[AMA] I'm a Minor Party Political Candidate (Fusion Party)

Lwryun on 05/04/2022 - 12:01
Last edited 05/04/2022 - 20:10

I'm standing in Grayndler (Albo's seat in Sydney) in the coming federal election for the Fusion Party:

https://www.fusionparty.org.au/james_haggerty

I'm guessing this has already provoked a few strong reactions, probably related to either my sanity, the futility of minor parties, or me using Ozbargain for self-promotion, so hit me with your best shot. I promise to not completely toe the party line.

EDIT: for context, the Fusion party is a combination of a number of existing parties: the Science Party, Pirate Party,
Secular Party, Vote Planet, and Climate Change Justice Party. This was encouraged by the government changing the rules around minor party membership requirements: https://www.fusionparty.org.au/our_party

For this election, we've tried to combine our passions into a bunch of different policies you can see on our website (https://www.fusionparty.org.au/). For instance, you can really see the influence of the Pirate Party on the Civil & Digital Liberties section, the Science Party on Future Focused, and the Secular Party on Secular Humanism. I think it's great that we all have our areas of expertise and passion, and we're all on board with Climate Change as our number one priority.

Introduce Yourself Federal Election

closed Comments

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:33

      Lose money and annoy people.

      • Karfaffel on 06/04/2022 - 21:15
        +1

        We so badly need more people like you in politics. I admire the patience and sanity with which you've addressed some of these questions.
        I hope you do well!

  • lint on 06/04/2022 - 10:14

    Not a question, but good on you for giving this a go.

    The previous parties that previous parties mentioned had a lot of policies I agreed with and tended to be high in my preferences, so I suspect when it comes time for me to research each candidate/party again, Fusion will come in high as well.

    Sorry I'm not in the electorate you're running in though.

  • belongsinforums on 06/04/2022 - 10:35
    +1

    Do you think we'll ever break the duopoly on Australian politics? If so, how? Personally I preference minor parties but almost everyone in this country seems to have the mindset of 'it's either labor or liberal and nothing inbetween so (profanity) it'

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:37
      +1

      The major party first preference vote is slowly declining, so it might be one of those things that seems like it's not going to happen… and then suddenly does.

      We're also seeing an interesting rise in independents. If enough independents get up, we might get some kind of independent formed in parliament which would evolve into a centrist party. This could be helped along by the right wing of the Liberals getting slowly nuttier and watching too much Sky News.

      So, yes, I think there's a non-zero chance. But, like you, I'm still pretty annoyed about it all at the moment. What I think would make the most difference is if we introduced multi-member electorates like Tasmania (where Greens win lower seats and they have coalitions, even with Greens/Libs!), but because the current system enables the duopoly I can't imagine how that would happen.

      Some blog posts I wrote about this:

      https://www.pandoricity.com/2022/03/keeping-pork-in-its-barr…
      https://www.pandoricity.com/2022/03/some-thoughts-on-multi-m…

  • retailsaver on 06/04/2022 - 10:46

    A changing climate is the one constant Earth has had regardless of which species dominates its surface.

    Do you think it's a pipe dream to stop the climate from changing, and instead should resources be spent towards "rolling with it" and using technology to adjust our lifestyles in response to the inevitable changing of the climate?

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:40

      I think adjustments are going to happen regardless: we're already living in a changing climate, we're already adjusting, and everyone deeply affected (from farmers to insurance companies) are learning to take account of climate change in their plans. And the government is too.

      But given that there are so many negative outcomes associated with the likely fast warming, if we can stop this or slow it down it seems like it's worth it.

  • idonotknowwhy on 06/04/2022 - 11:09

    On your "How To Vote" cards, what are the relative positions of LNP and ALP?

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:41

      We don't have a party wide verdict on this at the moment. I will definitely push for preferencing the ALP over the LNP in Grayndler, though, and I suspect this will end up being true for all our HTVs.

