The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Australian Ballot: "Prime Minister Scott Morrison Seizes a Stunning Win"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

Australia Election Results: Prime Minister Scott Morrison Seizes a Stunning Win

By Damien Cave
May 18, 2019

SYDNEY, Australia — Scott Morrison, Australia’s conservative prime minister, scored a surprise victory in federal elections on Saturday, propelled by a populist wave — the “quiet Australians,” he termed it — resembling the force that has upended politics in the United States, Britain and beyond.

The win stunned Australian election analysts — polls had pointed to a loss for Mr. Morrison’s coalition for months. But in the end, the prime minister confounded expectations suggesting that the country was ready for a change in course after six years of tumultuous leadership under the conservative political coalition.

“I have always believed in miracles,” Mr. Morrison said at his victory party in Sydney, adding, “Tonight is about every single Australian who depends on their government to put them first. And that is exactly what we are going to do.”

The election had presented Australia, a vital American ally in the Asia-Pacific, with a crucial question: Would it remain on a rightward path and stick with a political coalition that promised economic stability, jobs and cuts to immigration or choose greater action on climate change and income inequality?

In the U.S., the secret ballot was known in the late 19th century as the “Australian ballot.”

Do you get the feeling, what with all these elections where the polls don’t come out quite right because people don’t trust saying their political views out loud anymore, that the Establishment will soon turn against the Australian ballot?

 
Hide 74 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. It appears the NYT doesn’t realize that” fighting climate change ” will increase inequality.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @TomSchmidt
  2. How many times do we have to see polling organizations badly predict election results due to a bias towards the leftist party? What is the purpose of these organizations? Propaganda or accurate provision of predictive data? They are clearly failing at the latter.

  3. Anon[189] • Disclaimer says:

    “Would it remain on a rightward path and stick with a political coalition that promised economic stability, jobs and cuts to immigration or choose greater action on climate change and income inequality?”

    Uh, aren’t all of those things related though? More immigration = more green house gases; more immigration = more income inequality through depressed wages. They can have all of the former and the latter by curbing just the immigration part.

    P.S. Check out this ridiculous video by Charlie Kirk, the figurehead behind the billionaire front group Turning Point USA. This controlled opposition group, funded by pro-immigration billionaires, are trying to finagle the right into accepting more immigration by making it a technicality, legal vs. illegal, and through hijacking the YouTube kweel kids meme of shouting down dumb college SJWs: “see, the paper was signed here on this spot which makes it all good now … we’re for legal immigration not illegal immigration! There’s a difference.”

    Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dXLNsl-Xak

    Funded by the the rich (it’s controlled opposition): https://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/who-funds-conservative-campus-group-turning-point-usa-donors-revealed-2620325

    “IBT has identified the sources of over $900,000 in funding for TPUSA. Republican mega-donor families, GOP politicians and other wealthy individuals have provided large amounts of money so the organization can spread free-market principles.”

    “From 2014 to 2016, the Ed Uihlein Foundation gave TPUSA $275,000, including $175,000 in 2016. Richard Uihlein, the founder of a lucrative shipping business and president of this foundation named after his father, is a Republican mega-donor and a “free-markets, smaller-government crusader” from the Chicago area. He and his wife, Elizabeth, spent $23.7 million on politics during the 2016 election cycle, the ninth-highest total in the country, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Richard Uihlein made 6- and 7-figure donations to many independent political spending groups including the Unintimidated PAC, which supported Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund; and Club For Growth Action. Uihlein is America’s top donor to outside spending groups in the current election cycle.”

    ===================================================

    Notice how the premise of the video involves this guy claiming to speak on behalf of a group (conservatives). That’s a common brainwashing tactic. Basically, to get what you really want, you either invent a more extreme strawman to attack or you pick an ancillary issue and argue against that by claiming the opinion you really wish to advance debunks it, forcing those who oppose the secondary issue to support your primary issue; in this case, it’s supporting disastrous legal immigration polices that Kirk’s billionaire donors favor so they can depress their workers’ wages. If conservatives fall for this, they are beyond hope at this point – democracy, too.

    • Replies: @SFG
    , @Anonymous
  4. …cuts to immigration or… greater action on… income inequality?

    Don’t you just love how they say “or”?

  5. @NJ Transit Commuter

    That’s not how I felt on election night in 2008 and 2012.

  6. AKAHorace says:
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    How many times do we have to see polling organizations badly predict election results due to a bias towards the leftist party?

    Is this a bias in the polling organizations or the “Shy Tory effect”, people being unwilling to admit to polsters that they will vote for right wing candidates ? Would love to hear comments from Australians about this.

