Compulsory Voting

Compulsory Voting is Voting Under Duress. Honk to abolish compulsory voting.

That's pretty close to what was written on the thing the guy on the side of the road was wearing. And every time a car would honk, he would bow thanks in its direction.

So how about it? What of abolishing compulsory voting? Is it a good idea? Or is it something we should avoid at all costs if we value our freedom? Is it even something you have even thought about?

Many questions. And this entry is going to answer each question in reverse order.

Is abolishing compulsory voting and making voting voluntary, something you have thought about?

I'm going out on a limb and saying, it is something almost all Australians have not thought about one iota. The thought of it not entering their minds. They just grumble about voting on election day, trudge off to the polling booth, mark their X and wind their way back home again. Quietly wishing their guy gets in for the rest of the day. Then watching the election results coverage on the ABC or Channel 9 later that night.

If the idea of voluntary voting was put forth to them, they wouldn't know how to react. And of those who did, they would put forth one of two stances: voting should be voluntary; voting should not be voluntary. But would have hardly any reasoning to back up their thought. With most reasons being something glib like "It just should be."

Next.

Should we avoid abolishing compulsory voting if we value our freedom?

There will be some who think that without compulsory voting we would see the main voting day moved from a Saturday to a weekday. As value producing workers work during the week, and unemployed people and others on welfare do not work, there would be a greater turn out of welfare recipients than value producing workers. As the welfare bludgers tend to vote left, elections would be very left leaning.

And there would be some who would think voting on a weekday on the way to work, during lunch or after work, would give the workers a free weekend. It would also release people from the constrains of having to be in their area on election day. Thus giving greater freedom of movement.

Some would argue that people have died to acquire the right to vote and we shouldn't just toss their efforts aside by not even bothering to vote when we don't feel like it. Voting is all about being free. If we don't all vote, only a handful will vote. And eventually, due to lack of interest, the right to vote will be rescinded for lack of turnout. Thus reducing our freedom.

Is abolishing compulsory voting a good idea?

To answer we need to look at the implications and underlying facets of voluntary voting.

For one, if voting is voluntary there will be those who will never vote because they can't be bothered. Unfortunately, often those people are also the loudest whiners about what the government should and shouldn't do.

There will be those who only vote when they are unhappy with the government. In which case they will most likely be voting against the incumbent party.

There will be those who vote only because they feel obligated to by friends/relatives/union-buddies/etc.

There will be those who will vote at every election because they deem it their chance to have a say and will not waste that chance.

But how about it democratically? What are the realities?

The SOLE roll of a government is to provide conditions for the people to live and pursue their dreams without having their personal and property rights infringed upon. And to "take action" against those who initiate personal and property right infringing actions.

With that in mind, there is no reason to vote if one is satisfied with the situation, generally speaking. Only those who are unhappy will vote. Because happy people know those small minority groups who are unhappy will vote, many will also vote to "show their support." Thus evening the system out.

If they do not vote, and the current unhappy crowd do vote and elect their desired polly, then most people will be unhappy. And come next election they will vote in an expression of their unhappiness and vote back in the party they were happy with.

A perfect self-balancing system. And democracy in action.

Think of the world of business. A world we all visit on a daily/weekly basis in some fashion.

In the world of business, if you are unhappy with a store you don't go there. You have a personal boycott of that store. You are not forced into that store to tell them of your unhappiness - although some people do let stores know of their unhappiness.

In the world of business, if you are happy, you keep giving the store your business. You are not forced in that store to tell them your happiness - although some people do give stores "testimonials".

With this good/bad feedback system in place, the store makes adjustments. Adjustments that keep the store in business. And the entire thing works on a voluntary system.

Government is like a store. We sometimes interact with it. But for the most part, we do not. It is something working in the background. If we are unhappy we should contact our local member and express our unhappiness. If things do not change, we then, like the store goer, can decide to express that unhappiness (by voting against them).

Currently, in Australia, there is no choice about voting. If you are over 18 you are expected to enroll to vote under penalty of fine. Sounds almost tyrannical when written in print doesn't it?

Oh sure, we have a "choice" on election day. But I don't have a choice about taking that choice. So in that sense, the government has infringed upon my right to vote or not.

I can choose who to vote for, or even to write "Get stuffed" or "Abolish compulsory voting" on the election ballot. I, of course, will waste the vote I am given be doing such. But if I didn't want to vote anyway, then there is no difference to me.

There is a woman in Australia who made national headlines because she refused to vote. For the last seven years or so she goes to the polling booth, has her name crossed of the list and then turns and walks out, without casting a ballot.

She was recently taken to task over it - which is how it made headlines - and she argued that she was compelled to get her name crossed off the list but it wasn't written anywhere that she had to actually cast a vote.

So what does it come down to?

Personally, I think voting should be voluntary. That exhibits true democracy. And it might make a polly work harder to make things right.

Would I not cast a vote once voting became voluntary in Australia?

Nope. *I* would continue to vote because it is one of the ways I am allowed to have my say on how the country is run. Not that my vote does any good mind you. Because since I began voting all those years ago, not one person I have voted for (been allowed to cast my vote for) has ever got elected. And one year, with the way our preferential voting system works, and the fact ALL preferences need to be filled out, by the time all was said and done for my "area," my vote went to my 7th choice! Thus, my vote went to someone I did NOT want to vote for.

And this raises another point. With preferential voting, should it be compulsory to number ALL your preferences, or should you be allowed to number only those you wish to number?

Personally, I believe, you should be allowed to number only those you wish to number. Otherwise, like my example, your vote goes to someone you didn't want it going to. And that undermines the whole purpose of voting in the first place.

Abortion In A Pill

There is this pill. It is known as The Morning After Pill. It is designed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy which came about by accident. Such as might occur from a one night stand.

Currently, this pill is available over the counter without a prescription. And there are moves afoot to make it a Prescription Only pill - which makes sense if for no other reason than it is such a high dose of chemical it is like taking 50 contraceptive pills in one hit, and this dose of chemical should not be taken without professional direction.

Of course, with anything that hints at morals and keeping people away from an "unthinking, the only thing that matters is sex" society, the do-gooder groups are up in arms.

So what kinds of reasons are they putting forth to strengthen their case that the morning after pill should be readily available to anyone of any age - without a prescription?

You're going to love this...

Their best reason is: what about if a 13 year old girl is sexually abused and gets pregnant? Without a prescription she can abort the pregnancy. But by needing a "script" she may be too embarrassed to go to the doctor to get one, and end up having a baby. (As if having a baby is the most vile un-natural thing in the world.)

Ok. Let's have a closer look at this "reason."

1 - I didn't know 13 year old girls getting sexually abused and becoming pregnant was so rampant as to need laws passed to make such a pill readily available to them. In fact, I have never heard of any 13 year old girl getting sexually abused and falling pregnant. Which doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Just that it is something *I* have never heard of.

2 - If such pill was by script only and the girl was too embarrassed and had the baby, it would result in a LOT of questions being asked. And we would find out the girl was sexually abused and who did the abusing. We could then get the bastard. But if such a pill was readily available, then the abuse could go on for years, and the bastard doing it would feel quite confident he would never get caught because the girl got pregnant.

3 - If the girl did get pregnant and went to term, she would not be able to "keep" the baby as she is not a value producer and generates no income. So she would be forced to give the baby up for adoption. This would HELP the many childless couples who are unable to have their own, and who are forced to join ten year waiting lists to adopt.

4 - Despite what the do-gooders say, such a readily available pill would ENCOURAGE SEX. With the threat of getting pregnant being a discouraging element, or at least one to make a person think a tiny bit before doing it. But with a guaranteed "get out of pregnancy free" card, teenage sex would increase like never before. Something that would be right up the alley of the morally-devoid lefties.

5 - A 13 year old girl is not mature or responsible enough to be able to make a decision about terminating a pregnancy. And the fact she was irresponsible enough to get pregnant in the first place, shows she certainly isn't responsible enough to make a termination decision.

6 - As was just seen in England where a young 14 year old girl got pregnant, and a 21 year old school counselor helped her get an abortion WITHOUT the girl's mother ever being informed until after the fact, the left's real agenda is NOT about "protecting" children." It's about removing moral standards and turning people into sex maniacs.

The left MUST come to terms with the concept that: freedoms carry with them responsibilities. You canNOT have freedom without responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is the fiasco that degrades society as a whole. Just look at suburbs where there are responsible people and compare them to suburbs where there are irresponsible people. It's like looking at an Upper Class suburb and comparing it to a ghetto.

