Results 1 to 47 of 47
Like Tree68Likes
  • 4 Post By flynnaus
  • 3 Post By beensean
  • 2 Post By flynnaus
  • 6 Post By beensean
  • 2 Post By OCD
  • 1 Post By woodhouse
  • 4 Post By Yelta
  • 5 Post By warthog
  • 7 Post By Dimal
  • 2 Post By flynnaus
  • 6 Post By flynnaus
  • 7 Post By TampIt
  • 3 Post By OCD
  • 3 Post By flynnaus
  • 1 Post By OCD
  • 2 Post By OCD
  • 2 Post By Rocky
  • 2 Post By Rocky
  • 1 Post By Javaphile
  • 1 Post By Rocky
  • 1 Post By OCD
  • 1 Post By beensean
  • 1 Post By beensean
  • 1 Post By OCD

Thread: Greenpeace Founder: ‘Climate Change Crisis’ Is a ‘Completely Made-Up Issue’

  1. #1
    Senior Member Yelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Moonta SA.
    Posts
    6,866

    Greenpeace Founder: ‘Climate Change Crisis’ Is a ‘Completely Made-Up Issue’

    Gene Cafe Coffee Roaster $850 - Free Beans Free Freight
    Here's a thought provoking article, have to say I've had my doubts re the motives of Greenpeace over recent years.


    "Greenpeace co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore described the left’s “climate change” narrative as a “hoax” and “completely made-up issue” in a Wednesday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour and special guest host Dylan Gwinn."

    https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019...made-up-issue/

  2. #2
    Senior Member flynnaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,080
    Breitbart? Such an impartial source.

    Moore sounds like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pa...imate-doubter/

    Or

    https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Patrick_Moore
    Scroll down to the section about Roundup to get an understanding of Moore's integrity (yes, Roundup is a herbicide, not an insecticide but that doesn't change the impression provided by the interview transcript).
    On Drinking Monsanto's Roundup Pesticide Ingredient
    Dimal, Javaphile, noonar and 1 others like this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    fairly static
    Posts
    197
    Motives of Greenpeace are immaterial to facts of climate change. Greenpeace may advocate and gather some data but they are not the world-wide body of scientists who have done, are doing, and validating the research.
    ajayro57, Dimal and Javaphile like this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Yelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Moonta SA.
    Posts
    6,866
    Come on guys, don't shoot the messenger, as I said thought provoking, as far as partiality goes, show me an impartial news source in this day and age, they all seem to have an axe to grind.

    Guess my OP has at least opened up a controversial topic at the end of a week of meaningless political argy bargy.

  5. #5
    Senior Member flynnaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,080
    Mmmm...my attacks were on Patrick Moore and Breitbart, not on you. There are websites that offer balanced views if I look hard enough but that perception depends on the position of the reader.

    But you knew climate chnge is always going to be a controversial topic. May as well be politics or religion
    Dimal and Yelta like this.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Yelta View Post
    Here's a thought provoking article, have to say I've had my doubts re the motives of Greenpeace over recent years.
    I have come across utube videos by Patrick Moore and have found his approach to Climate Change sensible and refreshing. The point Patrick Moore makes with Greenpeace is that he was no longer radical enough to remain and was excluded notwithstanding his co-founder status and his contribution has been expunged. Patrick Moore has come full circle and is no longer a prophet of doom. He is not the only one to have changed his mind and in common with others who have done so is ridiculed by his former co-travelers. This topic is always sure to be controversial. Each to their own views. Yelta this is certainly thought provoking, but interesting.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    fairly static
    Posts
    197
    Sadly, not each to their own planet.

    in case you missed it, what Moore thinks is entirely immaterial, as is what I think,compared with verifiable knowledge, and the latter is found in the consensus of scientific research, not breitbart.

    The thought Moore’s opinion provoked in me was much the same as when Abbott knighted Prince Phillip. Wtf? And that is the extent and significance of the “controversy”.

    There are other places where this subject can be trolled or debated. I like the fact that this site focusses mainly on coffee, where the impacts of anthropogenic climate change on cultivation are already being considered.
    Dimal, Javaphile, OCD and 3 others like this.

