Wikileaks Party Making Questionable Deals In Attempt To Win Senate Seat 162
An anonymous reader writes "The Brisbane Times notes that 'Julian Assange's Wikileaks Party has come under fire for directing its preferences to the Shooters and Fishers Party and the white nationalist Australia First Party ahead of both major parties and the Greens in the NSW Senate race. Australia First's policies include reducing and limiting immigration and "abolishing multiculturalism." The chairman of Australia First, Jim Saleam, is a former neo-Nazi who was convicted in the late 1980s of organizing a shotgun attack on the home of an Australian representative of the African National Congress. WikiLeaks candidates in NSW include human rights activist Kellie Tranter.' The Wikileaks Party blamed the outcome on administrative problems. This is drawing further criticism."
WIkileaks party, what a joke (Score:3)
Yeah political influence has done Assange well in his little room at the Ecuadorian Embassy. I can see them trying anything to get political influence anywhere, so this doesn't surprise me one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point entirely. As expected the smear campaign against Assange and Wikileaks is continuing. Rape, association with right wing extremists... It will be interesting to see what comes next.
You have fallen for it completely. The Wikileaks party is far bigger than Assange. He is just one of seven candidates, not even the leader. Who told you what to think, a fox?
Again and Again (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again Julian Assange shows that his primary focus is the elevation of Julian Assange.
Re:Again and Again (Score:5, Insightful)
What does this have to do with Assange directly?He is only one of 7 wikileaks candidtates, and he is running in Queensland.
This story is about preferences in New South Wales. The wikileaks candidates in NSW are Kellie Tranter and Alison Broinowski.
Re: (Score:2)
What does this have to do with Assange directly?He is only one of 7 wikileaks candidtates, and he is running in Queensland.
I think that is nutty. Queensland is the home of fringe political parties, and right wing voters. Assange has ties in Victoria and would surely find more voters among the tech and academic industries here.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem being that the wikileaks targeted voters are not single issue voters and hence wikileaks is very unlikely to gain many. Single issue voting is mind bogglingly stupidly destructive. Pay attention to the bulk of the policy directions, pay attention to the track record of the politician and either vote out the worst or try to vote in the best, OVERALL. Never, ever single issue vote that is exactly what turns the majority of conservative voters into victims, rather than contributing citizens. Wikil
Re:Again and Again (Score:4, Informative)
What does this have to do with Assange directly?He is only one of 7 wikileaks candidtates, and he is running in Queensland.
Incorrect. Assange is running in Victoria. The Wikileaks Party isn't fielding any candidates in Queensland whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit you're right. I got muddled by the brisbane times link.
Either way it's not NSW though!
Re: (Score:2)
You and Assange feel that the ends justify the means, no matter what. I disagree. I think that if you have to compromise your morals to get what you want, your victory is hollow and worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
So then the question becomes: is a hollow, worthless victory worth more than defeat?
Compromise is the nature of human interactions - just try to get three people to order one pizza without it. When you're dealing with something that tends to have heavy moral implications, like say politics and the law, some of those compromises will *have* to be moral. It's ugly, it's wrong, but good luck making a difference as the only honest man on the battlefield.
Not that we don't need good and pure people to lead a mov
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with the way residential planning permission works in the UK. I also disagree with restrictions of press freedom, supporting torture etc. If supporting a party that likes our planning system but will support press freedom and human rights is the best deal I can ge
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone hates mainstream politicians.
All minor parties are teaming together (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think that Julian Assange's party would be a natural fit with the Sex party.
Re:All minor parties are teaming together (Score:4, Insightful)
They are actually. The Sex Party, The Pirate Party and The Wikileaks Party have very similar pro-civil-rights views.
But they don't preference each other as 1,2 & 3.
Preferencing stopped being about shared values a long time ago. It still is a *little* about shared values, but this year the primary opposition party (LNP) has preferenced their mortal enemy, the ALP, above all other parties.
Preferencing strategy goes like this: If a party higher than me on the ticket gets votes but doesn't win, I get their votes.
Preferencing negotiations go like this: "I'll put you down as "2" on my ticket, if you put me down as "2" on yours."
So, preferencing for minor parties in reality works like this:
Approach all the parties that you think will be popular, but not popular enough to actually win, and try to get as high as possible in their preferences.
