Not Signed-In
Which clippings match 'Policy' keyword pg.1 of 5
20 OCTOBER 2012

Concerning Intellectual Property: a conversation with Pat Aufderheide and Ellen Seiter (part four)

"In some ways, independent media–makers seem caught in the middle of this struggle, seeking ways to protect their own creative products, but also often at the mercy of bigger corporate interests. What do we gain by looking at the issues from their perspective?"

(Henry Jenkins)

1

TAGS

best practicesbig media • codes of best practices • copyright • corporate interests • creative productsdebateDIY • Ellen Seiter • fair useHenry Jenkins • independent media makers • independent media-makers • indie mediaintellectual propertylawlegislationmonopoly • moral-panic • noncommercial creators • Pat Aufderheide • PIPApiracypolicyprotectionremixsocial consciousnessSOPA

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
08 JUNE 2012

David Lange: Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible

"Most New Zealanders watched David Lange contest and win the 1985 Oxford Union debate, arguing the proposition that 'nuclear weapons are morally indefensible' with a mixture of pride and astonishment. After decades of knowing our place, and several years of government by homunculus, suddenly we had a Prime Minister who could stride the international stage with insouciance. And briefly, we seemed to matter.

Although New Zealand's nuclear–free policy did not become law until 1987, it was integral to early years of the fourth Labour government. The 1984 snap election that made Lange Prime Minister was called by Robert Muldoon when National MP Marilyn Waring withdrew her support for her party over the issue of nuclear ship visits. Labour won the election with a nuclear ban as a flagship policy.

The policy was popular among New Zealanders, but not without cost. Our relationship with the US deteriorated in the early weeks of 1985. On the same journey that took him to Oxford, Lange, four days before the debate, met with a US State Department official who outlined the retaliatory measures that the US would be taking against New Zealand. The ANZUS alliance of which New Zealand had been part since 1951 was effectively cancelled at that meeting."

(Public Address, 14 October 2004)

This is the introduction to the transcript of the Rt. Hon. David Lange's 1985 Oxford Debate. The transcript is copyright to Public Address. It was prepared by Russell Brown and Fiona Rae, with the consent of David Lange. Thanks are due to Radio New Zealand's Sound Archives/Nga Taonga Korero (File: Media Numbers T4705 to T4708), Infofind, the Parliamentary Library and Barry Hartley.

1

TAGS

1951198419851987 • alliance • ANZUS • Aotearoa New ZealandAustralasia • Australia New Zealand United States Security Treaty • cold warcritique • David Lange • destructionethicshistory • international stage • Jerry Falwell • Labour government • Marilyn Waring • mass destructionmilitary conflictmoral purposemorality • morally indefensible • New Zealanders • Nga Taonga Korero • nuclear • nuclear weaponnuclear weapons • nuclear-free • Oxford Union • Oxford Union debate • Parliamentary Library • peacekeepingpolicypolitical policy • political reform • postcolonialPrime MinisterRadio New Zealandrepresentation • retaliatory measures • Robert Muldoon • security treaty • sound archives • televised political debatetreatyTVNZUniversity of Oxforduranium • US State Department • USAweaponweapons

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
22 APRIL 2011

The History of Instant Runoff Voting ('Alternative Vote' in Australia)

"The key the to the development of instant runoff voting (IRV) was the invention of the single transferable vote (STV) in the 1850's by Thomas Hare in England and Carl Andrae in Denmark. The essence of STV is the concept that a citizen would have one vote in a particular contest, but that that vote might be transferred from one candidate to another according to each voter's ranking of candidates, depending on the aggregate result of other voters' ballots. Hare devised this balloting and counting procedure in creating a system of proportional representation.

IRV, however, is not a system of proportional representation. Instead, IRV uses the STV innovation in a winner–take–all context. Instant runoff voting, using a preference ballot, was invented by an American, W. R. Ware, a Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, around 1870. The first known use of IRV in a governmental election was in 1893 in Queensland, Australia. However, this was a modified version of IRV in which all candidates except the top two were eliminated in a batch rather than sequentially, as in the pure form of IRV. The 'staggered runoff' concept that we understand today as IRV was first used in Western Australia in 1908.

