As eligible voters make their way to the polling booths on May 3, 2025, a pivotal question looms large in their minds. A kaleidoscope of choices stretches before them, each representing a different vision for the future. Yet, a heavy sense of futility hangs in those residing in districts where the margin of victory seems insurmountable for their chosen candidate. They ponder the weight of their decision, acutely aware that their voice may fall silent amid the clamour of an inevitable outcome. For them, voting transforms into a bittersweet reflection on the power and limitations of democracy.
Many individuals with little engagement with politics often find themselves undecided until they step into the voting booth, pulling back the curtain to reveal their choice. Among the electorate, there exists a significant segment of single-issue voters, driven by a singular focus that shapes their decision-making. Meanwhile, the unmistakable influence of Trump resonates throughout our political landscape, provoking varied reactions – some embrace it while others resist it, reflecting the deep divisions within our society.
Stable voters are often swayed by the echoes of their parent’s choices, casting their ballots in alignment with the way their fathers and mothers did. In contrast, a new wave of voters who see independents as the beacon of hope for a brighter future is emerging. Then, some focus solely on the local candidate, prioritising community connections over party lines. Meanwhile, many individuals will forgo voting altogether, their indifference palpable.
A minority of those who take the electoral process seriously stand out: they meticulously digest every piece of information, weighing arguments and perspectives before deciding how to cast their vote. Unfortunately, such informed voters are few and far between.
The array of information necessary to make an informed decision is abundant and readily available from a multitude of sources – newspapers with their ink-stained pages, TV news broadcasts that flicker on the screen, the ever-present chatter of social media, and the well-curated websites of the candidates themselves. Despite the legal requirement to vote, some may choose to submit an invalid ballot, their frustration or confusion manifesting in a chaotic scribble across the voting papers. It is crucial, therefore, to ensure that the information consumed is credible and truthful, as it serves as the bedrock for a meaningful vote.
If you are serious and want information on a specific subject or many subjects from reliable sources, click this link to The Conversation. This page will appear as your guide to the significant policy issues of the 2025 election. How will Labor, the Coalition, the Greens, and the Independents improve Australia? It will be updated throughout the campaign.
When you absorb this information, remember that everyone is entitled to free speech but is not entitled to abuse it.
About free speech
The merchants of verbal violence and deceit are often the most fervent champions of free speech, wielding it like a double-edged sword that grants their poisonous rhetoric an undeserved aura of legitimacy. These purveyors of hatred and bigotry aim to sway the vulnerable – a community of individuals susceptible to their insidious messages or those who share their warped ideologies.
The original purpose of free speech was to empower the oppressed, providing them with a voice and serving as a safeguard against government tyranny. Yet, in the landscape of modern America, the First Amendment has been twisted into a weapon that justifies the incitement of racism, legitimises hatred, and fuels both religious and political intolerance.
In a thriving democracy, citizens are entitled to free speech as a gift from the government. Thus, it becomes essential for those who engage with this freedom to embody a spirit of moderation, truthfulness, factual accuracy, balance, reason, tolerance, and an openness to opposing viewpoints. Tragically, this critical understanding has been forgotten – here and in the United States.
When a political party intentionally conceals the vital information that voters need to make an informed, balanced, and rational assessment of its governance, it acts deceitfully through omission – such actions amount to manipulating our democracy itself.
I am convinced Peter Dutton believes that the effect of lying diminishes over time and forgets that he leaves behind a residue of broken trust (my view).
My thought for the day
You cannot possibly believe in democracy if, at the same time, you think your party is the only one that should ever win.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Hm, Mr Vanilla Reasonably Safe Hands or Mr Abominable the Despotic Mutant Potato? Decisions, decisions.
Last night (Friday) the boofheads at SKY after Dark had their knickers in a knot over a lie allegedly perpetrated by the ABC when announcing the first national leader’s debate
Evidently The Daily Telegraph and Sky News will host Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition leader Peter Dutton for their ‘first debate of the 2025 federal election campaign’ on Tuesday April 8 at 7:30pm.in Wester Sydney before an audience of one hundred invited and, we are told, undecided punters.
The sin committed by the ABC according to SKY was that they announced that they would hold an election debate between between the leaders at 8pm AEST, Wednesday April 16.
So what’s the big deal ? Well, SKY object to the ABC calling their debate national, first and free to air, in the sense that it will be available nationally on free to air television whereas, of course, SKY is a subscription service for which you have to pay unless you are in a regional area where they have a deal to broadcast through Southern Cross and WIN.
The ABC are not telling lies, they are having the first nationally televised, free to air debate which will have a much broader reach than SKY.
So who is telling porkies about a ‘national’ free to air debate, you be the judge :
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/federal-election-2025-abcs-pr-team-falsely-claims-national-broadcaster-has-secured-the-first-free-to-air-debate-of-the-campaign-despite-sky-news-beating-them-by-a-week/news-story/98299dd0f20fa4d0475f8092fc164a36
Sty newsless earshit? What a pox on civilised discourse. Dutton has an accumulated record of brazen laziness, total failure, general ignorance (hello Alan Davies), wasting and lying about it, courting rotten richites, strutting Trumpishly and duncery constantly. Why vote for pain, waste, failure, and being left out..?