Is it just me ?, or are there other political junkies like myself, whom have lost interest in electioneering this time.
It's a non-election between 2 gender parodies of each other peering out from the same tunnel.

We can go forward (albeit to an undetermined destination) with Julia, or we can go phoney with Tony which could end up anywhere.

Regardless, no major alternative offers a principled position on anything that I can hang
my hat on this time.

The media seems to think the most interesting thing about this election is the gender politic itself,
running worms and worm-esses etc during debates, a stunt at best,
and an attempt to affect public opinion through distraction at worst.

The issues this time are important (even crucial) to our future, but every time I think
about that, I end up feeling a little queasy.

I'm afraid I have no commitment this time, for either candidate or their parties positions
as they themselves have no commitment to anything other than their own political futures.

I wish it were an election about the Mining tax as Tony Abbott said it would be earlier.
Now that's a principal I could have voted about !.

thinker 2

I agree wholeheartedly - I used to be a bit of a political junkie myself, in the past. However, I've lost the desire to be interested at all in this campaign...there is nothing that I see in either party that inspires me in the least. For the most part I've managed to avoid watching and listening to any coverage via the various media - quite refreshing, really

Dear Thinker 2 and Poirot,

Ditto, from me as well.

I watched the debate on TV last night and my
heart sank. No spark, just fizzle!
And the monotonous droning voices...
My husband ended up walking out of
the room. He simply couldn't take any of it.

I think I'll go back to catching up on my reading,
politics has suddenly become so very mediocre.
What a choice,
from the boring to the ridiculous!

Thinker 2, I’m interested in the federal election this time around more than probably ever before, because the big parties are actually discussing things of real importance to our national future. They are fiiiinally starting to question the merits of continuous rapid growth and consider the importance of a sustainable society.

We’ve never seen anything like this before. It is a milestone in Australian politics.

It is all pretty basic and flawed from both the Libs and Labs. But at least it is a move in the right direction, and not just a little move but a real paradigm shift…….maybe.

Or maybe it is just words designed to appease the now very large section of the Australian populace that have come to share the same sort of concerns that I first became involved with and vocal about in the late 80s.

For the first time in several elections, I am actually considering the possibility of voting for someone, rather than voting for no candidate because I have felt that they were so far off the rails with their fundamental philosophies.

Nice to hear I'm not the only one.

As far as I'm concerned it's like a choice between Hitler and Stalin. Let's hope we choose wisely.

It should also now be more apparent that what we think is a vibrant Democracy is nothing but a Plutarchy with a very limited number of choices put forward by whoever is really in charge of the circus.

Me to but.
Just maybe we should be very much aware of the impacts of this election.
No team offers us a great deal to hope on.
My side is staunchly sticking by the idiotic idea it will take years to make up our minds on ETS, offshore refugees processing and a great deal more.
Remember I am solid ALP ,but while this election will be won on who would be worse I do not think we can look for great outcomes.
Yes willingly give up the next few weeks get it over get the constant two sided waffle over.
This mornings headlines, Labors soft policy's, 90% of refugees given entry is true, every word of it.
But it is just one of many reasons the man who would not hear Kevin Rudd found his way out the door.
A lesson for our new government do what you say you will.

I watched Q and A last night on the ABC,
and I'm glad I did. Things again were
put into perspective for me.

Graham Richardson explained when asked
what he thought of the Debate - that with
the rules that the TV Station applies - its
virtually impossible to have a Debate of any
substance. They aren't allowed to interrupt
each other - and so it becomes a very polite,
boring "talk."

The point that Richo raised was - vote for the
Party that you think will be able to run the
country for the benefit of the people.
And that for me at least - that put things
into its right perspective. It's a no-brainer
really. One will bring back WorkChoices, (or an
equivalent), and save, save, save, which means
huge cuts in social services like health, hospitals,
education, pensions, jobs, et cetera. A step back
to the Howard years.