Try not to sell your soul in the process, or align with any parties that will cause you to loose face.
The Wikileaks Party, who are new to politics forgot the last bit, and is now in damage control.
Re: (Score:2)
This, of course, is completely insane. The voter should decide their own preferences, even if that is somewhat harder to count.
Re: (Score:2)
If the voter isn't a lazy idiot, they DO decide their own preferences for the Senate, and ALWAYS decide their own preferences for the house.
http://www.belowtheline.org.au/ [belowtheline.org.au]
Re:All minor parties are teaming together (Score:5, Informative)
No surprise here. All the minor parties are doing the same thing.
Some parties are. Not all of them. The Pirate Party in particular opted out of those deals, and allocated preferences according to a vote of the membership. The party has also published its preferencing process online, which you can read at http://pirateparty.org.au/2013/08/18/preferencing-statement-for-federal-election-2013/ [pirateparty.org.au]
Re: (Score:2)
And with all this going on, many young, foolish, ill-educated liberals (but I repeat myself) still go on and on about how much better the Australian system is that the "first past the post" American system. My guess is that they're talking about how it should work (in some imaginary "perfect world") instead of how it actually does work.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't care where your vote winds up vote above the line.
If you do, vote below the line.
It only takes 5 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
My last ballot, i was voting for 20-30 different things. I'm gonna be in the booth for 2 hrs or more. Hope they have a chair. Probably should fill out the ballot at home and bring it in.
President
Senator
Representative
Governor
Lt. Governor
Sec. State (for NV)
State Treasurer (NV)
State Controller (NV)
Attorney General (NV)
plus 5-10 county officials (i forget)
and a couple judges
and a couple of state propositions
and a local measure about the airport and i think one about the pool
Re: (Score:2)
Not all countries have hilariously huge beaurcracies of elected officials. In this case the article is about Australia.
Here we vote for senate and the house. The prime minister is chosen by the party which controlls the house. Cabinet positions such as treasurer and AG are chosen by the prime minister and confirmed by the governer general.
Local officials, controllers, and judges are apolitical positions and not voted on.
Propositions and measure are "yes/no", not a ranking of positions.
You can make your o
Re: (Score:2)
That won't make any difference. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am an Australian voter and I can't imagine a wikileaks voter following a how to vote card. If they have somebody handing them out in East Brunswick I might pick one up for the lulz, but thats all.
Re: (Score:3)
Again, a voter for wikileaks would have to be pretty savvy about the voting system so I would be surprised they vote above the line. I never have. Its a pain but I would rather have control over who I vote for.
It's not about Assange, or Wikileaks (Score:4, Insightful)
Amateur politicians doing amateur things is not as dangerous as a global police state.
I'd gladly read a story every day about what a knucklehead Julian Assange is, if I could be certain that an out-of-control surveillance apparatus is not upskirting every conversation everybody has, even those of the most private, personal nature.
Fuck Julian Assange. He's nothing, nobody. He's not 1/100th as significant as the least of the leakers.
Today, we have a story about a long-time blogger - a serious person, doing seriously good work - is closing down a widely-read web site because she can no longer expect privacy in communications, in the United States of America. We had the founders and operators of an encrypted mail system, Lavabit, close their business and not be able to even say why under threat of prosecution.
Who knew that Aaron Schwartz was so far ahead of his time, now that important online businesses are following his lead.
If you can not be private, you cannot, in any sense, be free.
Let's see what Primo Levi has to say on the matter:
[h/t Groklaw]
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175 [groklaw.net]
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck Julian Assange. He's nothing, nobody. He's not 1/100th as significant as the least of the leakers.
What the fuck are you talking about? He had the guts to publish valuable information on the US government's wrongdoings through his organization, and is now likely being persecuted by the US (and UK in cahoots) government for doing so. His situation is extremely significant in my opinion. His and Bradley Manning's actions may even have inspired Edward Snowden and if it hadn't been for them we would be n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that Assange is not the focus. He's not what's important in this story.
There is a danger in making the messenger into the message, because the focus can end up on human flaws instead of government criminality.
Compared to the scope of the story, the actual information of the brave leakers, Assange is pretty insignificant in the long run, IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't read a word I wrote, did you?
Below the line (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone who is actually voting for wikileaks will likely be well informed and voting below the line anyways.
For those not familiar with australian voting, we have preferential instant runoff first past the pole voting.
