Voting to WIN!

Australian voters feel trapped into voting for candidates they may not like in order to defeat others they like even less.

There are several forces at work that maintain this voting culture.

Fear of a detestable outcome

Abbot vs Gillard, Gillard vs Rudd, Rudd vs Abott. It can often seem that with our vote we are forced to choose between the better of two evils. The Australian political spectrum is populated by wholly uninspiring leaders.

The compulsion to choose between the two likely political leaders is magnified when we the voters perceive either of the potential leaders to be absolutely detestable.

Notice how our major party candidates spend so much of their energy convincing us to detest them. The Coalition’s social policies seem to be designed to drive those who care about societal equality into the waiting arms of Labor while Labor's economic intervention seems to be designed to drive free market thinkers into the waiting arms of the Coalition. The policies of each party are often as much about securing votes as about driving away those who may not vote for them. Lines are drawn and the voters are pushed and pulled to the two major parties.

In this manner, the two major parties actually support one another more than they combat one another. Think about it; if both front-runners were likable, Australians might feel more comfortable voting for some of the smaller parties.

Wanting to ‘Win’

People often vote based on who they believe is the front runner because they want to vote for 'a winner'. Since we want to influence the outcome, our first thought is to differentiate between the two likely political leaders.

To the extent that there is a bandwagon effect for people to want to be on the side of the winner, this means that polls assume an important role in the decision-making process. This is compounded when the early perception is based purely on previous elections, leading to a virtually unbreakable cycle. This subverts our democracy, because as voters we should vote on the basis of considering the issues and positions and not poll numbers alone.

During the 2003 election in Brazil, when presented with the statement, "I always vote for the probable winner in an election", 13% of respondents said that they agree.

During the 1992 U.S. presidential election, Vicki G. Morwitz and Carol Pluzinski conducted a study, which was published in The Journal of Consumer Research. At a large northeastern university, some of 214 volunteer business students were given the results of student and national polls indicating that Bill Clinton was in the lead. Others were not exposed to the results of the polls. Several students who had intended to vote for Bush changed their minds after seeing the poll results.

The bandwagon effect is ultimately a barrier to the effective functioning of our democracy as it limits the overall candidate pool to those likely to win.

Because as a society we desire so much to be on the winning side of the election we choose not to vote for the minor parties even if their policies are more in line with our individual societal vision.

But you will waste your vote!

This is one of my most hated arguments for not voting, or voting for a major party over a third party. This argument dismisses your democratic voice and establishes that anything other than a winning side vote is a ‘waste’. No person gets to be the arbiter of how your vote is used. It trivializes the individuals choice in the election outcome.

There is no such thing as throwing away your vote, your vote is yours and is a representation of your individual place in socio-political community. You can vote for whomever you want, you can go in and not vote and you can go in and write 'fuck you' on your ballot.

None of this is wasting your vote, it is your opportunity to be involved in the political process and just because you don’t support either of the major parties or none at all does not make your voice a ‘waste’.

Third parties are vessels for ideas, values and policy proposals that are being rejected by a nation’s reigning party duopoly. Think about who is best representing the policies and principles that you care about.

note: in Australia political parties also get $2.50 per vote that they receive.

What is “REAL” food?

You think you know what a banana is? Or a cauliflower, broccoli, kale and brussel sprouts? Wheat, Rice and Oats?

Care to test your food knowledge?

1.

This is a banana. Almost all modern edible seedless bananas come from two wild species – Musa acuminata and Musa balbisiana. ALL modern bananas that you readily ingest are clones. The reason why prices bananas in Australia became so expensive a few years ago was because during a typhoon a large proportion of our banana fields were wiped out, and regrowth took a long time as the kind of bananas we enjoy are so genetically monomorphic. Not as simple as planting a few seeds in the ground to recoup losses.

2.

This is wild cabbage. The historical ancestor or all variations of cauliflower, broccoli, kale, brussel sprouts, broccoli and more lesser known varieties.

3.

And this is corn. The ancestor to corn is drastically different from the corn that most people know. It is believed that corn came from a grass called teosinte.

How did you go?

Simply put, most food you eat has undergone genetic modification through human intervention. The idea that GMO are Frankenfoods is ridiculous. This rests on the proposition that there’s something natural about agriculture. Farming is just a 12,000 year old way of optimizing lunch.

