How voters cause their own headaches

There once was a man who would become easily upset at things and bang his head against a wall. This man suffered from headaches and eventually decided to visit a doctor and seek a cure.

The doctor at first was puzzled by the man's symptoms, and did all kinds of tests and asked all kinds of questions. But when he heard about the head-banging behaviour, the doctor knew at once what the remedy would be.

"These headaches are caused by your action of banging your head against a wall." said the doctor "Next time you are about to do this action, I want you to stop and think about the consequences. Do you want these headaches to continue? If not then do the complete opposite of what you were about to do. Do the complete opposite of what is causing these problems, and I promise, your problem will go away."

A few days later the man returned to the doctor's surgery. Not only were his headaches still bad, but he now had the imprint of a shoe on his face.
"What on earth happened to you?" asked the doctor.
"I did as you said" replied the man "When I got upset I did the complete opposite of my usual behaviour. Instead of banging my head on the wall I banged my head on the floor. I was doing this when someone trod on me".

"You fool!" said the doctor, momentarily losing his detached demeanor "the complete opposite of banging your head on a wall is to NOT bang your head on a wall."

The Labor government has failed so this time I am voting Liberal.

In society today there are not many people who bang their heads on walls or floors. However there are many voters who are not happy with their govt who continue to vote for the two major parties. They somehow think that alternating between these two woeful mobs will somehow solve the headache.

Many voters seem to think that the complete opposite of voting Labor is to vote Liberal, and vice versa. This is not so. The complete opposite of voting Labor is to NOT vote Labor. The two major parties are not so much complete opposites, but more like two different sides of the same turd.

Vote on merit, not likelihood of win
When I vote for a party I base it on how good this party is likely to be IF ELECTED. I don't base my vote how LIKELY they are to be elected. The votes determine the likelihood of winning. If you think the likelihood of winning should determine the vote you have got the cart before the horse. I don't base my vote on my guess of a party's likelihood of winning, ie on how popular they were last election, or how I think other people might vote this election.
For example in the March 2007 election I will be putting Labor last because they have been an extremely bad govt, and are likely to be extremely bad if re-elected.
I know that Labor was most popular last election. That's not going to get my vote.
I know that Liberal was 2nd most popular last election. That's not going to get my vote either.

I base my vote on which party would make the best govt if elected. Some morons seem to think voting is like betting money on a football team. In that case you might like one team, but place your money on another team which you feel is more likely to win on the day. To be a winner you should bet that way.

But voting is completely different to this. In voting the only way you can win is if your preferred party gets the most votes. The only way you can help it and yourself is by voting for it. Sadly, many morons base their vote on which party they feel is more likely to win. eg they would like to see more independents but feel that Liberal has a better chance and hence vote Liberal. Losers vote this way. Don't they see that they are creating a vicious cycle? If enough morons vote for a bad party because they think it will get many votes, then this bad party WILL get many votes - because of the morons themselves. These morons make themselves correct, and make themselves losers, by their own stupid policy.

When you vote, that is your way of saying what you want and marginally steering govt toward that. Voting is not your way of guessing what you think other people will want. Become a fashion designer, or trade shares, if you want to play that game.
Imagine if many other people vote that way too. In that case voting would be your way of guessing what other people are guessing what other people will vote. It is ridiculous.

Let us use an extreme example to demonstrate the two ways of voting. Imagine you and several million other people are taken back in time to Germany in the 1930's just before Hitler was first elected by German morons. You all get to vote in that election. You know that Hitler is likely to win, and you are sure he will start a ruinous World War. The trick is that your group has several million votes which can thwart those German fools and avoid a disastrous war. Will you vote against Hitler because his govt will be bad, or will you vote for Hitler because he is popular with morons and hence most likely to win?
Do you vote on merit or likelihood of winning? Think about it.

How to figure who is best
I vote based on a points system. Parties gain points for being likely to do good things. Parties lose points for being likely to do bad things.
The surest way of knowing what a party is likely to do is to see what that party did when last in govt. For this reason a govt that has done good things gets many points, whereas a govt that has done bad things loses many points.

When any member of a party tells lies or deceives I subtract points from the entire party and do not believe any promises made by anyone from that party. You might think this is harsh, but a good honest man has no business forming a gang with scoundrels. A good honest man cannot accomplish any good in such a gang and should be treated like the scoundrels he chooses to associate with and probably will become.

Remember that these barstards will block-vote in 99% of cases. This means that all the Liberals vote one way and all the Labors vote the other way - regardless of the will of the voters each is supposed to be representing. If they can use their numbers against you, then turn it around and use their numbers against them. Punish all of them for the failing of each one. This is a great way of destroying giant unrepresentative parties. When I see a party block-voting or doing shabby deals, that party loses points.

If a party does bad things whilst in govt, but promises good things next time, then I do not believe these promises.
A leopard does not change its spots, and a political party never reforms itself just after retaining power. When a party is re-elected it is going to keep doing what is has been doing. If they did a bad job last time, they WILL do a bad job this time.

If a govt builds 200km of new railway in its first term and promises to build another 100km next term, that's credible. But if a govt builds 0km of new railway for 10 years then promises to build some next time, that's not credible.

Points are carried over from previous years but are discounted over time, and as the people behind them leave the party. For example lies told by Paul Keating count less because they were many years ago, and stupid plans of Mark Latham count less because he has left the party.

My voting points system has never needed me to keep accurate records because the point margins are alway huge. Every govt in my lifetime has done such a bad job and have got so many negative points that I must vote them last.
Also every election the other major party is carrying so many negative points from its last term in govt that I must vote them 2nd last.
Independent candidate who have I do not know will start at zero points and get a small negative or positive score based upon their stated policies. There credibility being not yet known.

This March 2007 I will be voting Independents and Greens, then Liberal 2nd last and Labor last.

If everyone voted like me then the Labor and Liberal parties would not have a single member in govt or in parliament. These scoundrels would be out on the street the very next day asking people what they did wrong. "What must we do better next time" these elites would be asking the voters.

Even if only 10% or 20% of people vote like me then it will have an enormous impact. You see, sadly probably 60% of Australian voters are complete morons who base their vote not on the merit of a party, or the likelihood of its winning, but rather on the spelling of its name. Probably 30% of Australians are complete morons who always vote Liberal and 30% are complete morons who always vote Labor. They don't realise that the only thing the Labor party of 1970 has in common with the Labor party of 2007 is the spelling of its name. Same goes for Liberal. All the candidates and policies have changed, only the name remains. Anyway, since 60% of the voters have essentially put their vote on autopilot, and flushed their chance to make a difference down the toilet, the politicians realise they need only tend to the other 40%. Therefore if a small percentage of people vote like me, it would be a significant part of the 40% of votes that the major party politicians are trying to win.