It will be interesting to see how GetUp fares. While I don't think that this is quite what Graham had in mind, similar groups like MoveOn in the U.S. attract a large amount of support, although it's debatable how effective they are in actually influencing government policy and action.

Of course, this is the nub: while the Internet lends itself to spamming-style campaigns, at this point I'm unconvinced that they actually achieve very much. I'm sure that American policy makers dismiss MoveOn as baby boomer ex-hippie relics, while I doubt that anybody pays much attention to the loony godbotherers and waspish armchair fascists who seem to be most vocal at this site.

Issues surrounding identity, security and privacy are indeed critical to the deployment of the Internet in political action - and it seems very unlikely that these issues can be resolved sufficiently for it to be seriously utilised in the actual political process for quite some time yet, if ever.

Certainly, given some of the more rabid ideas expressed by some who are attracted to this particular site, there is no way for reasons of personal security that I would want some of them to be able to identify me and where I live. On the other hand, as a couple of posters in this thread demonstrate, the cloak of anonymity affords them the opportunity to express the most objectionable ideas publicly, without fear of being held to account for them.

Garra you have beaten me to the punch - I was going to discuss Getup also. As you say it is not strictly what Graham had in mind - however it will be interesting to watch and see if it does have any influence at all.

I can't imagine some of the insulting and offensive posts that have been directed towards myself and other moderates to this site being said to my face. While I wish that there was a way that the rabid element could be made accountable, this same element makes me value my own anonymity - many are clearly savage.

I also believe that because of these radicals many would be posters refrain from making a contribution as they do not want to be subjected to the abuse even though they are anonymous. For these reasons it is unlikely that the internet can be used as a safe, accurate and effective brokerage role. Entertaining and interesting - absolutely but serious political polling? I don't think so.

I agree with most of the comments about GetUp. If you really want to know what I think in detail I did a blog post on it at http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000773.html. But I don't believe that this means the 'net can't be used for democracy.

We produced an alternative means of expressing an opinion collectively when we ran the online petition on Mandatory Detention, which is still up at http://onlineopinion.com.au/petitions/. No-one ever suggested this was spam, because we went out of our way to do it in a non-confrontational and helpful way.

And our polling questions always ask voting intention so we can say to politicians "No, these aren't your opponents saying this, these are your supporters," or maybe "Yes, you're right, they are your opponents." In a way we are subverting party control just by doing qualitative research and making it public. Members who care to read it will find out more about what is happening than their own parties will let them know from the internal research.

Sites like GetUp are confrontational, but that is because they are not trying to change politician's minds, but recruit a grass roots campaign. They're about campaigning, not pure democracy. They have their place, and we'd be happy to take articles and advertising from them.

The discussion on Altman's views on schools is very important (though I suspect it belongs to a different topic). But since it has been raised here, and because it serves as a classic case study of the larger political malaise, here is my view. Rainier is right - a radical range of reforms would need to be introduced into public schools before they could inspire public confidence. But we all know these reforms will not be introduced because the teacher unions and the department bureaucrats will never support them (allowing diverse educational philosophies in public schools, allowing parents and ngos to manage 'charter' schools in the public system according to their preferred educational 'charter', culling the dead wood amongst teachers and the ideologically-based curricula, etc).

But here's the rub - the Liberal Party will never introduce these reforms either, because their constituents already have their preferred (private) schools, and the 'Tory paternalism' in their Party is hostile to devolving power to the lower orders. Brendan Nelson is a case in point - all about paternalism and centralism, not about devolution of power to parents.

Which brings us to the point about the party malaise in our democracy, because when you have two parties who agree not to reform something (schools in this case) in defiance of the broader community, you have a dysfunctional democracy. Ditto in health, aged care, disability, indigenous affairs, family support, mental health, tertiary education, and the list goes on.

And at this point, innovation in the party system becomes necessary to break the cycle, otherwise it self-perpetuates, generation after generation.

Vern Hughes

Graham, thanks again for providing such a great forum and on the hands off approach you take to the content.

Your article is bothersome in that it highlights the pragmatic issue of the need to win elections. "The voter is always right regardless of what party policy says". Common approach I suspect but one which must contribute to the level of cynicism about the parties.

garra, and others I'm another who enjoys the anonomity of the site because it does provide a measure of retailiation form the extremists. Maybe more so because I comment on Family Law issues - tends to lead to a bit of paranoia. I try fairly hard not to abuse that anonomity and never use it as an excuse for abuse. You might want to look a bit wider at the groups who might be a threat to others. Much though I dislike much of the god botherer content of some postings on this site I doubt friend BOAZ is the type to turn up on your doorstep to bash you. The only thing he is likley to bash is your ears (with words), a cup of coffee could be painful but not physically brutal.

It might be worth remembering that it was left wingers bashing One Nation supporters attending political meetings not the other way around. The extreme right can be violent but they don't appear to have a monopoly on it in political debate.

Cheers
R0bert

Hey Robert, I didn't have BD in mind - he's about as threatening as tissue paper - but there are those whose comments are so snide as to be creepy - besides I mostly skim BD's posts anyway - too much with the bible bash. As for violence - both extremes (left and right) have exhibited much of it out in the real world.

But not so much on this forum - seems the right get more downright mean and nasty than the left here. I know you are more moderate Robert and don't include you in this.

On topic - the poll conducted by Graham was most excellent and a very good way to put forth an opinion and indeed there have been moves to release families from detention - Yey Graham! We made a contribution. What was very telling about that poll was the sheer dearth of those in favour of mandatory detention. The poll in no way reflected the numbers of far right extremists that hunt the moderate upon these forums. Shows how very deceptive the views on this forum can be.

Also that poll was based on real name/address etc. Maybe Graham is right and there is a way.

Really enjoying this particular thread.