Fill the G rally

I went to the 'Fill the G' rally, it wasn't filled, but it was interesting...

I tried to make a remotely viewable YouTube video, so here it is:

Proof Greens Are Hypocrits:

The campaign slogan for the Greens in Victoria has been "Think long term" (not sure if that's a reference to when abortions should be legal until.. *boom-tisch*)

So, with Greg Barber and Sue Pennicsomethingorother, who get in the upper house with their "Think long term" campaign, what's the first thing they want to introduce?

"a bill to set short-term reduction goals for greenhouse gases for Victoria".

Ahh, hypocrisy. And they're not even officially elected yet.

Election win for FUD.

Election result: FUD defeats SHIC

(Sensible, Honest, Intelligent, Compassionate).

Before the election, most Greens seemed to have stayed positive about the effect of smears from Liberal/Nationals/Family First, Exclusive Brethren and Labor, but they appear to have had their desired effect. The Poll Bludger put it best: “the Greens are on 12 per cent, which is remarkably consistent with other agencies’ findings.” The end result seems to have been around 9.57%. The extent anti-Green campaigning had on results is questionable, but is not likely to be negligible.

I can see two main reasons for a woeful result:

1. Attacks (especially from the latest creature to join the circus, Labor)
2. Greening of the majors (which is a good thing.)

On a positive note, the major parties have made lots of promises, and water/environment policies have progressed. Despite green votes going to Liberal and Labor, they did have to earn them. Their position is still pitiful, but a lot of promises means either a lot of action, or a lot more broken promises that can be used as ammunition next round.

Another positive note is the shrinking Labor reign in the assembly, from 62 to 55, and rise of Liberals – 17 to 24. It is always bad for democracy to have ANY party dominate, especially a party that does not allow dissention, where the real voting is done in strict secrecy (true of both majors).

Of course, the result is still positive – I mean it’s Labor, the worker’s buddy, the environment’s friend right? They’re the good guys, yeah? I might try repeating the mantra:

Labor is good, Labor is great, Labor really is the worker’s mate.
Labor is good, Labor is great, Labor really is the environment’s mate.

If I keep it up, I’m sure it’ll push out any rational fact-based belief otherwise. It’d be easier if I was more weak-willed, impressionable, and susceptible to indoctrination, but if the majority of citizens here can do it, so can I.

Also, there’s a $1,000 water tank rebate (assuming that was a core promise), so cash in on that as soon as possible.

I might actually propose a blog meme:

HIGH-LIGHTS AND LOW-LIGHTS OF HANDING OUT HOW-TO-VOTES:

1. How much time did you dedicate to handing out HTVs? How many others were there to help you?

I did two shifts (5 hours) at my local booth, at one point there were 3 of us, but mostly only 1. Labor had quite a lot of volunteers, and Liberals had a few, but seemed to have abandoned ship towards the end. A Family First family were there the entire day, and 1 People Power lady was there for quite a while.

2. Categorize and estimate the percentage of each category of card-takers. (What percentage refused to take anything, how many took them all, how many accepted each main parties cards only, any interesting trends?)

• 42% took them all, but if they missed one most didn’t care. A few did and went past twice to make sure they hadn’t skipped one. (The HTV collectors.) A small percentage of these refused either FF, Greens, or People Power.
• 42% didn’t want any at all, and how dare we put them through the trauma of saying no?
• 8% accepted Labor only. A small percentage took Labor AND Greens, which was interesting.
• 5% accepted Greens only – almost exclusively young folk.
• 2% accepted Liberal only.
• 1% accepted Family First only.

Greens-only appeared either intelligent, or feral.
Family First-only appeared like zombies, they had that cult glint in their eye – it was a little disconcerting.

3. List the hightlights and lowlights of handing-out. (Anything happen that was funny, heart-warming, saddening?)

Good:

One woman came up to me, wanting to thank me/the party for offering a REAL alternative. (This, along with people accepting Green HTV’s only is what keeps you going ultimately).

The result was good, with only the Greens having an increased vote (FF did too, but they weren’t running in previous elections, so any vote is an increased vote.) 4,184 out of 26,890 voted Green, 16.2%, up 0.4. Impressive, as Libs got 36.9, ALP 41.2, and it’s outside of the metropolitan area.

Apparently FF had preferenced the ALP before Liberals in this seat, basically to reward the sitting Labor member for his right-wing Family First friendly views and actions in parliament. (Not sure if that’s a good or a bad thing.)

Everyone’s nice – you have chats with all parties. Family First lady shared her Pizza Shapes with everyone, People Power shared her mints.