With the other, we at least have a chance of not losing
what we currently have - so we won't be any the worse
off. And hopefully, we'll be better off . Penny Wong
was excellent. And Malcolm Turnbull proved what a
loss the Liberal Party has in getting rid of him as
their Leader. The Greens, have a lot of explaining to do.
Their spokewoman was extremely aggressive but no substance.

Not a real choice, it would seem.

Thinker 2

You are certainly not alone. Just observe how much impact that pathetic 'debate' has had on peoples views on the 'policies' both put forward.

Most people are clearly not 'engaged' at all.

Ludwig is fired up as much on local issues, Dear Tony Moody, as anything else, is that a fair comment Ludwig, I was thinking of an earlier post of yours there?

Don't be fooled by Gillard's use of the as yet empty phrase 'sustainable'. She is certainly not talking about redesigning the economy at all, just trimming some of the excesses.

Living in a safe seat with a member whose politics I despise is not conducive to 'taking an interest', but I have also given up on reading any newspapers, which was a daily ritual, as the content therein has become 'content free' over the last few years.

I agree with Foxy that Turnbull should be back leading the Libs, preferably having dropped their drones from the Nats into the village duckpond they normally quack around, but I disagree with you Foxy on Milne.

I thought she gave a fairly spirited performance, and sounded somewhat more animated than I've ever seen her.

Wong did sound considerably better than when she was being interviewed by O'Brien and Jones during the lead up to Copenhagen, when her ability to communicate the message the government needed support for was never to be seen.

We have yet to 'move forward' from the Howard years though, in my view, and as for the rules of the debate, the parties do not have to participate on those terms.

But if the 'Fran' experiences, or Lateline ones are anything to go by, we need to prevent politicians from bullying their opponents in these two-bob debates.

I am sick of hearing Pyne and Bowen on Fran, with their petulant attacks on each other, and I've long given up bothering with the Lateline 'pollies debates' at the end of the week.

<< Just observe how much impact that pathetic 'debate' has had on peoples views on the 'policies' both put forward. >>

Blue Cross, I thought the debate wasn’t too bad. For me, Abbott was the clear winner because on two or three occasions, Gillard just didn’t address the questions put to her, but skirted around them in classic Rudd style.

<< Ludwig is fired up as much on local issues, Dear Tony Moody, as anything else, is that a fair comment… >>

I was most annoyed that my local Labor candidate is Tony Mooney, ex long-time mayor of Townsville, for whom I have no regard, which would make it extremely difficult to vote for Gillard. However, that aggravation seems to have passed, as Gillard is going backwards from a promising start.

I’m not hugely interested in local issues in relation to the federal election. The big-picture issues are my area of interest, particularly sustainability and population growth.

<< Don't be fooled by Gillard's use of the as yet empty phrase 'sustainable'. She is certainly not talking about redesigning the economy at all, just trimming some of the excesses. >>

Yes. Unfortunately I’ve got to agree.

But hey……….

[see next post]

It is really unfortunate that the good thinking people of OLO are finding this election campaign tedious and dull.

Hey, something pretty amazing is happening here, which has never happened before…

Both major parties are thinking about a sustainable society and questioning the fundamental doctrine of continuous rapid population growth.

This is of enormous importance. The election campaigns should resultantly be generating much more interest – much more than for past elections, by far!

It is imperative that the populace get behind the push for much lower population growth and sustainability.

Apathy in this new political climate is very unfortunate indeed, especially from astute and concerned people, of which many on OLO are.

Ludwig, I think you are right in saying that there are some really big issues being brought forward in this election like sustainability and growth. The real problem for the parties would seem to be two fold.
firstly they never actually say anything that is firm and clearly defined. Secondly, no one seems to be listening anymore.
I too am so bored with this election. The Tony and Julia show could cure insomnia. No vision, no leadership the only announcement that caught my attention was in disgust as Julia put another decision off to a labor gravy train sorry peoples forum.
Someone inspire me please or i will have to vote green to get a good argument going.

