The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Towards a true democracy > Comments

Towards a true democracy : Comments

By David Donovan, published 9/6/2010

How can we overcome the subjugation of democracy by the major political parties?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
"True democracy" sits in the same out-basket as "a fair society", or even "equality".

They all belong in the eye of the beholder.

A fair society will never be fair to all. Equality is a myth, since its prerequisite is that everybody wants the same things. Democracy is no longer controlled by the people, but by politicians.

Democracy, as we have come to understand it, has evolved into a self-perpetuating process whereby a succession of pigs gorges itself at the trough of taxpayers' money, the only noticeable difference being the names of the pigs and the depth of the trough.

The system has pretty much the same relationship with democracy as Damien Hirst has with art; worshipped and adored by those who make money from it, but a complete mystery to the rest of the population.

If you happen to complain, they smugly quote Winston Churchill at you.

"...democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time"

As if, somehow, this excuses all the iniquities perpetrated in its name.

But realistically, it is all about money. Having accustomed the citizenry to the idea of taxation as a way of life, the government sees itself as the giver of largesse.

Which leads inevitably to that cutting aperçu that mysteriously surfaced mid-twentieth century...

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury"

Not quite as popular as Winnie, but a fundamental truth nonetheless.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 8:57:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's some gloomy sentiments. Really what you are arguing there, Pericles, is that we are not really advanced enough to properly participate in a democracy. I disagree. I think that we can as a race, under the right conditions, exercise the restraint and wisdom necessary to be able to stop ourselves from ransacking the public purse and to be able to negotiate rather than try to stamp out all objection. To think otherwise is to accept that the folly of the past is destined to always recur in the future.
Posted by davrosz, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 10:12:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very good summary of the system of government we are saddled with, David Donovan!

You conclude with the hope, offered without proof or evidence, that "We are not barbarians, we can build a fairer society and a true democracy."

Well, I would say we are not so barbaric as our ancestors, but there are still many barbarians in our society. Take a look at the thugs playing professional football for frequent examples, then look to the thousands of football supporters for others of the same mentality. For more professionally trained thugs you need look no further than the ADF and the government's police forces. Not all of us are ready yet for a fairer society and a true democracy.

But even if the vast majority of us wanted change we are unlikely to get it because, to quote David Donovan "since the major parties hold sway in Australia, it is difficult to see them relinquishing their hold on power any time soon." It's easy enough to think of ways to improve our political system, but impossible to get them implemented. Have you noticed that now that opinion polls are pointing to a shift in voter support to the Greens, both the major parties are already attacking the Greens? Just as all major parties combined to destroy Pauline Hanson when she started pointing out some of the failures of the current system?

It's a shocking thought to realize that Australian governments are the enemies of Australian citizens, but until that is more widely understood we can't expect much significant change. The system is far too powerfully entrenched!
Posted by Forkes, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 10:53:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This type of thing has been churned out time and time again. It is naive and useless to continue parroting such stuff because the only people who can make change are the voters; and voters are apathetic and politically illiterate. They have no interest in politics as long as their lives are jogging along to their satisfaction, and it's only about 5% of them who actually change governments anyway. And, that change is merely from tweedledum to tweedledee.

People thinking that voters are suddenly going to take any interest in the political process are just wasting their time and boring people who are already bored by politics.

This is as good as it gets.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 11:01:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with everyone here;
As for the abstractness of what a "pure" democracy is; I think generally a shift to more accountability and stronger public overrides of government (via CIR) would be quite a good jump in the right direction.
Of course, as long as we vote for the Liberals, Labor, Nationals or Democrats we can most definitely forget about anything changing.

(and I am aware of the Democrats supposed support for CIR- reading the fine print they list a LOT of exemptions and limitations to make it nothing more than an opinion poll).
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 11:20:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I call it as I see it, davrosz.

>>That's some gloomy sentiments. Really what you are arguing there, Pericles, is that we are not really advanced enough to properly participate in a democracy.<<

We are now sufficiently civilized not to consider revolution a valid political statement, true. But in the process have lost lost touch with any alternative means to effect change.

