Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikileaks Party Making Questionable Deals In Attempt To Win Senate Seat

Soulskill posted 1 year,7 days | from the strange-bedfellows dept.

Australia 162

An anonymous reader writes "The Brisbane Times notes that 'Julian Assange's Wikileaks Party has come under fire for directing its preferences to the Shooters and Fishers Party and the white nationalist Australia First Party ahead of both major parties and the Greens in the NSW Senate race. Australia First's policies include reducing and limiting immigration and "abolishing multiculturalism." The chairman of Australia First, Jim Saleam, is a former neo-Nazi who was convicted in the late 1980s of organizing a shotgun attack on the home of an Australian representative of the African National Congress. WikiLeaks candidates in NSW include human rights activist Kellie Tranter.' The Wikileaks Party blamed the outcome on administrative problems. This is drawing further criticism."

cancel ×

162 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It do (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625115)

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
They think it don't be like it is,
But it do.

So what? (0, Offtopic)

stanlyb (1839382) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625123)

What is best? Stay in home and hoping that no bored neighbourn will kill you, or actually go out, make mistakes, and, guess what, be a human being? A Man? But not THE man of course.

Re:So what? (3, Funny)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625365)

What is best? Stay in home and hoping that no bored neighbourn will kill you, or actually go out, make mistakes, and, guess what, be a human being? A Man? But not THE man of course.

Yes. Who cares what politicians do? If Wikileaks stands for anything, it stands for "Politicians make mistakes, let's just all move on and ignore them. So what?"

Re:So what? (2)

stanlyb (1839382) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625411)

Nope, it says, YES, we are human beings, we make mistakes, and we solve them. Unlike the rest of the world who never in their life sped up, or crossed the street on red light.
But you man, keep swimming, it is not a fish.

Not a mistake (1, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626205)

The rumour is that the "mistake" is that the wikileaks party doesn't like the greens as much as the greens think they should. Assange is on the record as liking many of Ron and Rand Paul's ideas which are the antithesis of what the greens stand for but some of those preferenced stand for.
So nothing to see here, and the "mistake" and "administrative error" are just a way to try to brush it all off after the fact without a heated argument.

Re:So what? (1, Insightful)

Presto Vivace (882157) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626119)

Considering that Assange admires Ron Paul, mebbe this should not come as a surprise. Mebbe Assange makes a better publisher/trouble-maker than he does political leader.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44626407)

What is best? Stay in home and hoping that no bored neighbourn will kill you, or actually go out, make mistakes, and, guess what, be a human being? A Man? But not THE man of course.

Offtopic, I know. But this is just to show that travelling to some parts of the world isn't as safe from bored neighbourhood kids [heraldsun.com.au] as one would like to believe

Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (-1, Flamebait)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625131)

Aren't they about everything being out in the open?

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (5, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625181)

Preferences are public knowledge. It was out in the open - how do you think people know about it? Investigative reporting? In Australia? Heh.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (2, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625445)

Preferences are public knowledge. It was out in the open - how do you think people know about it? Investigative reporting? In Australia? Heh.

While I don't necessarily agree with Wikileaks, the fact is that when your opponents take the 'victory at any cost' approach -- as evidenced by the overreaction to Snowden, Manning, Assange, etc., then it's pretty much a given that you're going to have to make "questionable deals" at some point. Honor is a luxury in war; If your oppoents don't have it, then they'll just use yours against you.

Sometimes, you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625599)

Honor is a luxury in war...you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.

NO! Honor is not a commodity to be traded. Never lower yourself to the level of what you fine questionable and definitely don't justify it by believing it's for the "greater good." Your words read like justification for "enhanced interrogation."

captcha: chivalry

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44626055)

What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. If you don't live by the rules you profess, you're a hypocrite.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626357)

Welcome to politics. I see you're new here...

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (2, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625681)

Does that really apply in this case? This is a political race in Australia. Manning and Snowden have nothing to do with it, different issues, different country.

It seems to be they may be making bad deals, for no good reason, that will cost them in the future. At the very least it seems that they may marginalize themselves and alienate the very groups that you would expect to be natural allies.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (4, Insightful)

Type44Q (1233630) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625759)

Does that really apply in this case? This is a political race in Australia. Manning and Snowden have nothing to do with it, different issues, different country.