      • idonotknowwhy on 06/04/2022 - 12:41
        +1

        will definitely push for preferencing the ALP over the LNP

        Not trying to be too cynical, but this is probably the most important thing you can do for:

        • Climate Change
        • "Civil & Digital Liberties"
        • Housing Affordability
        • A few other things I've seen you mention in this thread.

        If your How-To-Vote card puts LNP > ALP; regardless of what you stand for, you'd just be funneling votes from disenfranchised, mostly young people into the LNP, exactly like UAP are doing. Most of them would end up voting against their own interests without even realizing it.

        (I'm sure that's not your intention of course, but it's the outcome if you don't get ALP > LNP on the card).

      • yokel on 08/04/2022 - 07:44

        Your how to vote card will be meaningless in that seat. Best of luck collecting enough first preferences for yourself to get above your target.

        • wryun on 08/04/2022 - 08:47
          +1

          At the lower house level, yes. For the senate, it's more important, since that plays into the NSW result.

          It's also a signalling mechanism (i.e. showing up a booths with HTVs shows you're serious, gives people a rough idea of your political positioning, and gives you an opportunity to convert people who think in the queue).

  • dufflover on 06/04/2022 - 11:31
    +3

    Do you preference Kang, or Kodos?

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 11:41

      Donkey vote.

      • dufflover on 06/04/2022 - 14:43

        So a Democrat 'ey? That's Clinton Kodos …
        :P

    • SadKen on 06/04/2022 - 11:58

      Don't blame me I voted for Kodos

  • jv on 06/04/2022 - 11:54
    +5

    I'm a Minor Party Political Candidate (Fusion Party)

    Fission Party is a lot more pragmatic…

    Fusion is not sustainable at present.

  • 900dollaridoos on 06/04/2022 - 12:06

    I'm far from knowledgeable on the topic so I apologise if there's any glaring errors but can you explain the funding for the UBI?

    It caught my eye so I did some low level maths to look at it. On your website it says you'll pay every adult $26k per year, which is ~$520B total.

    Currently the budget is around $628B total for everything, so if revenue stayed the same then 80% of all gov spending would go to UBI.

    The other way of looking at it is that we spend $178B on welfare presently, so to fund the 342B extra required for your UBI it would cost the average tax payer around $23k pa, likely more as many 'tax payers' would be only just over the tax free threshold.

    This is all assuming there is no admin costs, which admittedly will be much more efficient than centrelink, but the fact is it's billions of dollars being managed by government so there will definitely be some significant costs that I haven't included.

    Again, I'm pretty dumb when it comes to tax and UBI so let me know if I've missed something, but if I haven't, this all looks very unappealing and would probably be the nail in the coffin for me to move out of a high work load industry and do something easier like part time waiter supplemented by UBI.

    • idonotknowwhy on 06/04/2022 - 12:52
      +1

      I'm not an expert, probably less knowledgeable than you since you know the current welfare expenses, etc.

      I guess some of the funding would come from the 800% increase in green energy / exports OP mentioned.
      There's plenty of fat to trim from things like https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fue… too

      cost the average tax payer around $23k pa

      So +$3k pa for me? Sounds nice ;)

      many 'tax payers' would be only just over the tax free threshold

      Wouldn't those tax-free taxpayers already be in that category anyway, being on welfare and all?

      move out of a high work load industry and do something easier like part time waiter supplemented by UBI

      I think that's the idea. I recall Andrew Yang talking about this a few years ago. You'd be able to do something more innovative / productive in that time you're not spent doing high work load for money. Some people would spend more time raising their children, others would probably slack off and play video games.

      • 900dollaridoos on 06/04/2022 - 14:13
        +1

        probably less knowledgeable than you since you know the current welfare expenses, etc.

        Haha nah I just googled them.

        So +$3k pa for me? Sounds nice ;)

        I might not have been clear, that 23k would be on top of however much tax the average worker is already paying.

        I think that's the idea.

