7 ms·

WikiLeaks candidate quits upcoming Australian elections

50 points by apapli 13y ago

bentoner 13y ago
See a better explanation here: http://danielmathews.info/blog/2013/08/statement-of-resignation-from-wikileaks-party-national-council/ http://danielmathews.info/blog/2013/08/statement-of-resignat...
anigbrowl 13y ago
Australia implements a form of proportional representation where the votes of losing candidates in an election can be directed to other candidates who remain viable, so as to ensure they are not wasted even though they are no longer optimized. Candidates encourage their supporters to vote themselves #1, and give their second-preference votes to someone else, though voters are free to disregard this. In such a system, by voting for every candidate in order you can also make sure that your least favorite candidate is disadvantaged, essentially an explicit vote for 'anyone but X'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting 'white-anted' refers to erosion from within, as by termites. As for the particular events of the story, I am somewhat surprised (eg by the idea of giving preference to right-wing candidates), but also not. Assange's comment that Wikileaks is a party of accountability and not government sounds to me like a desire for power (as a kingmaker) without responsibility. The coalition structures that often emerge in proportional representation systems lend themselves to this sort of politicking.
- anthonyb 13y ago
  Politicking? I would see that as a good thing, and part of a healthy negotiation about issues, eg. transparency in government, the environment or civil rights. Compare that to the first-past-the-post systems of the UK and US, where there are essentially no minor parties with any hope of having a say.
  - mtrimpe 13y ago
    > first-past-the-post systems of the UK and US Also known as the 'choose between two dictators every couple of years' style of democracy.
    - mseebach 13y ago
      All mature democracies, regardless of the voting system, exhibit similar characteristics. The proportional representation systems prevalent in most of continental Europe don't return significantly different results from the FPTP systems in the US and UK.
      - mtrimpe 13y ago
        Having witnessed a party going from nothing [1] to becoming part of the coalition and the biggest party in the polls [2] in under a decade I'd beg to differ. That's not even taking into account the influence tiny parties can have merely by virtue of having a seat at the table and engaging in the discussions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom [2] http://www.powned.tv/nieuws/politiek/2013/08/peiling_coalitie_op_34_zetels.html http://www.powned.tv/nieuws/politiek/2013/08/peiling_coaliti...
        mseebach 13y ago
        The "Tea Party" movement did much the same thing inside the context of the Republican party in the US in roughly the same timeframe. Obviously, the mechanics are different (and, IMO, more colourful) in a multi-party system, but at the end of the day, Wilders can only decide to support Rutte as PM or, after applying the full might of his party, not supporting Rutte, who, never the less, remains PM. They are probably an important factor in shaping public debate, and thus, shaping general policy, but you don't need to be a member of parliament to do that and plenty of non-MPs in FPTP and PR systems alike do just that.
        mtrimpe 13y ago
- Tloewald 13y ago
  The Australian senate is elected by a different and more complex system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation Instant run-off is used for the house of representatives.
- ra 13y ago
  The preferencing of Family First and Hunters and Shooters was a (very, very big) balls up [1] and sadly, will likely lead to an implosion of the political party. [1] http://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/the-wikileaks-party-announces-independent-review/ http://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/the-wikileaks-party-announc...
  - mpyne 13y ago
    I was intrigued to find that the link required me to fill out a CAPTCHA to prove that "I'm a human". I wonder what the reason is that programs are disadvantaged from reading the site.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well, I'm not surprised at all (nor should any liberals be who understand Assange's expressed political views), though I agree with your diagnosis of reaching for the throne.
thomasfoster96 13y ago
Bloody hell we've got an interesting election on our hands. The Liberals and Abbott will triumph in the House of Reps and probably the Senate depending on preferences it seems. After that though, it's very interesting.
- mehwoot 13y ago
  and probably the Senate depending on preferences it seem Actually it's going to be an uphill battle for them in the senate. It is pretty hard to take outright control of the senate, especially with the good showing by Labor/Greens last election (since only half of the senate is up for reelection).
  - tomflack 13y ago