  8. #8
    OCD
    OCD is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by beensean View Post
    Sadly, not each to their own planet...
    My mother once told me that if I didn't keep my room clean I would end up living in a pigsty. At the time I thought she was just trying to p**s me off. What's true for my room should, by extension, be true for the planet as a whole.
    Javaphile and beensean like this.

  9. #9
    OCD
    OCD is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by beensean View Post
    ...There are other places where this subject can be trolled or debated...
    "Off Topic
    Nothing to do with coffee except it might be something that you would discuss over your favourite brew".

    One would hope that we are mature enough to debate controversial topics without getting our nickers overly in a knot. We have had some doozies.

  10. #10
    Senior Member woodhouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by OCD View Post
    "Off Topic
    Nothing to do with coffee except it might be something that you would discuss over your favourite brew".

    One would hope that we are mature enough to debate controversial topics without getting our nickers overly in a knot. We have had some doozies.
    i think the 'other places' refer to fringe forums which might 'discuss' other such topics like flat-earth or anti-vaccination conspiracies.
    Dimal likes this.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Yelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Moonta SA.
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by OCD View Post
    We have had some doozies.
    Yes! we have haven't we?

  12. #12
    Senior Member Yelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Moonta SA.
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by beensean View Post

    There are other places where this subject can be trolled or debated.
    The forum we are in is titled "Off Topic" for obvious reasons.

    There is no compulsion to engage in any discussion here.

    Most seem to be able to express an opinion without getting their knickers in a twist, however there are the odd few that take any opinion that differs from their own as a personal affront.

    As far as climate change is concerned, I certainly have views

    Our planet is changing, but that's been happening for millions of years without any input from humans.

    I have no doubt we are polluting the atmosphere, decimating rain forests, polluting rivers, filling the oceans and rivers with crap and wiping out species- all things that can be controlled, not eliminated, with a bit more freaking common sense and care.

    Climate, land masses and oceans will continue to change as they have for eons.

    The biggest problem we face is over population along with the constant push for procreation and preservation of human life, no matter how feeble, no one really seems to want to address it, scientists may come up with an answer, tree huggers and religious zealots most certainly won't.

    The planet will continue to evolve regardless of what we do.
    simonsk8r, OCD, cyndon and 1 others like this.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    92
    Agree with some of that Yelta.
    Overpopulation needs to be addressed. It will be difficult to achieve though. Our economic system relies on growth in a finite world. It doesn't need much forward thinking to see the problems associated with that

    As far as climate change, the science states there are links between atmospheric CO2 and temperature rise. We are seeing the results. Temperature rise and icemelt.
    Yes it has happened before. However we need to look at the timelines. Over thousands if not millions of years. We are changing things in a geological nanosecond. Nobody knows the result.
    Given the planet is the basis of our existence and we have no alternative, it makes sense to mitigate our emissions and slow the rate of change.

  14. #14
    Mal Dimal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Warwick, QLD
    Posts
    16,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Yelta View Post
    The planet will continue to evolve regardless of what we do.
    Whether we're here or not but at least we are supposed (collectively) to have the intelligence and wherewithal to both learn from and correct our mistakes. It's the latter that I have concerns about and the impact on the rest of the planet's inhabitants...

    Mal.

  15. #15
    Senior Member flynnaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Yelta View Post
    As far as climate change is concerned, I certainly have views
    As you have the right to do but let's take each one by one:
    Our planet is changing, but that's been happening for millions of years without any input from humans.
    Undisputed, but what is clear is that the rate of change is much greater now than any time in human history, that began in the mid-19th C, and which more than 97% of scientists agree has been caused to a large degree by humankind.
    https://www.climatechangeinaustralia...change/trends/

    I have no doubt we are polluting the atmosphere, decimating rain forests, polluting rivers, filling the oceans and rivers with crap and wiping out species- all things that can be controlled, not eliminated, with a bit more freaking common sense and care.
    Yes, but our politicians refuse to act because of the lack of vision beyond the next election. When action is proposed, the cry is often 'think of the jobs'. Unfortunately that needs to become 'think of the planet' and jobs and environment aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
    One of the arguments thrown up against emission control is that we are small fish in a big pond and our small emission reduction contribution would be more than offset by the bigger polluters. I say this is like saying I'm going to drop this bit of paper on the ground as there is already lots of rubbish around and one less piece isn't going to make any difference. Well it does make a difference: it's about the power of one, and if everyone makes the effort to clean up their own crap, the collective effort will make a big difference.