  7. Anon[233] • Disclaimer says:

    It could also be that independent, undecided voters broke big one way or the other just before election day. Back before America’s demographics changed so badly, this was a well-known effect in close elections. The logic was that independents would usually not split but move as a herd in one direction or the other within about 48 hours before the election, sometimes leading to surprise upsets; especially since it would take several days to conduct a poll, voter swings couldn’t be detected in advance. Not sure it that happened here, though.

  8. pgbh says:

    Australia may yet remain viable as a bug-out location

    • Replies: @Flip
    , @anon
    , @Anon
    , @Paleo Liberal
  9. @NJ Transit Commuter

    Australian here. The major poll in Australia is Newspoll, a creation of Murdoch’s News Corp, who have supported the government quite strongly in their newspapers. So you might think that these weren’t “fake polls” (ie biased by construction), and that people were simply hiding their intentions. On the other hand, it turns out that since the last election, Newspoll was taken over by some British pollster called YouGov, so it’s conceivable (though we have no evidence) that the new management chose slanted polling methods.

    It does look as if the election was lost in Queensland (my state). Just to set the scene, the federal government is run by the Liberal Party (liberals in Australia being, I guess, British-style classical liberals, rather than American progressives), with the farmers’ National Party as junior partner; and the opposition is the Labor Party, one of those old-left parties of unionism which has drifted towards the new left of environmentalism and social justice, with the Greens as its more radical allies.

    The polls for a long time favored a narrow Labor victory. I mentioned Queensland as where it came unstuck. Queensland is a mining state with a Labor government at the moment, but it’s also a perennial wellspring of populist conservatives. Twenty years ago we produced Pauline Hanson, whose One Nation party raised the alarm about Asian immigration then and Muslim immigration now; we are also home to Clive Palmer, a Trump-like mining billionaire with his own party. (Hanson was expelled from the Liberals, Palmer defected from the Nationals.) And there’s yet another party in the state’s far north, the Katter party; and Fraser Anning, who was too radical for One Nation and Katter, and became the toast of the Australian alt-right.

    Close to the election, the Greens staged a convoy protesting an Indian-run mine in Queensland, which has been subject to a lot of delays and resistance because of the climate issue. The convoy was met with a lot of local hostility. Also, GetUp (Australia’s version of MoveOn?), campaigned heavily against two Liberal politicians who are particular hate figures for our left: in Victoria, former PM Tony Abbott, and in Queensland, MP Peter Dutton, who as minister for immigration is responsible for border control.

    In Victoria, Abbott lost his seat – a moment of great joy for his enemies, who have hated him for a generation – but Dutton hung on in Queensland, and, as it turned out, federal Labor gained no seats there at all. Some of this would be due to preferences from the parties of Hanson and Palmer. In the Australian system, voters are required to rank the candidates in order of preference, so even if your first choice doesn’t win, your second, third,… place preferences can still affect the outcome. The Australian right is fractious – the Liberals have centrist tendencies and there are many “micro-parties” vying for the conservative and nationalist vote – but they are united in not wanting a Labor government, and I believe the anti-Labor preferences from the second- and third-tier parties did a lot to hurt Labor’s chances in Queensland.

    I mentioned Victoria. That’s where our cultural capital (Melbourne) and our progressive intelligentsia are concentrated. That’s where GetUp succeeded, against Abbott. The new political polarity seems to be exemplified by Queensland versus Victoria, and for now Queensland has the upper hand.

    • Replies: @MC
    , @sb
    , @johnl99
    , @Cloviscat
  10. Kirt says:
    @AKAHorace

    It’s not either/or. Bias in polling organizations, which are believed quite correctly to be part of the ruling establishment, leads to the “shy Tory effect”. This is bound to increase as people observe (in Australia just recently as well as the US and other countries) that you can lose your job and suffer other punishments for holding politically incorrect opinions. As long as the ballot remains secret, you can always lie to the SJW inquisitors about whom you voted for.

  11. anon[410] • Disclaimer says:

    I saw this coming, and am kicking myself for not placing a bet.

    For what it’s worth – and my reasons might be totally wrong and crazy – but…

    1. It felt like Labor had had trouble raising money. Fewer TV ads, fewer mailers, fewer posters.
    2. It felt like the press had picked the Liberals this time around: they seemed to be going easier on them. Plus, Scott Morrison has a stupid nickname – “ScoMo” – which the press probably thinks is awesome.
    3. The only grassroots enthusiasm I saw was for minor right-wing parties. Since the right-wing alternative is diffuse, it presents no threat to the Liberals. But what it does show is that there’s no grassroots enthusiasm for either major party, so it would probably fall to whichever of the two could raise the most money and/or get the press on side.
    4. Scott Morrison was obviously a more charismatic and competent politician than Bill Shorten (Labor leader).

    That last one needs a little unpacking.

