Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks Party Making Questionable Deals In Attempt To Win Senate Seat
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."
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
They think it don't be like it is,
But it do.
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.
Aren't they about everything being out in the open?
Black countries for blacks.
Asian countries for Asians.
White countries for everyone.
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.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Once again Julian Assange shows that his primary focus is the elevation of Julian Assange.
Who's the patsy? Who's the player?
Okay, two, TWO questions!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
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.
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.
- No, I am not your imagination
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
Which of course, makes him eleventy-billion times more evil than the worst police state.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Is that you can measure success by the number of compromising positions you take.
For those who dont follow Australian politics, the Greens are also in on the whole "yay white people, boo everyone else" thing.
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:
[h/t Groklaw]
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.....".
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.
You mad
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
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?
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....
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
irc.easynews.com for me8bership. OF AMERICA irc house... pathetic.
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.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
What about the cultures that seek to abolish our cultures because their religion finds them offensive? Can we abolish those?
Australia, has two government branches. The House of Representatives (where the leader of the majority is called the Prime Minister), and the Senate.
Laws must be passed by both houses.
For each house there is two ways to vote:
1. Number each candidate in the order of your preference
2. Number "1" for the candidate of your choice, and accept that candidates pre-selected preferences.
For the House, people vote for the candidate for their local district, so you might have 4-8 candidates to choose from. Option one is more common.
For the Senate, there are 6 seats per state, and everyone votes for every candidate for that state. As an example, there are 58 candidates for the QLD senate seats. Therefore most people are lazy and pick option 2 for the senate. Therefore preferences are a bigger deal for the senate, and it's not uncommon for seats to be won due to preference deals.
For the House, the counting system works like this:
1. For each candidate, count a vote for each voting card that lists them as a 1st preference.
2. For the candidate with the lowest number of votes, remove them from the running.
3. Redistribute the votes for the removed candidate to the next highest preferenced candidate.
4. Repeat 2-3 until you have one candidate.
For the Senate, the counting system works like this:
1. Count up the number of people on the electoral roll, divide by the number of available seats, plus 1. This is the quota.
2. For each candidate, count a vote listing them as a 1st preference.
3. If a candidate reaches the quota, they are elected. Any additional votes for this candidate are distributed by preference.
4. If at the end of a round of counting, no candidate has reached the quota, remove the candidate with the least votes, and re-distribute the votes according to preference.
5. If there is only one candidate left, and a seat is remaining, they are elected to the final seat. (This handles the fact that you rarely get 100% voter turnout)
6. Repeat 3-5 until all seats are filled.
Please note the subtle difference.
That didn't take long, did it.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-21/wikileaks-senate-candidate-leslie-cannold-quits/4903084
Wikileaks are about creating the appropriate transparency in organisations. What in that is contra-indicated by racists, gun-nuts and Nazis? Apart from the latter, where the problem was exacerbated in WWII by the lack of transparency in government, nothing.
Unless you're going to say holding certain views on sex, race or religion precludes being worried about hiding criminal acts by government and large institutions that are not able to be prosecuted by a member of the public, you're just going "Oh, no, you can't ask THEM, they have the wrong thoughts!!!".
"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"
1) The things Assange agrees with are NOT the ones that the Greens are standing in opposition of.
2) The things the Greens stand in opposition of are the same ones that the Rands want that Assange wants to destroy.
becomes corrupted after entering politics.
In other news: fire is hot and water is wet.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
In Australia the two big political parties are indomitable.
If you want to have a crack, then you have to be prepared to do some deals and I'd rather independent politicians deal with each other rather than sit in the pockets of the banks, the real estate industry, the mining companies and all the plethora of nasty little lobby groups.