Matt Ridley explains -

‘Almost by definition all crop plants are ‘genetically modified’. They are monstrous mutants capable of yielding unnaturally large, free-threshing seeds or heavy, sweet fruits and dependent on human intervention to survive. Carrots are orange thanks only to the selection of a mutant first discovered perhaps as late as the sixteenth century in Holland. Bananas are sterile and incapable of setting seed. Wheat has three whole diploid genomes in each of its cells, descended from three different wild grasses, and simply cannot survive as a wild plant – you never encounter wild wheat.’

Agriculture is the story of humans rearranging plant DNA. GMO allows us to be more precise in our search for specific traits: more seeds, larger fruits, stronger flavours.

Norman Borlaug who has been called "the father of the Green Revolution", "agriculture's greatest spokesperson" and "The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives" developed a new wheat strain called Dwarf Wheat that helped to increase wheat yields in developing countries. With it  he literally saved billions of lives. Borlaug continually advocated increasing crop yields as a means to curb deforestation.

The Kansas-based Land Institute is attempting to turn annual food crops like wheat and crops into perennials. Perennials allow for long roots and diverse living architectures to form that indeed support the environment far more than having to dig-up the ground every year to plant more seeds.

Earlier this year Mark Lynas publicly apologized for his anti-GMO stance over nearly two decades. Lynas is best known for spearheading anti-GMO campaigns in the UK during the 1990s, which led to a great deal of unfounded hysteria over the possible ill effects of GMO crops on consumers and the environment.

‘I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment. 

As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely. 

So I guess you'll be wondering-what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.’

GMO is different from chemical (pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizer) but not different from organic. You CAN have organic GMO and if you have eaten regularly in your life you have.

The GM debate and the issues surrounding how Monsato is acting has become a conflated mess. This does not mean that Monsanto et al aren't evil, or that we wouldn't be better off without particular GMO strains. There are issues with GMO, specifically that no one wants to see just a few companies in charge of our food supply: who owns the seed and the rights to the manipulations is the real issue, and it is this, and not the 'unnatural-ness' of out fruit and veggies that we ought to be protesting.

Follow this link to see 5 myths about GMO

Tony Abbot you are an Elephant Turd Brioche

In light of the liberal party fundraiser that commoditized Julia Gillard as a consumable I would like to propose a menu for the Liberals in Australia.

Appetizers

Elephant Turd Brioche – aka ‘Tony Abott’ Gigantic Ears, leaves a shitty taste in your mouth and simply put - the worst choice on the menu

Mains

There is nothing substantive about current Liberal policies (Boat People, NBN, Climate Change) and they are about as fulfilling as their tiny penises. You are left to starve for the mains.

Dessert

Pip D’Bee avec Beurre – aka ‘Joe Hockey’ a bees dick covered in buttered lard. This will surely turn your stomach.

Dinner is served

I realize that this type of humor does not add to the political debate. I realize that I could have been both more eloquent and pithy with my menu items. And I realize that it is infantile to reply in kind with a derogatory kind of humor that adds so little, but fuck it, that was fun to write, and even more fun to imagine an Elephant Turd Brioche shaped to look like Tony Abbot.

Australian politics has a well-established practice of ribbing, personal attacks and mock respect. No Prime Minister has escaped this nor have opposition leaders.

The difference between the banter that is used for male politicians and that leveled against our female representatives is that their gender is used against them. That somehow having a vagina is cause enough for these attacks, that your breasts make your policies weak.

The vicious misogynist attacks on Julia Gillard that define her time in office do a huge disservice to all of Australia. The vitriol that has been directed towards Julia Gillard is disproportionate to the reality of both her time in office and her policies.

see what they did there... changed Julia to JuLIAR. Gosh these guys are clever

Not only is her sexuality used against her in a way that male politicians have never had to encounter, but, as seen on Australian radio this week, even her partner's sexuality is brought into question.

The fact that this is none of our business seems to be lost on people. To question the sexuality of the Prime Minister's long term partner labels her entire relationship as a lie - an assumption rarely voiced in to even the campest or least attractive of male politicians. Would we ever question Tony Abbot of the veracity of his relationship? Question the sexuality of his wife? And would this have any bearing anyway on his abilities as a politician? 

Gender is irrelevant when it comes to competency - or lack thereof. But instead of attacking Gillard in a fair fight, the Liberals have taken the lowest road possible - making fun of her for being a girl who doesn't fall into the 'classic' model of beauty. It's nothing more than primary school bullying.

Full disclosure I am not a Labour supporter nor Liberal – I see a deep stagnation in the Australian political system and think that smaller parties present the strongest way forward for Australia economically and ethically.