If you've been following what's been taking place in Australia over the past decade or so, and if you're not a scumbag shill (mind you, I'm not saying you aren't), then you'd know that they have everything to do with it.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44626053)

Please feel free to cite any references to whatever idea you are alluding to. You're implying that Manning and Snowden are somehow involved with the political race in Australia but have nothing to back it up. This google search shows nothing.
http://google.com/search?hl=en&q=snowden%20politics%20australia
http://google.com/search?hl=en&q=manning%20politics%20australia

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626517)

I see you are trying to "persuade" me by threatening to call names. Not very persuasive. I've seen shills use that tactic. (Mind you, I'm not saying you are.) Feel free to provide any facts and arguments to bolster your position that you care to add.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625909)

It has everything to do with the freedom to communicate.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (3, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625941)

If you're fighting for principles, you don't align yourself with people of radically opposed principles because that's not going to help you accomplish anything. So we're either faced with the idea that the Wikileaks party feels that its principles are closer to the Hunters and Fishers and the white nationalists than either major party or the Greens.

The other possibility is that they're not fighting for principles.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (1)

dbIII (701233) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626235)

Wikileaks party feels that its principles are closer to the Hunters and Fishers and the white nationalists than either major party or the Greens

Yes, see also Assange's comments about Ron Paul. Wikileaks are not the Greens.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (2)

Silentknyght (1042778) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626147)

Preferences are public knowledge. It was out in the open - how do you think people know about it? Investigative reporting? In Australia? Heh.

While I don't necessarily agree with Wikileaks, the fact is that when your opponents take the 'victory at any cost' approach -- as evidenced by the overreaction to Snowden, Manning, Assange, etc., then it's pretty much a given that you're going to have to make "questionable deals" at some point. Honor is a luxury in war; If your oppoents don't have it, then they'll just use yours against you.

Sometimes, you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.

This has got to be sarcasm. Read what you just wrote and pretend it's the US Government making that statement.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626267)

Sometimes, you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.

Yeah, sometimes you just gotta slap people around a little bit... knock some sense into 'em...

Well played. sir. I salute you. (5, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626345)

Sometimes, you have to become the villain in order to achieve an even greater good.

The end justifies the means.

The perfect Godwinism never mentions the National Socialist German Workers' Party by name. It simply expresses its core values in their purist form.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (1)

TranquilVoid (2444228) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626603)

While I don't necessarily agree with Wikileaks, the fact is that when your opponents take the 'victory at any cost' approach [...] you're going to have to make "questionable deals" at some point.

It's not even that in some cases. Politics is about brokering compromise to best achieve your goals. Because the game is so competitive it leads to the seemingly ironic situation that you can best achieve your goals by helping those whose goals are far away from yours, with the aim of cutting out those who are closest to you. This works because those closest to you in ideals are your biggest competitors.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44626689)

What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you really suggesting that they have to make "questionable deals" in an Australian election, because somehow "NSA SNOWDEN POLICE STATE BUSH SWEDISH RAPE!!!!1111!!!ONE!1!"?

Assange's "questionable deal" was struck with the government of Ecuador. Pray tell, what does the Wikileaks' party preferential support for thugs and convicted criminals in a senate election in NSW have to do with any of that?

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (3, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625369)

I really don't understand why Julian Assange is running for Senate in the coming election. Even if (somehow) he were to score sufficient votes/preferences to get in, there is no way he can ever take his seat. In order to do that, he has to be sworn-in in person.

If (as is likely) he does poorly in the election, that will amount to a slap in the face for both himself and Wikileaks. His dignity and personal standing are already in question, so I fail to see the purpose in a hollow election campaign.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625459)

He's doing it to pimp his new movie.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625491)

Maybe if he is elected to the Senate he gets some diplomatic status which will enable him to leave the UK.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625537)

... only to be arrested and extradited to Sweden from Australia.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625697)

He would make a dive for Ecuador and we would never hear from him again.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626207)

I doubt he would make that trip alone.
He's already made his game known.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (2)

BrokenHalo (565198) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625687)

It won't. There are already Australian politicians facing court on criminal charges at the moment, and Assange certainly will not be granted any kind of immunity, given the record of both major parties when it comes to licking the ass of the US government.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (3, Insightful)

GumphMaster (772693) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625749)

There is no requirement in Section 42 of the Australian Constitution that the oath or affirmation of office be taken in Australia or that the Governor-General takes it in person. The GG can take Assange's oath in London personally or appoint someone else to do it. Unusual but possible.