Bad:

There were quite a few Labor-card holders who grimaced at the thought of accepting a Green HTV, not many others did.

There was no wheelchair access (thankfully no one needed it), but there were quite a few elderly folk that had to climb a large number of near-45-degree concrete steps (the school was having major renovations, and some areas were closed off construction sites). People from all parties helped people up the steps, and made formal complaints, eventually resulting in a table being brought down to allow them to vote there, and spare card-handerers would go and witness the official putting them into the box (although he cocked up at one point at put them into the wrong boxes, apparently it happens but they do get counted properly in the end.)

I got sore legs.

4. List any interesting exchanges between each parties volunteers. (Arguments, comments?)

The otherwise pleasant Family First lady (who was the mother of her family there handing out cards) out of the blue made a few snide comments about the horrors of decriminalising abortion when I was within earshot. I controlled myself and kept my mouth shut, even when she ended her tirade with “next thing you know they’ll go around killing old people.” Contain the rage. My composure was that of Hindu cows. I did feel like mentioning Bob Brown is a bit of a right-to-lifer, but I feared it might send her on a crusade of critical thought, and I wasn’t sure that her fragile mind could handle thinking. Shattering an illusion of that calibre could be devastating; it’s probably best to start with something less shocking.

5. Which candidates bothered to visit while you were there? Which didn’t? Did anything interesting happen?

I didn’t get a single word of abuse or anything more negative than the subtle sneers of Labor-only voters, but the Labor candidate got there and I overheard a few ‘comments’ on Greens to his supporters. He spoke to FF and Liberal people, but avoided coming within 4 meters of where the Greens were. (He won on Greens preferences, if the Greens actually preferenced Liberals (like they said they were), he would have lost.)

Labor guy also tried to engage a couple of voters, who were glad to discuss his position. They talked for a good 10 minutes, I noticed they asked his stance on one of those issues where Labor has the same position as Liberal (I can’t recall which one, there’s too many to try and guess. Civil unions? Not sure.) And it was nice to see him try to weasel his way out of it. “Well, we don’t have a specific policy to… we do support the theory/principle of… but currently our agenda does not include…” (Could have been civil unions, because that’s Bracks‘ line on the matter). Afterwards, they took the other cards, including my Green card with a smile.

The Family First candidate dropped by, he was a clean-cut late-40 uber-dork with a calculator watch.

Greens guy dropped by, Liberal and People Power were no-shows as far as I could tell.

Anyway, thems the breaks. I'd just like to recommend watching the cricket, it seems like it’s going to be less one-sided than this election was, so should be more exciting. Plus it will be great fun comparing the different hideously dry wickets at each ground - I just hope the more slender players don’t fall into those cracks on the pitch; lack of rain has really made some canyons in there.

Pokies Victims group applauds Labor win.

The Pokies Victims Association has applauded the Victorian election result. A spokesman claiming that only a continuation of a Bracks Labor government would ensure an increase in the number of members requiring the groups services. “The existence of our organisation would be threatened, and the number of people we would have to counsel would have been seriously curtained if the do-gooder Liberals, Greens, People Power or Family First had gained power.”

Election eve.

I'll recite a little story the candidate for my electorate told me recently.

He's been doing this for a while now. Back in the day, Greens and their ilk weren't exactly welcomed. He recalls even getting "mugged" as he put it (it sounded like bashed, or attacked, to me) when doing election work.

Things got better, the violence stopped, but he still copped verbal abuse. "Fuck off greenie." Reminds me of the angry cowboy-hat laden chap that told me "Greens tell lies" last time I handed out HTV's.

But people, over time, have changed. Gone from making snide remarks to ignoring him, to faux interest, to genuine interest.

His most recent highlight was a group of rednecks, fresh from a ute. They all ignored him, and entered the pub/whatever building it was. But one stopped.

The man that stopped engaged him, questioned him - what did he stand for? Does he just want to destroy all logging, farming, and steal all the water for his illegal hemp plants?

He explained his position as a Greens member, that what he stood for was not for his own benefit, it was for the benefit of all, today and into the future.

The man walked inside. He returned with the others from the ute. They listened for a good portion of an hour, surprised by the honesty and concern, and left with words of support.

His nose probably is a bit misshapen from standing up for his beliefs, but the harsh battles really are over. We aren't the crackpot minority best left ignored, those that oppose us are - climate change being the best example thus far. Things have changed. People have changed.

I just hope the parliament changes.

Labor, Greens, Fisticuffs.