    Climate, land masses and oceans will continue to change as they have for eons.
    At present, it's the rate and type of change that's of concern.

    The biggest problem we face is over population along with the constant push for procreation and preservation of human life, no matter how feeble, no one really seems to want to address it, scientists may come up with an answer, tree huggers and religious zealots most certainly won't.
    I think scientists have provided the answers eg renewable energy, better farming, more efficient systems. These are still developing.
    The problem of population control is complex. We tend to rely on population growth so future generations can support current ones but will we have the resources to sustain future populations? It's up to our politicians to formulate policy and that has to occur cooperatively at every level of government. That won't happen until they put ideology aside and work to a common goal. Unfortunately, as I type this, I have a feeling that that will never happen.

    The planet will continue to evolve regardless of what we do.
    It might. It might also devolve to the point of mass extinction if we don't do anything.
    Let's say for arguments sake that the science of climate change is not settled what should we do, throw up our hands and say nothing we do will make any difference or have a crack at cleaning up our shit? I think the latter is a better approach than hoping for the best.
    beensean and warthog like this.

  16. #16
    Senior Member flynnaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,080
    Anyway ...
    keith.jpg
    Dimal, Paolo, simonsk8r and 3 others like this.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Rockingham W.A.
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by flynnaus View Post
    As you have the right to do but let's take each one by one:

    Yes, but our politicians refuse to act because of the lack of vision beyond the next election. When action is proposed, the cry is often 'think of the jobs'. Unfortunately that needs to become 'think of the planet' and jobs and environment aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
    One of the arguments thrown up against emission control is that we are small fish in a big pond and our small emission reduction contribution would be more than offset by the bigger polluters. I say this is like saying I'm going to drop this bit of paper on the ground as there is already lots of rubbish around and one less piece isn't going to make any difference. Well it does make a difference: it's about the power of one, and if everyone makes the effort to clean up their own crap, the collective effort will make a big difference.
    G'day flynnaus

    ... edited by me to one point worth much further consideration and debate.

    There is a Norwegian proverb I grew up with. English translation (via family) "Every bit helps said the mouse as he pissed in the ocean". Yep, even small changes matter.

    The other reasons I bring up Norway:-

    1) Thanks to Thatcher selling off the English farm, Norway purchased BP North Sea in the early 80's (I think - or late '70's). A few days ago I read they have the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund (over $US1.1 trillion). About 2 years ago they had over $US200k surplus per person (including newborns).
    2) They have had minority governments for decades. On a 1970 trip over there my dad was stunned to hear that they had 31 political parties and needed 19 of them to form a government. He attended their parliamentary gallery "to see it gridlocked" in his own words. Much to his surprise party leader after party leader stood up in favour of the 4 bills they passed that day, often with comments like "We would do it a bit differently, however for the good of the country....".
    3) They have a really high rate of tax which they spend on infrastructure. How much would all weather bridges between the hundreds of Lofoten islands in the Arctic circle cost? I reckon more than the current Oz deficit. Of course those bridges mean that the Lofoten's are not cut off for the 4 months of severe winter each year.
    4) They have a good social welfare net.
    5) They also have all of the advantages of the EU without being controlled by idiotic bureaucrats in Brussels. Any Oz / Norwegian dual passport holder can get someone into virtually any country of the world (to reside permanently & work without complications in most of them).
    6) Their "Statoil" (which is what it sounds like - state owned North Sea oil originally) ensures their oil dollars stay in their country. Ironically, they are spending up on renewables now to the point they have changed their name to Equinor ASA to reflect their new operational outlook.
    7) Last month (March 2019) Norway registered more new Electric vehicles than ICU (petrol / diesel) ones.