The power to change rests entirely with politicians. But there is no politician prepared to effect any change for the better (i.e. where the will of the people is an active consideration), nor will you find one prepared to stand for election on such a platform.

Nor, incidentally, is there any necessity for anyone who does stand for a lurch towards government "of the people, by the people, for the people", to do anything about it once elected.

The sanest first step would be to make election promises binding in law. Not in the sense that everything that is promised must come to pass. But in the sense that when elected, the representative is obliged to vote in line with his/her election platform.

A vote that is attempted contrary to an expressed election commitment would simply not be counted.

That would represent progress towards a democracy that actually reflected the will of the people at a point in time - the election - while allowing a continuation of representation as the foundation stone.

Direct democracy, Athens-style, is not appropriate to the twentyfirst century. But their concept of responsibility in office most certainly is:

"It was Cleophon who first granted the two obol donation for the theatrical performances, and for some time it continued to be given; but then Callicrates of Paeania ousted him by promising to add a third obol to the sum. Both of these persons were subsequently condemned to death; for the people, even if they are deceived for a time, in the end generally come to detest those who have beguiled them into any unworthy action." Aristotole: The Athenian Constitution

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/athenian_const.2.2.html

I just love the last bit.

Rings bells, does that.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 2:07:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a political party is essentially a collection of like minded individuals, endorsement to a seat is based on similar values. Banning dis endorsement of a renegade is not only constitutionally impossible, but a contradiction in terms.

The system of preferences is put in place to mitigate the "winner takes it all" aspect of the Westminster system, however, this makes it extremely difficult for independents to win seats.

Combined with the compulsory voting, and the resultant "donkey votes" which over whelming go to the major parties, the lower house is unlikely to field many independents.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 2:16:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DISAPPEARING FROM HISTORY(Part 1)

In the last months of my career as a full-time teacher in 1998/99 in Western Australia and the first months of my sea-change and retirement in Tasmania at the age of 55, Augusto Pinochet was back in the news. I had first come across his name and his activity in Chile while teaching high school in Whyalla South Australia in September 1973, the very month I was hired for a position as senior tutor in human relations at the then Tasmanian College of Advanced Education. On both these occasions, in the 1970s and at the turn of the millennium, I was so occupied with my 60 hours a week job as a high school teacher and senior tutor and then 25 years later as a post-secondary teacher as well as my role in the Baha’i community--another people-centred activity--that I did not really appreciate the details of the story connected with this Chilean dictator’s role in politics and contemporary history.

I won’t go into the details of Pinochet’s political role and his personal, military and notorious history in this prose-poem. Readers can easily find that out on the internet or in books should they be interested in the topic. But on watching the doco-drama, telemovie, Pinochet in Suburbia1 last night and on reading some background on his life and on the history of Chile, I came to form a considered opinion—not so much about Pinochet the man as about the importance of international law in any true democracy in the modern world.-Ron Price with thanks to 1SBS TV, “Pinochet in Suburbia,” 11:55-1:30 p.m. 6 June to 7 June 2010.
Posted by Bahaichap, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 4:10:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My world was a hot, intense landscape
in a dry-dog-biscuit of a town far down
at the bottom-end of the world where I
had come as a young man so long ago--
when I heard the name Pinochet---“was
he an Indian?” I thought to myself trying
as I was to survive after falling in holes in
my young adult-life…..I fell in a few more
before I heard that name in the closing years
of the mirabile dictu incredible century. He’d
been a busy man as I had been a busy man in
those years from 1973 to 1999 and he was a
busy man again in suburbia in the UK1 before
he disappeared from history bit by bit2 while I,
too, was disappearing from history, taking up
a life in cyberspace much safer and protected
from the slings--arrows of outrageous fortune.

1 Pinochet was placed under house arrest in Britain and was at the centre of a judicial and public relations battle, the latter run by Thatcherite political operative Patrick Robertson. He was eventually released in March 2000 on medical grounds by the Home Secretary Jack Straw without facing trial. Pinochet returned to Chile on 3 March 2000. The TV program, the telemovie, I watched tonight was centred on this house arrest.