Liberal's letterboxed 500,000 of these:

"Some of the things Labor might have to do for the Greens..." (got chopped)

Labor's ad in today's Age:

Greens ad in Wed + Thu's Age:

Number of times The Greens mention the Labor party: 0
Number of times Labor mentions The Greens: 10.

The Greens' ad is a bit unfortunate, as it doesn't mention there are split and open tickets in some lower house seats. But, it avoids attacking Labor for deceiving the public, slamming their attacks, that sort of thing - it's a mature response.

The Labor ad is distressing. It assumes Greens are upset, the only evidence I can find is to the contrary (I hear tell candidates are being contacted by - usually - confused supporters, but they get the facts in the end). Greens voters "deserve to be angry" - no, Labor IS angry, Green's see it simply as a split ticket. It claims a preference deal with The Greens and Liberals is "a fact" (there's just as much evidence to suggest Labor has a deal with the Liberals, to attack the Greens/Nats, and even more evidence of deals with Labor and Country Alliance). The CA deal is blatant, no split tickets, just direct preferencing, and the Lab-Lib deal attacked minor parties, ensuring Victoria remained a two-party state (which is a little undemocratic). But, it's only ever going to be circumstantial evidence, so conclusions shouldn't be jumped to, and claiming them to be absolute truths is a bit much.

"As the weekend polls have revealed, this election will go down to the wire" the ad claims.

WHY THIS IS A LIE: (An easy one.)
Centerbet has a Labor win at odds of 1.06, Liberal of 7.00
Morgan poll last weekend has Labor 44%, Coalition 38%, two party preferred: 55, 45.
72% of Victorians think Labor will win, 13% Lib/Nat's.
The poll was titled: "With A Week To Go: ALP Set To Win Victorian Election With Reduced Majority"
Sound like a close one? The most I could find is an article where the Lib's had almost got "a glimmer of hope".

"A handful of votes in a handful of seats could mean the Greens Party leaders wake up on Sunday with Ted Baillieu as Premier".

Currently, the ALP has 62 out of 88 lower house seats.
That's a 71% majority. Lib's are on 17, Nats on 7, Greens on 0.
That's not a handful of seats required, that's a jump of over 250% for Lib's to gain outright, 210% to gain with the Nationals.

And to put it into perspective - in the lower house, Labor is only really at risk of Greens getting ONE of their inner-city seats, the odds are still in Labor's favour, they still have more votes, but it's considered a possibility (unless there is some backlash against the Greens to Labor, but then the ALP would need to do some sort of scare campaign, which really is the reason for this whole episode.)

"All because the Greens Party leaders haven't kept their promise of principled politics."

One thing the people that make the decisions in The Greens find incredibly amusing (and the ad was brought out whilst we busily sorted cards and those corflute triangles tonight) is the word 'leader'. The decisions on preferences are not done by the state office (unless there are disputes that can't be resolved, or a region does something insane, like preference itself last or something.) This is ensured through their dedication to grassroots democracy, but is generally due to lack of staff.

And without going over AGAIN what I've gone over in previous posts, the Greens have only made an unprincipled decision if Labor is markedly different to Liberals in Victoria. They just aren't. The Herald-Sun had a side-by-side policy comparison yesterday - it could have been confused with a rather difficult "spot the difference" puzzle.

All up, the ALP has really gone overboard with this, and further tarnished their image in many minds, including my own skeptical view.

Is Labor still preferable to preference?
(Warning: Soul-searching ahead!)

This is actually a ponderable question at the moment.
Liberals started off with a great campaign, then took a turn for the worse, but still quite impressive environmentally and socially (for them, and in comparison to Labor - I mean, even their industrial relations policy is more progressive if you look at it objectively).
Labor has been quite disappointing, and has played along with whatever Liberals were going for.
But it is difficult to trust Liberals, especially after Kennett.
But Labor is quite corrupted, with their PPP's being disgraceful.
Overall, either Labor or Liberal is more progressive, depending on how you weigh the issues.
There IS still the tradition of Labor being left-wing, even if it IS two steps right, one step left at the moment.
So I would tend towards Labor, but ANY party being in such a majority is a bad thing, doubly so when Greens or decent minors could hold a balance.
I was seriously considering a coin flip for a while, but I might leave it until tomorrow to decide where my preferences will go.

I will see tomorrow, perhaps the newspapers will help me decide. Don't make me go the second option Labor, don't let me down, Greens are not a Labor-Preference-Machine.

On a much lighter note, Bob Brown was doing a Street-Walk(TM), where he seems to have passed Pop-Eye.

(Seriously, was this the BEST shot you could get to publish, Fairfax?)

Election Update

Oh Labor, what happened man, you used to be cool.

