Kevin Andrews, visionary blancmange policy debate.

Dear reader, once again, due praise must be given to the visionary Kevin Andrews, who together with messers, Bernardii, Christsensen, Abetz, and Roberts is ensuring that Australia plays a straight bat in the frothcoming blancmange plebiscite

Leading the policy Debate. One Nation leader, (Gauleiter for Queensland) Pauline Hanson. M.P

Today we bring you a fragment from Sir Atney, who gives much colour to the Shovel article with  an acute personal observation. It is hoped that the blancmange plebiscite deals once and for all with the pesky issue of gays, cooking shows and anything remotely rainbow- coloured, and incidentally whilst we’re at it, people of colour. Good to see One nation leading the policy debate and doubtless an inspiration for the PM of ‘thought bubbles’, who had an idea………. once.

and now from the shovel.

Women, Black People To Be Barred From Plebiscite,  In Order To Preserve ‘Traditional’ Definition Of Voting By The Shovel on September 13, 2016

British Troops encourage voters in the Easter Blancmange plebiscite. Dublin. 1916.

AEC Officers encourage aboriginal participation in the 1934 Conniston blancmange plebiscite.

Only white men over the age of 21 will be eligible to vote in the upcoming same-sex marriage plebiscite, in keeping with the traditional definition of voting. Liberal MP Kevin Andrews told the media that it was a common sense approach to February’s poll, as “that’s the traditional way voting has occurred going back generations”. Some critics however argue that allowing all white adult men to vote is a step too far. They believe New South Wales’s original voting eligibility definition of “men over 21 years of age with £100 free–hold, £10 annual value householders, 3 year lease of £10 annual value, or depasturing licence,” is more appropriate. “Let’s not meddle with a system that has clearly worked well for years,” one critic said. Mr Andrews responded to those critics, arguing passionately that all men, regardless of the value of their free-hold, should be able to participate in a democratic society.

Sir Atney Emo comments: ‘Certainly a very fair and practical proposition  – as far as it goes.  But I can look back to an even more successful approach to enfranchisement. In my teens in Northern Ireland the electoral system was marked by well-targeted gerrymandering.  Thus the city of Derry (second-largest city in the Ulster statelet) was 70% Catholic-Nationalist, however the Catholic wards were very large and few, while the Protestant wards were small and many. But each ward had one elected representative, so the city hall elections always returned a 65-75% Protestant-Unionist majority! On top of that was the quaint and entirely reasonable arrangement whereby each voter received an additional vote for every company directorship held (again, greatly favouring the Protestant-Conservative vote).   Thus, my then father-in-law, a very wealthy business man with diverse interests, approached the ballot box armed with TWELVE votes!

African Americans hard at it. Vote counting after the Gettysburg Blancmange plebiscite.

And from Cecil, who’s on hand by Lagerphone from the US of A;

Apt response Sir Atney I’ll pass it on to the traditionalists from the GOP here in North Carolina, doubtless, will pass it on Federally.  Of course it was the southern democrats who initiated the Jim Crow era of black disenfranchisement 20 to 30 years after the civil war which the Republicans won and gave the vote to African American (Men).  There were a number of black parliamentarians in southern states between 1870 – 1890, and virtually none between 1900 and 1990.   Gerry Mander has not been seen in the US at all, except to note that electoral boundaries seem to change as State Governments change.  That is only the will of the people.