You can either vote "above the line," where you select ONE party, and that party decides how your preferences fall if they don't win a seat, or you can vote "below the line," where you number individual candidates "1, 2, 3.....".
Cognitive Dissonance (Score:2)
Anyone who is actually voting for wikileaks will likely be well informed and voting below the line anyways.
But what does it tell the voter who reads above the line and discovers some very uncomfortable truths about the alliances you have made. Is he voting Wikileaks or he is voting Fascist? Which is the real you?
Re: (Score:2)
No one voting for Wikileaks can possibly be considered informed. Retarded perhaps, informed, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Which of their policies do you disagree with?
http://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/platform/ [wikileaksparty.org.au]
My guess would be asylum seekers?
Hunters and Fishers (Score:2)
Re:Hunters and Fishers (Score:4, Informative)
They are the Australian gun lobby (like the US NRA sort of) and not regarded very well. I always put them last along with the "fathers who don't want to pay child support" and the anti immigration groups.
Re: (Score:2)
They are the Australian gun lobby (like the US NRA sort of) and not regarded very well. I always put them last along with the "fathers who don't want to pay child support" and the anti immigration groups.
Not quite.
Whilst being pro-gun, they aren't as gung ho and batshit insane as the US NRA. Their policy lines are more based on sport than self defence. Personally I put Shooters and Fishers above Lib/Nat (I vote below the line).
As a third party, they help prevent one party from ruling by fiat.
But I agree with you about the anti-immigration groups although Shooters and Fishers shouldn't really be lumped in with them.
Re: (Score:2)
They're to the political right, and the submitter obviously leans left.
If you read the article, it seems the people Wikileaks are "coming under fire" from are the Greens (who are pretty much the Australian left-wing these days), because they wanted Wikileaks preferences and didn't get them.
Every underdog movement makes unholy alliances (Score:2)
Every underdog movement since the 1st century AD has made alliances with parties and groups they otherwise despise. If this were not a fair tactic, the overdog would never get displaced. Being outraged at this is thew mark of a total naive and frankly, a historically illiterate. It is important to read about history or at least watch some shows on TV or something so you don't end up looking like a dope when you speak.
This is just how change happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain to us how you didn't just make a No True Scotsman argument.
Oh REALLY Brisbane Times? (Score:2)
I voted for them Yesterday (Score:2)
Just strategy... (Score:2)
By directing preferences away from the Greens, Wikileaks improves its chances. Only marginally, but I suppose the rationale for the decision was that "every little bit helps."
The surprise here is that they didn't come clean on it, given the irony that creates. ...and yes, Wikileaks is only assumed to be a left-wing party, which is an error. Libertarianism is right-wing.
Lets be clear about preferences (Score:3)
The VOTER decides the preferences, i.e. it's the voter who writes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on, not the parties. All the parties do is print how-to-vote cards that get handed out near the polling stations. It's always been the voter who decides preferences, so if you the voter can't be arsed doing a little research and making your own decisions, and are happy to fill out your ballot according to your party's how-to-vote card, then you deserve the consequences.
Admittedly the senate ballot paper is a pain to fill out completely (numbering every box rather than put a "1" above the line, as most major parties would have you do), but fer crissakes, it's only once every few years, and worth a little research and mental arithmetic.
That reminds me - I should find out if the MHR ballot is optional preferential - that's the best system - you can vote 1 for your preferred candidate, then further numbering is optional.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people vote above the line for the senate and hence do in fact let the party they picked choose for them. I want to say they shouldn't, but given how much thought the average voter puts into their vote letting the party they think they like the most choose is probably actually better.
But, this is how you win senate seats in Australia - if you're a tiny party then you want to keep those preferences in with the minor parties for as long as possible. I remember the table cloth ballot paper in the NSW elec
Re: (Score:2)
Aw, crap. Federal MHR ballots are not optional preferential - you've got to number EVERY box or it's an informal vote. It's going to be interesting - I'm in the electorate of Fisher http://www.aec.gov.au/election/qld/fisher.htm [aec.gov.au] - 10 MHR candidates (including Peter Slipper), and 82 senate candidates. I'm going to download the CSV and try to work out my numbering before I get to the polling booth.