So what of the pill's availability? Make it available to those mature and responsible enough to handle its taking - although "accidental" pregnancies show a lack of responsibility in the first place. This would generally entail an age limit kind of thing - just like an age limit attached to buying alcohol and cigarettes.

One thing is certain, however, making such a high chemical dose pill readily available to any and sundry whom wishes to buy it without instruction from a trained medical professional, or a lesson in responsibility, is foolhardy.

Or like they used to do in France. In France, where the pill was discovered while attempting to make an asthma relief drug, there were special clinics. What you did was go to the clinic, see the doctor, get given a pill to take in the office, and then you sat in a special waiting room for a few hours so the nursing staff could monitor you.

No Link Between Iraq and Al Qaeda

So a report has come out from the 9-11 commission. They conclude, Iraq was NOT involved in the attacks on 9-11.

Fine. Nothing wrong with that - BUT - the lefty media are NOW reporting that "there are no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda..." Whilst conveniently leaving out "with regards to 9-11."

They are deliberately filing false reports to the public in an effort to discredit George W Bush.

This is just another in a long line of discredit attempts.

When the gas canister was found in Iraq, they (the left) first said it was NOT a WMD. When it was pointed out that YES it is a WMD, one lefty I saw being interviewed, said something like, "that's not the issue... and I'm not willing to talk about it..." and proceeded to change the subject and talk about something else.

John Kerry and his leftist brethren were quick to complain when the promised jobs did not materialize overnight. But now that those jobs are appearing, the left has grown silent on that issue.

With this latest deliberate mis-reporting going on, the left is slowly being exposed more and more for what they are (wrong-doers, liars, manipulators and hypocrites who are willing to say anything to get a vote). Even Fox News' Bill O'Reilly had a segment about Dan Rather and co deliberately trying to mislead the public into thinking there is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, when in fact there IS a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

When they have to resort to such obvious duplicity, it says they have run out of legitimate arguments to campaign on. Come November, the left will wonder how they ever thought they could win with Kerry.

Latham Lambasted. Responds With Sheepish Silence

CANBERRA - In the nation's capital today, Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, took leftist opposition leader Mark Latham to the cleaners, and left him looking like the liar he is.

During a session of "Question Time" in parliament, Mr. Downer revealed the duplicity of Latham's "Troops home by Christmas" statements. And revealed the reality for all parliament to see.

Mr. Latham has been harping on how if HE is elected HE will bring the Australian troops home from Iraq by Christmas. Yet a closer look at the realities of what he intends to do shows he will leave 425 of our 800 odd troops in Iraq. Which is hardly the all troops home by Christmas he has been preaching for months.

His reaction to having his sneaky lies exposed was not one of denial - it is hard to deny the truth when it is so black and white as it is in this instance. It was not one of clarification. His reaction was to avoid eye contact with Mr. Downer and stare blankly at his shoes.

He had no verbal response to make. And will, undoubtedly, cross his fingers the mass media do not run with the story. (Which they probably won't, seeing as he and anti-American Peter Garrett are the media's new poster children.)

Also revealed during that session of parliament was Australia's unemployment rate (5.5%) and that it is the lowest it has been in 23 years. And that eight out of every ten jobs created in the last six months have been FULL TIME jobs and not casual or part time jobs as the left would have us believe. And that the number of jobs created in the last six months under the conservative government is MORE than the number of jobs created in the entire last six years of the leftist's time in office.

Everywhere Latham turns, he is getting egg on his face. Come election time, the left will wonder why they ever thought they could win with him at the helm.

The Almost Darwin Award Winner

There's this guy. He is an idiotarian who nearly became a Darwin Awards Winner because, he nearly improved our gene pool by removing himself from it. Let's call him Bob. Here is Bob's story...

Bob is a lefty tree hugger. He HATES big business - despite the fact he enjoys all the modern conveniences of the civilized world because of big business. Bob doesn't let such inconsistency and hypocrisy get in the way of his hate though.

One day Bob finds out one such business is going to build a building and open a store on some vacant land. So Bob hightails it down to the land, trespasses on it, climbs a tree and refuses to come down. He even hoists some fence paneling into the tree - fence paneling the business put around the land to stop people from trespassing!

Bob sits in the tree for 60 days, then falls out and breaks some bones. Bob is all banged up in hospital. Bob wants to sue the business for his injuries.

Bob trespasses and steals their property. He refuses to come down from a tree. Stays up their until lack of nutrients cause him to fall. And he thinks it is all the business's fault.

On top of that, Bob wants OTHER PEOPLE to give him money so he and his mates can buy the land and thus stop it getting a building on it.

Is Bob selling his house to help raise the money? Of course not.

Is Bob selling his car to help raise the money? Of course not.

Is Bob emptying his bank account to help raise the money? Of, bloody, course not.

Bob is a typical hypocrite left tree hugger. Bob doesn't want to use any of his own money. Bob wants to use OTHER PEOPLE'S money. Bob wants to con other people out of their hard earned money so Bob can earn a Good Guy badge.

The money needed is $1.8 million dollars. But Bob also wants a load of extra money so he can fight the business and sue the pants off them to compensate him for his stupidness and the injuries he brought on himself.

The land Bob trespassed on is the only block of vacant land in the street and there is a Bunya tree on it. Bob reckons he was doing it to protect the Bunya tree. Bob is what we call a dickhead. Bob's real name is Daniel Jones. And Bob's real agenda is not saving a single bloody Bunya tree, it is to halt progress and send us back to cave-man days - but not him, other people - everyone else, because he is too important for that.

Bob, hypocrite, trespasser and thief, is your idiotarian of the week.

The Speed of Live

Interesting. After putting up the entry below, I did a quick Google news search for it - AND I FOUND SOMETHING!

Incredibly, The Australian has already written a piece about the schamozzle which was last night's eviction show. And it's already up online. All within an hour of the event taking place.

The Mercury and The Sydney Morning Herald also have the same story up. And ABC has their own version up as well (complete with a picture of a bit of "cyclone" fence for dramatic effect).

And The Age has also put up the same version of the events of the night as printed in The Australian - but complete with a picture of the idiotarian as you can see here


News at the speed of live. Ain't the 'net wonderful.

A Shining Example Of An Idiotarian

Big Brother is an interesting "reality" show. Where a whole bunch of strangers who would never mingle in the real world, are locked inside a compound and filmed 24 hours a day.

From a psychological point of view, it is interesting to see how the brainwashing techniques effect each "housemate".

From a marketing and business point of view, it is interesting to see how the show's producers make money from the show.

Anyway. On tonight's eviction show, the evictee refused to talk, put some black duct tape over his mouth and held up a sign which said "Free The Refugees."

The refugees he wanted to be freed are, of course, those who have come to Australia illegally. That is, people who came here on rickety wooden boats. People which the government rightly put into refugee compounds until they could process them - find out WHO they are, WHERE they are from and WHY they are here.

Hey. Everyone has an opinion. And the evictee is entitled to have an opinion. However, the thing about this person is,

He Is NOT Australian!

He has lived in the country since he was four and never bothered becoming an Australian citizen. Thus he is also NOT entitled to vote.

Further more. He is also semi-illegal. His parents came here on a vacation visa and just stayed. Dodging the system for eight years!

So we have a semi-illegal non-Australian trying to tell the Australian government what to do with people who come to the country illegally.

TV entertainment shows are NOT the place for political statements. And those who are not a part of a country have no right to say anything about how that country is run. It's just another version of leftism - telling others what to do (micromanaging them) - taken to the extreme.

I say, if you don't like the way this country treats those who come here illegally on rickety wooden boats, then leave. And if you truly want to have a say... then become a citizen of the country and have a legitimate say.

I can just see it now. When he gets home his lefty controllers (who put him up to this because he is a "useful idiot") will be patting him on the back. Of course, it isn't them who now has to live with half a country hating you. (See, all actions have consequences, and you must be prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions.) That's why they use "useful idiots" to do their dirty work.

And I'm sure will we see a full-page article in The Green Left Weekly (I'll keep an eye out for it and let you know when it is up). In fact, he will probably be their poster boy. And go on speaking engagements. And fellow idiotarian Kylie Moon and him can shack up and have little useful idiot offspring. And they can all hold hands chanting dumb slogans and smoking pot at their weekly [insert topic here] protests, while adding nothing of value to the country and not bettering the place one bit. (Oh well. Just a Sunday night rant about an idiotarian.)

Hmmm. Maybe it was all a put up job from the show's producers to get free publicity, which would increase ratings. Hmmm. Cunning. If it is true. Let's see if it will hit the other mass media as "Controversy on Big Brother".