    Not bad for a country with a population about the same as Sydney.

    So my question is "How is Oz (and the US for that matter) doing it so wrong on so many levels?"

    Our government seems to be a choice between Tweedledumber and Tweedledumberer. When was the last time we heard an Oz pollie compromise with "for the good of the country"?
    Our "action" on climate change, water management and environmental issues is appalling.
    Our infrastructure is falling down around our ears, yet the pollies are giving tax cuts to the big end of town - not that too many of them are paying a lot of tax anyway.
    We in Oz receive a pittance for our mineral wealth.
    Our productivity and our corporate profits are way up whilst wages are flat.
    Our inequality has been rising since the '80's (no surprise there).

    FWIW, I hope this 11th May election results in minority government in both houses so that a possible change from the current adversarial political system can start to occur.

    TampIt
    Dimal, flynnaus, Paolo and 4 others like this.

  18. #18
    OCD
    OCD is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    233
    When deadly bacteria invade a host, they multiply until they kill the host - and themselves. They do it because they don't have the intelligence not to. What's our excuse?

    Ps with the possible exception of Norway.
    Dimal, flynnaus and beensean like this.

  19. #19
    Senior Member flynnaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,080
    Quote Originally Posted by TampIt View Post

    FWIW, I hope this 11th May election results in minority government in both houses so that a possible change from the current adversarial political system can start to occur.

    TampIt
    I agree if it does bring about more cooperative governance. However, with the disenchantment towards the najor parties, I would dread to see some of the more extreme parties gaining balance of power and abusing that power to suit their own ideology rather than the interests of all.
    However, your father's observation of Norwegian political cooperation is heartening, as is New Zealand where the minority Adern Labour government formed a successful coalition with the nationalist NZ First party along with the guarantee of support from the Greens.
    Dimal, OCD and TampIt like this.

  20. #20
    OCD
    OCD is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by flynnaus View Post
    I agree if it does bring about more cooperative governance. However, with the disenchantment towards the najor parties, I would dread to see some of the more extreme parties gaining balance of power and abusing that power to suit their own ideology rather than the interests of all.
    However, your father's observation of Norwegian political cooperation is heartening, as is New Zealand where the minority Adern Labour government formed a successful coalition with the nationalist NZ First party along with the guarantee of support from the Greens.
    Perhaps an inappropriate metaphor, given the current topic, but maybe the tide is turning.

    Ps cause for optimism?
    flynnaus likes this.

  21. #21
    Senior Member flynnaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,080
    Quote Originally Posted by OCD View Post
    cause for optimism?
    Fingers crossed that voters vote wisely and don't waste it on informal or donkey votes. The fact that there is a record number of people registered to vote at this election gives some hope.

  22. #22
    OCD
    OCD is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by Yelta View Post
    ...The biggest problem we face is over population along with the constant push for procreation and preservation of human life, no matter how feeble, no one really seems to want to address it, scientists may come up with an answer, tree huggers and religious zealots most certainly won't...
    It seems that when a country becomes affluent the population growth slows, or even does a U turn. I can only speculate that when people are elevated beyond subsistence they find better things to do with their time. The solution is as obvious as it is unpalatable.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    fairly static
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by flynnaus View Post
    The fact that there is a record number of people registered to vote at this election gives some hope.
    According to the Electoral Commission, most of the additions making up the record rate of enrolment were young people. No surprise there, given there would be more of them not enrolled in the first place; rather, the fact that they have now enrolled, presumably with some intent.

    Regarding minority governments, they depend very much on the makeup of the independents or minor parties who wield disproportionate power in those situations. In 2010-2013 the then minority government was highly successful as measured by legislation passed* so a minority is far from an ungovernable position. The same has happened at State level. However, a single-issue independent with a crucial vote could wreak havoc either owing to the particular bee in their bonnet or simply because they are otherwise disengaged or uninformed about other issues.

    * any other yardstick is up to you.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Rockingham W.A.
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by flynnaus View Post
    I agree if it does bring about more cooperative governance. However, with the disenchantment towards the najor parties, I would dread to see some of the more extreme parties gaining balance of power and abusing that power to suit their own ideology rather than the interests of all.
    However, your father's observation of Norwegian political cooperation is heartening, as is New Zealand where the minority Adern Labour government formed a successful coalition with the nationalist NZ First party along with the guarantee of support from the Greens.
    G'day flynnaus.

    Firstly, I would be surprised if Norway is perfect - far from it - it is just plainly a far better political / economic environmental approach than the three major "non Athenian" democracies in the "developed world" each with just a handful of adversarial major parties. I say "non Athenian" democracies as we, the UK and the US really have the Roman republican model - and it didn't end well when a guy named Julius took that over by inertia and force.

    Also, I was not suggesting a minority government is the only way and without risks. Consider Italy today - a prime case of "multi party gridlock". There must be (many?) other factors involved. I would also add with so many parties needed to form a government (as in the case of Norway) I would suspect most of the truly extreme parties would not have much say in forming draconian laws. We in Oz and those in the US are pretty good at draconian laws anyway - ever heard of section 54 in Qld?

    The sheer number of young people who did not bother to enrol over the previous two elections now appear to have put a bomb under themselves - at last, and for all of Oz's betterment. It will be interesting to see what they do "on the day". I live in hope.


    Enjoy your cuppa - at least the idiots in Canberra cannot affect the flavour of that (directly).


    TampIt

  25. #25
    Senior Member flynnaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,080
    Quote Originally Posted by TampIt View Post
    G'day flynnaus.

    Firstly, I would be surprised if Norway is perfect - far from it
    No, but 'perfect' is an arbitrary and undesirable quality. As you said, it's still better than what is happening in Australia.

    we, the UK and the US really have the Roman republican model - and it didn't end well when a guy named Julius took that over by inertia and force.
    Well we know that came to a sticky end. And Australia almost literally followed that example, given the knifing that 4 out of 5 of our last PMs suffered. After the caning Labor was given in 2013 following Rudd-Gillard-Rudd, it would have to be an exceptional act of stupidity to repeat that, but that's pretty much what has happened with Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison

    Also, I was not suggesting a minority government is the only way and without risks. Consider Italy today - a prime case of "multi party gridlock".
    Yes, I had Italy in mind as a bad example of a multi-party government but we don't hear that much about it anymore now that Berlusconi is out of the picture. Oddly Giuseppe Conti was installed as PM without actually being an electoral candidate

    ever heard of section 54 in Qld?
    No, not by that name

    It will be interesting to see what they do "on the day". I live in hope.
    Yes, quite. Our youth seem to feel that the government/s should be doing more about climate change as they are concerned about the state of the world they (and Keith Richards ) will inherit (along with the national debt they will be saddled with). But more recently, it is farmers who feel let down by their political representatives, especially those trying to farm along the Murray-Darling Basin; they know it isn't just drought causing the problem.

    Enjoy your cuppa - at least the idiots in Canberra cannot affect the flavour of that (directly).
    Well not the flavour but perhaps the enjoyment. I have to make sure I swallow before reading the latest escapade for fear of spray painting my computer screen.

  26. #26
    OCD
    OCD is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by TampIt View Post
    ...ever heard of section 54 in Qld?..
    Hi Tamplt,
    A quick google of "section 54 in Queensland" bought up the usual avalanche of irrelevant information. A quick explanation (as if I was a 5 year old or an ex truckie) would be appreciated.
    Dimal and SanderP like this.

  27. #27
    Senior Member Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Central Queensland
    Posts
    1,091
    I kind of wonder if the problem in Australia is that we have two longstanding and ideologically entrenched and inflexible parties with several others with either no real ideological coherence, principles or discernible vision.
    I have always felt that what we need is a "Common-Sense Party" that just cherry-picks the most rational and realistic policy from whats available and disregards the historical impediments and hangovers from previous decades that aren't a good match with where we are now and in the forseeable future.
    There are policy aspects of both major parties that make realistic sense to me but others that just don't and no one party that I really want to vote for. I think there must be a lot like me out there.
    Dimal and matth3wh like this.