I am at the stage where I've just stopped listening...of course, the odd spouting gets through the filter...what was that about $2,000 to replace your old clunker with a new car? They'll be offering a free set of steak knives next.

Having said that, Julia is a consummate professional with the blah, blah, blah of politics. Tony...well, he hasn't really got it, if you know what I mean. He's not really leadership material, methinks. I fully expect that if Labor wins (a strong probability) that the Liberal Party will take up where it left off and reinstall Malcolm Turnbull - hopefully they can then set about giving us a decent opposition and get their act together solidly for the following election.

Ludwig... I am not going to try to disagree with you at all.

I think it's encouraging that someone sees something positive in the campaign.

I certainly believe we should be interested in it, and I always have been, up til now, but I really don't care who wins anymore because so little ever really changes for the better.

Gillard is such a two-faced politician, where as everyone knows that Abbott is a dead loss at the outset.

Having Rudd pretend he was not a neo-liberal has not helped credibility, I think.

The GFC, which we are paying for, should have been a wake up call, but it has not been at all.

No one is serious about changing how we conduct global business, and that shows up in the way politics is run.

The problem seems to be the parties themselves and whom they represent. It's not us !.

I'm relieved to know that so many agree(about being over it), so that I don't have to suffer my indifference alone.
It's also reassuring to know that so many devote some thought with regard to our national direction.

I can't help thinking that if Malcolm Turnbull had have remained leader of the Libs
and we passed an ETS we would now be having an election between Rudd and Turnbull.
Surely a far more palatable choice for most Australians now, and how different things would have been in a different Australia.

Even in the above situation we would still have the parties
(the unrepresentative swill they are), pulling the policy strings of possibly
the last 2 conviction politicians we'll ever see again in this country.

Do I have to vote ! ? no please , don't make me do it.

<< Do I have to vote ! ? no please , don't make me do it. >>

No you don’t have to, thinker.

If neither of these repulsive entities appeals to you, then don’t vote for either of them…..and don’t vote for any other candidate either, coz your vote will almost definitely filter down and end up counting for one of the two repugnant parties.

So go to the polling booth, get your name crossed off and then put in a blank ballot paper.

You don’t have to vote for the major party that you feel is slightly less evil than the other major party!

I wonder how are all the disillusioned people on this thread, which is probably a pretty good indication of the general community, are going to vote??

I bet the majority of them will vote directly for either Gillard or Abbott, despite really quite strongly disliking both of them, and having tuned out, will be voting for someone that they really don’t have much idea of what they are offering or how it compares with the other prime ministerial candidate.

When you think about it, this is pretty terrible.

If you are going to tune out, then you should put in a null vote, IMHO.

Don’t vote for a minor candidate because your vote will filter down and count for one of the two big buggers, such is the disgusting nature of our compulsory preferential voting system.

Just drop in a blank ballot paper.

Best to write something on the paper, for the benefit of the scrutineers if nothing else....doesn't have to be a vote it could be a slogan.

If it's a spoiled one, with an anti-politics slogan on it, it might amuse someone counting the votes, before it vanishes into the deep.

The Senate is worth taking time over, even if the lower house is deadwood, knowing that either Labor or the Coalition will be in there it hardly makes much difference.

But you can make them work for their votes if you fill the entire sheet out in the upper house.

Don't give up just yet, it's worth an effort.

It was not a debate, it was a structured question and answer thing.
Why while we think this formula was set by the TV was it so we would not see both leaders as they truly are?
Boring yes but made to be so by the format.
I while wanting that second term am asking why 5 weeks?
Surely most know who they want.
In a debate we may well have seen a winner, it could have been either one, but if we had elected a leader on that would it be the right way to do it?

I am afraid I am the same being once a bit of a political junkie myself, although I have to confess I still like to watch Insight, Insiders and Q&A. Lately I am turning off news perse in favour of great documentaries like Britannia last night with great photography.