    Both major parties have a certain “extreme” element pulling them away from the centre: environmentalists for Labor, anti-immigrationists for the Liberals. (Ignore for the moment that the “centre” of Australian politics is, as elsewhere, to the left of the actual voters.) If they don’t offer sufficient sop to these extremists, they’ll bleed votes, but if they give away too much, they’ll lose centrists and swing voters.

    This is slightly more of a problem for Labor, because their left-flank is exposed to the Greens, who are well-funded and actually take the occasional seat from them. The Liberals have it easier, both because the right-wing alternatives are diffuse (especially this year, with Fraser Anning’s new party) and weak, and because the electorate is broadly in favour of immigration restriction. But it’s still a balancing act they can fail at: Malcolm Turnbull was too left-wing, and lost votes; Tony Abbott was too right-wing, and his massive electoral victory didn’t stop him getting a knife in the back.

    Bill Shorten hasn’t been any better at the necessary triangulation than the last couple of Labor prime ministers, and was thus dragged to the left, probably costing him a few votes. But Scott Morrison, utilising the same political skill that saw him switch sides twice in the last five years in internal party squabbles – he was part of the Abbott faction, ditched him for Turnbull, then ditched Turnbull to take the top job himself – and somehow come out smelling of roses (compare to Julie Bishop, who made the exact same flip-flops and has resigned, presumably having made too many enemies in doing so), has pulled it off. It’s not clear which faction of the Liberal party Morrison belongs to, or which way he’ll go on immigration, which makes him potentially weak on the subject. But he seems to have threaded that needle somehow.

    Imagine, then, that you are the bankers and CIA agents who actually decide who wins elections in Australia. (A proposition which would’ve sounded absurd to me until the revelation that former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer was an asset of the US “deep state”.) Neither major party is giving you any reason to prefer them, policy-wise. But the personal qualities of the leaders are different. The Labor leader lacks political talent (“He couldn’t sell it!”) and is thus beholden to a third party, not to mention the unions. Controlling a Labor gov’t therefore requires control of two additional entities, which is more complicated and expensive. Meanwhile, the wily and slippery Liberal leader is beholden to no-one in his party, and is clearly politically talented and unprincipled to boot.

    Who’s going to be cheaper and easier to bribe influence? Who’s going to have a firmer hand on the tiller?

    Morrison is clearly the better option for the banks and the Yanks, and in the absence of anybody to capture the hearts of the voters, was therefore a shoo-in.

    If only I’d placed that bet…

    • Agree: sb
  12. istevefan says:

    Would it remain on a rightward path and stick with a political coalition that promised economic stability, jobs and cuts to immigration or choose greater action on climate change and income inequality?

    Gee, they wanted a stable economy, jobs and less immigration. Who would have believed that would appeal to voters? GOP take notes.

    It’s interesting how they worded this. The voters chose the economy and less immigration over greater action on climate change and income inequality. But, less immigration WILL address both of the latter issues.

    First, bringing immigrants from low-carbon nations into first world Australia turns them into high-carbon producers which supposedly leads to climate change. Additionally more people in Oz means more stress on the natural resources of Oz.

    Second, immigration of diverse peoples leads to greater diversity. And greater diversity leads to greater income inequality.

    So by choosing less immigration the voters actually chose to address income inequality and climate change, albeit indirectly.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  13. dfordoom says: • Website
    @AKAHorace

    Is this a bias in the polling organizations or the “Shy Tory effect”, people being unwilling to admit to polsters that they will vote for right wing candidates ?

    Very unlikely in Australia. The supposedly conservative LNP is actually pro-immigration and far left on social issues. They also accept the whole global warming scam. No goodthinker need be embarrassed about being seen to vote LNP.

    They might be reluctant to admit to being among the tiny handful who vote for actual alternative parties like One Nation.

    Mostly though it’s undoubtedly deliberate bias. The purpose of opinion polls is to mould public opinion, not to reflect it.

  14. @NJ Transit Commuter

    In the wake of the Christchurch attack, probably support for the Right in Australia became slightly muted (-3-4%) in polling. The way the media was able to monsterize the GOP after the 1995 OKC bombing, it derailed any chance for sane Populism & Nationalism on the US Right for a generation.
    As demographic shifts accelerate, and social media & blogs allow Legacy Media Narratives to be challenged, we’ll likely find that in parts of the West, unapologetic support for immigration restriction holds fast. Let’s hope so anyway. Westerners should not be shamed into forfeiting their homelands to atone for the violence of lone nuts.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
  15. @istevefan

    It does appear, though, that voters think an election like this is all they need to do. As we’ve seen with Mr Trump, it’s just the first of many tasks. Voters can’t sit back and expect things to work out. Our enemies are tireless, they’re in control of the media and the institutions, and they’re working 24/7/365. And ‘migrants’ are flooding in continuously. Installing politicians is just the first step–an important one, to be sure. But the job gets done only when politicians are forced to keep their promises.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    , @peterAUS
  16. Flip says:
    @pgbh

    Australia may yet remain viable as a bug-out location

    Bad gun laws though. I am thinking Idaho.

