On 10 September 2013 15:58, Jan Whitaker <jw...@janwhitaker.com> wrote:
> [We didn't hear a thing about it this time, even for disabled access. > What happened to the 'next big thing'? I'd be interested in Linkers' > view of the security of evoting now - have things changed or is > Diebold still sus?] > > > http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/lets-ditch-the-paper-ballots-and-go-electric-malcolm-turnbull-20130910-2thiy.html > > NSA? I don't think there is anything especially borked about the senate model. If you vote below the line the preferences go where you say. If the parties are required to be transparent then we have the information about what they aim to represent. Perhaps people should be required to have some kind of declared position - some seemed to be a bit hard to find info on. Perhaps people who want to run should incorporate a party and be active in the community for 6 months or a year minimum before running so that they have some 'form'. This might avoid lots of trivial nominations. It has to be simple enough to not be an obstacle for new entrants and folks without a lot of money or from culturally diverse communities etc. I do not mind that there are shooters, outdoors, fishers, sex, drug reform etc. they are at least something specific. they are ideas which are of interest to our community. people chose them. the outdoors kinds of groups have a connection to our environment. climate change will break the ecologies which underpin their stated interest. sex and drug reform, are social perspectives. hemp might be a crop which is resilient and has useful fibre and is tall so may have roots which when cropped return nitrogen to the soil? perhaps an opportunity.. motorsports - as a group of people with experience in tweaking vehicles this community could help us find new kinds of car. is it possible to have mashups and hackadays with solar challenge vehicle folk, new fuels, and motor sports from different perspectives - if we invented an AU car for today what would it look like? pirate party and wikileaks speak to us about the way we think about information media and technology. we do have obstacles in these areas. there is contention between the public interest and other entities. if law is protecting an old model at the expense of our ability to move forward or human rights violations then it needs to be reconsidered? are there constructive paths forward? at this point in time it might be helpful to have people thinking about single issues. they show us facets of ourselves which people care about and we can see how they fit into the climate change issue. perhaps the main parties did not have something clear to say on issues that people care about. perhaps they will next time? j _______________________________________________ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link