        This is probably moving into philosophy so I can't argue it well, but for me personally I see this doing the opposite. Eg the only reason I work in a productive job that fills a niche and pays lots of tax is because of the personal income. I would be a far less useful member of society if tax rates bullied me out of working hard. I feel like even roles like medicine would decline as, despite the humanitarian and status benefits, most doctors I know are largely in it for the money.

        There's plenty of fat to trim

        For sure, and I agree. I just don't see there being so much fat that we fat that we can over triple the current allocation of spending.

        It's all really interesting though. I like the idea of UBI I just can't see a way for it to be feasible yet. Would love to be proved wrong as it seems like an easy moral stance.

    • VFM on 06/04/2022 - 15:35
      +1

      People who make more money doesn't work harder than people who make less.

      That's a fallacy most of the time. The exceptions are when the work is casual and/or low hourly rates.

      Do we seriously think that a CEO, a department manager or a real estate agent work harder than a truck driver, factory worker, nurse, teacher or receptionist?

      And people who make a lot of money often don't even have a choice about how much effort they put in.

      And if we really think about it, those that make a ton of money won't even have a choice about how much they make.

      It's only the lowly paid that have effort/time proportional to income.

      UBI evens that out and gives them a chance to change things.

      As for funding UBI, all the money given to low income folks will be spent back into the economy and will be returned as taxes. The high income folks will have taxes adjusted to reclaim the UBI amount + a little bit more.

      And if I have to pay more in taxes, I guess I am in the comfortable and privileged position in having a relatively high income.

      Think of UBI as a mobility aid. It enables those that need it. Or should we punish them because they are not trying hard enough at walking on their own?

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 21:14
      +1

      I'm going to push hard for proper numbers here. Ultimately, I'm not in a position of power in the party, so I can't promise anything, but I agree that if we're going to plonk a UBI in our policies we should have at least rough costings. I'm extremely tempted to post some numbers myself, but I'm going to refrain for now.

      Having said that, a few things I'd note:

      • I think in your calculation of 342B extra you're ignoring that a flat tax rate is an important part of the UBI's introduction. i.e. there's no tax-free threshold, you start paying tax immediately. The effect is that the UBI is the thing that effectively emulates a progressive tax system (everyone gets the starting money!), but you no longer have brackets. So yes, if you look purely at the outgoings it's costing more, but we are actually planning on taxing people more on their income to compensate (and this is ok - we're giving them a UBI!).
      • Land tax has the potential to mitigate the tax increase. Probably unpopular, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism makes a lot of sense to me.
      • Re 'move out of a high work load industry and do something easier like part time waiter' - if that makes you happier, I think that's a benefit of a UBI. Part of society should be about letting people do the things that make them happy rather than forcing them into optimising economic output. But remember that your waiter earnings would be taxed at exactly the same rate as any other earnings.
      • I think you're onto something with the admin costs argument, but from a slightly different angle. I actually suspect we could do the UBI without that much bureaucracy: direct money transfers without any conditions shouldn't be hard, and the government managed to do things pretty quickly during COVID. The problem is more that it will be very hard to get rid of the existing welfare structures (so many people employed, and so many people committed to the current systems). People would find reasons to keep it, even if you could prove to them that they're no worse off. Think about how much trouble we had trying (and failing) to get rid of the completely pointless novated leasing industry…
      • mdavant on 09/04/2022 - 04:32

        So effectively you are taxing high income earners more to give to others.

        Sounds like this will increase productivity /s

        Everyone is already addicted to and extremely defensive of their Howard middle class welfare which leads to consumption.

  • SillySorjai on 06/04/2022 - 13:22
    +2

    I'd throw this guy a bone guys (waiting to get negged). I'm not sure about you but his honesty and carefully considered responses would put him far ahead of our current pollies who just spin bs and don't have anything evidence based.

    You've got my vote mate, I'll look for you when I vote. I just hope the other parties you are "fusing" with have your future outlook, approach and tact.

    I accept that as a small party he hasn't had the same resources to be able to have a well thought out position on everything.

