Well I have officially just contributed to my first Nielsen Poll! However, the questioner kept cutting me off because apparently my answers were too long...I found issue with the question "are you a 'traditional voter' of that party" and when I queried if that was supposed to mean would I vote for them without considering the implications of their policies, their leadship abilities and their vested interests...the man did not have an answer. So I continued (in detail) to explain what I based my voting considerations on (despite this not being a question) and how outrageous that it was that people define who they vote for on whether they care about either the environment or education/health or business (as my daughter came home from Primary School and informed me of what her teacher had told her about why people vote certain ways). As Government is defined as: "A government is the organization, or agency through which a political unit exercises its authority, controls and administers public policy, and directs and controls the actions of its members or subjects[1]," does this not mean that all eligible 'Government' contenders need to have LEGITIMATE and openly transparent policies on ALL of these issues and responsible people who are 'working out' who to vote for can judge the policies on these key public policy areas and work out which party serves these public concerns in the most effective manner. And those debated policies prior to an election should always be focused on education AND health AND the environment AND business and the economy...rather than one or the other. How did we develop a political environment where we choose which area we are more interested in and thus choose to vote Liberal (if you are a corporate maggot and care only about oil companies profit margins or the big banks multi-million dollar payouts to 'deserving' CEO's) or vote Labor (if you saw the destruction that occured to the education system and the public health system under 12 years of Liberal reign) or vote Greens if you think the environment is the only priority? Why do we then vote for a party based on these separtist goals and agendas and then see none of their policies actually passed in the senate and thus never enable a change in the situation trying to be mended - and then to top off our disappointment the apparent failure to not produce any change (due to be blocked in the senate) is used against that party at the next election... However I am not sure if the questioner from Nielsen was still listening but he did stop me at that point and say a quick thanks before hanging up. Despite this, I am proud that I have finally contributed to one of the Nielsen Polls that last claimed in May 2010 that there was a 50-50 split in the preferred party options (not some dodgy poll no doubt run by Abbutt in collaboration with Murderoch) that is splashed across all the quality media sources such as the Herald Sun and ACA 'breaking news' in an effort to swing votes); however, whether my elaborate comments will be included in the statistical data or swept aside into the 'too mental to vote' category will be unknown when the poll results are announced shortly but fortunately it is not a mystery to me why I actually choose who to vote for and what is wrong with the lack of complete and transparent political debate and the subsequent voting mentality of the Australian public (which unfortunately includes the LCD's that watch 'Hey Hey not only our host but our show's name is redundant' and thus choose their preferred party based on who wears the most offensive outfit whilst parading in public). Thanks AC Nielsen on including me and leading me to think about these issues!
Posted via email from PunchyP
No comments:
Post a Comment