If Julian Assange were elected he could wait until the 1 July date for taking up his seat and resign his Senate position (Section 19) or wait for it to be declared vacant (Section 20). Then under Section 15 another Wikileaks Party member would be appointed to hold the seat. Typically this would be the next highest-polling Wikileaks candidate but need not be. The Wikileaks Party is running three candidates in the Senate election for Victoria so they will have a fall back option.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (4, Insightful)

xQx (5744) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625805)

There is a legal requirement for him to physically attend when the senate sits. There is a limited number of sittings that he can miss before his seat is decalared vacant. (I think you covered this)

I expect his strategy is to get elected, then call on the Australian government / Australian Military to explain how they are sitting idly by while the UK and USA prevent an Australian Senator from executing his elected responsibilities.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625891)

The GG can take Assange's oath in London personally or appoint someone else to do it.

Maybe she could ask the Queen to pop around to the Ecuadorian embassy on the way back from visiting the grandkids or something.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626007)

I dare say Her Majesty could invite herself around as the GG is only acting in a capacity as Her Majesty's representative.

I would not be surprised to see a challenge under Section 44(i) if he were elected. The section declares invalid as a Senator any person who

(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power:

(Italics are mine).

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626059)

entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power

Yeah

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (1)

Chuq (8564) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625887)

If a Senator retires or dies in office, he is replaced by a member of his own party. It could be as simple as Assange trying to win a seat on his name recognition, then substitute the 2nd name on his parties' ticket.

Re:Why wasn't this leaked by Wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625641)

Who, Wikileaks? Since when? They're about anonymity of informants, and information on crimes and corruption being out in the open.

White countries for everyone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625143)

Black countries for blacks.
Asian countries for Asians.
White countries for everyone.

Re:White countries for everyone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625203)

If talking about Nordic countries that would make some sense at least, but this is Australia.

Re:White countries for everyone. (1)

Desler (1608317) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625263)

Australia is a white country? Since when were the aboriginals white in Australia?

Re:White countries for everyone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625355)

Australia is a white country?

Australia is mostly red.

Re:White countries for everyone. (0)

xQx (5744) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625427)

Perhaps you didn't study history.

White man came, we had guns. They had sticks. There was a war, it was very short, we won. There were survivors, so we gave them gifts of alcohol and petrol.
We don't talk about this part of our history in polite company.

The English didn't want to say there was a war, so they said "Terra Nullius".

Many years later a bunch of the more coherent Aboriginals kicked up a stink about this, which resulted in an empty apology from the government of the time.

Everything is sweet now between the old owners of our land, and the new.

Now, Aboriginals make up 2.3% of the population - hardly the ruling party (especially when at least 20% of this population has chronic drinking problems [source:ABS]).

We are all Australians now, most of us are white. Of those who are elected 99% are white.

Re:White countries for everyone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625663)

You can't let empty headed southern sand niggers make policy. That'd be insane.

Re:White countries for everyone. (3, Informative)

GumphMaster (772693) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625953)

Australian Aborigines have never been of white skin. Only 2.5% of the Australian population is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (down from 100% in 1787) but were not counted for federal government purposes until 1967 when Section 121 of our constitution was amended. The top five ancestries are English, Australian, Irish, Scottish, and Italian making up more than 68% of the respondents (http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/0?opendocument&navpos=220) The last overtly "White Australia Policy" legislation favouring white-only immigration was not dismantled until 1973.

WIkileaks party, what a joke (2)

Virtucon (127420) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625193)

Yeah political influence has done Assange well in his little room at the Ecuadorian Embassy. I can see them trying anything to get political influence anywhere, so this doesn't surprise me one bit.

Re:WIkileaks party, what a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625321)

Assange is not Wikileaks.

Re:WIkileaks party, what a joke (1)

Alimony Pakhdan (1855364) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625555)

Just dont tell him that.

The problems with seeking political power (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625559)

Is that you can measure success by the number of compromising positions you take.

Again and Again (4, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625211)

Once again Julian Assange shows that his primary focus is the elevation of Julian Assange.