    Something that matters deeply to me is the declining educational standards in Australia. It affects Australia's competitiveness, future job industries and most importantly our children. I actually know how to fix this and have a lot of experience and hard numbers that can show you what is actually going on. However, there is no incentive for me to do so, so if you ever start working on an education policy, PM me.

  • RealScienceNow on 06/04/2022 - 14:15
    -5

    What is your stance on the methodology used in Virology? Do you believe it is targeting the viruses correctly? What do you understand about the inability to reproduce results from a study?

    For a science party your team seems very strict on what they believe…

    More like an anti-science party as you guys don't believe in science…………

    Also, you joined up with a bunch of anarchists at the pirate party… So much for trust the science.

    • Roman Sandstorm on 06/04/2022 - 15:55
      +2

      What is your stance on the methodology used in Virology?

      Seriously??? What a straw man question.

      This is such a technical and specific question, no political party would have an immediate answer.

      Why not ask about their stance on Inuit resettlement in northern Alaska? And then condemn them for not having a clear policy.

      as you guys don't believe in science

      … and here come your own biases…

      you joined up with a bunch of anarchists

      Like @EightImmortals earlier you are just using this thread to grandstand your own immovable ideas. You are not offering genunie criticism and analysis, but being disingenuous and deceitful, by pretending commentry on Fusion policies.

      My advice: start your own thread on your own hobby horse.

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 21:15
      +1

      Sorry, I'm not going to engage with this. Maybe I'd try if you hadn't just registered to post this with that amazing username.

      • Kangal on 06/04/2022 - 21:27

        Ah, dang you beat me to it.
        I'm impressed that you paused to notice that, definitely not a typical politician move to double-check the source/data!

  • connorlo on 06/04/2022 - 14:51
    +1

    @wryun thanks for this post and your timely, honest replies. I think it is great these smaller parties are in the political system and helps to bring change to the status quo. While lack of a fiscal plan (even high level) looses my vote for fusion party, I do like your willingness to engage with everyday peoples. Thank you for highlighting your party (I hadn't heard of it before) and I look forward to following the fusion party in the future.

  • Vote for Pedro on 06/04/2022 - 15:14

    Why are you running in a progressive seat rather than against a party that has polar opposite policy points of view?

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 21:19
      +1

      I assume this is 'why aren't you running in a Liberal held seat'.

      A few reasons:

      • The main one is I live in Grayndler (and have lived in the inner west my whole life). It's much easier to stand where you're living, it's more fun for me, and more legit for voters.
      • We're running for awareness of our policies. In my opinion there's actually more chance this will have an impact on people who believe some similar things already; ultimately, there's a better chance of us influencing Labor/Greens voters than Lib/Nats voters.
      • In part I'm here to boost our senate vote, where in the medium term we're more likely to get elected. There are more votes available in a left-leaning seat (I hate that terminology…).
      • Vote for Pedro on 06/04/2022 - 22:22
        +1

        At least you’re more honest than the greens. You’re in it for the votes even if that means going up against someone who actually wants to so good on climate action.

        I guess the saying in politics to ‘always back self interest’ rings true, even for parties wanting to ‘keep the bastards honest’

        You know that running a “they’re both sh*t” campaign favours the party in power.

        • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 22:42

          I'm not really sure what you're accusing me of here, but it seems like you think I'm doing something nefarious. And that getting votes is somehow sleazy (?).

          Remember that we have a compulsory preferential system system on lower house ballots, so regardless of whether I'm on the ballot paper people will still have to choose Libs/Labor. And believe me, Albo's going to win Grayndler, so I promise you I'm not damaging his chances :)

          I and Fusion are not running a 'negative' campaign at all, and I believe are pushing primarily optimistic ideas about how to address some of societies' problems. Overall, I'm not sure how you think this is somehow favouring the Coalition.

          • Vote for Pedro on 06/04/2022 - 22:54

            @wryun: I’m basically saying that you’re no different than any political party. Self interest prevails no matter how much you say you’re different.