    "good showing"? I don't follow the actual makeup too much but labor have 31, the coalition 34 and the crossbench 11 with momentum swinging away from labor (and greens?) it seems like it's an uphill battle for labor to hold on to the current numbers.
    - mehwoot 13y ago
      That crossbench is made up of 9 greens, Xenophone and a DLP senator. Certainly Labor won't control the senate, but it's still a long way off the Liberals controlling it. If Labor + the Greens have 38 seats (which would be a loss of 2, which is well within projections currently as it is very hard to pick up senate seats and only 36/76 are up for reelection currently anyway) then they wouldn't be able to pass any legislation without either the Greens or Labor agreeing. If they pick up 3, they would need Xenophon or the DLP to agree.
aspensmonster 13y ago
Australian election politics sounds like a genuine labyrinth. And I thought the primary process in the US was difficult to wrap my head around. Compound this with what, according to bentoner's link [0], sounds like substantial internal conflict within the party, and I don't have high hopes for the success of the Wikileaks party in Australia this go 'round. Though honestly, it sounds like they're just discovering that a democratic, Kumbaya approach is anathema to actually getting anything done. It all works great when everyone agrees. When divisive decisions have to be made and stuck by? Not so much. Dr. Mathews appears to agree: >He really ought not to have set up a party with internal democracy. [0] http://danielmathews.info/blog/2013/08/statement-of-resignation-from-wikileaks-party-national-council/ http://danielmathews.info/blog/2013/08/statement-of-resignat... EDIT: Excerpt from Wikileaks party response https://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/the-wikileaks-party-announces-independent-review/ https://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/the-wikileaks-party-announ... >If we are unsuccessful in having the AEC adjust the submitted preference nominations to meet the National Council’s directives, we will release a “how to vote below the line” card so all supporters and voters can follow our true preference nominations, or select their own, so any remaining errors on our GVTs will not be passed on to our voters. If I'm understanding this right, the Australians have the privilege of instant run-off preferential voting, and still prefer to just vote party line? Could an Aussie please explain this phenomenon to me? Coming from the states, I'd be frothing at the mouth to have anything other than our absurd closed (depending on state) primary single-vote elections.
- anthonyb 13y ago
  It's not really a labyrinth, and in this case it sounds like someone's subverted the democratic process, ie. they voted one way, but whoever sent the preferences to the Electoral Commission switched them over. As far as the Australian preference system goes, you have a choice when voting in the lower house: You can pick one box above the line, in which case your preferences will get distributed by the party that you voted for, or you can vote "below the line", in which case you get to vote however you like. It seems odd to me too - I put it down to Australian laziness, ie. why number 60-odd boxes when you could back to the BBQ sucking back a few cold ones? :)
  - 13y ago
threeseed 13y ago
The Wikileaks party ought to be ashamed of themselves. Not only did they screw up majorly by preferencing hard-right parties ahead of the progressive Greens. But they betrayed Scott Ludlam in WA who was one of the only people to stand up for Assange. http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/19/wikileaks-partys-administrative-errors-incense-greens/ http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/19/wikileaks-partys-adminis...
- contingencies 13y ago
  If you had actually listened to the discussion, you would have heard Assange explain clearly why this is not the case. One person who had no chance of winning a position but who was entering politics for the first time and was an indigenous Australian was given a symbolic position above the Greens in WA preferences for the purpose of showing support for indigenous involvement in policy making. Obviously this has backfired due to people not understanding the reasoning, but it was never a threat to the Greens.
  - threeseed 13y ago
    I don't believe that just because David Wirrpanda is Aboriginal and a pretty fantastic guy by all accounts means that I should ignore the fact he is running as a National Party candidate.
    - contingencies 13y ago
      I'm not super keen on that either, but if Assange's statements are truthful (and compared to the average person involved with politics he's ... err ... not exactly known for dishonesty) then the fact remains it never influenced the Greens and the media coverage of this issue is completely out of proportion. In addition, the individual state party candidate should be the one queried on the decision, not Assange or the national Wikileaks Party effort. Ideal situation? No. Still the strongest player for enforcing useful and transparent decision making in Australian political systems? Yes. Of course, they will learn from this media storm for next time.