  17. anon[200] • Disclaimer says:
    @pgbh

    Australia may yet remain viable as a bug-out location

    The founding fathers risked all for thier country. “We will all hang together or we will hang separately” was the quote.
    Now we’re looking for a bug-out location.
    What a sad commentary on how far beneath Washington we are.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  18. @anon

    Now we’re looking for a bug-out location.
    What a sad commentary on how far beneath Washington we are.

    Washington’s great-grandfather “bugged out” in 1657. We’re all descended from those who ran. Or chased money.

    • Replies: @anon
  19. anon19 says:

    “Income inequality” is largely a by-product of immigration.

  20. anglocelt says:

    I always loved Australia because much like America the white population is predominately British, Irish, and Northern European. The reason Americans always saw Australian women as beautiful is because they are primarily Anglo-Saxon and Celtic.

    It really is sad that most white people in the Anglosphere see their own preservation and continuity as evil. We are not allowed to follow God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.” Non-white immigration is dispossessing our own posterity and destroying everything that we love and find beautiful. Yet we see it as a moral imperative and curse anyone who speaks out against it.

    • Agree: Gordo
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anon
    , @Desiderius
  21. istevefan says:
    @Mr McKenna

    Our enemies are tireless,

    Not only that, but our leaders are easily distracted and get off message. And I’m not talking about worthless congressional RINOs.

    I’m talking about Rush, Hannity, etc. who supported Trump during the campaign. Now they stop discussing the immivasion because we got 3% GDP growth, or are about to embark on yet another ME war. And they can’t bring themselves to get the Ann Coulter treatment

    Recall Ann supported Trump from the moment he entered the race, but he dumped her when she wouldn’t stop focusing on immigration and Trump’s lack of progress on it.

    • Agree: HammerJack
  22. Anon[300] • Disclaimer says:

    A big underreported story is that polling doesn’t work anymore, the victim of the cell phone and social fragmentation.

    Polling exploited some facts that existed from the late 1950s through about 1990:

    — Most homes had a single, landline phone

    — Spam phone calls were few

    — Social trust was high enough that people readily agreed to participate in polls

    — Landline phone area codes and three-digit exchange codes could be mapped fairly well to census data, allowing reliable demographic guesses

    — RDD (random digit dialing) could be used to randomly select people by geographic neighborhood with known demographics

    A mere 5 percent refusal rate in participation really hurt polling accuracy.

    A national poll of only 5,000 respondents was astoundingly accurate in those days.

    Nowadays internet polls are as good as anything, which is to say they are not any good because respondents are self selected.

    I’m sure most of these factors also apply in Australia.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  23. ‘…Would it remain on a rightward path and stick with a political coalition that promised economic stability, jobs and cuts to immigration or choose greater action on climate change and income inequality?’

    The irony here is that the Times manages to imply increasing immigration would reduce income inequality.

    Actually, the opposite would be the case. To reduce income inequality, one restricts immigration.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
  24. anon[200] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    True, but nobody remembers Washington’s great-grandfather. They remember the one who planted his stake in the ground and fought for it.

  25. Wilkey says:
    @Kirt

    Bias in polling organizations, which are believed quite correctly to be part of the ruling establishment, leads to the “shy Tory effect”. This is bound to increase as people observe (in Australia just recently as well as the US and other countries) that you can lose your job and suffer other punishments for holding politically incorrect opinions. As long as the ballot remains secret, you can always lie to the SJW inquisitors about whom you voted for.

    Is it “shy Tories,” or is it that Tories tend to be a little older and that older people grow increasingly tired and distrustful of organizations and random phone callers asking our political opinions? There are lots of places and people to whom I’m willing to admit my political leanings, including to my wife’s co-workers, who lean far to the left. But who the hell is that guy or girl calling me on the phone, are they really who they say they are, how are they going to store my answers, and who are they going to give or sell it to?

    It has nothing to do with shyness.

  26. @Kirt

    This is bound to increase as people observe (in Australia just recently as well as the US and other countries) that you can lose your job and suffer other punishments for holding politically incorrect opinions.

    As long as the ballot remains secret, you can always lie to the SJW inquisitors about whom you voted for.

    ….and that’s how Biden crumbles.

  27. MC says:
    @Mitchell Porter

    Any reason to think that Israel Folau getting kicked out of Australian rugby for not bowing to the LGBTs might have caused a last minute swing?