  28. #28
    Mal Dimal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Warwick, QLD
    Posts
    16,771
    Indeed Rocky but how do we fix it?

    Mal.

  29. #29
    Senior Member Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Central Queensland
    Posts
    1,091
    I'm not sure it's doable anymore. Politics has ebbed to such a low place that I think you'd be lucky to scrape together enough smart (not intelligent but smart) honest people to form a cabinet.
    You'd need a proportion of candidates with some previous experience who hadn't been ruined by the system. I saw young Wyatt Roy on ABC the other night and he looked half decent. Maybe there are enough one-termers out there to form the backbone of a party. You'd need to vet them carefully to eliminate all the half-wits that traditionally gravitate to minor parties. Some professional quals other than Law and some successful Tradies would be good for the mix. A basic requirement would be that your absolute first loyalty be to the Nation and ALL it's people, not a religion, a party, a minority group or any particular 'cause'.
    PC warriors would be immediately selected out.
    Dimal and Yelta like this.

  30. #30
    OCD
    OCD is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    233
    Or, we could go the American route and elect our own home-grown, poor-man's Donald Trump, to wit, Clive Palmer. Think of the employment and business opportunities that would flow from building a wall across the top of Australia to keep the Chinese out.

    Ps keep our nuclear future alive. Vote Clive.

    Ps 2 we live in interesting times.

  31. #31
    Super Moderator Javaphile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth!
    Posts
    15,578
    You forgot Ps 3.

    Ps 3: Ancient Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.


    Java "Yes I know it actually isn't, but play along here! " phile
    Dimal likes this.
    Toys! I must have new toys!!!

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    fairly static
    Posts
    197
    @Rocky

    When you get the centrists you are after, they look like the Democrats. Remember them?

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    120
    California electoral proposition appeals to me as a democratic fix for our two party system. Quote is from Wikipedia: "In California, a ballot proposition can be a referendum or an initiative measure that is submitted to the electorate for a direct decision or direct vote (or plebiscite). If passed, it can alter one or more of the articles of the Constitution of California, one or more of the 29 California Codes, or another law in the California Statutes by clarifying current or adding statute(s) or removing current statute(s).Measures can be placed on the ballot either by the California State Legislature or via a petition signed by registered voters. The state legislature can place a state constitutional amendment or a proposed law change on the ballot as a referendum to be approved by voters. Under the state constitution, certain proposed changes to state laws may require mandatory referenda, and must be approved by voters before they can take effect. A measure placed on the ballot via petition can either be a vote to veto a law that has been adopted by the legislature (an optional referendum or "people's veto") or a new proposed law (initiative)."
    In social studies back in th 1950/60 's we were taught that Oz lead the way in democratic reforms, I doubt that would be true today.

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    fairly static
    Posts
    197
    CIR were considered in Australia in 2013, as discussed here.

    NZ, which also uses multi-member proportional representation (Hare-Clark, as used in Tasmania and ACT), has a CIR process which is non-binding on the parliament. It is discussed here, along with considerations if it were binding.

    Unlike the USA, Australia and NZ do not provide a bill of rights. In governance terms, what is to be avoided is a majority determining the rights of a minority where those rights are constitutionally held or implicit.

    It is a process which tends more to be favoured by those on one extreme wing or the other of politics. It is favoured, for example, by One Nation (along with climate change denial amongst other things).

  35. #35
    Senior Member Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Central Queensland
    Posts
    1,091
    Beensean - I do remember the Democrats and some of the personalities in the party. Cheryl Kernot has been getting a bit of TV time recently (Q&A and The Drum)
    Their mantra was "Keeping the Bastards honest" which may have been a reaction to the inability to develop sufficient support on their own to be a major force.
    I wonder if maybe the time wasn't right for a third Party at that stage when there were fewer minor Parties and a lot less disenchantment for the majors like there is today.
    Possibly a Party like the Democrats but with a full suite of policies and the 'right' leaders could tap into the widespread disenchantment we have now.
    Or maybe the majority of people will always lean towards one of two opposing philosophies rather than prepared to embrace a more 'centrist' common-sense mix of both.
    Dimal likes this.

