem.

[Jason]

13.

Whether due to compulsory voting, nationalism or other, the idea that voting is a duty not a right was prevalent in Germany before the rise of totalitarianism. The Germans saw voting as a duty. When voting is seen as a duty it blurs the line between the individual and the state and this is where you have a problem with totalitarianism.

[David Capper]

14.

It still damages the argument that voluntary voting will reverse a slide to totalitarianism.

In many cases historically “leaders who cannot inform, inspire, motivate, educate and ultimately empower the electorate using peaceful means, are replaced by” - demagogues!!!!!

As I have said before I think voluntary voting is to be preferred to compulsory voting, on the basis that people should be able to choose to participate or not in the political process, it is your reasoning that I don't accept.

[Driftforge]

15.

David - the issue that occurs to me with voluntary voting is whether there is a tendency within systems of voluntary voting to result in a culture where people don't value participation in the political process.

The problem one faces in designing a political system to resist parasitic infestation is that you are inherently designing a static entity. The parasites adapt to the new conditions pretty quickly.

Which leads to the question of whether a system of government can be designed to adapt.

It's no good just looking at what will disrupt our current parasites. Our situation wont improve on anything other than a temporary basis - and even that is not guaranteed - given a switch to voluntary voting.

You need some sort of regular, programmed parasite culling.

[Jason]

16.

Maybe David, but the reason I say "reverse" rather than "stop" or "slow" is that voluntary voting gives freedom a voice. Australians need to be educated (by demagogues or not?) on the value of freedom. Only when people are completely free to abstain from the electoral process do the politicians need to promote and sell freedom, i.e. democracy, i.e. voting. Currently our politicians need to say "when you vote, vote for me" and under voluntary voting they need to say "you should vote, and you should vote for me". So under voluntary voting the leaders need to empower the electorate by educating them about freedom. They need to sell freedom. Why vote if you're not free?

[Driftforge]

17.

Jason,

Voting and freedom are not the same thing. Promoting freedom will not necessarily increase voting, nor will promoting voting increase freedom.

People are quite capable of voting their way to totalitarianism.

Why vote if you are free?

[Jason]

18.

You vote because you believe that your vote will make a difference. But if you're not free, what's the point? People need to feel like their vote matters or gives them power, or freedom. Why vote if you're not free?

[dante]

19.

I see the usual idiots are still here, stuck in mud and their dead brain ... what's that putrid smell? Is it ibbit's brain? How can a small thing like that smells so much??

[Driftforge]

20.

Mostly I suspect people vote because they feel it will be to their advantage. If you are free, what advantage can be had? If you are not free, voting offers the possibility of freedom.

The value of voting is only really seen by those it can be taken away from.

Either way, voluntary voting will not lead to a freer society.

[John Mc]

21.

Either way, voluntary voting will not lead to a freer society.

Surely you can see the contradiction in that statement. At the very least, you have the option of not going through the motions on election day to avoid a $50 (or whatever) fine should you not want to vote.

[John Mc]

22.

dante: I see the usual idiots are still here

Irony, much? If you hate it so much how come you keep coming back? It's been over a year!

[Jason]

23.

Voting doesn't offer any possibility of freedom if the electoral system is corrupt, or if both parties are corrupt, or if you don't know what the parties really stand for, or if you have no trust in them. If you live in a non-democratic system such as this, where your vote means nothing and could even make matters worse by legitimising a corrupt government, then what's the point in voting? You only vote in a true democracy where your vote really matters and counts. And when I say a true democracy, I mean a free society. I'm talking about democratic freedom not absolute freedom. The more democratic freedom you have - meaning the more power your vote has, the more likely you are to use it.

[Driftforge]

24.

The more power your vote has, the more power the government has, the less free you are.

And John Mc, I see the irony. To maintain freedom you force people to do something. It's odd, but in the real world where 'true freedom' doesn't exist, you have to watch out for when people want to take away one of the few responsibilities you have left.

You want to make voting valuable, you provide the opportunity for it to be limited, not the opportunity for it to be ignored.

[kraka]

25.

JMc-Dante is a self titled scientist,economist and world language expert. He is obviously waaaaaaaay too smart to contribute anything meaningful to a sensible debating point. You should bask in his all knowing glory and be grateful he spends time with us unwashed neanderthals so that we too, may live in slavery under a socialist government where by simply paying taxes we can stop the planet warming. Once you accept this JMc Dante can then go back to his parents bedroom, tie himself to his bed and come down from whatever drugs he is obviously smoking. Come to think of it, maybe thats the smell he can't work out?????Or it could just be the shit that is the AGW fraud he so fervently believes in.