    • Replies: @Mitchell Porter
  28. sb says:
    @Mitchell Porter

    Er Tony Abbott’s seat is in eastern Sydney ( specifically the Manly area ) not in Victoria and Abbott is very much of a Sydney kind of bloke ( involved in rugby and surf lifesaving )
    He did hold the seat for 25 years and to be fair had very different social views to most of his well heeled constituents ( but not me – a Melbournian -by the way )
    Otherwise you did well

    Been in Australia long ?

    • Replies: @Mitchell Porter
  29. @dfordoom

    The purpose of opinion polls is to mould public opinion, not to reflect it.

    This.

  30. @sb

    Lol, that was clueless of me. But I was born here and lived here all my life. My secret is just that I don’t get out of Queensland much.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  31. @Mitchell Porter

    In your defence, the motor car will not be invented in Queensland for another 30 years.

    (Just kidding… I lived in Townsville and Cairns in the 1970s – and before that, in Tennant Creek in the middle of the NT).

    This was another “Drover’s dog” election, but Shorten, Plibersek and their ilk just aren’t quite as capable as a half-decent Blue Heeler.

    So a religious fruitcake and an incompetent ex-copper[1]get back into government – with the incompetent ex-piggie in charge of the Strayan Stasi.

    [1] Why do I claim that Dutton is incompetent? Simple: he was a detective in the most corrupt part of the most corrupt police force in the country (Drugs Squad, Queensland Ployce), and he never once detected a single colleague that he considered potentially dodgy.

    He did manage to finish a 9 year career with a $2m property portfolio, obtained from scratch during a period where interest rates averaged 10% and his salary topped out at $90k.

    Read into that what you will – perhaps he was exhausted during the workweek from tirelessly renovating properties on his weekend… and so was too tired to spot any corruption going on at the next desk

  32. @MC

    I am not looking too reliable as an informant about Australia outside of Queensland right now (see exchange with @sb). Nonetheless: We don’t yet have any comprehensive analysis of why people voted the way they did, but e.g. I was worried about immigration, law and order, and government spending; a friend’s vote was about climate change, health and education; someone else was concerned about Chinese influence; etc. For all I know, the Folau affair may have been decisive for how some people voted, but I’d be surprised if it mattered even at the 1% level.

  33. Anon[165] • Disclaimer says:
    @anglocelt

    I always loved Australia because much like America the white population is predominately British, Irish, and Northern European

    30% of “Australians” were born overseas. Its gone to shit real quick.
    Also, the polls were gaslighting – nudging opinion.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  34. Anon[338] • Disclaimer says:
    @anglocelt

    Aussie women are ugly.

  35. At some point the Dems might have to woke up and smell the coffee and realise that the Electoral College may actually be their friend.

  36. @AKAHorace

    I’m on reddit occasionally, and /r/australianpolitics and /r/australia is full of people shocked about the result. They don’t seem to get that their views are a minority … and I really don’t dare point it out.

  37. Anon[338] • Disclaimer says:
    @pgbh

    Australia is about 25% nonwhite. So hardly the paradise that you imagine.

  38. @Colin Wright

    You do realize that the NYT doesn’t really care about income inequality, don’t you?

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Alfa158
  39. Anonymous[457] • Disclaimer says:
    @AKAHorace

    I didn’t ring back a poll that left a message because it left out anti-immigration party options. I prefer Libs over ALP FWIW.

    Australian system is good because you can preference all the parties you really want to before the two Majors, without throwing away your vote.

    • Agree: sb
  40. Art Deco says:

    https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/civic-group-raises-concerns-about-judge-candidate-s-inappropriate-social/article_728e2515-8797-5512-a565-03abf8c48e79.html

    The upshot of this controversy was that corporate clients of his firm threatened the partners that they would take their business elsewhere if they continued to employ him as an associate. So, the partners fired him.

    He did no legal work for those specific clients and his commentary on social media was irrelevant to any client’s business interests. What I think we’re seeing is the effect of the kultursmog on corporate bureaucracies. Corporate business has never been a friend to any other segment of society, has tended to regard politicians as fungible, and has had for the last 40-odd years a pathological fear of ‘bad publicity’. I don’t think you could find a time prior to the last few years when business corporations outside the media sector inserted themselves into controversies when their book of business wasn’t implicated. This is a danger to all of us.

  41. @CrunchybutRealistCon

    The way the media was able to monsterize the GOP after the 1995 OKC bombing, it derailed any chance for sane Populism & Nationalism on the US Right for a generation.

    That’s an excellent point. When OKC first happened people assumed it was an Islamic terrorist. The media was so happy when it could be blamed on an anti-government White guy. But I do believe a growing number of people are inured to such propaganda and are able to ignore it.

