Thanks Humble, I wasn't aware of this case, but reading it just reinforces my thoughts on all this.

We have to remember that the courts don't deal in reality, but semantics. So they never really get to the heart of matters. Plus those on the high court, are very close to current politicians, who are mostly lawyers and won't make judgments that will rock the political boat and diminish the legal professions power over us. Even if those judgments would support the law. They have no interest in truth, or legality, just power. You can see that by the transcript, all they want is an excuse to waffle on and get bigger pay packets, lots of their comments were about getting costs. Love to see what their cut is of court case costs.

If you really looked at it, you would not find a party politician that has a legal right to be in office. Most could easily be charged with treason, corruption, misrepresentation and false pretenses. They promote themselves as representing the people, but once elected they represent themselves and their political and corporate masters. Core, non core promises, just lies.

Thats why whenever there is some form of revolution, they end up hanging the politicians and bureaucrats. Our current leaders should be in jail as war criminals and pathological liars. I expect that the next society of this country will make sure that those that represent us, are experienced in the portfolio and not just lawyers and accountants with no knowledge of life.

Just note how many lawyers and accountants are in parliament throughout the country, that will give you some idea of why we are where we are. These people are ignorant and lacking in understanding. Most have only ever been to school and never lived in the real world, so don't have a clue.

So don't hold your breath waiting for changes, this article is just another empty waffle by a lawyer. Just be ready for the big crunch and go on holiday until it is over.

Thanks Ludwig & Alchemist. At least 3 of us agree that it's nonsense for the Chief Justice of Australia to interject from the bench on the issue of "whether the plaintiff can be compelled to vote for persons that he does not wish to vote for" to imply that the meaning of "vote for" is uncertain. The meaning is certain, and I've no doubt that anyone who has ever "voted" in even the simplest of family polls knew what they meant. But what if they numbered ALL the options, be they which movie will we watch?

To choose [vote for] & to rank [number in order of 'preference'] are not different actions. Albert Langer's contribution was to discover and publicise the fact that by ranking UNchosen candidates equal last, polling officers could understand and give effect to such voters' "true" intentions. Do not ask me how, but that's what Murray Wilcox said [on 30 September 1998] in an "interlocutory" Federal Court hearing of Joe Bryant's above case.

My 1st point in my original post was that "admitting failure to understand the first thing we all need to get positive politics". I concluded that "reporters and editors are intimidated because they are loathe to admit their own failure to understand." Ludwig agreed with me & Piers Akerman regarding intimidation of reporters. So where do we go from here. Even if there are others reading this thread, the facts will remain hidden from millions of voters unless a major publisher breaks and follows the story of Joe Bryant's case & Daryll Wheeley's petition and submission 151 at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/subs.htm

Will OLO get the courage to ask Gary Hardgrave or his mate Senator George Brandis for their reactions to Darryl Wheeley's allegations? What if we each ask them. Also I have contacted Darryl Wheeley and anyone wanting to know more or to help him fight the AEC's illegal claim for $24,000 costs can email him at mailto:CAST@mailhousesolutions.com.au

Joe Bryant's address is mailto:succeed@tsn.cc and his High Court case is still adjourned.

OOPS! Did you see my error above?
I wrote: To choose & to rank are NOT different actions where I should have had To choose & to rank ARE different actions. SORRY!

Also I have not tried to answer Ludwig's 'please explain' on “How do we
explain the persistence of the 'left' vs 'right' sham in the optional
preferential system?”. Let me just say it also needs wider publication, but not the dishonest & deceptive reporting seen in the Courier Mail after the 2003 Police Crime Report into the Maryborough by-election!

Many posts have asked you to define “positive politics”, yet what it takes to define such an enormous topic is far greater than any one person can do.

It takes a large collective of resonant people to define what the dreamers and the innovators put forth. Hopefully this is what we can achieve, rather than pointing out holes in people’s dreams, we can help fill them.

One part of me is convinced that we can make a positive change in this world given the current global crisis we are in morally, environmentally and economically. This takes courage to step out into the world with different views and proactive intention. This also means taking responsibility for your actions and impact on the world like the great David Suzuki. It takes time to gather the strength in numbers so that your goals can be visualized and achieved. It also means copping the flack from people who are satisfied with the status quo, people lacking in a vision for their future generations one hundred, one thousand and one hundred thousand years from now.

The other part of me believes that we (human beings) are either too stupid to change our ways, too apathetic (ie: comfortable, particularly us westerners) or too scared to rock the boat. The earth cannot sustain our current unconscious trajectory, it will take (and they will happen) monumental disasters to rock people into action. Most people will not give another the time of day unless they are collectively in some sort of disaster, then, most people will lend a helping hand to those in need.

So for my children’s sake I still have to act on behalf of my optimistic self, futile, naïve and brave, believing in miracles and David (out of David and Goliath). And call upon that quiet voice within each of you, (that’s the one beneath the cynical academic) to sing to your heart. Positive politics starts with positive people working together. We collectively have the answers to our problems already, are enough of us ready to listen to them?

Eshua concludes "We collectively have the answers to our problems already, are enough of us ready to listen to them?". He's right, but the more difficult questions are how many is enough and who will tell them, particularly if reporters and editors suppress facts & public debate?

Such questions led me to post some important facts kept concealed from public debate. We individually & collectively have the answer to CJ Gleeson's interjection. The meaning of "vote for" is such an answer. So where's the problem? Is it as Eshua fears, not enough of us ready to listen, or that most of us are too concerned with who tells us, rather than what we are told? If my logon was 'Rupert Murduch' [or Osama bin Laden] would the posted facts get more attention?

The fact that 3 years ago CJ Gleeson interjected from the High Court bench: It depends on what you mean by "vote for" & has never been answered, is proven. I wonder have any readers even tried to contact Joe Bryant or Darryl Wheeley, as I suggested 5 days ago?

Eshua

Yes we have collectively got the answers and there are enough people willing to listen. But two more huge things are required:

A massive change in our collective psyche about how we operate our whole society, before we are forced to change. This IS possible. We saw it during WWII when we were under the threat of invasion,

And to somehow wrest the power from the almighty vested-interest sector that has got a stranglehold on government and media, to the extent that both government and media have pretty well just become part of them... or convince this sector that it is in their interest to steer away from continuous growth and towards sustainability with an absolute urgency.

We see such extraordinary examples of this undemocratic vested-interest power base, such as:

The compulsory preferential voting system that works strongly towards maintaining the two major parties as the only real contenders for government, both of which are vehemently pro continuous economic growth,

And abject and utter misinformation coming from the topmost echelons, such as Costello telling us that “our fertility rate is less than replacement level” and “only immigration is making our country grow”.

The question is, how do we get anything like a level playing field with these grossly irresponsible people?

Unfortunately I think they have got it pretty well sown up, and all our efforts to prevent the collapse of our society will be too little too late