[John Mc]

26.

You want to make voting valuable, you provide the opportunity for it to be limited,

I don't want to make voting 'valuable', I want to increase the amount of liberal democracy in our society. For me that would be the only measure of value with regards to voting.

How do you define 'valuable' voting?

How do you believe voting should be 'limited' to make it valuable?

[Anton]

27.

Moving voting from compulsory to voluntary whould shift the competition between politicians from relative to absolute. It would not be good enough to be the least bad option, a politician would actually have to get people to bother voting at all.

More competition must lead to a better product.

[Driftforge]

28.

John Mc - Valued would have been a better term than valuable. It's a simple extrapolation of the maxim that only someone who has been denied something truly values it. And as to how - return the upper house to its original purpose as a house representing those paying for the cost of government, and only those. Leave representation to the house, and limit voting for the senate to those who are not receiving the bulk of their income from the government.

Anton - the better solution to competition is multi-member electorates. Works a treat down here in Tassie at the state level; you always have someone you can approach who approximates your views, and you get to throw out the poor members while still supporting your party of choice.

[kraka]

29.

Makes sense DF but probably should have left the tassie reference out-especially when talking about the upper house where tassie is over-represented by virtue of each state gets 12 senators regardless of population (another debate altogether).
The fact is, regardless of which side you vote for, there is a lot of un or ill informed people who cast a vote or vote informal purely because they have to.By making it voluntary you won't stop the idiots from voting but would greatly reduce the amount of donkey votes and over time see an electorate voting who are at least more informed before they vote.
Whether this would up the quality of our elected reps is something that only time would tell but our current system seems to be geared to forever giving us bad quality leadership-something has to change.

[Jason]

30.

"The more power your vote has, the more power the government has, the less free you are."

By that logic, if you reduce the power of one's vote to zero (so they don't have a vote at all) you're more free. More free in a dictatorship? More free under communism?

[dB]

31.

Someone once told me that optional voting turns every electorate into a marginal electorate. I'm not sure if that's true, but if it is, I'm all for it.

I live in one of the safest seats in the country. It's been in the same hands since it was proclaimed in 1949. Every 3 or 4 years I go and tick a box knowing it's going to make no difference at all (ok, my senate vote still counts for something, but I always feel my house of reps vote is a complete waste of time).

And the policy competition every electoral cycle seems to be directed at a handful of marginal electorates, the rest of us are taken for granted to do what we always do.

[Driftforge]

32.

Informal votes are around 5% consistently. It's not an issue. Most people grump but do their bit.

I'll leave aside the senate issue as you suggest; my comment regarding Tasmania was to do with our state government where we have five member electorates.

[Driftforge]

33.

You could equally ask 'More free in anarchy?'

Freedom, the requirement, and the significance of your vote are loosely and complexly related.

[kraka]

34.

only 5% not an issue?-thats 730000 (seven hundred and thirty thousand votes)DF.Apart from being the highest informal vote on record in the 2010 election, in perspective Howard lost the 2007 election by only 12000 votes.
You may have 5 member electorates but you have 12 senate seats, and that is where decisions are made or stopped from becoming law. With a population of 500000 compared to qld (4.5M) or nsw (7.2M)who also have 12 senators it is a bit rich.Especially when you take into account over half of Tasmania are on some form of government assistance. You wonder why the likes of WA get the shits when they receive less than 70 cents per dollar of gst collected while Tasmania get $1.65 per dollar of gst collected.
I'm guessing most people who disagree with voluntary voting are left/green voters-why is that?

[Jason]

35.

You could but I didn't.

[dB]

36.

I wonder if that's true. I know plenty of lefties who are opposed to mandatory voting.

And it's typically been conservative governments that have made voting mandatory. Queensland was the first to do so in 1915 because they were concerned the trade union movement was good at encouraging people to get out and vote. They wanted to "level the playing field". Seems like a pretty lazy response to me.

[John Mc]

37.

Can Driftforge or any of the pro-mandatory voting crowd tell us what benefits we are experiencing with mandatory voting, eg. we have better representation than the UK, or some other western country, or our voters are better informed, or our politicians are smarter or what is it?

[dB]

38.

I wonder how many people who voted for the major parties in Dennison foresaw that they would elect an independent?

Presumably all those who put the independent higher on their list than the other major party. You get what you vote for.

to do back room deals out of sight of voters.

How is handing someone a how-to-vote card with your recommended ranking "out of sight"?

OK, I agree with your comments for the Senate votes where it's big/complicated enough that almost everyone votes above the line, and unless you do a lot of research beforehand, you really don't know what that means.