  42. anonymous[306] • Disclaimer says:

    The Australian ballot system has been modified in a very important way, in California and New York.
    “Vote /ballot harvesting” is now allowed. Anyone can now go out and collect ballots and turn them in. Essentially, this allows the Democrats, the dominant political party, in reaction to poor exit polls, etc. on election day, to have its committeemen and others go out and get people to sign absentee ballots. That committeeman then brings the ballots to the polling place.

    This allows the Party to sort and select the voters it wants by party, and also to use its greater “boots on the ground” resources (SEIU, anyone?) to retrieve those votes.

    Harvesting would have allowed the Dems to avoid the unpleasant surprise they got on election day when Rudy Giuliani was elected mayor of New York City.

  43. @Anon

    ” Its gone to shit real quick.”

    When “alternative” “comedian” Ben Elton moved there after the election of the Blair government in the UK, the writing was on the wall. His UK work was obviously done, and he needed a new nest to foul.

  44. @Redneck farmer

    Have you seen the ads in the NYT?

    Inequality is what they sell.

  45. @anglocelt

    Your “we” lacks a proper referent. You’re conflating two entirely different groups of people.

  46. @Art Deco

    Act like a pussy with something to hide, get treated like it.

    Of course that treatment is still dangerous and emphatically in-American. Pussys are people too.

  47. Ted Bell says:

    Since no one is addressing Steve’s question, I’ll answer it.

    Yes, and no.
    They have a different plan. In principal, secret ballots will remain. In practice, every vote will soon be easily traceable to the voter. But that data will be kept secret, and private. You have the government’s word on that.

    After 2000, democrats demanded newer, modern, computerized polling, then spent the following decade screaming about how Diebold was stealing elections for republicans. I actually agree with them about the potential for hacking, and argued that point with democrats constantly in 2000/2001. Connecting voting machines to the internet is criminally insane. We now get hundreds of stories every election about voting machines logging the wrong votes. (though they don’t seem to favor republicans) Well, the next step on the path to making voting accessible to everyone, no matter how stupid or lazy, is voting by cell phone:

    https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-voting-by-phone-20190516-story.html

    I guess those evil Diebold machines weren’t easy enough to hack. They don’t need to alter the premise of secret ballots, when there aren’t even ballots anymore. Will the next step be voting by Facebook? Who better to oversee elections than good ole’ Honest Zuck? We’ll soon see what going full retard really looks like.

    As a side note, how did we come to the conclusion that voting should be easy? While I do agree that the unintelligent have a right to be heard, and have their grievances addressed, it seems counterproductive to give them electoral parity with those of us who can correctly fill out a ballot without help. I’m strongly in favor of basic competency testing for elections. If you can’t even name the candidate you’re voting for, why should I believe you’re informed about his positions?

  48. Hmmm..Aussies want “less immigration?” Many can trace their roots to exiled Brit’s sent to penal colonies in the 18th Century. Then there was the contingent of post-WW2 Englishmen [including, incidentally, the family that gave us the Brothers Gibb aka the BeeGees] who were promised lush farmland for the taking, only to find overgrown tracts of waste with little water available. These people busted their butts to build a modern society on what is the driest continent on the planet. Now Muslims want to invade en masse and anyone’s surprised that the current Australian citizens object?

  49. Gordo says:

    Do you get the feeling, what with all these elections where the polls don’t come out quite right because people don’t trust saying their political views out loud anymore, that the Establishment will soon turn against the Australian ballot?

    It looks as if the British ruling class will opt to allow violence against candidates of which the disapprove. That is their preferred method at the moment.

  50. Wilkey says:
    @Kirt

    As long as the ballot remains secret, you can always lie to the SJW inquisitors about whom you voted for.

    If you’re a respectable, decent person, telling the truth about how you voted may be worth as much as (or more than) your vote itself.

    We need good people out there telling people that it’s ok to vote for Trump, and for issues like immigration enforcement. You don’t have to tell it to the pollsters, but for the love of God please tell it to your coworkers and friends. You don’t even have to say that you like Trump. I sure don’t. Just acknowledge that some of his issues are important enough that we leaders who are more like him than like Hillary or Obama.

  51. Anonymous[193] • Disclaimer says:

    No. The establishment will not turn against the secret/ Australian ballot.

    If every person’s vote were public record, it would be much harder to commit election fraud. The Democrats (the establishment) deliberately register aliens to vote, and as Bob Creamer and company told us, they bus people to multiple polls to rig elections. They want to keep it that way.

    Secondly, with tens of millions of people openly standing behind non-establishment candidates like Trump, it would be more difficult to do the social shame thing they have done to public Trump supporters.

    Finally, they would lose their last resort strategy of saying the Russians or some other bogeyman fixed the results.

    Do leftists ever want more transparency? No.