2 On 25 November 2006, after I had given away all PT and casual-volunteer teaching and installed myself as a FT writer, editor and publisher with no name, no fame and no pay-cheque, Pinochet marked his 91st birthday by having his wife read a statement written by him. Read to his admirers it stated in part: "I assume the political responsibility of all that has been done." Two days later, he was again placed in house arrest for the kidnapping and murder of two bodyguards of the then President Salvador Allende who were arrested the day of the 1973 coup d’etat and executed by a firing squad during what was called the Caravan of Death episode. Pinochet died a few days later on 10 December 2006 without having been convicted of any crimes of which he was accused.
Posted by Bahaichap, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 4:14:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A reasonably accurate DESCRIPTION of Australian politics but seriously lacking analytical and prescriptive input.

"In truth, we are still rather a primitive species: avaricious, selfish and brutal. I can see a time when people would look back upon the way we are today and denounce us as being barbarians for the way we celebrate tribalism over individualism, might over right, and contention and disputation over harmony and conciliation."

Far too over-generalised ... like our political 'leaders' who continue to con the ignorant and gullible with statements such as 'WE must share the pain & pull the belt in during times of recurring economic crises.'

Like the 'justice system', our system of parlimentary 'democracy' operates within (and to preserve) a Capitalist mode of social production, distribution and exchange. For those so blind, the numerous millionaire pollies in Canberrea and elseware are there to enhance THEIR interests & don't give a damn about those who voted for them. There can be no true democracy under Capitalism
Posted by Sowat, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 4:35:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've been stating this for many years & I'll keep saying so until proven otherwise;

Democracy as is practised in our times is the most hypocritical form of dictatorship.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 4:53:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What's missed here is that the major political parties generally give some sense of direction to voters which is difficult to get from independents (and to some extent smaller political parties).

The complaints against the major parties are valid but at the same time I'd rarely know an independent candidate well enough to know how they will vote on a myriad range of issues. I won't always know which way my preferred major party will go on some issues but for the most part decisions will have a degree of consistency with some core values.

I'd like some changes and part of that should revolve around the ability of party leaders to discipline dissenting voices. Howard showed us a lot about how a leader can distort the basic values of a party, I suspect that Rudd is giving us the advanced course.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 5:11:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I disagree that direct-democracy is less suitable for our time Pericles, if anything it is more suitable because the systems of education and information about world events are advanced enough that people can participate in a referendum with enough wisdom to understand the extent of the issues- although the first generation of internet users haven't grasped the powers they have at all and just use it to vent ignorance regurgitated from their favourite Murdoch outlet or pop culture mag, future generations will likely be more active now that they actually grew up with the internet (and likely got used to it at a younger age than they would begin to take news programs/newspapers into their lives).

A considerable democratic flaw in the representative system is that even in an actually logical system of representatives (eg directly-elected ministers), the representatives are a package deal of policies that many might be desparate for but also policies which many would find repugnant against other mixed bags, and the supposed accountability AND constituency wishes are compromised based on how badly the voters need policy A vs how otherwise horrible B is (or of course, the fact that the politicians can be crooked if they're the only people that even put policy A on the table).
Not to mention election-promise accountability only covers issues that were raised before the election.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 7:29:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We do need a new party that does not take corporate funds.Labor will lose the next election.I must say,they certainly live up to our expectations.

The biggest issue we all fail to confront,is Govt waste,nepotism and corruption.The schools building debacle bears witness to this.This is how our Govts State and Federal,operate on a daily basis.Why give them more so they can build more urinals to relieve us of our tax dollars?

Ron Paul's ideas of getting rid of many Govt Depts has merit.Why do we need Dept of Education,or Social Security? They become self serving monoliths that suck the life blood out of real productivity and wealth.

After the next election when Labor loses,I will be looking keenly for a new political force that actually represents workers.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 8:34:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HI Davrosz

I read your post and thought I'd died and gone to heaven !

Specially after Pericles pessimism.

