General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKey WikiLeaks Senate candidate quits due to lack of 'democratic processes' (Australia)
The bid by WikiLeaks Party founder Julian Assange to win seats in the Senate has taken a blow, with a key candidate quitting because of a lack of transparency and accountability in the party.
Author and ethicist, Leslie Cannold, is second on the WikiLeaks Party's Senate ticket in Victoria and would have been installed if Julian Assange wins but cannot take up the seat.
(snip)
Dr Cannold has announced this afternoon that she would be breaking faith with the Australian people if she remained as a candidate.
In a letter released to the media, she cites "vigorous debates" over Senate preference deals and says decisions made by the party's governing body have been "white-anted and resisted".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-21/wikileaks-senate-candidate-leslie-cannold-quits/4903084
We have preferential voting in Australia, whereby the second choice gets selected if the first doesn't poll enough votes, and so on down the line. What Wikileaks has done is preferenced very right-wing parties, such as the Shooters Party, Family First (hard-line Christian party) and even the neo-Nazi Australia First Party, ahead of other left-wing parties such as the Greens. In Western Australia, they have put the Greens Senator Scott Ludlam last on the ticket, even though he was the only Senator who stood up and defended Julian Assange.
In theory, this would increase their chances of getting elected, because these right-wing parties don't attract a lot of votes anyway, but in practice, they've succeeded in pissing off a lot of their supporters, who are now saying they won't vote for Wikileaks at all.
It's completely bone-headed, not to mention the height of cynicism, and Wikileaks has just shot themseles in their collective foot. I think they are finished as a political entity even before they begin.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Speaking to Crikey, Greg Barns the partys national campaign director said that the WA preferences were done by its number-one candidate George Georgatos. Georgatos is an investigative journalist, and a former member of the Greens. He broke away in 2009 in order to start up a party called The Real Greens.
Defending the choice, Georgatos said that the Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, a massive supporter of Julian Assange, would be easily reelected and that the Nationals David Wirrpanda wasnt a serious threat. However, many others including election analyst Antony Green disagree and could claim the sixth seat in Western Australia based on preferences.
However, it appears that Georgatos went against the National Councils decision. The Wikileaks Party released the National Councils decision, which stated that WLP [Wikileaks Party] puts Greens first of major parties and above Christian right and Shooters. Similar deals were done in Victoria and New South Wales with the Greens.
http://techgeek.com.au/2013/08/21/wikileaks-party-to-change-preferences-after-outcry-launches-independent-review-on-how-it-happened/
Matilda
(6,384 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 22, 2013, 01:13 AM - Edit history (1)
Seven party members and volunteers have now quit, including four delegates of their National Council (the governing body).
And they did preference far-right parties in NSW as well, so it wasn't the "mistake" that Wikileaks are claiming. And it's now too late to undo the damage, because preference lodgments have now closed.
Of course, people can preference who they want to, but too many now won't vote for them at all.
They had a chance to make a strong statement, but they've blown it.
Link to the ABC website: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-22/assange-blames-party-teething-problems/4904366
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)And yes. The NSW fucked over the National Council (and fucked over the rest of the local councils, too).
It really is too bad that there were two districts that sought to undermine the party but there are a lot of people who still believe in the goals of the party and have worked for the past few years to make it a viable.
Matilda
(6,384 posts)I loved this, from Assange:
"I made a decision two months ago to spend a lot of my time on dealing with the Edward Snowden asylum situation and trying to save the life of a young man (Bradley Manning).
"Now, the result is over-delegation, so I admit and I accept full responsibility for over-delegating functions to the Australian party while I tried to take care of those situations".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-22/assange-blames-party-teething-problems/4904366
I think he's quite right to fear the U.S. and what may happen to him if they ever get hold of him, but really he is such a tosser.
He made a pragmatic decision but failed to take into account the outrage that would be felt by people who are motivated by idealism, not ego.
And in that, sadly, he's probably no different to any other politician.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Are you saying that his support of Manning (though I think it was actually Snowden that he was referring to) was ego driven?
Matilda
(6,384 posts)But, "I've been trying to save the life of (Bradley Manning)". Sounds as Asssange was doing it all single-handed, and Manning's lawyers were just background extras.
I think Wikileaks was a good thing, and I do think Assange is right to fear the U.S., but his ego is enormous, and I think he'd be a pain in the bum to deal with.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)have been very active in protecting him.
They have also been very active in support of Manning but in terms of 'saving' him from prosecution, that ship has long sailed.
Matilda
(6,384 posts)"I made a decision two months ago to spend a lot of my time on dealing with the Edward Snowden asylum situation and trying to save the life of a young man (Bradley Manning)."
He wasn't talking about saving Manning from prosecution, but rather, the death penalty.
I don't believe he's had a lot to do personally with either recently, as it would be quite difficult for him from the Embassy. I don't doubt for a minute that he wishes they would both remain alive and well, but the work is really being done by others now.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)From what I've been reading, it appears that someone within that party has worked to undermine it and has succeeded. I'm used to seeing illogical preferences (eg the Democrats in the ACT give their preferences to the Liberals rather than Labor), but the problem with the Wikileaks Party is that those preferences to extreme RW parties can't be undone now. I'm suspecting much of what vote they'd get would come from people who may normally vote for the Greens, and after the strong support the Greens gave to Wikileaks and Julian Assange, it's a massive slap in the face for them to be listed below those RW parties by Wikileaks.
I don't like the preferential system for the Senate, but I'm not sure what it should be replaced with. All I know is I'm voting for the Greens, and I want my preferences to go to Labor, so I guess I'll be painstakingly numbering every single box under the line on election day...