Re:Again and Again (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625231)

Prepare to be downmodded for speaking against the groupthink.

Re:Again and Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625271)

Always has been. If he could be the spokesperson for the fascist party, if it got him fame/power, he would have.

Politics here (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625335)

Once again Julian Assange shows that his primary focus is the elevation of Julian Assange.

We're talking politics here - getting allies.

If you really think that the WikiLeaks party or any party that's not mainstream can walk in and achieve their goals on their own, then you are sadly mistaken.

These parties they are teaming up with may not be the most PC parties out there, but they do have a presence in the Australian Legislature. And one can get things done with friends.

So, the WikiLeaks party can have their one or two people screaming in the wind or have some political clout - even if it means teaming up with Nazis or what have you.

And let's face it, WikiLeaks isn't exactly the best organization to be associated with these days. They don't have too many friends.

As far as Assange is concerned, is he even involved with WikiLeaks anymore?

You see weird alliances all the time in politics. Sometimes two different organizations have the same goal and what better thing to do than to team up and achieve it.

Re:Politics here (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625419)

You and Assange feel that the ends justify the means, no matter what. I disagree. I think that if you have to compromise your morals to get what you want, your victory is hollow and worthless.

Re:Politics here (1)

Immerman (2627577) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626013)

So then the question becomes: is a hollow, worthless victory worth more than defeat?

Compromise is the nature of human interactions - just try to get three people to order one pizza without it. When you're dealing with something that tends to have heavy moral implications, like say politics and the law, some of those compromises will *have* to be moral. It's ugly, it's wrong, but good luck making a difference as the only honest man on the battlefield.

Not that we don't need good and pure people to lead a movement, but you don't put them in the halls of corrupted power any more than you put your philosophers and scholars on the battlefield - the required skill sets don't really overlap much. Instead you send soldiers (politicians), you do everything you can to maintain their loyalty, and retire them before the bloodlust sets in too deeply. And then one day, once the war is won, then maybe you can put your saints upon the throne. If you are foolish enough to wish to. If they are foolish enough to accept it without being chained.

Re:Politics here (1)

Pav (4298) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626499)

...just like how the WWII victory was hollow and worthless because of the alliance with the communists against the nazis. Ooops... I think I just Godwin'd the thread. :-/

Re:Politics here (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626779)

Actually, none of the western allies ever decided to form an alliance with Soviet Russia. The British found themselves in a de facto alliance with them when Germany declared war with the Soviet Union, and the US found itself in the same position when Germany declared war on the US, the day after the American declaration of war against Japan.

Re:Again and Again (4, Insightful)

batkiwi (137781) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625913)

What does this have to do with Assange directly?He is only one of 7 wikileaks candidtates, and he is running in Queensland.

This story is about preferences in New South Wales. The wikileaks candidates in NSW are Kellie Tranter and Alison Broinowski.

Re:Again and Again (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626045)

What does this have to do with Assange directly?He is only one of 7 wikileaks candidtates, and he is running in Queensland.

I think that is nutty. Queensland is the home of fringe political parties, and right wing voters. Assange has ties in Victoria and would surely find more voters among the tech and academic industries here.

Re:Again and Again (3, Informative)

Liam Pomfret (1737150) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626125)

What does this have to do with Assange directly?He is only one of 7 wikileaks candidtates, and he is running in Queensland.

Incorrect. Assange is running in Victoria. The Wikileaks Party isn't fielding any candidates in Queensland whatsoever.

In all of this bullshit, there's only one question (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625331)

Who's the patsy? Who's the player?

Okay, two, TWO questions!

Questioning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625363)

Since when hasn't one person or another been questioning wikileaks decisions. And for a variety of things.

Anyway, I'm an American. I don't care about or understand British politics.

Re:Questioning... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625863)

Anyway, I'm an American. I don't care about or understand British politics.

This is about Australian politics.

All minor parties are teaming together (5, Informative)

Yynatago (734843) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625391)

No surprise here. All the minor parties are doing the same thing. The Australian sex party is preferencing Pauline Hanson's Australia First Party ahead of Greens.

Re:All minor parties are teaming together (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625473)

You'd think that Julian Assange's party would be a natural fit with the Sex party.