            You’ve said that you are targeting ‘left’ seats to build your brand off the back of existing progressive sitting members.

            There’s nothing wrong with doing so, but you are no better than those which you claim to be superior to in terms of ‘party politics’.

            You’re playing politics while claiming to be ‘above politics’.

            • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 22:59

              @Vote for Pedro: I think you've somehow managed to turn 'standing for election' and 'telling people about ideas' into something bad in your head.

              Do you think the ethical thing is to not stand for election if your policy overlaps with another candidate? Or that forming a political party itself is a bad thing if there's any other party which is similar? This might be true in first-past-the-post systems, but the whole point of preferential systems is to make this (reasonable?) behaviour not problematic.

              Anyway, all I can really say is that:
              - I think the Fusion party has a bunch of good ideas
              - I'd like more people to learn about them, and if they agree have the opportunity to express that at the polling booth

              • Vote for Pedro on 06/04/2022 - 23:22
                -1

                @wryun: No. It’s not bad. It’s good. You twist what I said. You are a decent politician already answering the question you want to.

                I’m just saying that you shouldn’t be painting yourselves as holier than thou when you accept you are running in grayndler simply as a political ploy, a tactic to build your brand. Self interest prevails

  • SydneySwan on 06/04/2022 - 15:40

    Good luck. I hope you reach the 4% threshold. Please ensure you preference Albo over Scumo.

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 21:23
      +1

      Thanks!

      Because I'm an electoral system nerd, I can't stop myself pointing out that in Grayndler I can suggest in HTVs to preference Albo ahead of the Liberal candidate (Wenjie Zhang), but it's not going to make much of a difference.

      But all your preferences are under your control, people! Don't let some party pamphlet tell you what to do! One day, when I'm not standing, I'll hand out fliers next to the party fliers trying to educate people. I'm sure I'll be really popular, right?

  • zooter on 06/04/2022 - 15:48

    stance on electric car taxations?

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 21:42
      +3

      I'm not sure. A few thoughts:

      It's odd to dissuade people from purchasing electric cars at just the point when we're trying to encourage uptake.

      I'm sympathetic to the idea of charging road users for the infrastructure, though I'm not convinced that our existing charges are well thought out in this regard.

      That Victoria is effectively double taxing plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) is stupid.

      I'm torn on whether we should subsidise electric cars generally; at the moment there's a supply issue in Australia and we'd probably see more electric cars if government subsidies increased. But the car manufacturers are producing electric cars as fast as they can globally, so all this would result in at the moment is reallocating cars destined for somewhere else in the world and do nothing for the overall reduction in carbon emissions. And some of those subsidies would end up in the manufacturers' pockets rather than in consumers (that's why they'd send them to us!).

  • [Deactivated] on 06/04/2022 - 20:14
    +1

    How can we stop and severely punish corruption more effectively?

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 21:32

      I feel like this is a setup - do I know you? :)

      I think the first thing to realise is that there's no magic bullet. Corrupt behaviour inevitably finds the edge cases in any system or set of legislation, so fighting corruption is a continuing process.

      Having said that, I don't actually think the approaches are hard (https://www.fusionparty.org.au/ethical_governance). You just need to keep pushing them. In order of priority, I'd go for:

      • improve transparency of government decision making. In part this is better FOI laws, but it's really about making the culture of government that everything is published. Decision making processes should be 'public by default'.
      • federal anti-corruption commission (no-brainer?)
      • immediate disclosure of political donations
      • strong whistleblower protection laws
  • popsiee on 06/04/2022 - 20:39

    What % result will you disband your party ?

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 21:24

      It's not 'my' party to disband. Regardless of the result, I'm unlikely to run as a lower house candidate again, and that's ok.

  • Click_It on 06/04/2022 - 22:03

    What's your position on compulsory voting in Australia?