  36. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    92
    I heard some comment on the radio the other day that resonated a bit.
    People are sick of career politicians from both sides acting in self interest or the interests of oligarchs, other narrow interest groups or financial contributors.
    They don't see their own interests and welfare being valued or addressed.
    They are switching off from the majors and switching to minors and independents.
    It falls down a bit explaining Clive Palmer and some of the other extreme options outside the usual majors however.

  37. #37
    OCD
    OCD is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    233
    Perhaps we should stop voting altogether. It only encourages them. Besides, it doesn't matter who you vote for, a politician always manages to get in.
    Dimal likes this.

  38. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    92
    At the risk of opening up more controversy. I'm not enrolled.
    There has been no seat of government at any level in Aus that has been decided by 1 vote.
    Therefore it is inconsequential.
    The data says so.
    It opens up ethical arguments of course
    Been there on another forum I'm on.
    What if everyone thought so?
    You don't have a right to express an opinion etc etc
    What I do has no bearing on what others do so I don't accept that.
    Rupert Murdoch can't vote. He certainly expresses an opinion.

    Anyway, if you move electorates they don't catch up with you.
    Please yourselves if you consider compulsory voting a violation of your democratic right.

  39. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    fairly static
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Or maybe the majority of people will always lean towards one of two opposing philosophies rather than prepared to embrace a more 'centrist' common-sense mix of both.
    I'm not sure. I have read some stuff recently that in general terms people are fairly moderate. I do not mean the old "silent majority" but rather there remains a fairly good centrality in most views. Expressions though, tend to be quite partisan. I attribute this in part to the steady loss of members from both political parties so that the remainder are more partisan (and for the record, I am not and have never been a member of any party).

    Quote Originally Posted by warthog View Post
    I heard some comment on the radio the other day that resonated a bit.
    People are sick of career politicians from both sides acting in self interest or the interests of oligarchs, other narrow interest groups or financial contributors.
    They don't see their own interests and welfare being valued or addressed.
    I agree. Managing both contributions / funding, and removing the blanket exemptions politicians give themselves from privacy laws, would be starting improvements.

    Still, there are some fringe groups (left or right) I will always put at the bottom of the ballot (in my electorate or for the Senate), below both major parties. If a disfavoured candidate is to win, better a sane independent or vaguely rational and organised party than the mad fringe unable to think past their first motherhood statement or revolutionary slogan. Don't vote idiot.

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    fairly static
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by warthog View Post
    At the risk of opening up more controversy. I'm not enrolled.
    There has been no seat of government at any level in Aus that has been decided by 1 vote.
    Therefore it is inconsequential.
    The data says so.
    A brisk leap to Wikipedia shows at least three decided by one vote in Australia, many one-seat election results and other very close resuts. Not voting on grounds of irrelevance guarantees irrelevance.
    Dimal likes this.

  41. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by beensean View Post
    A brisk leap to Wikipedia shows at least three decided by one vote in Australia, many one-seat election results and other very close resuts. Not voting on grounds of irrelevance guarantees irrelevance.
    You will need to show me these references. As I said I have been through it on another forum. Multiple people searching. No confirmed seats in Australia decided by one vote.
    There was one in the 1920s I think, but was the subject of a recount.

    With respect to relevance. Just exercising one vote guarantees you wont determine the result for the reasons of margin.
    You need to influence a block of votes a la the US citizen Rupert Murdoch, who has been meddling in Australian politics for decades.
    The last 2 state elections were very important to the wages and conditions in my industry. I was active campaigning in both of those elections for my chosen candidate.
    There will be emotive arguments around hypocrisy and double standards etc. I care not. I cared about the result and looked at it objectively with the view to taking what I considered the most decisive action available to me.