Re:All minor parties are teaming together (3, Insightful)

xQx (5744) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625535)

They are actually. The Sex Party, The Pirate Party and The Wikileaks Party have very similar pro-civil-rights views.
But they don't preference each other as 1,2 & 3.

Preferencing stopped being about shared values a long time ago. It still is a *little* about shared values, but this year the primary opposition party (LNP) has preferenced their mortal enemy, the ALP, above all other parties.

Preferencing strategy goes like this: If a party higher than me on the ticket gets votes but doesn't win, I get their votes.
Preferencing negotiations go like this: "I'll put you down as "2" on my ticket, if you put me down as "2" on yours."

So, preferencing for minor parties in reality works like this:

Approach all the parties that you think will be popular, but not popular enough to actually win, and try to get as high as possible in their preferences.
Try not to sell your soul in the process, or align with any parties that will cause you to loose face.

The Wikileaks Party, who are new to politics forgot the last bit, and is now in damage control.

Re:All minor parties are teaming together (4, Informative)

Liam Pomfret (1737150) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626145)

No surprise here. All the minor parties are doing the same thing.

Some parties are. Not all of them. The Pirate Party in particular opted out of those deals, and allocated preferences according to a vote of the membership. The party has also published its preferencing process online, which you can read at http://pirateparty.org.au/2013/08/18/preferencing-statement-for-federal-election-2013/ [pirateparty.org.au]

Re:All minor parties are teaming together (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44626801)

Labour and Liberal used to both direct their preferences toward the Greens to try to show how environmentally friendly they are, until accidentally, (from their point of view) it resulted in a Greens candidate winning a lower house seat at the last federal election. Since then, both of the major parties have been putting the Greens last in their preferences in order to prevent that from happening again.

It bugs the shit out of me that the deals these fucks make between each other is as important as how people vote in determining who gets elected.

Re:All minor parties are teaming together (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626841)

It bugs the shit out of me that the deals these fucks make between each other is as important as how people vote in determining who gets elected.

And with all this going on, many young, foolish, ill-educated liberals (but I repeat myself) still go on and on about how much better the Australian system is that the "first past the post" American system. My guess is that they're talking about how it should work (in some imaginary "perfect world") instead of how it actually does work.

That won't make any difference. (4, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625395)

I am an Australian voter and I can't imagine a wikileaks voter following a how to vote card. If they have somebody handing them out in East Brunswick I might pick one up for the lulz, but thats all.

Re:That won't make any difference. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625737)

Above the line voting means you automatically follow the party's how to vote.

Re:That won't make any difference. (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625853)

Again, a voter for wikileaks would have to be pretty savvy about the voting system so I would be surprised they vote above the line. I never have. Its a pain but I would rather have control over who I vote for.

And this is a surprise? For "me Me ME!" Assange? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44625503)

Neo-Nazis? How much worse can they get?

I'm beginning to the Assange is really nothing more than a self-centered anarchist bent on using people.

Re:And this is a surprise? For "me Me ME!" Assange (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625523)

I'm beginning to the Assange is really nothing more than a self-centered anarchist bent on using people.

Which of course, makes him eleventy-billion times more evil than the worst police state.

Re:And this is a surprise? For "me Me ME!" Assange (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44626161)

I'm beginning to the Assange is really nothing more than a self-centered anarchist bent on using people.

Which of course, makes him eleventy-billion times more evil than the worst police state.

Strawman much?

What it does do, though, is make Assange not worth listening to.

Re:And this is a surprise? For "me Me ME!" Assange (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626625)

Who's listening to Assange? I didn't know he was even saying anything.

My interest is in the revelations coming from people other than Assange. They are worth listening to, or the government's security apparatus wouldn't be working so hard to make them go away.

If the things Snowden has said aren't true, wouldn't you expect the government to say, "That's not true!" Instead, you get stuttering and lying and retractions and more lying and silence and misdirection. And a worldwide effort to get their hands on the whistleblowers for prosecution.

That's the best indication that the leaks are true.

Politiricks (1)

Alimony Pakhdan (1855364) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625605)

For those who dont follow Australian politics, the Greens are also in on the whole "yay white people, boo everyone else" thing.

Re:Politiricks (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44626231)

PLease explain?