On a deal with the Liberals:

NOTE: The Greens are running split tickets (allowing preferences to flow to Liberal or Labor) in about a quarter of lower house seats, the rest go to Labor. Liberals have also preferenced Greens ahead of Labor in a few inner-city seats. The Labor spin is that this is from a deal (which I checked, and it wasn't, it had a lot to do with Family First and David Risstrom however.)

LABOR: "The Greens have done a grubby deal with the Liberals that could see Ted Baillieu become premier." There was no deal - this is an assumption, and Ted is not going to become premier, this is a lie.

LABOR: "This means that a Greens-Liberal government in Victoria would back the Howard Government's extreme industrial relations laws." Also a lie, any Greens member that supported WorkChoices in any way wouldn't be in the party for long.

LABOR: "Greens had "sold out" working families and the environment." Deception, the effect of Greens split tickets on the Labor party will be less than negligible, and Victorian Labor has barely proven itself to be a friend of the worker, let alone the environment. The Vote Environment has you on par with the Liberals.

LABOR: "The Greens have exposed themselves as hypocrites by doing a deal with the Liberal Party which refused to sign the Kyoto protocol and promised to scrap the Victorian renewable energy target." They're giving preferences to the ALP, despite policies such as not even considering civil unions, (insert the usual array of non-left ALP policies and actions here - bay dredging, etc), and as for the renewable energy target, has Labor even legislated yet? How many times are they going to weaken it, like the recent one where the 10% was changed to somewhere around 8% (based on current output instead of future output)?

Liberals called the deal "a dishonest joke by the Labor Party"

Labor threatened to consider advertisements linking the Greens to Prime Minister John Howard's IR laws, with the following image used as an example:

In fact, the image is being used, and The Greens have called for the campaign to be withdrawn, as the image is "an infringement of the Greens trademark", and "calls for a written undertaking from the ALP by midday today that it would not use the Greens logo or any similar logo." Labor said "its legal advice was that there had been no breach of trademark and that it would push ahead with the ads".

Bracks: "I think it effectively means the Greens are prepared to accept the prospect of a Liberal government in Victoria which would have with it the support for the federal industrial relations scheme, which we have resisted," Mr Bracks said. "And they will be labelled for all time to come, for supporting the federal IR laws in this country."

The Greens Greg Barber said the Greens could do an advertisement of Steve Bracks carrying a gun because Labor had received preferences from the Shooters Party.

"Labor seem to be going ballistic about the idea that the voters should decide their own preferences," he said referring to the Greens' decisions not to direct preferences to any party in some Labor seats. "If they cared about Victorian workers they would bring back the IR powers from the Federal Government that Jeff Kennett handed over." As a union person, it's very relieving to know that this issue is still kept alive.

Bob Brown accused Victorian Labor of sour grapes, of "acting a bit precious". "Labor have unfortunately made it clear that they don't see preferences as an ethical business. They see it as a business of gaining advantage. Both major parties had misjudged the role the Greens would play in Victorian politics."

Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals are all fighting both each other, and The Greens. Bracks is suckling the milky teat of WorkChoices-backlash to the point of exploitation.

GREEN'S SLANDER COLLECTION:
According to The Age, "no candidates have attracted more flak in this campaign than the Greens". Wearing them like a badge of honour:

From Liberal:

• Luddites
• Wolves in sheep's clothing
• Victorians should be "terrified" of them
• have not been exposed or scrutinised by the other parties or the press (LOL)
• disguising revolutionary intentions in feel-good policies
• will begin with shutting down coal-generated electricity in the La Trobe Valley
• finish with the destruction of "the whole social and economic fabric" of the state (as laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Greens.)
• (a Liberal supporter was allegedly taking Greens pamphlets out of people's letterboxes and replacing them with Liberal ones, which is an offence and the AEC has called the police.)

From Nationals:

• their policies are irresponsible
• popularity is based on the "popularist ring" of their policies
• they don't care because they are never going to have the responsibility of implementing (their policies)
• Beware of the Greens voters and beware of those who do deals with them
• If you get into bed with them we all know what eventually happens (you get Green babies? Not sure...)
  

From Labor:
Un-authorised posters have been sighted in the CBD with the title "Greens and Liberals - together at last", depicting two people hugging, that claims the Greens preferenced One Nation in 2004 and will preference the Liberals in this election - both spurious lies.

An email sent from a Young Labor head and ALP staffer sent the following email:

Hi Comrades,

It looks like those scum the Greens have decided to preference the Libs in the outer east in exchange for preferences in the inner city. This is a comprehensive betrayal by those filthy self- righteous pricks, and it's important as many people as possible know it. Labor is now seriously in trouble in a dozen marginals, and everyone needs to work really hard over the next 8 days to help the campaign.