There are many MPs with strong values and who look toward better democracy and accountability such as Senator Faulkner but even the good ones get swallowed up a bit in 'caucus solidariy' (as Graham Richardson put it), and the party machine. Not much room in that left for citizen participation.

The debate left most of us none-the-wiser with more of the same which was nothing of substance.

Thanks for your kind advice Ludwig, Pelican and TBC.

I had already suggested in another post that we should write "none of the above" on our ballot papers.
And the compulsory/preferential voting system is fraught with pitfalls, your right Ludwig.

Having said that, "is there any better way to make your vote felt by our politicians"?.

If I may recall a true story, in 1975. i corresponded with the Electoral people, saying
that I was refusing to vote in the upcoming election because of the absence of democracy.
The Dismissal etc.

I was then visited by two suited fellows with short haircuts,
who wanted know more about my refusal to vote.
I never really did find out where they were from, but their demeanour
was intimidatory for a young disaffected voter, at home alone.

By writing "none of the above" on your ballot paper we would be telling all politicians that their propositions for our future
are unsuitable. It would telling them to go back to the drawing board, this time lets leave the vested interests out of the room
and consider what is best for our children's future. This would only be truly affective if 50% of us or more did it.
Such are the limitations of democracy.

Of course now days we have more democracy, but the democracy we have is a crock.
Can anybody out there think of a better way to make democracy work, for once?.

My suggested political solutions above are somewhat tongue in cheek
but with looming crises hanging over Australia's future, is also problematic and serious.

With all the really important issues off the table and the red herring stuff on it (although population policy is important),
the choices are inadequate. Neither party is representative of it's constituents and democracy, once again,
deludes it's people into thinking their in control.

thinker 2 says:

"By writing "none of the above" on your ballot
paper we would be telling all politicians that
their propositions for our future are unsuitable.
It would telling them to go back to the drawing
board, this time lets leave the vested interests
out of the room and consider what is best for
our children's future."

thinker 2 then asks:

"Can anybody out there think of a better way
to make democracy work, for once?"

Here's my suggestion, thinker 2:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3820#93876 , and scroll to my following post.

That's how you cut all the puppet-strings and old loyalties/perceived obligations. If it's true that upwards of 50% of voters are as jaded and disillusioned as you suggest, and vote accordingly, then the people may return a non-party Parliament, from which a government could be formed.

Perhaps more importantly, was there to be any significant extent of fraudulent voting, such a move in circumstances of widespread community dissatisfaction with the major parties would almost surely bring any such fraud completely undone, for it would never have been planned to benefit such a maverick lot over whom those perpetrating it had no hold.

Of course at this point it might require some resetting of the electoral clock to achieve, but that is perhaps within the Governor-General's power to do, if circumstances warranted it. Circumstances may.

It might work, just once.

It is, I think, an offence in terms of the Electoral Act to encourage a person to vote informally at any election. Interestingly, it is not an offence, according to the AEC, to encourage a person to vote informally at a referendum. Ponder that one if you will.

Thank you ForrestGumpp, I read your link with great interest.

Ironically I discussed the matter of the "none of the above" vote with an accountant friend of mine today,
and he suggested that it should be an option on the ballot paper.

If your going to make voting compulsory and preferential and you consider this the correct way to conduct a democracy,
then it stands to reason that there should be a mechanism that provides the voters opportunity
to voice their discontent. If a majority of people do this, then the people have spoken.

If your going to force people to vote then you should be forced to accept their judgement.

This is of course more of a problem for the incumbents than an opposition because is represents a rejection
of the Govt's performance. If the "none of the above option" was ticked by most voters
an opposition would also quickly realise that it's own act is not up to scratch either.

I cant see any option for the major parties but to adopt a bi-partisan approach,
put the issues back on the table and find out/decide what it is we really want.
Instead of the the unrepresentative stuff they are serving up.

Realistically FG it will never happen, shame isn't it