Re: (Score:2)
...and the WikiLeaks Party implodes.. (Score:2)
That didn't take long, did it.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-21/wikileaks-senate-candidate-leslie-cannold-quits/4903084 [abc.net.au]
Formerly (mostly) noble organization (Score:2)
becomes corrupted after entering politics.
In other news: fire is hot and water is wet.
Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (Score:5, Informative)
Preferences are public knowledge. It was out in the open - how do you think people know about it? Investigative reporting? In Australia? Heh.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Preferences are public knowledge. It was out in the open - how do you think people know about it? Investigative reporting? In Australia? Heh.
While I don't necessarily agree with Wikileaks, the fact is that when your opponents take the 'victory at any cost' approach -- as evidenced by the overreaction to Snowden, Manning, Assange, etc., then it's pretty much a given that you're going to have to make "questionable deals" at some point. Honor is a luxury in war; If your oppoents don't have it, then they'll just use yours against you.
Sometimes, you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.
Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honor is a luxury in war...you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.
NO! Honor is not a commodity to be traded. Never lower yourself to the level of what you fine questionable and definitely don't justify it by believing it's for the "greater good." Your words read like justification for "enhanced interrogation."
captcha: chivalry
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does that really apply in this case? This is a political race in Australia. Manning and Snowden have nothing to do with it, different issues, different country.
It seems to be they may be making bad deals, for no good reason, that will cost them in the future. At the very least it seems that they may marginalize themselves and alienate the very groups that you would expect to be natural allies.
Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that really apply in this case? This is a political race in Australia. Manning and Snowden have nothing to do with it, different issues, different country.
If you've been following what's been taking place in Australia over the past decade or so, and if you're not a scumbag shill (mind you, I'm not saying you aren't), then you'd know that they have everything to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you are trying to "persuade" me by threatening to call names. Not very persuasive. I've seen shills use that tactic. (Mind you, I'm not saying you are.) Feel free to provide any facts and arguments to bolster your position that you care to add.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It has everything to do with the freedom to communicate.
Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're fighting for principles, you don't align yourself with people of radically opposed principles because that's not going to help you accomplish anything. So we're either faced with the idea that the Wikileaks party feels that its principles are closer to the Hunters and Fishers and the white nationalists than either major party or the Greens.
The other possibility is that they're not fighting for principles.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, see also Assange's comments about Ron Paul. Wikileaks are not the Greens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Preference deals are a matte
Re: (Score:3)
Preferences are public knowledge. It was out in the open - how do you think people know about it? Investigative reporting? In Australia? Heh.
While I don't necessarily agree with Wikileaks, the fact is that when your opponents take the 'victory at any cost' approach -- as evidenced by the overreaction to Snowden, Manning, Assange, etc., then it's pretty much a given that you're going to have to make "questionable deals" at some point. Honor is a luxury in war; If your oppoents don't have it, then they'll just use yours against you.
Sometimes, you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.
This has got to be sarcasm. Read what you just wrote and pretend it's the US Government making that statement.
Well played. sir. I salute you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes, you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.
The end justifies the means.
The perfect Godwinism never mentions the National Socialist German Workers' Party by name. It simply expresses its core values in their purist form.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't necessarily agree with Wikileaks, the fact is that when your opponents take the 'victory at any cost' approach [...] you're going to have to make "questionable deals" at some point.
It's not even that in some cases. Politics is about brokering compromise to best achieve your goals. Because the game is so competitive it leads to the seemingly ironic situation that you can best achieve your goals by helping those whose goals are far away from yours, with the aim of cutting out those who are closest to you. This works because those closest to you in ideals are your biggest competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that's often the argument the government puts forward justifying these programs. They have to spy on everyone to catch the terrorists! Its only to do a greater good that they do bad things.
So basically its a BS argument.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If (as is likely) he does poorly in the election, that will amount to a slap in the face for both himself and Wikileaks. His dignity and personal standing are already in question, so I fail to see the purpose in a hollow election campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if he is elected to the Senate he gets some diplomatic status which will enable him to leave the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
... only to be arrested and extradited to Sweden from Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
He would make a dive for Ecuador and we would never hear from him again.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt he would make that trip alone.
He's already made his game known.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no requirement in Section 42 of the Australian Constitution that the oath or affirmation of office be taken in Australia or that the Governor-General takes it in person. The GG can take Assange's oath in London personally or appoint someone else to do it. Unusual but possible.