50 points by apapli 13y ago

See a better explanation here: http://danielmathews.info/blog/2013/08/statement-of-resignation-from-wikileaks-party-national-council/ http://danielmathews.info/blog/2013/08/statement-of-resignat...

anigbrowl 13y ago

Australia implements a form of proportional representation where the votes of losing candidates in an election can be directed to other candidates who remain viable, so as to ensure they are not wasted even though they are no longer optimized. Candidates encourage their supporters to vote themselves #1, and give their second-preference votes to someone else, though voters are free to disregard this. In such a system, by voting for every candidate in order you can also make sure that your least favorite candidate is disadvantaged, essentially an explicit vote for 'anyone but X'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting 'white-anted' refers to erosion from within, as by termites. As for the particular events of the story, I am somewhat surprised (eg by the idea of giving preference to right-wing candidates), but also not. Assange's comment that Wikileaks is a party of accountability and not government sounds to me like a desire for power (as a kingmaker) without responsibility. The coalition structures that often emerge in proportional representation systems lend themselves to this sort of politicking.

anthonyb 13y ago
Politicking? I would see that as a good thing, and part of a healthy negotiation about issues, eg. transparency in government, the environment or civil rights. Compare that to the first-past-the-post systems of the UK and US, where there are essentially no minor parties with any hope of having a say.
- mtrimpe 13y ago
  > first-past-the-post systems of the UK and US Also known as the 'choose between two dictators every couple of years' style of democracy.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    All mature democracies, regardless of the voting system, exhibit similar characteristics. The proportional representation systems prevalent in most of continental Europe don't return significantly different results from the FPTP systems in the US and UK.
    - mtrimpe 13y ago
      Having witnessed a party going from nothing [1] to becoming part of the coalition and the biggest party in the polls [2] in under a decade I'd beg to differ. That's not even taking into account the influence tiny parties can have merely by virtue of having a seat at the table and engaging in the discussions. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom [2] http://www.powned.tv/nieuws/politiek/2013/08/peiling_coalitie_op_34_zetels.html http://www.powned.tv/nieuws/politiek/2013/08/peiling_coaliti...
      - mseebach 13y ago
        The "Tea Party" movement did much the same thing inside the context of the Republican party in the US in roughly the same timeframe. Obviously, the mechanics are different (and, IMO, more colourful) in a multi-party system, but at the end of the day, Wilders can only decide to support Rutte as PM or, after applying the full might of his party, not supporting Rutte, who, never the less, remains PM. They are probably an important factor in shaping public debate, and thus, shaping general policy, but you don't need to be a member of parliament to do that and plenty of non-MPs in FPTP and PR systems alike do just that.
        mtrimpe 13y ago
Tloewald 13y ago
The Australian senate is elected by a different and more complex system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation Instant run-off is used for the house of representatives.
ra 13y ago
The preferencing of Family First and Hunters and Shooters was a (very, very big) balls up [1] and sadly, will likely lead to an implosion of the political party. [1] http://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/the-wikileaks-party-announces-independent-review/ http://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/the-wikileaks-party-announc...
- mpyne 13y ago
  I was intrigued to find that the link required me to fill out a CAPTCHA to prove that "I'm a human". I wonder what the reason is that programs are disadvantaged from reading the site.
mpyne 13y ago
Well, I'm not surprised at all (nor should any liberals be who understand Assange's expressed political views), though I agree with your diagnosis of reaching for the throne.

thomasfoster96 13y ago

Bloody hell we've got an interesting election on our hands. The Liberals and Abbott will triumph in the House of Reps and probably the Senate depending on preferences it seems. After that though, it's very interesting.