  52. @pgbh

    A couple of decades ago people were talking about NZ as a bug out location.

    I checked their immigration laws recently.

    You have to be rather wealthy to immigrate to NZ. If you want to retire there, you need assets of at least $1.25 million.

  53. Whiskey says: • Website

    Yes on Hannity and Drudge and Rush dropping the ball, but the Right has to come to reality as much as the Left with respect to the Middle East.

    Like putting food on your table and gas in your car each week? Don’t want gas at $80 a gallon? Then reality says the US MUST intervene constantly to prop up the loathesome, corrupt, and brutal Saudi regime as anything else will be much, much worse, and critically for the US take that oil off the market.

    There is more oil elsewhere, and cheaper oil elsewhere, but the House of Saud sits on the cheapest largest pool of oil that can be extracted for the least amount of money. Meaning their oil production makes or breaks the market price.

    Want to bike to work in South Central? Ride the bus and Blue Line to Downtown amidst the urine, feces, homeless, and gang members? Then endorse isolationism and Code Pink. That’s a winner right there, might as well call it the White Extermination Party.

    White people cannot survive in a Diverse Society with the Government hostile without physical separation enabled by the private car. And that depends on cheap oil. Iran and Russia (now joined by a hostile China which was inevitable) want very expensive oil to break the US. Others might want to go down like Davy Crockett in the Alamo, I’d rather put off the day of reckoning as far as possible in the hope that something might turn up.

    Fundamentally the Right is in denial on how White people live. Its not 1892 anymore, we don’t live on farms run by horse and steam power, cheap oil enables White survival. Unless one fancies being chased down by random Vibrant Dudes and forced to hand over your clothes.

  54. ziggurat says:
    @dfordoom

    Here are a couple of ways that polling is biased and can be used to herd people into voting for either Kang or Kodus:

    1) Ask people who they would vote for, if the election were held today. I think they should ask people who they would most want to win. At least, this would make more sense, in the early days of the primary season. Otherwise, people may be expressing a strategic preference, choosing only among the candidates who the media has referred to as “the big three” or in some other way as to imply they are the only viable ones.

    2) Do not use relative name recognition to adjust poll results. Obviously, no one is going to pick someone they’ve never heard of and know nothing about. So, if candidate X has two times the poll numbers and two times the name recognition as Y, then in a sense the candidates are tied. If there’s plenty of time before the election, then the media should be helping get more publicity for those with lower name recognition. In this way, the outcome of the election is more likely to match with genuine voter preferences.

    The amount of media coverage can affect public awareness, which in turn affects poll numbers, which can affect election results, given that no one wants to vote for candidates that they believe are not competitive.

    I recall with a sigh the treatment of Ron Paul by the media. Here’s George Stephanopolous saying that Ron Paul has no chance at winning.

  55. @Kirt

    As long as the ballot remains secret, you can always lie to the SJW inquisitors about whom you voted for.

    Which leads me to wonder if in future the ballot will be allowed to remain secret.

    • Replies: @Sam Malone
  56. SFG says:
    @Anon

    What’s a ‘conservative’, though? Billionaires throwing money at congressmen so they don’t have to pay taxes would be considered ‘conservative’ by the entire left, most moderates, and a lot of vaguely center-right people.

    Your point, which I agree with, is that the elite faction of the right that wants lower taxes has the whip hand over the populist faction that wants lower immigration.

  57. @Sam Malone

    I see now that Anonymous[193] had already answered my question – there are sound reasons for the establishment to keep the ballot secret:

    No. The establishment will not turn against the secret/ Australian ballot.

    If every person’s vote were public record, it would be much harder to commit election fraud. The Democrats (the establishment) deliberately register aliens to vote, and as Bob Creamer and company told us, they bus people to multiple polls to rig elections. They want to keep it that way.

    Secondly, with tens of millions of people openly standing behind non-establishment candidates like Trump, it would be more difficult to do the social shame thing they have done to public Trump supporters.

    Finally, they would lose their last resort strategy of saying the Russians or some other bogeyman fixed the results.

  58. trelane says:

    Australians are a “vital ally” in what way exactly? Apart from AC/DC, Bon Scott and that guy who got stabbed by a sting ray while scuba diving, I’m not real clear on how the Aussies are a “vital ally”. They’re more like the kid down the street you know and sorta are friends with but he lives way over there and you never see him much anyway. Vital ally? Are you out of your f’g mind?

  59. Alfa158 says:
    @Redneck farmer

    The NYT cares about income inequality on a global scale but not a national scale. One of the objectives of open borders is to close the gap by pulling up the income of shithole countries closer to that of First World countries, while lowering the income of First World countries closer to that of shithole countries.
    They are sincerely trying to reduce income inequality, just not the way we would like.