If Julian Assange were elected he could wait until the 1 July date for taking up his seat and resign his Senate position (Section 19) or wait for it to be declared vacant (Section 20). Then under Section 15 another Wikileaks Party member would be appointed to hold the seat. Typically this would be the next highest-polling Wikileaks candidate but need not be. The Wikileaks Party is running three candidates in the Senate election for Victoria so they will have a fall back option.
Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a legal requirement for him to physically attend when the senate sits. There is a limited number of sittings that he can miss before his seat is decalared vacant. (I think you covered this)
I expect his strategy is to get elected, then call on the Australian government / Australian Military to explain how they are sitting idly by while the UK and USA prevent an Australian Senator from executing his elected responsibilities.
Re: (Score:2)
The GG can take Assange's oath in London personally or appoint someone else to do it.
Maybe she could ask the Queen to pop around to the Ecuadorian embassy on the way back from visiting the grandkids or something.
Re: (Score:2)
I dare say Her Majesty could invite herself around as the GG is only acting in a capacity as Her Majesty's representative.
I would not be surprised to see a challenge under Section 44(i) if he were elected. The section declares invalid as a Senator any person who
(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power:
(Italics are mine).
Re: (Score:2)
entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power
Yeah
Re: (Score:2)
If a Senator retires or dies in office, he is replaced by a member of his own party. It could be as simple as Assange trying to win a seat on his name recognition, then substitute the 2nd name on his parties' ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Australia is a white country? Since when were the aboriginals white in Australia?
Re:White countries for everyone. (Score:4, Informative)
Australian Aborigines have never been of white skin. Only 2.5% of the Australian population is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (down from 100% in 1787) but were not counted for federal government purposes until 1967 when Section 121 of our constitution was amended. The top five ancestries are English, Australian, Irish, Scottish, and Italian making up more than 68% of the respondents (http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/0?opendocument&navpos=220) The last overtly "White Australia Policy" legislation favouring white-only immigration was not dismantled until 1973.
Re: (Score:2)
"No member of the faculty is to maltreat the "Abos" in any way whatsoever—if there's anyone watching."
Re:So what? (Score:4, Funny)
What is best? Stay in home and hoping that no bored neighbourn will kill you, or actually go out, make mistakes, and, guess what, be a human being? A Man? But not THE man of course.
Yes. Who cares what politicians do? If Wikileaks stands for anything, it stands for "Politicians make mistakes, let's just all move on and ignore them. So what?"
Re: (Score:3)
But you man, keep swimming, it is not a fish.
Not a mistake (Score:2, Insightful)
So nothing to see here, and the "mistake" and "administrative error" are just a way to try to brush it all off after the fact without a heated argument.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that Assange admires Ron Paul, mebbe this should not come as a surprise. Mebbe Assange makes a better publisher/trouble-maker than he does political leader.
Maybe he realizes that when liberals/greens try to solve government abuse of power by giving more power to government, they are not helping the situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Which of course, makes him eleventy-billion times more evil than the worst police state.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's listening to Assange? I didn't know he was even saying anything.
My interest is in the revelations coming from people other than Assange. They are worth listening to, or the government's security apparatus wouldn't be working so hard to make them go away.
If the things Snowden has said aren't true, wouldn't you expect the government to say, "That's not true!" Instead, you get stuttering and lying and retractions and more lying and silence and misdirection. And a worldwide effort to get their hands o
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, I'm an American. I don't care about or understand British politics.
This is about Australian politics.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be cliche, but "citation needed".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As an Aussie I think both major parties are pandering to a xenophobic mob mentality and I get a feeling of nationalistic shame that we wo
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to vote for the Sex Party and the Shooters Party right!
If you invite the Hemp Party [wikipedia.org] to join that coalition, I will vote for it as many times as I can.
Re: (Score:2)
For example: Smith, Jones, and Wiffle are running for 2 positions. The quota would be 33%
The votes are:
Smith, Jones, Wiffle 45%
Smith, Wiffle, Jones 20%
Jones, Smith, Wiffle 5%
Jones, Wiffle, Smith 5%
Wiffle, Smith, Jones 5%
Wiffle, Jones, Smith 20%
So, Smith clearly wins. If we don't count any of Smith's voters second preference, Wiffle wins the second seat. But Smith voters preferred Jones 2nd (mostly). How d