Count me in! Anything to get rid of Gina and Clive and their ilk - Big Media, Big Mining, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco/Vaping, Big Any-Vested-Interest...Nothing corporate or overseas-owned. Hurrah!
great ideas - I sense a change in the wind in 2025 & things can only get better. System is rock bottom right now. Looking forward to reading about new ideas & the struggle to make things better. Cheers
In the closing sentence of his column in Pearls and Irritations today, Jack Waterford states that Labors actions on a number of issues "invites questions of whether modern Labor has any moral bottom at all," I reckon that's a pretty accurate description of another mob that think they were born to rule and did nothing when they got the priviledge, lest they make a target of themselves.
Gutless, dissapointments.
The fact that the federal opposition know nothing of morallity is unquestionable.
So Tim, in the real world, which federal government in Australia is likely to introduce democracy vouchers into federal electoral law?
Thanks for the headsup on Jack's piece; I haven't seen it, but he touches on something I was thinking of writing about. Will have a look. And yeah, I don't think Labor or Libs will do anything like this on their own, but politicians are also born followers if the right pressure can be applied. A balance-of-power crossbench might be part of that. Same as it ever was, I guess.
I’m not sure that I trust average Australians to be able o think this through ,given the swing from « Yes » to « No » within one half year just by doubt being sown by the Dutton camp A La Abbott No No No the awfulness catastrophe of those lazy drunkards get to be prime minister .Better to keep our own lazy druggards in power 🎩💰😩
I think public engagement is one of improving general political knowledge and increasing our trust in each other. The failure of the Yes campaign was precisely that, a failure to engage, a top-down campaign that didn't address people's concerns. The lazy druggards in power try and scare us off engagement because they know it works.
Don’t we already have campaign funding vouchers? Eligible voters allocate their $3.29 voucher by casting their first preference vote, and those vouchers can be redeemed by candidates or parties who meet the eligibility criteria (mainly achieving 4% of the vote and providing proof of electoral spending for reimbursement).
The real benefits described in your post are the donation and expenditure limits, and perhaps decoupling the funding decision from the vote (but arguably our preferential system largely achieves this indirectly anyway), and providing funding certainty ahead of the campaign (rather than candidates gambling on achieving a reimbursement).
I guess there are equivalences, but as you say, other advantages arise. Apart from hating the name "democracy voucher" (just by the by) there are no doubt other changes we could make for local circumstances. Reading the literature (which isn't that extensive tbh), the best results for me are increased competitiveness and engagement. Making the donation explicit (decoupling) seems to me a huge difference and worthwhile.
Count me in! Anything to get rid of Gina and Clive and their ilk - Big Media, Big Mining, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco/Vaping, Big Any-Vested-Interest...Nothing corporate or overseas-owned. Hurrah!
Fantastic idea! Putting the 'd' back into 'democracy'. And the 'j' in 'journalism'.
Thanks for another great piece Tim!
great ideas - I sense a change in the wind in 2025 & things can only get better. System is rock bottom right now. Looking forward to reading about new ideas & the struggle to make things better. Cheers
In the closing sentence of his column in Pearls and Irritations today, Jack Waterford states that Labors actions on a number of issues "invites questions of whether modern Labor has any moral bottom at all," I reckon that's a pretty accurate description of another mob that think they were born to rule and did nothing when they got the priviledge, lest they make a target of themselves.
Gutless, dissapointments.
The fact that the federal opposition know nothing of morallity is unquestionable.
So Tim, in the real world, which federal government in Australia is likely to introduce democracy vouchers into federal electoral law?
Thanks for the headsup on Jack's piece; I haven't seen it, but he touches on something I was thinking of writing about. Will have a look. And yeah, I don't think Labor or Libs will do anything like this on their own, but politicians are also born followers if the right pressure can be applied. A balance-of-power crossbench might be part of that. Same as it ever was, I guess.
I’m not sure that I trust average Australians to be able o think this through ,given the swing from « Yes » to « No » within one half year just by doubt being sown by the Dutton camp A La Abbott No No No the awfulness catastrophe of those lazy drunkards get to be prime minister .Better to keep our own lazy druggards in power 🎩💰😩
I think public engagement is one of improving general political knowledge and increasing our trust in each other. The failure of the Yes campaign was precisely that, a failure to engage, a top-down campaign that didn't address people's concerns. The lazy druggards in power try and scare us off engagement because they know it works.
Don’t we already have campaign funding vouchers? Eligible voters allocate their $3.29 voucher by casting their first preference vote, and those vouchers can be redeemed by candidates or parties who meet the eligibility criteria (mainly achieving 4% of the vote and providing proof of electoral spending for reimbursement).
The real benefits described in your post are the donation and expenditure limits, and perhaps decoupling the funding decision from the vote (but arguably our preferential system largely achieves this indirectly anyway), and providing funding certainty ahead of the campaign (rather than candidates gambling on achieving a reimbursement).
I guess there are equivalences, but as you say, other advantages arise. Apart from hating the name "democracy voucher" (just by the by) there are no doubt other changes we could make for local circumstances. Reading the literature (which isn't that extensive tbh), the best results for me are increased competitiveness and engagement. Making the donation explicit (decoupling) seems to me a huge difference and worthwhile.