It's not about Assange, or Wikileaks (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625625)

Amateur politicians doing amateur things is not as dangerous as a global police state.

I'd gladly read a story every day about what a knucklehead Julian Assange is, if I could be certain that an out-of-control surveillance apparatus is not upskirting every conversation everybody has, even those of the most private, personal nature.

Fuck Julian Assange. He's nothing, nobody. He's not 1/100th as significant as the least of the leakers.

Today, we have a story about a long-time blogger - a serious person, doing seriously good work - is closing down a widely-read web site because she can no longer expect privacy in communications, in the United States of America. We had the founders and operators of an encrypted mail system, Lavabit, close their business and not be able to even say why under threat of prosecution.

Who knew that Aaron Schwartz was so far ahead of his time, now that important online businesses are following his lead.

If you can not be private, you cannot, in any sense, be free.

Let's see what Primo Levi has to say on the matter:

One way of beginning to understand privacy is by looking at what happens to people in extreme situations where it is absent. Recalling his time in Auschwitz, Primo Levi observed that "solitude in a Camp is more precious and rare than bread." Solitude is one state of privacy, and even amidst the overwhelming death, starvation, and horror of the camps, Levi knew he missed it.... Levi spent much of his life finding words for his camp experience. How, he wonders aloud in Survival in Auschwitz, do you describe "the demolition of a man," an offense for which "our language lacks words."...

One function of privacy is to provide a safe space away from terror or other assaultive experiences. When you remove a person's ability to sequester herself, or intimate information about herself, you make her extremely vulnerable....

The totalitarian state watches everyone, but keeps its own plans secret. Privacy is seen as dangerous because it enhances resistance. Constantly spying and then confronting people with what are often petty transgressions is a way of maintaining social control and unnerving and disempowering opposition....

And even when one shakes real pursuers, it is often hard to rid oneself of the feeling of being watched -- which is why surveillance is an extremely powerful way to control people. The mind's tendency to still feel observed when alone... can be inhibiting. ... Feeling watched, but not knowing for sure, nor knowing if, when, or how the hostile surveyor may strike, people often become fearful, constricted, and distracted.

[h/t Groklaw]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175 [groklaw.net]

Re:It's not about Assange, or Wikileaks (0)

BitZtream (692029) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626495)

Worshipping Assange and Wikileaks while ignoring they are entirely politically focused and doing nothing more than pushing their own personal agendas ... awesome, you want to replace the old boss with the same new boss because you're too ignorant to recognize the new guy is doing the same shit the old guys used to get into office.

Re:It's not about Assange, or Wikileaks (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626609)

You didn't read a word I wrote, did you?

Shooting and Sex Party at my place!!! (1)

Dantoo (176555) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625725)

You'd have to vote for the Sex Party and the Shooters Party right! Gotta be a great weekend right there! Leaking on the the wikis not-so-much.

Below the line (4, Informative)

batkiwi (137781) | 1 year,7 days | (#44625877)

Anyone who is actually voting for wikileaks will likely be well informed and voting below the line anyways.

For those not familiar with australian voting, we have preferential instant runoff first past the pole voting.

You can either vote "above the line," where you select ONE party, and that party decides how your preferences fall if they don't win a seat, or you can vote "below the line," where you number individual candidates "1, 2, 3.....".

Cognitive Dissonance (1)

westlake (615356) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626449)

Anyone who is actually voting for wikileaks will likely be well informed and voting below the line anyways.

But what does it tell the voter who reads above the line and discovers some very uncomfortable truths about the alliances you have made. Is he voting Wikileaks or he is voting Fascist? Which is the real you?

Re:Below the line (1)

BitZtream (692029) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626505)

No one voting for Wikileaks can possibly be considered informed. Retarded perhaps, informed, not so much.

Re:Below the line (1)

quarrelinastraw (771952) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626719)

Anyone who is actually voting for wikileaks will likely be well informed and voting below the line anyways.

For those not familiar with australian voting, we have preferential instant runoff first past the pole voting.

You can either vote "above the line," where you select ONE party, and that party decides how your preferences fall if they don't win a seat, or you can vote "below the line," where you number individual candidates "1, 2, 3.....".

