Midnight Oil

Subject: Re: [powderworks] "But I elected KRudd!"
From: RM
Date: 24/06/2010, 5:30 pm
To: powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au

Absolutely correct Miron ... and to be pedantic I'll clarify a minor point ...
RM: "The elected ruling party may at any time elect their own leader internally, by their own private choice of leadership selection process. ... As it turns out Labor chooses to use a democratic internal process ... "

MM: "as to your #4, how can you be sure of that? the caucus meetings are held behind closed doors. it is not transparent and I have no doubt it is not as democratic as the process by which you and I vote"
Ah, I'll tidy up my comment a bit ... yes, Labor could use paper-scissors-rock to elect their leader so far as we all know - and it's none of our business.  But ultimately it is democratic in an holistic sense because we all always KNEW that Labor is a composition of factions that do power deals to structure their leadership framework. This is NOT a surprise. It IS how Labor do their leadership business.  If we elect them to government, we do so KNOWING that the factions will pick the leader based on internal faction power-sharing.  That IS labor.

I'm just trying to remind everyone not to get sucked into the rhetoric that something surprising or undemocratic is happening here.  This IS how our system works and we elected them with this being fully public-knowledge, whether individuals who were sucked into the increasingly presidential-style elections of the last ten years were aware of it or not.  Will everyone please stop acting somehow surprised, as if some skull-duggery is going on.

Gillard is very legitimately Australia's first Femme PM.  Her election is a lesson to some about how Australian democracy actually works.  It's weird and quirky, but it's a published schema.  There's no surprises or trickery.

Yes we elect a local member, with a leader as the main reason, but with the knowledge that the member may switch parties or the party may switch leaders.  We have no control over that other than to scorch them in the next election with a protest vote, but the best we can do is simply switch parties ... what sort of ultimate choice do we have?  Which party/leader do we hate/distrust the most?  The system is devoid of authentic choice when both parties are defective to a specific elector's viewpoint.

I'd prefer some changes, and there are avenues to work for them.  Don't just talk, give some involvement a go.  Pick an avenue that suits you and put your hand up and do some work ...   but yapping on powderworks should be a start point for action, not an end.

Cheers
 Ribman



On 24/06/2010 4:56 PM, Miron Mizrahi wrote:
Hi Rob

I feel the same way Chris does and expressed my views in an earlier post

In essence you state what the process is. it does not make the process right. while ANY party may change its leader, the leader of the ruling is unique as he/she typically becomes PM. now ... if the identity of the leader is known at the time you, as a voter, make your choice, then while technically you did not vote for said individual you are aware of the potential outcome. for example, you may decide to vote against a party in your own electorate just to try and prevent the party leader (who may be standing in a different electorate), whom you detest from becoming PM. as you correctly stated, you cannot stop him/her from being elected but you can (in theory) stop his party from having a majority which will lead to him/her becoming PM

this situation is different. Labour did not win majority with Gillard at the helm. if she had been the leader 3 years ago the results may have been different. and that is the point. no one is arguing that the process is illegal. just that it can be improved. as to your #4, how can you be sure of that? the caucus meetings are held behind closed doors. it is not transparent and I have no doubt it is not as democratic as the process by which you and I vote where our choice is known only to us. was there actual voting going on at all? i don't think so. Gillard had the numbers, which she garnered using a variety of methods but voting was not one of them. I have no idea what the machinations were but I am relatively confident there was cajoling and promising and even threatening. so Gillard was elected but not by the people and certainly not by a transparent democratic process (I am talking about today, not about her election as MP). majority vote != democratic vote

I am neither surprised nor confused. i just think we can have a better process. as to whether I will get of my fat ass and do something about it, that is another question :)
 
Miron

How could people get so unkind?


From: RM <ribman@gmail.com>
To: "Powderworks@yahoo" <powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au>
Sent: Thu, June 24, 2010 2:22:48 PM
Subject: [powderworks] "But I elected KRudd!"

 

You're not the only one making this statement Chris, so I'm going to debate the point to the contrary ...

Julia Gillard most certainly was elected!  And by a highly democratic process which is very widely publicly known:

  1. We voted for members of parliament (MPs) and the senate - parliament is the focal, though not highest, ruling body.
  2. We voted in more Labor MPs at the last election.
  3. The elected ruling party may at any time elect their own leader internally, by their own private choice of leadership selection process.
  4. As it turns out Labor chooses to use a democratic internal process to elect their Parliamentary leader, who then is our Prime Minister.
When you go to an election in Australia, the only thing you get to vote for is which human being you want to represent your residential geographic location in various levels of government. 
  • You do NOT vote for a party, although people are confused and think that you do. 
  • You do NOT vote for a leader, although people are confused and think that you do.  
  • The person you elect may switch parties after election, and you have no recourse as a voter.
  • The party who elected by majority may switch leaders after election, and you have no recourse as a voter.
Even Rudd tried to induce this "but I was elected PM" confusion upon exit by saying he personally was elected to lead the country.  Absolute TROLL-BAIT.  And he knows it VERY well.  His declaration that he was elected by the people of Australia and not by some Union leaders was a "scorched earth" retreat from his defeated position and I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for his choice to lay a resentful trail of damage upon his exit.

Please everyone, know your system and act either within it or to change it - but give up acting surprised when people in the system act correctly within the rules of the system.

All these politicians are so similar that it's not worth this fuss of distinguishing them anyway.  The entire process is a fanciful fabrication to merely keep the stockman's swelling herd penned and producing milk.

Ribman.


On 24/06/2010 11:26 AM, Chris wrote:
  Does anyone else think it immensely sad that Australia's first female PM is unelected?

- Chris