PS - today is International Round-House Kick a Green Day. Go for it.

Young Greens have reportedly been abused by Labor members who have received the email.

Beazley apologizes for gaffe.

Beazley apologizes for gaffe.

Mr Beazley recently referred to Rove McManus as Karl Rove, White House strategist, when bestowing sympathy at the passing of the television presenter's partner.

"I offer my insincere apologies to Rove McAnus. I wish to assure him I meant to disrespect to himself, or his dearly departed wife, Delta Goodrem."

But, senior Labor bitch-fighters have seized the chance to savage the Labor leader's general abilities to do things. "The leader of the ALP has one job, one imperative task: to say what he is told to say. He must be an orator, a preacher, a verbal hero, but that is all. We have trained and competent staff to deal with policy decisions, speech writing, hair styling, thinking, deodorizing, I mean - the front benchers don't even have to pass solids through any conscious action, it's all done for them. All we ask is that they say what they're supposed to say, on cue, with sufficient forced gesticulation, without fail. And Kimmy has succeeded in failing in that department, and has to go."

Individual and otherwise insignificant errors are the traditional method for Labor to disrobe leaders from their position. Mark Latham was removed for his inability to perform a handshake whilst respected personal space, with the final straw being "his disgraceful inability to remain healthy", Bob Hawke for accidentally not skipping out for a beer one lunch-time (thus losing all respect he had from rank-and-file union members), and Paul Keating for mistakenly confusing Labor for an economic rationalist party.

Biofuel Outlet *yawn*

Two exciting things happened this week in Victoria:

Now, we all worry extensively about police not having enough bullets, it causes great strain on our minds, only 6 x .38 rounds - what if they want to do more shooting, what then? It's cause for great concern, but thankfully, police will now get more bullets before a reload, which results in this:

You can really see the details of the Glock 22C.

But it brings them into line with other states, and it's not big news really.

What IS big news, is Melbourne got it's first retail biofuel outlet EVER, which begins to bring us into line with progressive nations. I would post the headline, but there aren't any.

The history books will refer to this day (or maybe they won't, they may struggle to find a reference to it), but it didn't even make news. I only know because I got a tip-off, and it's on the Victorian Greens website.

I'm hoping it's just been held off 'till Saturday's news, because otherwise, it's a historic milestone left neglected.

Pop Election Quiz

WHO SAID WHAT IN TODAY'S PAPER:

1. On giving Greens preferences: "It doesn't mean that we support their policies, it means that we have other parties that are least preferred."

A) People Power
B) Labor
C) Family First
D) Democrats

2. On Greens policies: "I think some of their policies are untenable, unworkable, and I would not like to see them ever implemented in Victoria."

A) Ted Baillieu (Liberal)
B) Steve Bracks (Labor)
C) Steven Fielding (Family First)
D) Whoever the National's guy is (National)

3. On Greens drug policy: "Their agenda on drugs is misplaced and wrong."

A) Ted Baillieu (Liberal)
B) Steve Bracks (Labor)
C) Steven Fielding (Family First)
D) Whoever the National's guy is (National)

4. On attacking the Greens: "We're going to fight them to not get the balance (of power)."

A) Ted Baillieu (Liberal)
B) Steve Bracks (Labor)
C) Steven Fielding (Family First)
D) Whoever the National's guy is (National)

5. The following is a side-by-side comparison of two parties drug's policy, one is the Greens, whose is the other?

?	Greens
more education programs	more education programs
users to be pushed into rehab	users to be pushed into rehab
more funding for rehab programs	more funding for rehab programs
research into alternative therapies, including administering naltrexone hydrochloride	research into alternative therapies, including administering diacetylmorphine hydrochloride

Answers in the comments.

Help Labor win, VOTE [1] LIBERAL

Help Labor win a majority,
VOTE [1] LIBERAL

Now that preferences are out, the Libs have decided to put Greens last in all 8 upper house regions, behind the ALP. Antony Green (no relation) calls it "very unusual" and "can't think of another situation where I've seen the Liberal Party put the Greens behind Labor, this is the first time I've seen them do that in an Upper House contest".

I think the Poll Bludger put's it best: "the Liberals' preference decision has turned the slim outside chance of a Labor majority into a genuine possibility."

But I'm not surprised they put Greens last, check out this list of crazy green policy:

• Supports voluntary euthanasia
• Supports decriminalisation of abortion
• Supports channel deepening, but only if it can be shown not to damage Port Phillip Bay
• Wants wind farms kept away (just not around pristine coastal areas.)
• Supports civil unions (in principle)
• Free public transport for students, kids
  
• Free kindergarten for many students
• Extending rail lines
• More water recycling projects
• Provide $500 rainwater tank rebate
• Supports requiring all new houses to have a rainwater tank
• Support cleaning up the Yarra
• Condoms in prison
• No toxic waste dump at Hattah-Nowing
• Control feral animals that cause "environmental damage".
• Build a major desalination plant.
• Reduce the number of pokie machines

Crap, that was actually from the Liberals. Oh well, mostly the same anyways.

POLITICAL MATHS:

GREENS - FF CRITICISMS = LIBERAL
LIBERAL ± (0.1% GREENS) = LABOR

Let's see who got ripped off in the preference deals:

The Who-Fucked-Who chart

A high value indicated you fucked other parties over, low means you got fucked. Closer to zero is better, fairer, less preferential rodgering.

• DEMOCRATS were a big winner (mostly because they're such a big loser), getting a quickie by the ALP by 2 positions, and FF by 3.
• PEOPLE POWER got a big old reach-around by ALP by 3 positions, and FF by 1.
• LIBERALS got a fairer treatment than it gave the Greens by one position, but lost 1 to both the ALP and Democrats.
• GREENS got pwned by People Power and Liberals by 1 position.
• ALP copped it, getting banged by Dems by 2 and PP by 3 - ouch.
• FAMILY FIRST were the biggest losers on preferences, getting a raw deal from PP and ALP by 1, and Democrats by 3.

(Stats apply to the, IIRC, northern metro upper house region.)

Now for a little creation I just invented, called the idiocy factor.
How it works:

1. Line up the parties, left to right, (or the other way, it doesn't matter) and number them.
2. Guess each parties logical preferences, based on their positions in the line.
3. For parties in the middle (say, the ALP), the preferences should flow first towards the side their supporters consider them to align with, and then the other way. (For ALP, pref's should flow all the way to the left, then to the right.)
4. Compare the logical preferences with the actual ones. Any difference is added to the idiocy factor for each party. Negatives count as positives.

Get it? Got it? Good.

1: LINED UP:
1 Greens, 2 PP, 3 Dems, 4 ALP, 5 LIB, 6 FF.

2/3: EXPECTED PREFERENCES:
GREENS: 1,2,3,4,5,6
PP: 2,1,3,4,5,6
DEMS: 3,2,1,4,5,6
ALP: 4,3,2,1,5,6 (to the left, then right…)
LIB: 5,6,4,3,2,1 (to the right, then left…)
FF: 6,5,4,3,2,1.

4: ACTUAL vs EXPECTED PREFERENCES
GREENS: 1,2,3,4,5,6 vs 1,2,3,4,5,6 = 0.
PP: 2,3,1,5,4,6 vs 2,1,3,4,5,6 = 4.
DEMS: 3,2,1,5,4,6 vs 3,2,1,4,5,6 = 2.
ALP: 4,2,3,1,6,5 vs 4,3,2,1,5,6 = 4.
LIB: 5,6,3,2,4,1 vs 5,6,4,3,2,1 = 4.
FF: 6,5,4,3,2,1 vs 6,5,3,4,2,1 = 2.

Completely lacking in idiocy: Greens.
Somewhat idiotic preferences: Democrats, Family First.
Illogical preferences: People Power, ALP, Liberals.

15 Tags

FOR FAR TOO LONG HAVE I NEGLECTED THIS TAG, so here it is:

1-Do you like the look and the contents of your blog?

I'd like to fix up the blog layout one day. I fiddled with it to allow large images on higher resolutions, and that screwed it up. The contents rock, hardcore. The author is a legendary blogging artisan. (What kind of question was that anyway?)

2-Does your family know about your blog?

Probably, I don't know. I might've told them about it at some point. Not sure if they're hip to the concept, or that they'd care.

3-Can you tell your friends about your blog? Do you consider it a private thing?

Yes. No. How can it be private - it's a freakin' blog. A diary for all the world to see. Anonymity is important and real life persona should remain private (what with all these nutters about and all.)

4-Do you just read the blogs of those who comment on your blog? or you try to discover new blogs?

Ya, read 'em all. So many blogs. Usually find I never have anything useful to add, so don't comment greatly.

5-Did your blog positively affect your mind? Give an example.

Yes. Maybe. I dunno, I'd need some mind condition measuring device to tell.

6-What does the number of visitors to your blog mean? Do you use a traffic counter?

The number of visitors to my blog is directly related to the number of times I've used the word boob, the number of misspellings of words, and other generally rudish words. I got a tracking thingy, it's neat. It tells me how many people Google for watermelon boobs and get here. Neat. *sigh*

7-Did you imagine how other bloggers look like?

I'm 28, an adult, my imagination pissed off when puberty hit. Picture a sleeping donkey with flys surrounding it, that's what's going on upstairs. If you struggle to picture it, that's exactly my point, welcome aboard.

8-Do you think blogging has any real benefit?

Yes. They're remarkably informative - lot's of blogs highlight issues you may have missed in the newspapers, on TV, that sort of thing. They do give a slightly louder voice to the voiceless. This is the Google-world now, if there's no search results, it doesn't exist. We who would normally get a letter to the editor or two are now pseudo-journalists (posing as rampant whingers). I'm still the 9th result for "Andrew Higgs" on Google (just below a newspaper, and for Gary Anderton, I'm fourth for Gary Anderton - just after his Wikipedia entry. Journos use Google, everyone does. Blogs are hardly a source you'd want to depend on when attempting to prove something, but they are remarkably reliable.

9-Do you think that the blogosphere is a stand alone community separated from the real world?

Yeah. It's a niche, circle-jerk e-community like any other (much like forums, but with the individual given greater weight - we are all Kings and Queens of our own little segment of blog land), and I don't imagine it's likely to change much, ever. Joe Citizen (I was going to say Joe Bloggs, but yknow, irony) is not going to read blogs, he's not interested in what your cat did today or what your opinion of the midterm elections is.

10-Do some political blogs scare you? Do you avoid them?

No, but I do find some frustrating/distressing. I wouldn't say I avoid them, I like to be aware of the contents of the sorts of political blogs that upset me - I guess I'm hopeful that one day they'll provide some justification for their position that makes sense. But they never do.

11-Do you think that criticizing your blog is useful?

It depends. If it's useful criticism, yes (ie: I can't read this on Firefox, you are wrong on this issue for the following reason), if it's wasteful pointless criticism, no (ie: you sux, I dispute your position without any justification for doing so).

12-Have you ever thought about what would happen to your blog in case you died?

No. I don't think it's important enough to be concerned with, blogs stop all the time, people stop reading, then forget about them.

13-Which blogger had the greatest impression on you?

He who we dare not name. (I imagine most people will know who that is.)

14-Which blogger do you think is the most similar to you?

Absolutely no one. My work is extraordinarily and uniquely juvenile and amateurish.

(Yeah, I called it 'work', deal with it.)

15-Name a song you want to listen to?

Where the hell did this question slump in from? Talk about tacking something onto the end to make a not-especially-round number… I want to listen to Ani DeFranco Swing, the album version. Just because it rocks.

There will be no further tagging from this this particular node.

Blogging the Victorian election:

Doing the preference shuffle dance:

• Nationals putting Greens dead last.
• Labor considered giving preferences to Family First, then decided on Greens.
• Labor and Liberals consider a preference deal to harm Greens/Nats (possibly just a Labor leak to scare Greens, and spark tensions between Liberal/National.
• Nationals threaten to retaliate if Liberals deal with Labor to harm their chances, both refuse to form a coalition.
• Liberals consider a preference deal with Greens (despite issuing warnings about them).
• Greens willing to negotiate preferences with all parties, except Family First.
• Greens preferences mean diddly, their voters tend to vote below the line.

There was an awesome article in The Age by Jo Chandler (The Green agenda) that raised some good points:
The Greens are not likely to win power, only the balance of power (2-3 in upper house, 0-1 in lower), they need the endorsement of the major parties to deliver on policies. (ie: The scare campaigns are bullshit.) They first want to restructure the parliamentary committee system, and revise standing orders.

It's in this unsexy business of parliamentary process that the Greens hope to lock in and magnify their influence by requiring more scrutiny, transparency, accountability and debate of bills, accounts and estimates, and by mechanisms that might nudge their own bills forward for debate.

Those creepy Green-freaks want more transparency and accountability in government, outrageous!

Mr Barber fancies the New Zealand process in which private bills are brought into the chamber by being drawn from a hat. He concedes that idea may not wash, but what about a ban on Dorothy Dixers? In the new-look house of review, if he can sell that to an antsy opposition, maybe that might fly.

For insight on how the Greens might exercise the balance of power, commentators - and the party itself - suggest looking south to the movement's ancestral home, Tasmania, where the Greens have twice been crucial in forming minority governments - with Labor in 1989, and the Liberals in 1996 - and where, according to Dr Economou, "they weren't the maniacs or extremists they are often painted, especially by some of their extremist adversaries like Family First".