So, effectively this ensures that anybody voting for Wikileaks is voting their preferences. Since the above the line preferences are unpopular, voters can't just vote on the party line. Or else they'll possibly get white supremacists in office. Instead they have to rank the candidates *as they'd actually like to see them governing* instead of a more accurate approximation than otherwise. Even though they want votes, they can't rationally want votes from people who just follow a party line, since that creates an environment where party politics thrive and transparency is reduced.

That's just an academic point though, I have no idea whether it is relevant to their thought process.

Re:Below the line (1)

quarrelinastraw (771952) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626729)

"instead of a more accurate" should be "or at least a more accurate."

Hunters and Fishers (1)

Broken scope (973885) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626109)

Can someone explain what is so Objectionable about the Hunters and Fishers party that it needed to be grouped with an obviously racist white nationalist organization? I'm not really finding any thing all that objectionable about the hunters and fishers.

Re:Hunters and Fishers (3, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626121)

They are the Australian gun lobby (like the US NRA sort of) and not regarded very well. I always put them last along with the "fathers who don't want to pay child support" and the anti immigration groups.

Re:Hunters and Fishers (1)

mjwx (966435) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626751)

They are the Australian gun lobby (like the US NRA sort of) and not regarded very well. I always put them last along with the "fathers who don't want to pay child support" and the anti immigration groups.

Not quite.

Whilst being pro-gun, they aren't as gung ho and batshit insane as the US NRA. Their policy lines are more based on sport than self defence. Personally I put Shooters and Fishers above Lib/Nat (I vote below the line).

As a third party, they help prevent one party from ruling by fiat.

But I agree with you about the anti-immigration groups although Shooters and Fishers shouldn't really be lumped in with them.

Re:Hunters and Fishers (1)

LordLucless (582312) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626293)

They're to the political right, and the submitter obviously leans left.

If you read the article, it seems the people Wikileaks are "coming under fire" from are the Greens (who are pretty much the Australian left-wing these days), because they wanted Wikileaks preferences and didn't get them.

Every underdog movement makes unholy alliances (1)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626157)

Every underdog movement since the 1st century AD has made alliances with parties and groups they otherwise despise. If this were not a fair tactic, the overdog would never get displaced. Being outraged at this is thew mark of a total naive and frankly, a historically illiterate. It is important to read about history or at least watch some shows on TV or something so you don't end up looking like a dope when you speak.

This is just how change happens.

Re:Every underdog movement makes unholy alliances (1)

jodido (1052890) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626437)

False. No revolutionary movement worth of the name, from Marx to the July 26th Movement, did anything of the sort.

Oh REALLY Brisbane Times? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626369)

Oh really? Are they making questionable, backroom deals, playing dirty politics, and generally PLAYING THE GAME as its PLAYED EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE since civilization was created? Oh, the humanity! Maybe they dress like a pack of rabid south african body builders wearing creepy breathing masks and plotting revenge on the world so we can get the full effect of their evil.

I voted for them Yesterday (1)

BatGnat (1568391) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626531)

I voted for them Yesterday, (i.e. filled in my postal vote). Numbered all boxes below the line 1 to 110. Wikileaks, then the Pirate Party....

Just strategy... (1)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626773)

By directing preferences away from the Greens, Wikileaks improves its chances. Only marginally, but I suppose the rationale for the decision was that "every little bit helps."

The surprise here is that they didn't come clean on it, given the irony that creates. ...and yes, Wikileaks is only assumed to be a left-wing party, which is an error. Libertarianism is right-wing.

do77 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#44626777)

irc.easynews.com for me8bership. OF AMERICA irc house... pathetic.

Lets be clear about preferences (2)

dwywit (1109409) | 1 year,7 days | (#44626821)

The VOTER decides the preferences, i.e. it's the voter who writes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on, not the parties. All the parties do is print how-to-vote cards that get handed out near the polling stations. It's always been the voter who decides preferences, so if you the voter can't be arsed doing a little research and making your own decisions, and are happy to fill out your ballot according to your party's how-to-vote card, then you deserve the consequences.

Admittedly the senate ballot paper is a pain to fill out completely (numbering every box rather than put a "1" above the line, as most major parties would have you do), but fer crissakes, it's only once every few years, and worth a little research and mental arithmetic.

That reminds me - I should find out if the MHR ballot is optional preferential - that's the best system - you can vote 1 for your preferred candidate, then further numbering is optional.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>