  60. peterAUS says:
    @dfordoom

    The purpose of opinion polls is to mould public opinion, not to reflect it.

    Yep.

  61. @trelane

    Haha. Well we’ve never been too keen on you, cobber. But on a serious note who is a better ally than Australia IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC?

  62. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    “From 2014 to 2016, the Ed Uihlein Foundation gave TPUSA $275,000, including $175,000 in 2016. Richard Uihlein, the founder of a lucrative shipping business and president of this foundation named after his father, is a Republican mega-donor and a “free-markets, smaller-government crusader” from the Chicago area. He and his wife, Elizabeth,

    I used to especially like the coffee Uline sells, but after this, I’ll no longer drink that cat piss.

    Then again, I drink Mormon hot chocolate and I’m not real fond of some of the crap they pull of late.

  63. peterAUS says:

    We here are well aware of the trends going on in Australia re jobs, immigration, political correctness and the rest.

    Anyone here really believes that this electoral result will change anything? Anything at all?
    Curious: what that might be?

  64. @Redneck farmer

    Or that cutting immigration from low-carbon countries to high-carbon ones will reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

  65. @Art Deco

    I don’t think you could find a time prior to the last few years when business corporations outside the media sector inserted themselves into controversies when their book of business wasn’t implicated. This is a danger to all of us.

    True. And scary.

  66. @trelane

    Australians are a “vital ally” in what way exactly?

    In exactly the ways that it is important to be an ally. They even helped us during the cluster-f\/ck called the Viet Nam war. The Ozzies are less polluted by Leftist idiocy than Great Britain or New Zealand.

    But if you want to offer the list of allies better than them please do so.

  67. @trelane

    Look up ANZAC, do a couple months of reading, then get back to us.

    I want the ex-cons on my side, not the enemies.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/306090.The_Fatal_Shore

  68. MrLiberty says:

    Pollsters know that people are SHEEP, and that a poll saying one thing will likely get many in the opposition camp to change sides simply because they lack a spine and principles. THAT is why polls are always wrong, and until people stop being the kind of spineless, useless, unprincipled bottom feeders that they are, the polls will continue to lie, and continue to change the minds of the weak-willed.

  69. Alan M.D. says:

    “Australians are a “vital ally” in what way exactly?”

    How about –
    WW1,
    WW2
    Korea
    Vietnam
    Gulf War 1
    Gulf War 2
    Afghanistan

    I guess the USA is big enough not really to need or want any allies, but if you need or want one, you could hardly have a better one than Australia.

    Alan, Perth, Western Australia

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  70. sb says:
    @trelane

    Well for what it’s worth I’ve never been a big fan of the Australia US alliance either .
    If there is a specific situation where an alliance would make sense for Australia then OK but US policy is usually these days made in Jerusalem and should be of no consequence to Australian interests .
    Unfortunately politicians of all stripes just love playing at international entanglements

    Most Australians simply don’t realise how non Western the US is quickly becoming .
    Not a path I want Australia to follow
    ( although I must sadly acknowledge that American infuence is ubiquitious )

  71. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alan M.D.

    “Australians are a “vital ally” in what way exactly?”

    How about –
    WW1,
    WW2
    Korea
    Vietnam
    Gulf War 1
    Gulf War 2
    Afghanistan

    I guess the USA is big enough not really to need or want any allies, but if you need or want one, you could hardly have a better one than Australia.

    I generally respect and admire most Australians I meet here but their government sucks. Ours does too.

    They do some interesting things Down Under. Like the superpiano that has twenty more keys than the regular one:

  72. johnl99 says:
    @Mitchell Porter

    hello
    sorry in different parts of the world “liberal” and “progressive” and even “Tory”(Whig?) mean different things w/o context, so what extly do “liberals” etc. in Fair Austrialia stand for? (they are for “…” but against “…”, however we can compromise on “…”). Labels are too confusing. “coca-cola” on the lable of a bottle of “coca-cola” is not the same thing that came out of the atlanta GA coke factory. (Check out who makes “Kirin beer” a Japanese brand in the usa; Anheuser Busch.)

    there you go–

  73. Cloviscat says:
    @Mitchell Porter

    Great article, Mitchell. One factual correction is that Tony Abbott represented Manly-Warringah in metro Sydney, New South Wales, not Victoria. The Adani coal issue was a real wedge issue where Labor had to choose between supporting the greens or the working class. Labor obviscated on the issue, whilst moving towards the Greens on other environment and social justice issues. And then the greenie convoy shows up in mining country opposing Adani, essentially telling the local folks that they should not have high paying jobs. The convoy helped to save the seats or to pad the margins for the LNP incumbents like george Christiansen and michele Landry and to defeat Laborites like Cathy O’Toole.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?