    • wryun on 06/04/2022 - 22:45

      Someone asked a similar question (on page 3 currently), so this is in part a copy/paste. I forgive you for not finding it, though :)

      I think compulsory voting is a good thing, because otherwise segments of society are more likely to be disenfranchised (I think in the US optional voting skews to higher incomes, older people, and those born in the country). I would support an explicit donkey vote option on ballot papers for the disenchanted; I don't support people just being too lazy to vote.

      Your thoughts? I'm assuming you're against it, given the question.

      • popsiee on 07/04/2022 - 06:33

        I'm against compulsory voting as well .
        Do you know if its ok to send in a blank ballot via post just like you can do at the polling booths ?
        BTW I have never visited one in my life and I'm a Happy Chappie .

        • wryun on 07/04/2022 - 07:36
          +1

          Because voting is anonymous, it doesn't really matter what you do with your ballot paper: no-one's allowed to connect it back to you. So, yeah, that'll be fine.

      • Click_It on 07/04/2022 - 10:28

        Fair call re not finding the similar question, late-night laziness on my part.

        I hear what you're saying, though yes I became disenchanted with Australian politics a long time ago and may-or-may-not have donkey voted for several years now for the sake of avoiding penalty.

        Another question - is it still a thing where if you don't register for the AEC you never have to vote? I remember having a friend years ago, then in his late 40s who has never voted once because he simply never registered at 18. Too late for me of course.

        • wryun on 07/04/2022 - 23:27
          +1

          I think because we don't have any national identity system the AEC doesn't have a straightforward mechanism to track down those who've never enrolled. But given I believe in compulsory voting, don't do it people!

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 07/04/2022 - 08:11

    Good luck

  • P Plater Panda on 07/04/2022 - 09:15

    It appears a common view that politicians (from both major parties) lack accountability. How can the voters hold these politicians more accountable when it's a two-party preferred system? And a hung-parliament or an ultra-thin majority just means deal making with independents is necessary and less likelihood of any necessary reform for the good of the people. What are some of the things we can actually do as what we feel as "powerless" voters to influence and change the system for the better - even if they are small steps?

    • wryun on 07/04/2022 - 23:24

      I'm not much of a fan of our current system, but one of its advantages is that if your local member is truly obnoxious there's an obvious path to voting them out, or their party realises that they're losing votes and preemptively tosses them. So there is some accountability there.

      I think the other aspect of accountability is making sure we have independent observers hold the government to account: media, anti-corruption bodies, freedom of information laws, whistleblowers, and making government decisions as transparent as possible all have a role to play (and Fusion policy is to strengthen all of these).

      With regards what we can do as individuals and the frustrations of the two-party system, I think the main thing is for people to understand that their vote can make a difference. There are a lot of different misconceptions around voting, and if more people truly understood preferences and the senate I suspect that you'd see a lot more of the vote allocated to 'minor' parties. Over the long term, there's the chance that the political situation would be such that the government would make a deal (this is not necessarily a bad thing!) that would result in electoral reform.

      NZ have an interesting system, and it's also interesting how it was introduced. Sometimes two-party systems can decide to change even though it's against their immediate self-interest: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp

      One thing I noticed in your comment was that you disliked the two party system, but felt that the government having to make deals with independents would make reform less likely. I feel these ideas are in opposition: usually you want a two party system to ensure 'strong' government, or are comfortable having temporary alliances between different parties in a multi-party system at the cost of some stability. I lean towards the latter, as I think it better reflects the will of the electorate.

      • P Plater Panda on 08/04/2022 - 08:32

        Thanks for the reply, I do need to learn more about preferences and how the senate works. The bottom line is, I'd just like to see the government governing effectively for the people - whether that's through making tough decisions or making deals - and not just to keep their seats.

        • wryun on 08/04/2022 - 08:53

          Absolutely, and I think part of the problem is more fundamental: the longer a system remains in place, the better people and organisations get at gaming it. So, 100 years ago you see a more diverse candidature and less money spent on electorates, but now political parties are heavily reliant on corporate/union donations on top of public funding to be 'competitive', and people spend a lot of time on party manoeuvring and politics. When people's whole career is tied to being good at politics, as it is for many of our politicians, the cost of losing an election or their seat is too high.