mehwoot 13y ago
and probably the Senate depending on preferences it seem Actually it's going to be an uphill battle for them in the senate. It is pretty hard to take outright control of the senate, especially with the good showing by Labor/Greens last election (since only half of the senate is up for reelection).
- tomflack 13y ago
  "good showing"? I don't follow the actual makeup too much but labor have 31, the coalition 34 and the crossbench 11 with momentum swinging away from labor (and greens?) it seems like it's an uphill battle for labor to hold on to the current numbers.
  - mehwoot 13y ago
    That crossbench is made up of 9 greens, Xenophone and a DLP senator. Certainly Labor won't control the senate, but it's still a long way off the Liberals controlling it. If Labor + the Greens have 38 seats (which would be a loss of 2, which is well within projections currently as it is very hard to pick up senate seats and only 36/76 are up for reelection currently anyway) then they wouldn't be able to pass any legislation without either the Greens or Labor agreeing. If they pick up 3, they would need Xenophon or the DLP to agree.

aspensmonster 13y ago

Australian election politics sounds like a genuine labyrinth. And I thought the primary process in the US was difficult to wrap my head around. Compound this with what, according to bentoner's link [0], sounds like substantial internal conflict within the party, and I don't have high hopes for the success of the Wikileaks party in Australia this go 'round. Though honestly, it sounds like they're just discovering that a democratic, Kumbaya approach is anathema to actually getting anything done. It all works great when everyone agrees. When divisive decisions have to be made and stuck by? Not so much. Dr. Mathews appears to agree: >He really ought not to have set up a party with internal democracy. [0] http://danielmathews.info/blog/2013/08/statement-of-resignation-from-wikileaks-party-national-council/ http://danielmathews.info/blog/2013/08/statement-of-resignat... EDIT: Excerpt from Wikileaks party response https://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/the-wikileaks-party-announces-independent-review/ https://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/the-wikileaks-party-announ... >If we are unsuccessful in having the AEC adjust the submitted preference nominations to meet the National Council’s directives, we will release a “how to vote below the line” card so all supporters and voters can follow our true preference nominations, or select their own, so any remaining errors on our GVTs will not be passed on to our voters. If I'm understanding this right, the Australians have the privilege of instant run-off preferential voting, and still prefer to just vote party line? Could an Aussie please explain this phenomenon to me? Coming from the states, I'd be frothing at the mouth to have anything other than our absurd closed (depending on state) primary single-vote elections.

anthonyb 13y ago
It's not really a labyrinth, and in this case it sounds like someone's subverted the democratic process, ie. they voted one way, but whoever sent the preferences to the Electoral Commission switched them over. As far as the Australian preference system goes, you have a choice when voting in the lower house: You can pick one box above the line, in which case your preferences will get distributed by the party that you voted for, or you can vote "below the line", in which case you get to vote however you like. It seems odd to me too - I put it down to Australian laziness, ie. why number 60-odd boxes when you could back to the BBQ sucking back a few cold ones? :)
- 13y ago

threeseed 13y ago

The Wikileaks party ought to be ashamed of themselves. Not only did they screw up majorly by preferencing hard-right parties ahead of the progressive Greens. But they betrayed Scott Ludlam in WA who was one of the only people to stand up for Assange. http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/19/wikileaks-partys-administrative-errors-incense-greens/ http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/19/wikileaks-partys-adminis...

contingencies 13y ago
If you had actually listened to the discussion, you would have heard Assange explain clearly why this is not the case. One person who had no chance of winning a position but who was entering politics for the first time and was an indigenous Australian was given a symbolic position above the Greens in WA preferences for the purpose of showing support for indigenous involvement in policy making. Obviously this has backfired due to people not understanding the reasoning, but it was never a threat to the Greens.
- threeseed 13y ago
  I don't believe that just because David Wirrpanda is Aboriginal and a pretty fantastic guy by all accounts means that I should ignore the fact he is running as a National Party candidate.
  - contingencies 13y ago
    I'm not super keen on that either, but if Assange's statements are truthful (and compared to the average person involved with politics he's ... err ... not exactly known for dishonesty) then the fact remains it never influenced the Greens and the media coverage of this issue is completely out of proportion. In addition, the individual state party candidate should be the one queried on the decision, not Assange or the national Wikileaks Party effort. Ideal situation? No. Still the strongest player for enforcing useful and transparent decision making in Australian political systems? Yes. Of course, they will learn from this media storm for next time.