Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

digitalrightswatch.org.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 894 posts

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#31

Post by kibwen »

lettergram wrote: post #12
neither_color wrote: post #9

We can refer to both now as acts because — in what is an increasing trend in the Australian Parliament — the bills flew through both houses in a single day. Why is this an increasing trend? Voting is mandatory…so are voters more trusting of their institutions or just apathetic? Voting is compulsory at federal elections, by-elections and referendums for those on the electoral roll, as well as for State and Territory e…

Consider what happens when you have a bunch of uninformed voters that are forced to vote... Imagine how elections would shift if only the elderly voted or middle age. Imagine if only those with children could vote (as they have a reason for the future). The voting base is important. Forcing people to vote sets up conditions where propaganda as opposed to an informed population is making the decisions. That’s what hap…

Mandatory voting can be done well if the first two options for every race are "I approve of none of these candidates" and "I approve of all of these candidates". Nobody should be forced to vote for a candidate that they don't want to, but it's also useful to be able to distinguish between a disaffected voter (the first option) and an apathetic voter (the second option). With non-mandatory voting, that distinction is erased, and the winner gets to freely claim that they have a mandate of the masses even if 70% of the eligible populace stayed home because they hate all the candidates.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#32

Post by user123456780 »

mrslave wrote: post #10
neither_color wrote: post #9

We can refer to both now as acts because — in what is an increasing trend in the Australian Parliament — the bills flew through both houses in a single day. Why is this an increasing trend? Voting is mandatory…so are voters more trusting of their institutions or just apathetic? Voting is compulsory at federal elections, by-elections and referendums for those on the electoral roll, as well as for State and Territory e…

Compulsory voting does not imply a politically engaged populace. I believe the majority of voters do not enjoy the requirement to attend on polling day, and treat the whole affair like supporting a football team. Except they care a lot less about the election results than their football team. Mandatory voting probably has the effect of protecting the two major parties more than anything else. There was a surge in min…

Even though people may not be engaged in politics mandatory voting is important. It reduces extremist politics and the constant need to be increasingly divisive. It forces regression to the mean.

In non mandatory voting systems the politicians need to motivate people to the polls. The default of the population is apathy so to generate action you appeal to the extremes who are the most likely to act. The more people you can make act the more you can get to vote for you.

But with mandatory voting the apathetic mass (who are most likely to be moderates as they don't really care but generally are reasonable educated people and don't agree with the extremist views) cast almost random votes which smoothes out the skew to the extremes non mandatory voting causes.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#33

Post by mrslave »

user123456780 wrote: post #32
mrslave wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compulsory voting does not imply a politically engaged populace. I believe the majority of voters do not enjoy the requirement to attend on polling day, and treat the whole affair like supporting a football team. Except they care a lot less about the election results than their football team. Mandatory voting probably has the effect of protecting the two major parties more than anything else. There was a surge in min…

Even though people may not be engaged in politics mandatory voting is important. It reduces extremist politics and the constant need to be increasingly divisive. It forces regression to the mean. In non mandatory voting systems the politicians need to motivate people to the polls. The default of the population is apathy so to generate action you appeal to the extremes who are the most likely to act. The more people y…

Except this implies that disagreement on any policies agreed upon by the two major parties is extremist. What is the solution to issues where both parties perpetuate the status quo?

I would suggest reversing the Senate ballot 6 votes rule. We can have status quo in the lower house, and negotiation with minor parties representing the population on issues they deem most important - and handled incorrectly by the major parties - in the Senate.

It is important to note that you are making an argument for outcomes where the design of the system should be philosophical. What system best represents the will of the people? (Or whatever question best frames this problem. This is troublesome and often prejudicial.) It's the subsequent application of this system that is the people's voice. We should not be designing a system to get the political outcome you prefer.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#36

Post by kibwen »

ogwh wrote: post #27
systemvoltage wrote: post #15

Democrats and republicans alike, let's make sure we don't do this in USA. Please donate to EFF, FIRE, ACLU, etc. I feel like both parties are becoming more authoritarian. COVID-19 is here to stay for many years if not decades. We're not going to be able to wipe off the virus from the planet. Governments will continue to use this as an excuse to erode privacy. This whole clampdown feels completely anti-Australian to m…

ACLU has already been taken by the new American leftist orthodoxy. Turning the tide will require new thinking.

If you're trying to argue that the ACLU is espousing authoritarian causes, I'll have to ask for a citation.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#37

Post by siquick »

I've lived in Australia for 10 years and really considering my familys future in this country. We are sleep-walking towards a very average future.

An undiversified export economy, out of control house prices, a job-market primarily focused on two cities, a government intent on selling all public assets, very limited political interest in positive climate policies. The latter is simply addressed with "technology will help us out when we need it to".

It really feels sometimes that the only thing the average Australian cares about is the price of their property portfolio.

Or maybe 3 months into the Sydney lockdown is finally getting to me.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#38

Post by discordance »

neither_color wrote: post #9

We can refer to both now as acts because — in what is an increasing trend in the Australian Parliament — the bills flew through both houses in a single day. Why is this an increasing trend? Voting is mandatory…so are voters more trusting of their institutions or just apathetic? Voting is compulsory at federal elections, by-elections and referendums for those on the electoral roll, as well as for State and Territory e…

Issues around civil liberties don’t rank with Australians.

They are captive to their housing investment debts, so political campaigns are decided on policies around that.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#39

Post by lettergram »

thisiswater wrote: post #16
lettergram wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider what happens when you have a bunch of uninformed voters that are forced to vote... Imagine how elections would shift if only the elderly voted or middle age. Imagine if only those with children could vote (as they have a reason for the future). The voting base is important. Forcing people to vote sets up conditions where propaganda as opposed to an informed population is making the decisions. That’s what hap…

It also sets up conditions by which people have no choice but to make a choice which is in their own interest, rather than having a political process built on vote suppression, non-participation and the kind of clientelism which arises when politicians are more concerned with energizing their own base than expanding their appeal. Quoting political scientist Waleed Aly: "In a compulsory election, it does not pay to en…

I enjoy the quote from a political scientist, while ignoring the reality.

In Australia we have an example of what happens when you force everyone to vote. It’s not going well, they literally have concentration camps, ask for papers, don’t let you leave your homes, etc.

> I think your point about compulsory voting creating ripe conditions for more propaganda is not borne out by reality - the USA is just as flooded with fake news as Australia.

I think you assume what you see on TV is legit news. I agree, you see the same “fake news” everywhere. The problem, is those who believe fake news are often not those voting because they don’t do their own research, they aren’t engaged. You want the engaged going to vote, because they’re engaging with society. Forcing everyone to vote is basically a recipe for getting the candidate that “gifts” the most to the people. It’ll be the downfall of nations.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#40

Post by robbiep »

kibwen wrote: post #31
lettergram wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider what happens when you have a bunch of uninformed voters that are forced to vote... Imagine how elections would shift if only the elderly voted or middle age. Imagine if only those with children could vote (as they have a reason for the future). The voting base is important. Forcing people to vote sets up conditions where propaganda as opposed to an informed population is making the decisions. That’s what hap…

Mandatory voting can be done well if the first two options for every race are "I approve of none of these candidates" and "I approve of all of these candidates". Nobody should be forced to vote for a candidate that they don't want to, but it's also useful to be able to distinguish between a disaffected voter (the first option) and an apathetic voter (the second option). With non-mandatory voting, that distinction is…

Minor parties and protest candidates already offer the mechanism for that in Australia, and preferential voting means those protest votes often make a meaningful difference
Post reply on HN