          I don't have any compelling solutions here. Thinking about it!

      • Roman Sandstorm on 08/04/2022 - 15:52

        felt that the government having to make deals with independents would make reform less likely. I feel these ideas are in opposition: usually you want a two party system to ensure 'strong' government, or are comfortable having temporary alliances between different parties in a multi-party system at the cost of some stability.

        Spot on!

        We have been sold a pup in Australia for decades about the need for 'stability' in government, and that stability can only come about through an entrenched two-party system. That's not how many strong western democracies work. Solid, (and casual) coalitions are common, even the norm in many countries.

        And we've even had a great example in Australia's recent past, whereby a minority federal government (Gillard) managed to pass much good and well-received legislation, and our 'stability' as a nation was not compromised. We did not descend into anarchy.

        As James has mentioned earlier in this thread, the percentage of first-preference votes going to the two major parties has been in decline for decades; this is reasonably represented in the Senate, with a complex, but ultimately quite fair voting system.

        The main barrier to better and fairer representation in the House of Reps is the 'Murdoch and both major party' induced scaremongering of 'political instability' occurring if a minority government is elected. It suits the two major parties to perpetuate this, and keep independents and smaller parties down.

  • TheKas on 07/04/2022 - 09:44
    +1

    So your party of a cocktail of previously failed parties. No single point agenda, you're hoping that your one seat will battle climate change, corruption, inequality and so on.
    Btw where do you guys get funding from and how do you personally earn a living by doing this?

    • NigelTufnel on 07/04/2022 - 10:26
      +1

      I mean, you could also call it a 'coalition' of parties. I think I've heard that somewhere before in relation to a relatively successful political party…

      • techlead on 07/04/2022 - 11:29
        +2

        Yes, a coalition of two parties, Nationals and Liberal is likely to work, however this 5 way "fusion" is very very unlikely to come to any common consensus.

    • wryun on 07/04/2022 - 23:03

      I'm part of a whole group of people trying to influence our democracy via our existing democratic process. I feel like your main critique here is I'm too optimistic; I'll wear that :)

      I would note that all of the parties were small, but that most of them were growing. The only reason they were deregistered by the AEC was that the government drastically changed the goal posts.

      We get (a small amount) of funding from donations; I am losing money by doing this and am not paid for it.

  • Fobsessive on 07/04/2022 - 18:29

    If someone votes #1 your party but your party doesn't reach above 4%, does the cash go to the #2 party instead?

    • wryun on 07/04/2022 - 22:59

      No; no cash is distributed for those votes if the party you vote for gets under 4%.

  • ffhound on 08/04/2022 - 16:09

    Can I get cashback from Shopback or Cash Rewards for my vote?

  • AlienC on 13/04/2022 - 07:25

    I am surprised no one has yet made a troll anime party.. we had the pirate party and sex party but why no anime gaming troll 4chan party?

    • NigelTufnel on 13/04/2022 - 08:36

      Because the pirate party (now part of Fusion) and sex party (now Reason) weren't just troll parties. They were/are legitimate parties with real policies, that (to me at least) had a lot of merit to them.

      They did have catchy names, but they were built on key elements of their policy platform. Pirate = copyright/patent reform and opposition to internet censorship, Sex party = decriminalising sex work and removing censorship.

      • AlienC on 13/04/2022 - 16:15

        Ah I see makes sense fair enough.

        I have to read up on this fusion now so many new ones coming out.

        So what happened to tea party or was that only British or American.

  • vinnychase on 14/04/2022 - 20:06

    Hey Mate I think I might be meeting you soon. Are you gonna be coming to USYD to talk to some first years

  • diddy50 on 17/04/2022 - 10:46

    I don't like the name Fusion Party.
    It doesn't mean anything.
    It hasn't got any name recognition and hasn't got a message.

    This is gonna be really tough to get many votes apart from loyalists.

    Good luck I guess

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join