But in your Denison example, what could be more transparent than a list of 5 names with numbers beside them? Presumably, had Liberal voters ignored the Liberal how-to-vote card, and put the ALP before Wilkie, they'd now have an ALP MP. Are you suggesting they didn't know what they were doing?

Qld state elections have optional preferential voting. You can number as many or as few boxes as you like. That's about as close to optional voting as we can currently get. Sure, you still have to rock up, but you can put your '1' beside your candidate of choice and make sure it doesn't flow to any of the others, if that is your wish.

[Benn]

39.

Mate, this article hit the nail right on the head. As many advocates of compulsory voting keep saying extremists will take power under a voluntary system, you point out such a system would actually weed them out, giving them no chance whatsoever. This is just one of many arguements in favour of compulsory voting (like all pro-compulsory voting arguements) that simply does not stand up.
If you need proof of this, just look at the greens puppet we have in power now. Happily, some humans are seeping in. Sadly, the current system will prevent them from taking power, for now.

Now, there are 3 possible solutions that come to mind when it comes to the compulsory problem; the first is to persistantly appeal against it. The second, encourage as many like minded people to join a political party as possible. Number 3, & i might just try this, is to join a political party yourself, but not before learning to piss in their ears & beat them at their own game. Why would they proceed when they no longer have the upper hand?

As a christian, i have a good feeling that God will see us through. Our cause is just, & we shall prevail: worked at Fullerton Cove, it'll work for us.

[Arthur Dent]

40.

God is concerned about coal seam gas ?
Fascinating.

[Jason]

41.

Gay marriage is an example of both sides of Australian politics are polarised at the totalitarian end of the spectrum.

[Linne]

42.

Isn't it marvelous? As soon as you mention religion or God Dent comes crawling out from under his rock.

[AlterEgo]

43.

Oh my God, Dante is back - comment 19.

Honestly Allan, it wasn't me (or Smutsie) who made comment 19.

Would never say anything like that about a lady.

To the subject. A very thought provoking post.

Until fairly recently, due to a basic cohesiveness in our society, there was not the polarisation that we see now.

As it is near Anzac Day, I well remember that a while back, the commentator covering the march would make a special effort to point out (for example) a captain of industry marching alongside a trade union offficial.

The more cynical might say it was a choice between tweedledum and tweedledee, or even more cynical, between tweedledum and tweedledummer.

No names, no packdrill, but with the introduction of American style politicking, polarisation is now entrenched.

When it comes to making voting voluntary, it is a case of "beware of what you wish for, you just might get it".

Look at the last presidential election in America.

Obama did not win it, his foot-soldiers did. They were out recruiting votes from day one.

In a post-election discussion on Fox, a republican commentator agreed that this was the case, saying with blistering honesty "we left that sort of thing to the blue-hairs" (our blue rinse set).

I well remember some years ago going to Bronny's electorate office to get some higher education policy information.

The blue-hair (no offence, but it is true), who spoke to me, kept trying to give me a how to vote card. She sure stuck to what she had been told to do! Nothing that I said could deter her from her mission.

[AlterEgo]

44.

Communism - where all shortages are distributed equally among the masses.

Meanwhile, back in the dachas of the priviledged .....

[AlterEgo]

45.

If I reposted my quasi-Dante poetry from a while back - do you think that might make Dante go away?

[AlterEgo]

46.

I forgot to say -

To all serving and ex-serving Servicemen and Servicewomen - Thank you.

Have a good Anzac Day (well, perhaps not too good ...)

Your service is the reason that we can have this discussion ...

[Peter Simmons]

47.

Shove your thanks up your arse.

[Peter Simmons]

48.

What is with this person, Linne?

[AlterEgo]

49.

Joined up in 1966, 5 years in Vietnam, 15 years loyal sevice.

What dark and evil things have happened to you, to make such a comment?

[Linne]

50.

Hi Peter, Alter Ego in a recent reply to Geoff the fool says that he has to do everything himself because if he doesn't then everything gets stuffed up.

Then he goes on to say "I am privileged to lead an elite group of electrical workers doing construction in the electricity supply industry." How "Elite" are your workers if you don't trust them to do the job.

Now let's not lose sight of the fact that this a person whose underlings, especially young women, think he is a "legend". My husband has a saying that fits the occasion, "If you keep doing that you will go blind." Dent fit the same profile.

[Peter Simmons]

51.

Joined up 1966, What Platoon Kapooka,mate.

[Linne]

52.

Peter, that fool ever joined anything outside the local tennis club. He has already admitted that he missed the ballot for national service, but he never run along to volunteer. Gutless!!!!