  42. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    92
    Here is one

    Ives was elected on the casting vote of the Returning Officer, who cast her vote after drawing his name from a box. This was the first tied result in a Victorian election since 1894, and only the fourth in Victorian history. The Liberal Party took the election to the Court of Disputed Returns, which declared it void on the grounds that 44 votes had been incorrectly excluded from the count, and ordered a by-election. http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countri...985council.txtThat didn't come up. So there you go it can happen. Exceedingly rare and the subject of a recount anyway

  43. #43
    Senior Member Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Central Queensland
    Posts
    1,091
    Along the same lines as the "I don't feel obligated to vote" concept, there is the issue of what you do when you lean towards Candidate X but towards Party Y.
    (which is where I often find myself)
    What do you do?
    I did the "Vote Compass" on the ABC website and found that the Party I should be voting for is not a Party I would vote for.
    It's fun, isn't it.

  44. #44
    Senior Member Yelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Moonta SA.
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Along the same lines as the "I don't feel obligated to vote" concept, there is the issue of what you do when you lean towards Candidate X but towards Party Y.
    (which is where I often find myself)
    What do you do?
    I did the "Vote Compass" on the ABC website and found that the Party I should be voting for is not a Party I would vote for.
    It's fun, isn't it.
    Find myself in a similar position Rocky, there's a message there, it has a lot to do with age and attitude.

  45. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    fairly static
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by warthog View Post
    the subject of a recount.
    No condition was first stated, neither on recounts nor the House. There are three in Australia (occurring also in other countries), one Senate and two House (one State). After re-counts and disputes there were three repeats or by-elections. There are also another four with margins from 5-9 votes. Any number that low will lead to recounts and likely disputes so it is fairly pointless to say it was not "decided" by a particular vote among the thousands.

    If one elector chooses irrelevance, why would there be no others? In which case a vote becomes more powerful. Through avoidance, incompetence, or deliberation, about 10% do not effectively vote anyway.

    With respect to relevance. Just exercising one vote guarantees you wont determine the result for the reasons of margin.
    and putting one piece of paper in a bin guarantees you will not clean up Australia all by yourself; the same for any individual action not critical alone, but necessary for completeness.

    There is no emotive argument to make. I merely noted that not voting guarantees voting irrelevance. If you are a keen campaigner, terrific (maybe ). The question was voting, not lobbying.
    Dimal likes this.

  46. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by beensean View Post
    No condition was first stated, neither on recounts nor the House. There are three in Australia (occurring also in other countries), one Senate and two House (one State). After re-counts and disputes there were three repeats or by-elections. There are also another four with margins from 5-9 votes. Any number that low will lead to recounts and likely disputes so it is fairly pointless to say it was not "decided" by a particular vote among the thousands.

    If one elector chooses irrelevance, why would there be no others? In which case a vote becomes more powerful. Through avoidance, incompetence, or deliberation, about 10% do not effectively vote anyway.


    and putting one piece of paper in a bin guarantees you will not clean up Australia all by yourself; the same for any individual action not critical alone, but necessary for completeness.

    There is no emotive argument to make. I merely noted that not voting guarantees voting irrelevance. If you are a keen campaigner, terrific (maybe ). The question was voting, not lobbying.
    Quote Originally Posted by warthog View Post
    At the risk of opening up more controversy. I'm not enrolled.
    There has been no seat of government at any level in Aus that has been decided by 1 vote.
    Therefore it is inconsequential.
    The data says so.
    Again, show me the election results decided by one vote.

    I stand by that. I have not seen data to counter it.

    I don't mind if others vote. I resent be compelled to and wont accede to that demand myself.
    It has no bearing on what others do.

    There are more decisive actions to take, or at least a better chance than none, but it takes more effort.

    No emotive arguments here, I am going off the objective data.

    Anyway I've had the discussion before and my wife steadfastly holds the counter position.

    If you don't want to vote the simple process is not to enroll to start with, or don't re-enroll when you move to another electorate.
    Last edited by warthog; 5th May 2019 at 09:21 AM. Reason: include original assertion

  47. #47
    OCD
    OCD is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by warthog View Post
    ...I don't mind if others vote. I resent be compelled to and wont accede to that demand myself...
    As much as I admire independent thinkers, your stance does explain why the 'powers that were' thought it necessary to bring in compulsory voting in the first place.

    Ps if you vote, you can at least bitch about the results with a clear conscience.
    warthog likes this.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •