Poly The Pollie

Here's my idea of the day:

We all suspect our politicians are lying to us. Especially in the last few years. So why don't we make them sit a polygraph (aka lie detector) test?

Okay, maybe we can't force them to sit for one, but we can certainly decide whether or not we'll vote for them based on whether or not they have sat for a public, screened over the internet, lie detector test and had to answer a detailed series of questions about their policies and intentions. I'm not interested in their personal life, whether or not they ever inhaled, inserted a cigar into a cavity, or had an affair. I want to know what they stand for and what they will do about it.

We all know a polygraph test isn't 100% accurate. But so what? They aren't going to jail if they get it wrong, I'm just making a decision as to whether or not I will vote for them.

So... I say... in 2006 and beyond, I will not vote for any politician who will not sit for a public polygraph.

POLY THE POLLIE.

Comments

[swylie]

Surely there are certain things that politicians, like anyone, need not disclose in the best interests of the people they represent. I suspect it would be questions relating to these things that people would likely pinpoint if this test did occur, and as a result, any politician would be wary to partake.

Furthermore, I don't believe that many people (including politicians) lie unless they feel it's in someone else's best interests to do so (i.e. few people are so selfish as to lie solely for their own benefit) - but maybe I'm being naive.

[Cameron Reilly]

I think the list of questions should be prepared and vetted online by the public. They should pertain only to matters of policy, voting record, and political intentions. For example:

Question: If elected, would you commit your country to pre-emptive military action without United Nations Security Council approval?

Question: Did you, Prime Minister, commit Australian troops to Iraq while knowing that there was no evidence to support the claims of WMD?

[Gnoll110]

Me thinks a Polly would probably pass a poly test, as most really really believe what they say. Just as I believe most jihadis believe there are 72 virgins at the other end.

[Cameron]

yeah i wondered about that. But... it all depends on the questions we are asking them. The question wouldn't be:

Q. Prime Minister, do you believe invading Iraq was the right thing to do?

It would be:

Q. Prime Minister, were you aware of any evidence that Iraq did NOT have WMD when you committed Australian troops to Iraq?

[Gnoll110]

With the WMDs, I'm not sure that that question is important! What do you do with a divided body of evidence with no clear result.

Is it a matter of the lesser of 2 evils?

What happens if there are NO WMDs and I'm wrong and I go to war?

Vs

What happens if there are WMDs and I'm wrong and I don't go to war?

That is planning for the Worst Case Vs planning for the Best Case.

[Cameron Reilly]

Gnoll, that's a completely different argument. The pollies didn't come to us and say "well, listen, we don't know. It's 50/50. But we think we should go in anyway. Better safe than sorry."

They said:
"We have undeniable evidence. The threat in imminent. It's all about to blow."

Then they murdered tens of thousands of civilians, men, women and children. To add to the million that had been killed in the previous 12 years of economic sanctions.

This isn't an "honest mistake". This is deliberate malfeasance and it needs to be exposed.

[Phillip Molly Malone]

"To add to the million that had been killed in the previous 12 years of economic sanctions."
Can we (Australia) be blamed for this? Do we even have a vote on this? And what about how many people died at the hands of Sadam (I would have thought you would have to include the millions in the quote above as if he hadn't done what he did, there would be no sactions)?

Molly

[Cameron]

Molly, Australia doesn't get a vote on the UNSC. So no, we didn't bring in the sanctions, but we certainly abided by them (apart from AWB ALLEGEDLY). The people who died at the hands of Saddam is no justification for killing a million innocent cilivians. International law isn't AN EYE FOR AN EYE. And if you have a military dictator, funded and supported by the USA and Britian, running a country, the people can hardly be held responsible. They are victims, not murderers.

[Phillip Molly Malone]

Agree on EYE for and Eye not being right. What I am saying is Cause and Effect. If Saddam does the right thing (by his people and as a member of the international community) then there are no sanctions. I am not saying that the sanctions are an EFE type behaviour, but are a way of trying to get Saddam to do the right thing. It didn't work.

The real question I guess I have is what should we do? Just ignore everything around the world? Maybe. but is it to late now any way?

I guess what I am after is that when your wacking our country and pollies (and they/we deserver it from time to time) you not forget that Saddam was a bad man as well and brought some of this on himself and more importantly, on the poor people of Iraq.

JMTC.
Molly

[Cameron]

jesus molly, I'm starting to think you're a paid hack working for either John Howard or Alan Jones.

"Aw shucks ma'am, sorry we killed a million civilians, we'll try harder next time. Hey that Saddam, he was a bad man. Sure - we put him in power and kept him in power while he was killing the Kurds and the Iranians, shee-it boy, we even gave him the weapons to do it! And then when he stopped taking our orders, we killed a million women and kids in his country, but our people think we're still the good guys, so we'll get away with doing it again. And again. And while we're at it, we'll steal a few billion from the "aid" packages we push through parliament to "re-build" the countries we just spent $100 billion destroying. Life's good ma'am. Don't complain. Look - the AFL is on the telly. Isn't that exciting?? Watch the bouncing ball and let us take care of these nasty matters, don't your trouble yourself, it's all too late now anyway...."

[MattyT]

Heya Cam, I'm all for pollies to take more responsibility and agree that they should be able to answer the public's questions. But not with a lie detector. The devices have been proven to be ineffective and, more worryingly, often give incorrect results even in the hands of an expert. I don't know how to provoke honesty from these people but using a lie detector is not the answer.

[Rob Irwin]

In much the same way you can prepare yourself for media interviews via "media training" (available at your nearest friendly PR agency), you can also train yourself to beat the polygraph. It's not all that hard, actually!

[Cameron Reilly]

Actually Rob, I just had lunch with Steve Van Aperen, the top polygraph expert in Australia, and he would disagree with you. He told me that it isn't the polygraph you beat - that's just a measuring tool - but an untrained investigator can ask subjective questions and get meaningless data.

[Phillip Molly Malone]

Hey Cam,
Did you listen to Safran and Father Bob? They had an investigator on that talked about this stuff. He said you don't beat a Polygraph, you beat the person giving the polygraph.

HTH
Molly

[Cameron]

Molly, it's a strange world... I was with Father Bob this afternoon immediately after my meeting with Van Aperen, the polygraph guy. I started to tell Bob about it... and he told me they had Steve on their show just the other day! Strange...

[Phillip Molly Malone]

Dododo!!! Maybe you are being controlled into looking into this? They're everywhere!
Molly