Judge them by their actions, not by opponents that call them scary and crazy? What a novel idea! Labor and Liberals didn't like dealing with the Greens and "pursued electoral reform to eliminate the possibility of sharing power with them in the future." Also, "Green parties have been in coalition governments in Germany, Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, and recently Latvia."

A close observer of the Tasmanian experience, Dr Richard Herr of the University of Tasmania, argues that both were periods of answerable, accountable governance, where Greens influence required innovation from parties to broker deals.

The key criticisms of the Greens - that they are too flaky and fiscally irresponsible to wield power - were not borne out in Tasmania, he argues. Green power did not put the state's economy at risk.

While Brian Costar wonders whether the mainstreaming of environmental issues might, perversely, undermine Greens support - voters may be assured the major parties are now addressing environment issues - Dr Economou is tipping the reverse.

"One of the ways they have been pilloried in the past by commentators is to say, 'Look, they are wackos on heroin, on whatever else, and the environment.' And over recent times, thanks to the panic response (on climate) by major political players, suddenly that side of the Greens' argument is not so wacko."

A more sophisticated electorate is unlikely to swallow the scare tactics used against the Greens in the past, Dr Economou says, though it has not stopped Family First attacking the Greens' heroin trials policy as free drugs for addicts. "What they are talking about, with trials of heroin injecting rooms, is drug policy that has been on the table since the 1960s.

"The idea (behind it) is that treating drug use as a criminal problem rather than a social problem only fills the jails and corrupts police. In Victoria, there might be some resonance to that view. People who loathe the Greens for one reason or another seize on these things and blow them out of all proportion."

A move on heroin trials, given historic support by both parties, may manifest in a Greens private bill sooner rather than later, as the party looks to initiate reform in areas where one or another party has signalled sympathies.

Recognition for gay unions may be another - it's at the top of Mr Barber's wish list. Water initiatives top Sue Pennicuik's policy priorities.

But in bartering and negotiating change on such issues, which will rely on winning major party support, what's non-negotiable for the Greens? "Our policies. We would choose the least worst, but wouldn't sell out," says Mr Barber. "It's amazing what you can get done in a place like Parliament if you don't care who takes the credit. Our biggest successes will be when they nick our policies and go with them."

I also read that four members from the stacked ALP Traralgon branch have resigned, including Derek Amos. He's the founder of the A-Team, the secret corporate/union group that paid members to stack an ALP branch and state environment committee, and spy on green groups.

The Greens have refused to guarantee preferences to ALP in key seats at one point, this then resulted in a senior ALP source claiming the Greens are supporting Howard's IR laws by dealing with Liberals (despite Labor's consideration of deals with the Liberals), which resulted in the Green spokesman pointing out Labor has not done a single thing to protect the half a million Victorian workers still affected by the shift from state to federal awards, who are left vulnerable to the IR laws. (Introduced by previous Liberal government, ALP ignores the issue, Greens promise to return state awards).

The Greens also intend to decriminalize abortion in Victoria (as in WA/ACT).

US Midterms. 100% Victory to Republicrats.

Stunning results in the 2006 US midterm elections, with the ruling Republicrats (whose logo consists of a hybrid donkey-elephant, commonly considered to be a reference to the horrors of stem cell research) reaching an astounding 100% of seats in both houses. There were two independent wins in the Senate: Joseph Lieberman (sitting as Democrat), and Bernie Sanders (whose loyalties lie somewhere between being a Democrat, and figuratively playing one on TV)

Members from the Libertarian, Green, Independence, Working Families, Constitution and Reform parties, have each applauded the results. "The shifting of between 0 to 0 seats to minor parties really highlights just how a real democracy should work for those folk out there in world-land."

One of the few electoral results on par with this level of freedom would be in Iraq, when Saddam Hussein won an impressive 100% of the vote in 2002, improving on his previous result of 99.96% in 1995.

The spread of freedom (style: US) to Iraq is universally considered a failure, after the 2005 election resulted in seats being won by 12 parties, instead of two. Many consider a lack of fraud and a politically aware/sober population are to blame for the unusual widely distributed voting pattern.

A spokesman for the minor (or as they call themselves 'non') parties had this to say: "Bush has failed in Iraq. In America, when you support a war, you vote for the guy who is pro-war. When you are against a war, you vote for the other guy, who is also pro-war, not for some guy who's anti-war, that'd be a third guy. Or forth guy. Which is just stupid, there's only two guys, two teams, it's called democracy. From the Greek demos, "two guys," and kratos, "rule"). Any more than two and it's some kind of dictatorship or something."