IRV, called 'alternative vote' in Australia, came to be used in most Australian legislative elections, although it was superseded by Hare's STV system of proportional representation for the federal Senate. IRV is still used for electing members of the lower house. IRV is also used in other nations, such as Ireland. In the United Kingdom, the Jenkins Commission, appointed by the new government, released their report October 29 that recommends the use of IRV for electing the House of Commons (with proportional representation achieved through the election of additional members based on the popular vote for parties nationally). ...

The single transferable vote is a more common voting procedure in the U.S. than most of us realize. Even the Academy Awards uses STV in determining their finalists. The American Political Science Association (APSA), the organization of political science professors, uses IRV to elect their national president, since political scientists understand that IRV is the fairest and simplest way to elect a single winner from a field of candidates."

(Center for Voting and Democracy, Washington, D.C.)

1

TAGS

1850s1893advocacyAlternative Vote • American Political Science Association • APSA • Australia • Australian Federal Senate • Australian Lower House • Carl Andrae • contest • counting procedure • Denmark • election • fairnessHouse of CommonsInstant Runoff VotingIRV • Jenkins Commission • legislative elections • Massachusetts Institute of TechnologymisrepresentationParliamentpolicypolitical representationpolitical sciencepoliticspopular vote • preference ballot • proportional representation • QueenslandrankingRepublic of Irelandsimplicity • Single Transferable Vote • single winner • STV • systemThomas HaretransferUKvotingvoting system • W. R. Ware

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
15 FEBRUARY 2011

UK Protection of Freedoms Bill - Public Reading Stage

"On Friday 11th February 2011, the Coalition Government published the Protection of Freedoms Bill. ... Some of the measures came from the 14,000 ideas left on the Your Freedom website.

The Government is committed to continuing this public engagement with the content of the Protection of Freedoms Bill. This website gives you the opportunity to comment on each clause contained in the Bill. Your comments will get collated at the end of this public consultation and fed through directly to the Parliamentarians who will carry the Bill through the House of Commons (go to the Parliament website to learn about the passage of a bill). These comments will assist and challenge MPs, aiding their scrutiny and debate on the details of the Bill. This is a pilot for the 'public reading stage' that the Government wants to introduce to give the public an increased say in all bills"

(UK Cabinet Office, 2011)

TAGS

2011agency • Big Society • coalition governmentconsultationdebatedecision makingdemocracydiscussionengagementengaging citizensGovernmentHouse of Commonsparticipationpilot projectpolicypolitical engagementpolitics • Protection of Freedoms Bill • publicpublic consultationpublic decision-making • public engagement • Public Reading StagePublic Reading StageUK • UK Cabinet Office • website • Your Freedom website

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
15 FEBRUARY 2011

Lessons in participation from 'Our Budget, Our Economy'

"Efforts to improve political engagement don't come much bigger than the work done by AmericaSpeaks.org, which has set itself a mission to 'reinvigorate American democracy by engaging citizens in the public decision–making that most impacts their lives'.

One of its recent efforts was a 'national town meeting' to discuss ways of dealing with America's federal budget deficit. It saw 3,500 Americans gathered at 57 sites across the country on June 26, 2010.

Participants from a range of social and political backgrounds debated 42 options for closing the deficit (a report to Congress is available), and at the end of the day 91 per cent said they were 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with the tone and quality of the discussion.

And in an interesting result that shows the value of deliberation and discussion, only 15 per cent said their views were not at all influenced by others and just three per cent said they did not learn anything during the meeting."

(eDemocracyBlog.com, 7 December 2010)

TAGS

2010 • AmericaSpeaks.org • budgetconsultationdebatedecision makingdemocracydiscussioneconomyengagementengaging citizens • federal budget deficit • national town meeting • North Americaopinion pollsparticipationpolicypolitical engagementpoliticspollingpollspublicpublic decision-making • reinvigorate American democracy • town meeting • US Congress

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
Sign-In

Sign-In to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.