The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > McPolitics > Comments

McPolitics : Comments

By Graham Young, published 29/7/2005

Graham Young argues the internet can perform a brokerage role once performed by political parties.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Graham's contribution to opening up political debate in Australia through the Forum has been terrific. But on this issue, Graham's desire to find a solution to the party malaise while accommodating his own Liberal Party allegiance, just does not work. If, as Graham's argument runs, the duopoly stifles democracy in all meaningful senses, then we must get rid of the duopoly. Any proposed solution that falls short of that will be inadequate. The creation of a broad centrist electoral option that cracks open the duopoly and opens up reform of the political culture is essential. It just has to be done. Courage is required to do it, but do it we must.

Vern Hughes
Posted by Vern, Monday, 1 August 2005 4:35:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's a few issues here. Garra raises the problem of gatekeeping. On a site our size with the technology, there is no avoiding having a central authority. Central authorities always get accused of bias. With some of the technology and systems we are developing, the issue will in some cases become redundant. Any organisation that joins National Forum will be able to use the site to, for example, mount a petition. We may also publish more material, and use a reader ranking system to sort it, or perhaps even have competing publishing teams. The trick is to do this whilst maintaining coherence. In my view Indy Media lost the plot by not having any "chairmanship" function, and it is basically moribund. However, I'd like a broader base of supporters collaborating in the work on this site.

Online personality is an important issue. We decided against trying to make people give real names because it is impossible to enforce. But it is possible for all of us to use our real names, or identifiable version of them, as our nicks. Perhaps Pericles might like to start a trend of shedding the nom-de-plume for the real name. It might make the debate more civil than it is (although I think it is pretty good on this site compared to anything else like this I have read or participated in).

I understand Reality Check's point, but I think politicians are responsive to public opinion, just not necessarily letter-writing campaigns etc. What we are gradually doing through this site is making public opinion instantaneously available, at the same time that it is usefully transparent. One reason all of our surveys ask for political affiliation is so that it can be more convincing to politicians.

I think the challenge to Vern's desire to set up a third party is to find tools to make that possible. It's a feat that hasn't been achieved in any system of single member constituencies that I am aware of, with some rare examples of cataclysmic change, like Canada, using the old technologies. New technologies might provide more possibilities.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 3 August 2005 6:20:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the major sentiments of GY’s article.

Peoples perceptions change over time. We have moved from an era when the class system drove the social order to a system where the authority of the nobility (upper-class) and church has evaporated.

Filling this “gap” we see corporate structures entering the social arena and thus political organisations need to move and reflect such trends or cease to be “politically viable”.

Ideally a successful politician reflects the views of his electorate and if most people relate to the hierarchical structure of their work more than some archaic social order then politicians, to be successful (elected), need to reflect such significance.

McPolitics – oh not a good choice of title for any article – but it is accurate and “thought provoking” – and ain’t that what a forum should be about?

Garra – who "runs" a forum is not the issue

Who decides to post on it determines the strength and quality of the forum.

I choose to post here.

I find GY’s stewardship of this site even handed and non-intrusive (non-intrusive – except for the most flagrant abuses and flammings).

I find your attitude pretentious and arrogant.

I know if you ran this forum I would not bother to post here because I would feel I was extending support to an unworthy cause.

If you feel so strongly about the way this forum is run – I suggest you vote with your mouse and scurry off elsewhere. I for one will not miss you [deleted for abuse].

Remember garra –
“democracy” does not mean we all have to agree with you or your view, quite the opposite.

Regardless of how much better you think you know how we should all think, feel and behave (as proven by your comments), I will continue to express my view, freely and as diametrically opposed to yours as I feel suits.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 3 August 2005 10:16:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham, don't be so defensive - I absolutely agree with the concept of voluntary anonymity on forums such as these. Whether it is used as a convenient alter ego, to express views you wouldn't otherwise want to be accountable for in front of your peers, or simply as a defence mechanism in case you become the physical target of those with extremist views, it can only be positive. And I absolutely agree, the standard here is comparatively high, and long may it remain so.

Where the line has to be drawn however is the use of feedback mechanisms such as these for any form of public policymaking, even the second- or third-hand variety, as they are so easily hijacked by the noisiest folk with the most vehement agenda, not necessarily the, or even a, majority. To use the Internet for any form of voting is, for the same reasons, utterly unthinkable.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 3 August 2005 12:20:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, I agree that onlineopinion is run in a fair manner.

I had a look at the www.getup.org.au a little earlier. It has people with seemingly different political persuasions involved including John Hewson.
It apparently wishes to marshall opinions and channel them to Coalition Senators. I remember when Malcolm Fraser had a huge majority that comments were made that it was a double edged sword; backbenchers could become unweildy. We now have the situation where Senators can become a target for non-traditional lobbying. One critic has written off GetUp as sending nothing but spam to Senators; however, how can it be spam if it is a voter sending a GetUp message along with their own message?
Posted by ant, Thursday, 4 August 2005 9:25:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McPolitics .
Yeah I agree , In fact I think this is the biggest problem we have .
We sorta need to deregulate politics , If we want to keep up with the rest of the world , in terms of trade that is .
The problem is that to win enough seats to form a government a party must capture the imagination of the uninterested within the last week or so of an election . This is done with the same old slogans ,public saftey ,health , enviroment ,etc etc , via our left hand media . No wonder joe bloggs thinks "they all sound the same".
The solution is simple , We have to do away with this compulsory voting nonsense . The oppertunity exists now to do this , However I don't believe any of our parties are prepared to become listeners .
Posted by jamo, Friday, 5 August 2005 12:40:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy