The Global Mail has ceased operations.
Cost Of Democracy
<p>Mark Graham/Bloomberg via Getty Images</p>

Mark Graham/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Is This The Most Dangerous Woman In Australia?

The Liberal and Labor preference deals paint the Greens as extremist nutters. But the Greens aren’t running on a policy of putting an Australian on Mars...

So, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has decreed that the Liberal Party will put the Greens’ candidate last in each and every House of Representatives seat, allegedly because the Greens’ policies are too extreme.

At a press conference at which he announced the decision, Abbott explained that, unlike “everyone else in this campaign [who] supports economic growth and supports a more prosperous economy”, the Greens advocate “fringe economic policies”.

As a result of this edict the Liberal Party will, in 24 seats across the country, direct its preferences to candidates of the Citizens Electoral Council (CEC), ahead of the Greens.

<p>Matt King/Getty Images</p>

Matt King/Getty Images

The CEC, which is affiliated with the far-right conspiracy theorist LaRouche's organisation of the US, has as one of its major policies a plan to put an Australian on Mars.

Wouldn’t you love to see the policy costing of that one? Unfortunately the CEC, like the Liberal Party and unlike the Greens, has not released any costings for its election promises.

CEC policy also holds that, “All commercial banks must completely divest themselves of all non-commercial banking activity and banking units. No cross-management or cross-ownership with investment banking units may remain.”

It calls for the establishment of a new government-owned bank, which would compete with private-sector lenders.

Compare this with the Greens’ banking policy, which proposes levying a new tax of 0.2 per cent on the four major banks' assets over $100 billion, to raise $8.4 billion over three years. I have a sneaking suspicion the finance sector would be rather more aghast at the CEC plan.

“One of the CEC’s major policies is to put an Australian on Mars. Wouldn’t you love to see the policy costing of that one?”

Now, it needs to be said that Abbott’s edict only applies to preferences for House of Representatives seats. In the Victorian Senate race (the CEC is running only for the Senate in that state), the Liberal ticket puts the CEC lower.

But the general point holds: in the vast majority of contests for the Senate and the Reps, the Liberal Party has preferred a whole raft of parties which are way “fringier” than the Greens.

Let’s look at some.

How about the Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party? Its sole policy concern is weed: the legalisation of it, the taxation of it, the cultivation of it, the release from prison of all those convicted in relation to it, et cetera. Liberal preferences put the dopers ahead of the Greens.

The Australian Sex Party would go even further. It favours the decriminalisation of all personal drug use and the raising of $2 billion through legalising and taxing marijuana sales.

It also advocates balancing the budget by extracting $10 billion from churches through the removal of all tax exemptions on religious institutions. One suspects Tony Abbott’s good friend Archbishop George Pell would consider that a fringe economic policy – and much scarier than anything the Greens propose. Yet the Liberals prefer them to the Greens too.

Then there’s the Future Party Australia, whose energy policy makes that of the Greens look quite conservative. Its members share the Greens’ sense of urgency for putting an end to our reliance on carbon-based energy, but see alternatives such as wind and solar as merely an interim step on the path towards power generated by thorium-fuelled nuclear reactors.

Strangely, the Libs not only prefer the anti-carbon radicalism of the Stop CSG Party, but also the flat-Earth denialism of the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics party, to the Greens.

Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks Party, even Tony Abbott would probably agree, is rather more radical in its views on civil liberties than are the Greens. But the Liberal Party’s allocation of preferences does not reflect it.

Other preferred parties include the anti-Islamic Rise Up Australia Party, and the Australian Christians party, which wants to cut the intake of non-Christian migrants and take more African Christians.

And how about the Australian Protectionist Party, which favours a racially/religiously discriminatory migration policy, the rebuilding of tariff walls and freer access to firearms for those of approved “cultural background”. Really.

“The bottom line here is that any examination of the preference deals stitched up by our political parties is deeply disillusioning.”

There are many more examples among the hundreds of parties and candidates, but the point is made: Abbott’s edict had little to do with the “fringe” policies of the Greens, and a great deal to do with maximising the flow of preferences to his party and minimising the flow to Labor.

Nor is the Liberal Party alone in such cynical manipulation of the preference regime, although Abbott’s assertion is the most nakedly false of this campaign so far. The Labor Party also does it, as indeed do the Greens to a lesser extent.

In Queensland, for example, Labor is directing its second preferences to Katter’s Australian Party which, in its enthusiasm for old-style protectionism, can fairly be said to have fringe views, utterly antithetical to the economic reforms put in place by the Hawke/Keating Labor governments.

The KAP policy manifesto is thin, to put it mildly. The register of its donors is actually more interesting. It copped a quarter-of-a-million dollars from James Packer – heaven knows why, but maybe it has something to do with Katter’s opposition to tighter regulation of poker machines. Its other major financial backers include the ethanol company Manildra (the KAP solution to Australia’s fuel needs is vast production of ethanol), and a handful of companies and organisations with an interest in weaponry – either selling it, or firing it.

Do we really believe the ALP has more in common with Katter’s bunch than with the Greens?

Labor also places the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party very high on some of it tickets, as do the conservative parties. Why they do is a mystery; the party has no policy platform at all.

The bottom line here is that any examination of the preference deals stitched up by our political parties is deeply disillusioning.

It’s particularly sad, because in theory there is a lot to be said for Australia’s preferential voting system.

In theory, the system ensures victory for the candidate who is most acceptable – or, if you prefer, the least unacceptable – to all electors, even if he or she is not the first choice of the majority.

In theory, as the website Australian Politics explains, the system “allows parties of like-minded philosophies or policies to exchange preferences in order to assist each other to win”.

Alas, the practice belies the theory.

It’s not just that parties, particularly the big parties, expediently direct preferences to others with which they have little in common, policy-wise. It’s that they don’t direct preferences to others with whom they have a great deal in common.

Labor and Liberal, for instance, always put one another well down the preference list, when in reality they have a great deal in common. And this great convergence continues apace.

To take one example, consider the way Labor policy has moved towards that of the conservatives on the asylum-seeker issue. The differences are more rhetorical and presentational than actual.

To take another, look at the way the conservatives have come to emulate Labor on education-funding reform.

“Labor and Liberal, for example, always put one another well down the preference list, when in reality they have a great deal in common.”

But the major parties’ similarities in individual policy areas are less significant than than their broader attitude to policy formulation and to the electorate.

The estimable Laura Tingle, writing in the Australian Financial Review on August 19, described Abbott’s paid parental-leave scheme as “irresponsible populist junk”.

She also noted that on its form in the election campaign so far, Labor was in no position to criticise.

Indeed, the mad, bad economics of both major parties’ policies on the development of northern Australia – the suggestion of differential rates of tax and forced relocation of people to the north – are arguably as far out on the fringe as anything the Greens propose. Or anything a lot of the other minor parties propose, for that matter.

The sad truth of modern Australian politics is that parties direct most effort to winning the votes of swinging voters, who are described by Stephen Mills in his seminal book, The New Machine Menas “ignorant and indifferent” when it comes to politics.

They’re the ones who are likely to go for a piece of populist rubbish politics. Or follow the party line on preferences.

52 comments on this story
by chris

No mention of "Saint Julian's" Wiki Leaks Party placing the Shooter's Party above the Greens in their preferences. That one pass you by Mike.?

I don't agree with Abbott's paid parental-leave scheme either but the Greens think it's fine and dandy. You missed that too!

The "estimable Laura Tingle" is one way of describing the Financial Review's scribe but what would your description of her been when she worked for The Australian I wonder?

August 20, 2013 @ 7:44pm
by Bailey's Mother

The ever unlovely Sophie Mirabella has apparently preferenced the Rise Up Australia party, led by Danny Nalliah - a loon who described the Black Saturday bushfires as his god's punishment for the then Victorian government liberalising abortion laws.

August 20, 2013 @ 10:10pm
by @chrispydog

Overall, you make your point Mike, don't look inside the sausage factory, and if you do, the Greens are from the worst, and there's botulism aplenty elsewhere.

It's also quite fair enough to show up the shortcomings of the 'one trick pony' parties, but don't get too glib. The Greens are just as sanctimonious about what they qualify as 'green' energy,and purport to 'care about the planet' and yet fail to explain how wind and solar will ever replace coal. There's a lot of intellectual heft that counts, (in both senses), which says this is like believing in the Tooth Fairy.

I'd go so far as to predict we'll be buying our thorium reactors from the Chinese by about 2025, and some of the royalties will be flowing to Bill Gates, who is currently investing in them. Loony Tunes, eh?

August 20, 2013 @ 11:56pm
by Jordan Rastrick

"Then there’s the Future Party Australia, whose energy policy makes that of the Greens look quite conservative. Its members share the Greens’ sense of urgency for putting an end to our reliance on carbon-based energy, but see alternatives such as wind and solar as merely an interim step on the path towards power generated by thorium-fuelled nuclear reactors."

Thanks for the coverage, but this isn't quite accurate. We think wind, solar and nuclear should be the dominant forms of energy in Australia within a few decades, most likely in that order. While nuclear is important, it is no more a silver bullet than any given renewable is. Unless there is a radical technological breakthrough, but that's a caveat that goes for every form of energy.

It is emphasised in our platform because Nuclear power is currently illegal in Australia - thus this is one of of the avenues for providing cheap and carbon free energy that is most amenable to political action.

August 21, 2013 @ 1:42am
by Linda

You omitted the Pirate Party! So disappointed.

August 21, 2013 @ 7:57am
by Jim McDonald

Labor and LNP will do and say anything to ensure that the Greens don't enjoy growing support. They will distort Greens policies and misrepresent them [it's called lying]. Having drifted so far to the right, the representation by Labor and Liberals of Greens social economics and environmental sustainability as belonging to the "fringe" serves to illustrate how low economic priorities for families, individuals and the sustainability of the future have become in Labor and Coalition policy. Unless, of course, they see a vote in dressing up their receding concerns for the Australians with the least economic clout as progressive such as Abbott's discriminatory paid parental scheme.

August 21, 2013 @ 8:27am
by mixtrak

Thanks Jordan for the clarification.

August 21, 2013 @ 10:07am
by Annette

The Liberal paid parental leave promise (pork barreling) will come at the expense of cuts in welfare, for people that really need welfare. This is a populist promise to extend middleclass welfare at the expense of the have nots.

August 21, 2013 @ 11:13am
by Dylstra

Actually, Chrispydog, the Greens have outlined in a number of place how they would get to 100% renewable energy. Here for instance:

August 21, 2013 @ 2:25pm
by Mark Thompson

I think it would be great to send an Australian to Mars! Could we start with Abbott?

August 21, 2013 @ 2:27pm
by VoR

Surely it's as simple as both Labor and Liberal putting the two-party system at the top of their agenda - far ahead of the country's interests. Losing a few seats, or even an election, to Lib/Lab is less of a problem to Lab/Lib than losing the two-party system, which by its very nature means they will be returned to lucrative and powerful positions more often in the long term.

August 21, 2013 @ 3:29pm
by Fiona

The ALP want the KAP because Katter has one of the safest seats in the country. By having that preference it will cancel out the inevitable shitstorm that is coming with having Beattie on the ticket in the south-east corner of Queensland.

August 21, 2013 @ 3:54pm
by Stephen H

It would be nice to have alternatives to Labor and LNP. The Greens are the only serious choice at the moment, and I don't trust either of the major parties with the power to govern in their own right. They both see the Greens as challengers and want to stamp them down in their undemocratic way.

August 21, 2013 @ 7:06pm
by Tim Rowe

The Greens have destroyed the economy of my home state of Tasmania, forcing myself and many like me to leave to find a future. I cannot express the depth of my disgust at the selfish, narcissistic, uncaring attitude of the Green party. They have no regard for everyday working people and consistently put the environment before people. I hope they are politically destroyed at the next election

August 21, 2013 @ 8:01pm
by Zac

@Tim Rowe The Greens care more about everyday working people than both Labor and Liberal! Read their policies:

August 21, 2013 @ 8:33pm
by Nathaniel

The Greens aren't responsible for the destruction of Tasmanias economy, Tasmanias location is a much more serious problem, just like New Zealand, Australia takes the talent from those places, everything costs more to transport there.

Have some of their policies hurt Tasmania, probably, is tourism likely to be Tasmanias greatest asset in the decades ahead? Almost certainly, and the Greens aren't hurting that.

August 21, 2013 @ 9:29pm
by Marcus

When it comes to preferencing I do wish more parties would take a leaf out of the book of the Pirate Party. Pirate Party Australia allocated its preferences by allowing its members to vote on their preferred order and basically did so in accordance to the policy basis of the other parties and how closely they aligned with the values and policies of the Pirate party.

Any deals on the table were also pubished in advance and then voted on by the membership as well. And all other parties were invited to make a case to the Pirate party membership as to why they should preference them.

The full details of this system, including the ballot results and even a pairwise comparison table of each party, is available here:

Transparency, honesty, democracy and principles are quite possible when it comes to allocating preferences.

Despite the name, the Pirate party has quite a deep and well researched policy set and is one of the only parties I've ever seen to include references and citations within their policy statements/platform:

August 22, 2013 @ 9:40am
by J.Fraser

Apparently "The Australian" thinks The Greens Leader is at least one of the most dangerous woman on planet Earth.

The owner of that publication might also add Wendi Deng.

August 22, 2013 @ 10:46am
by Richard

Generally I am a fan of your work but this is a weakly premised article.

The spraying of journalistic pellets in Tony Abbott’s direction is probably a sign that he is gaining traction in the public’s eye and not a bad thing for my mind. Regardless of who wins the coming election, Australians need to have a healthier relationship and perspective for the PM.

Mike, continue to be rigorous in your investigation and not resort to distracting tactics.

August 22, 2013 @ 3:55pm
by Mike Flanagan

Thanks Mike, I do enjoy your perspections but I must say that my creditors will not let me go to Mars as I m still paying off your bridge

August 23, 2013 @ 9:21am
by Dan

It's clear from Richard's comments that he intends to vote Liberal in the upcoming election. I would love to know why anyone would actually ever vote for a party that has Tony Abbott as it's leader. Since he became opposition leader we have seen gaff after gaff from Abbott, and when he's not making a fool of himself he makes a fool of anyone who follows him by voicing racist and sexist views.

Australian's have been mislead by the leader of the opposition. We are not facing difficult economic times, we do not have an immigration problem and climate change is not a "load of crap". The cognitive dissonance that many Australians are experiencing stems from the ostrich policies of the Liberal party.

I'm sure Richard believes that he has sound reasons for his beliefs but I'm sure he must recognise that belief does not have any place in rationalism. Should we choose our leaders with our heart or our head? Personally, I use my head.

Surely, Mike Seccombe's research is a worthy and factual "distraction" from the paper thin spin that we consume daily during this election campaign.

August 23, 2013 @ 8:41pm
by Meryl Joyce

Disillusioned, cynical that's me as we suffer through the machinations of the major parties with their donations and preference deals not to mention their appealing to the yobbo factor. Perhaps those who follow the Sex Party suggestions will end up happier than those of us who continue to expect/long for signs of intelligence.

August 24, 2013 @ 7:38am
by Christopher

Richard, please explain - or is it simply that you don't want to know?
The main thrust of the article seems clear enough and, I would have thought, difficult to take issue with.
I wish there were another word than childish to describe our politicians - it is so unfair to children. The pettiness of our parliament is fracking deep.

August 24, 2013 @ 8:25am
by Evan

Nice that economics are meant to be what matters. And so the future of the life on earth is dismissed. That sounds pretty extreme.

It does make clear who they are worried about and who is seen as the credible alternative and how much the two majors are a duopoly that feels threatened.

August 24, 2013 @ 8:50am
by Mark Yuile

The ABC Vote Compass showed that my views were heavily aligned with the Greens. When I proudly raised this at my local church in a small country town you would think I confessed membership to the KKK. The vehemence of the reaction seemed to be that the Greens are anti-agriculture. I would have liked to point out that modern sustainable farming practices are partly due to the environmentally responsible green movement.

August 24, 2013 @ 8:58am
by Jan Fensch

Drat!! Australian politics and policies are beginning to sound like the U S.
God help you all !!

August 24, 2013 @ 10:18am
by Tom Riddle

"Independent journalism for independent minds'". Please change this motto to "Not-so Independent Journalism for Naive Minds". Do you really believe the Liberals "prefer" those minor parties over the Greens"? None of them is a threat to the Libs or the ALP in the Senate in the election, whereas the Greens are. This article does nothing other than show your lack of independence and hypocrisy.

August 24, 2013 @ 11:26am
by Ken R

As I will number every box below the line in this Senate election, I appreciate the thumbnails of some of the parties that I have not bothered to investigate. Most useful in deciding which ones go to the bottom of the heap.

I've also read the information on the AEC website and my vote is still formal if I write in Mark Arbib's name and number it lucky last (111 in NSW). I don't see why his resignation should prevent me from voting him even lower than Fred Nile.

August 24, 2013 @ 1:01pm
by Pat

I have always disliked preferential voting, it removes the premise of one person one vote and replaces it with a lucky dip

August 24, 2013 @ 1:32pm
by Andrew Smith

Curious no mention was made of the Stable Population Party who were described in a recent Malcolm King article "Stable Population Party greenwashing racism"

"At the Federal election the SPP - which claims to be an environmental party - has preferenced One Nation, the Australian Motoring Party, the Shooters and Fishers Party, Palmer's United Party, Family First and Katter's Australian Party ahead of the Greens.

If one voted on SPP preference guidelines, you would support kicking out the Asians, raising tariffs, shooting wildlife in national parks, eschewing contraception, building more mines and raising jingoism to a fine art."

Further, uncanny resemblance to tactics used by thier guru John Tanton in the USA to divide and conquer, unsuccessfully, the pro enviornment and pro immigration Sierra Club in the USA.

August 24, 2013 @ 6:41pm
by June

I heartily agree with the Aust Sex Party's wish to extract $10 billion from Churches and remove all tax exemptions on religious institutions. The homeless and down and outs could be really catered for with that amount of money as no doubt Jesus would have wished.

August 24, 2013 @ 7:13pm
by Brigid Walsh

I reckon we need a public inquiry into electoral matters after this election looking at a) micro-parties especially those who cannot, at close of nomination, cannot provide either photographs or biographies on-line of their candidates b) whether a multiplicity of micro-parties, as opposed to straight-out independent candidates, has the ability to manipulate votes and preferences to major parties in a deceptive manner c) institute a minimum vote to be gained by a candidate in the proportional voting system for the Senate - to prevent "accidental politicians" gaining the smallest of small portions of the primary vote from gaining a Senate place d) how public funding forms a part of a candidate's income without the candidate ever expecting to gain elected office i.e. Pauline Hanson to name one.

August 25, 2013 @ 10:48am
by Rolly

VoR has put the whole schemozzle into perspective quite succintly.

Like Woolies and Coles, the two major parties fear their loss of dominance.
Any other influences will spoil their self opinionated "Right to Rule".

August 25, 2013 @ 7:03pm
by AndrewH

Surely the issue here isn't which party says/supports what, but the practice of having 'above the line' preference deals. Get rid of them. There shouldn't be an 'above the line' option. Even on a large ballot containing (perhaps) some independents or fringe parties that a voter may never have heard of that won't prevent that same voter (hopefully) knowing most of the major players and having an opinion on them. Put the knowns first and the unknowns last (or in the middle if you really hate some of the knowns). How hard is that (and even if you get it wrong you can tear it up and start again)? In a democracy the idea is that each of us are having some input into the process. Preference deals undermine democracy.

August 26, 2013 @ 9:04am
by Alex_D

I live and vote in Queensland. We have no upper house. We get by very well without a senate.

Yes I know how it's supposed to be a house of review and all, but in reality it allows non-representative personalities and parties to exert disproportionate influence.

The Senate is the inbuilt bug in the software of government, IMO.

August 26, 2013 @ 10:08am
by Pablo

Since when has politics been about policy? How much, during this election campaign, has there been a discussion based on fully costed policies rather than personalities? Looking through the Greens policies, it is clear that a lot of them are carefully backed by expert advice, with little regard to populism. You only have to look at their most unpopular policies to see that they are based on the best scientific opinion.

As Rolly said, Labor and Liberal will happily join forces to obliterate any party that threatens the duopoly. The Greens, like the Democrats before them, are the most likely party to break through, and that alone makes them the most dangerous party in Australia.

August 26, 2013 @ 10:21am
by TechinBris

by Alex_D @ August 26, 2013 @ 10:08am. "I live and vote in Queensland. We have no upper house. We get by very well without a senate."
WOW! Can I have what you're on! I would love to be in you're state of mind about Austerity we had to have when we didn't have to have it! *facepalm*

August 27, 2013 @ 8:14am
by Daniel

Nothing wrong with Greens politics and polices. They are now the only credible Australian political party.

August 27, 2013 @ 12:31pm
by Robyne

where do the greens preferences go then?

August 27, 2013 @ 3:15pm
by MM

Greens lost all credibility with me, when they voted with the Liberals against the ETS scheme that Rudd proposed. With the benefit of hindsight Rudd should have had the courage of his convictions and proceeded with a double dissolution to call their bluff.

August 27, 2013 @ 10:28pm
by El Tel

The Greens are preferencing Clive Palmer's party. The biggest mover of coal-laden ships through the ports linked to the Great Barrier Reef.

August 28, 2013 @ 7:49am

All parties preference all of the other parties its the order which they do it in that matters so Yes the greens preference Katter's party BUT tehy preference them only one ahead of the liberals and below all the other left leaning parties and this is only because Katter's party has a better refugee policy than Liberals.

August 28, 2013 @ 11:41am
by Rufus

At least one party allocated their preferences in a manner that matched their policies and the similarity of other partes:

The Pirate Party had their membership do a vote to order preferences and allocate them according to how the policies of each party aligned with pirate party policies.

August 28, 2013 @ 6:19pm
by Charlie Peters

1992 fuel price about $1.40 per gallon.

Ethanol push from fed EPA and friends pushed ethanol to 5.6% and we paid more for our fuel.

Fed EPA and Big oil refiners pushed the oxygenate to 10% and we paid more.

Now BP GMO fuel is pushing for over $1.00 in corporate welfare with 15% of the fuel market while cutting back Oil and refining

Will BP GMO fuel patents generate credit trade income from the Big oil industry with the Queen Mother help.

The Queen banker friends may want a share.

So. how big does California ethanol bill need to be to qualify for the EPA waiver?

Can Mary Nichols and Governor Brown support a fuel ethanol waiver? Motorcycle, Classic car, Lawn tool engines, Boat, & the beef just might like a choice of fuel ethanol opinion, a waiver. Can Governor Brown use the 10th amendment to support California Waiver.

August 29, 2013 @ 8:08am
by JamesWrangler

It's funny how you forgot to mention that the The Greens (a party that wants to close down all mines) made preference deals with the Palmer Unitied Party (the miner who wants to start more mines)

September 1, 2013 @ 12:59pm
by Ian Davies

Political commentary is like scratching a sore.

September 1, 2013 @ 7:16pm
by Jason

The Coalition preferences aren't putting the Greens last in every House of Representatives seat. In the electorate of Macquarie, the Liberals actually put the Greens second last, with the Australia First party as the last preference (Labor also has made the Australia First party their last preference). When looking at what the Australia First party stands for, it is understandable why the Coalition preferences the Greens above them.

September 6, 2013 @ 1:50pm
by Des Ritchie

Tony Abbott must be stopped eliminating the Carbon Tax. It is the only weapon we have to slow the Climate changing. " We can stay in heaven with the Carbon Tax or go to Hell without it."

September 9, 2013 @ 9:43am
by Sue Goss

Well it's nearly all over. No surprises then that the unbelievable has happened. A petrolhead in Victoria and a sports fiend in WA both have to present themselves in suits in Canberra for more weeks than they could have thought possible next year. What a punishment! And we also now have a genuine libertarian - from whom the US Republicans pick many of their loveable policies such as freedom to own and shoot as many guns as you like so that your country will be free from fear and murder. So maybe they'll change the system at last?

September 9, 2013 @ 4:34pm
Show previous 49 comments
by Keith Rodney

There is only one God and He made the universe in many colors. As well as Green and Red. The globe will warm and cool whenever it's required just as it has done in the past.

September 9, 2013 @ 10:09pm
by chris

Just deluded MIke.

October 17, 2013 @ 4:25pm
by Sachia Manning

It has now been judicially decided that The Australian Vaccination Network must cease and desist using its present name as it's apparently considered to falsely imply representation of the industry. Well, we can't have that because every idiot that logs on might be tricked into getting a balanced education on the topic. That would set a tragic precedent for the bottom line in the drug trade -they could loose hundreds of dollars - and it is an insult to all on the industry's payroll who genuinely appreciate its stranglehold on secret science and medical persuasion. In the same vein however how may a political party with a drum to beat name themselves "Citizens Electoral Council"?

November 26, 2013 @ 3:35pm
Type a keyword to search for a story or journalist