Yesterday I handed out “how to vote” cards for the Greens at the state election. It did seem to be a significant waste to have so much paper produced. Slightly more than half the voters who visited my polling booth took cards from all parties, which was obviously of little use. There is some useful information to be gained from reading the cards from all parties, but nothing that you can analyse during the short period spent waiting in line. I expect that most people decide who to vote for before they get anywhere near the polling booth and just accept the cards because they feel that it may be rude to reject them. While ironically some people who didn’t like the Greens refused to accept a card from me and told me that they didn’t want it with the impression that they would offend me, I’d rather save the trees and not give cards to people who don’t want to use them…

I spoke to a representative of the Family First party who tried to convince me that the Greens should be against homosexuality because the Greens are “against unnatural things“, he also claimed that people who choose not to have children (being gay is apparently choosing not to have children) are selfish – unless of course they are a celibate priest. He also managed to offend a supporter of the ALP in two different ways which led to an amusing heated debate and then left before I could have any more fun. For the reference of other Family First people, I’ve pasted in the dictionary definitions of “homo” and “hetero”, when used as prefixes those Greek derived words mean “like attracting like” and “opposites attract”. An example of such usage is the term “homo-charged electrets” used in electronics.

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Hetero- \Het"er*o-\ [Gr. "e`teros other.]
  A combining form signifying other, other than usual,
  different; as, heteroclite, heterodox, heterogamous.
  [1913 Webster]

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Homo- \Ho"mo-\
 A combining form from Gr. "omo`s, one and the same, common,
 joint.
 [1913 Webster]

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]:
HOMO. This Latin word, in its most enlarged sense, includes both man and
woman. 2 Inst. 45. Vide Man.

The ALP (usually known as Labor) supporters had unfortunately believed the lies of their own apparatchiks. They were convinced that the Greens were directing preferences to the Liberal party, even though in most districts the Greens actually directed preferences to the ALP! The only exceptions were a small number of districts with split preferences (favoring neither Liberal nor ALP). It continually amazes me that while helping the ALP they were attacking us! Once I showed the ALP supporters the cards I was distributing they became quite friendly, as the Greens had a very low chance of winning the lower house in the districts for the polling place in question the preferences would go to the ALP.

It was interesting to talk to a Liberal supporter, he supports the workplace reforms implemented by the Federal government (Liberal) because he was hired for his current job because his employer can easily get rid of him if the business has a down-turn. It is hard to argue with someone who has only got a job because of the policy in question, but I did point out that continuity of employment is a major factor when applying for a mortgage. I recently bought a house and had a significant amount of hassle from the banks due to the fact that I work as a contractor. I had previously enquired about borrowing twice as much money while at my last permanent position and had much fewer problems from the banks.

I mentioned some of the other bad things the Liberal government has done (such as invading Iraq for no good cause), but the Liberal supporter was too sensible to comment on any of the issues where he would only lose. This however left him with not very much to say.

Most of the work of handing out the cards was quite boring and very tiring. Fortunately a friend decided to visit and help out so there were three people handing out Greens cards instead of the scheduled two which made it easier work. The ALP apparently had four people which seems to be an optimal number as there were voters arriving from two directions and no matter where they came from at least two ALP supporters would be able to intercept them.

Surprisingly the work was easier at the most busy times. When the queue stretched out into the street I could stoll along the queue and give the cards to the voters. When the queue disappeared later in the day the voters were walking past at high speed and I had to move quickly to get to them.

Now it’s time to start planning for the next Federal election.

In two days time we are having a state election in Victoria (Australia). For this election there is only one party with policies that are positive towards free software, that is the Australian Greens. The policy documents include an IT policy (note that the IT policy is on a link that may change while the policy documents is a permanent link).

The Greens IT policy has three sections under the goals, one of those is about open standards (ensuring that government data is in documented file formats for use by all with no need to purchase software) and another is about Open Source which directly advocates the use of free software by government agencies. The principles part of the document is also very positive towards free software and explains why it’s beneficial for Australia.

Any Greens representatives that are elected on the weekend have to abide by the party policy, that means that they must advocate the use of open standards and Open Source in government use and vote accordingly when any legislation related to computers is being considered!

Some of the members of the Greens are also members of the free software community, we were able to explain to the other party members the benefits for Australia and for social justice in the use of free software, and thus we reached an agreement about on a policy that suits people who use free software – not to benefit such people, but because of the benefits to society of the use of free software.

I think it would be good if members of the free software community in other countries would also join their local Green party and promote similar policies. While there is no direct connection between the Green parties in different countries the aims are very similar and therefore the arguments that persuaded Green members in Australia can be expected to work reasonably well in other countries (I am happy to provide advise in this regard via private mail if requested).

Also it would be good if other parties could be persuaded to have similar policies. If you want to help the free software community but for some reason you don’t support the Greens then please join a party that matches your views and advocate an IT policy that promotes free software.

Currently people who want to vote for free software in the Victorian election have no option other than to vote for the Greens. As a member of the Greens I am happy to document this as a reason to vote Green. But as a member of the free software community I would like to see other parties adopt policies that promote free software.

The Greens adoption of a policy that promotes free software was largely driven by the issue of social justice. We believe that every Australian citizen has the right to access all public government data. If government data is available in proprietary formats then access is only granted to people who can afford the latest software ($800 for a full copy of MS Office) and hardware to run it ($600 at least). We believe that unemployed people who receive free Linux computers from Computerbank should be able to access government data. We also believe that when FOI laws apply in 30 years time all current data should be accessible, there’s no chance that whatever version of Office is being sold in 30 years time will read current MS file formats, and there’s no guarantee that MS will even be in business then. File formats for which there are authoritative open-source programs written to use them will be accessible in 30 years time and more.

I have just read the news about Saddam finally receiving the death penalty (it did not seem likely that his case would have any other outcome) and have been thinking about the death penalty in general.

Firstly I think that in a jury based system every jury member should have a hand in the execution. If they vote for the death penalty (if you use a jury then it should decide whether the death penalty is acceptable) then they should all be involved in carrying out the sentence. It would be quite easy to fit a room with a dozen switches that control an electric chair. If the jury members are unable to pull the switch then that should result in the sentence being commuted. I am against people voting for actions which they lack the courage to perform themselves.

One problem I have with the death penalty is the poor quality of justice in most courts. The US is a good example of this where poor people are the ones who get the death sentence. A pre-requisite of having penalties such as the death penalty should be that there is a reasonable chance of convicting the person who committed the crime!

In the case of someone like Saddam Hussein there is an additional problem of creating a martyr. I think that a solution to this would be to give him a life sentence and put him on TV on shows based on the Jerry Springer Show. Show him for what he is and let the audience pass judgement on him, I’m sure that he would not do well on such a show.

Another possibility is to have a glass prison where the lights are always on and web-cams show everything he does (including the toilet and shower). That might fall into the category of cruel and unusual punishment, but really the cruel and unusual stuff is what happens in Abu Ghraib (under the command of Saddam Hussein and more recently under the command of George Bush).