//I think that we can as a race, under the right conditions, exercise the restraint and wisdom necessary to be able to stop ourselves from ransacking the public purse and to be able to negotiate rather than try to stamp out all objection. //

Mate... sorry, but Pericles description is EXACTLY how most people vote... I've thought about rocking up to a Ford Broadmeadows worker and ask him "If you had one party wanting to tax you more for global warming, and another which would give you a $20/week pay rise..which would you vote for"?

errrr.. I think we both know the outcome.

The tragedy of the Australian working class is that it cannot see the connection (yet) between constant demands for "Better wages and conditions" and the employer relocating to China. Unionists have been very persuasive "Well get you MORE"..and people are suckers.

This is why Political parties use sweeping slogans

"Improved" (Name the service)
"More" (good stuff)
"Less" (name the bad stuff)

They are trying to scratch the hip pocket/convenience nerve.

For a rare occasion..Pericles is 100% spot on.. pity he cannot apply that rationality to other areas of discussion.

But he in fact demonstrates why political parties use 'broad slogans'.

In some things Pericles is entirely reasonable and rational..but push the right buttons and he transforms into the evil "Dr Perilous"

True Democracy ? well it already is 'true'..people vote for who will give them the best deal. For some the best deal might not be economic.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 10 June 2010 6:51:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davrosz ..you might find this diagram interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Athenian-constitution-aristotle.png

WOOPS... Pericles.. that one almost slipped through to the keeper..

//We are now sufficiently civilized not to consider revolution a valid political statement, true.//

You just 'morphed' into Perilous.

http://www.sa.org.au/abc-of-socialism/2747-why-we-need-a-revolution-to-get-socialism

28/5/2010

Only a revolution by the mass of workers which mobilises their collective power can sweep aside the machinery of capitalism, and only the process of revolution has the potential to equip workers – by providing them with the experience, lessons and unity – to build socialism, a society for the liberation of all.

It seems Pericles.. your message has not caught up with one group at least.

//A vote that is attempted contrary to an expressed election commitment would simply not be counted.//

That does have merit.

But your reference to 'obscure ancient documents' is a bit dubious.
how dare you present such things for our serious consideration :)
I'd never do that.....would I?

Though if I did..they would be a heck of a lot better attested than the ones you referred to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Loss_and_preservation_of_his_works

//Current knowledge of what exactly the exoteric writings were like is scant and dubious, though many of them may have been in dialogue form. (Fragments of some of Aristotle's dialogues have survived.)//
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 10 June 2010 7:08:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10532#173150

Pericles, dim view, but you don't offer any alternatives, electoral reforms, declare which minor party you vote support?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10532#173162

davrosz, positive, but still, no offers on electoral reform, a minor party worth supporting?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10532#173167

Forkes, he was wrong, about the senate, there has been stalemate for the last 2 years, when the http://www.democrats.org.au/ held the balance of power, they negotiated reasonable amendments and almost all legislation passed.

The Major Mistakes always took "bipartisan approach" to any new, "third force" it was not just Pauline Hanson, the http://www.democrats.org.au/ & every other new party making some headway has also been destroyed. This has been going on since 1945 that i have seen or researched.

Also at the moment, the conservatives & Red/greens have been obstructionary, but the government has also refused to be reasonable with Xenophon & Fielding, so it is just as much, getup/labour's fault as anybody else's.

Sad to see you insulting our military & police who are good people doing a difficult job.

Good to see you realising that our, so called leaders are in fact our enemies. The Red/green/getup/labour coalition are of course the worst, having been promoting policies, designed by our Communist enemies, to abuse children, to weaken our entire culture & economy.

Sadly over the last 5 decades it has been working perfectly. In 1955, child abuse was almost non existent, we had full employment, our economy was dominated by small & medium sized business.

Now child abuse is a state sponsored national sport, we have a permanent long term unemployed under class & big or foreign owned business dominates.

Largely because of the Evil, Red/green/getup/labour coalition.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10532#173169

Leigh, again i tend to agree with your gloomy outlook, but it has been improving over the last decade. Largely because of forums like this one, OLO is one of the most influential political, news, current affairs, web sites in OZ.

I think caring people like yourself, on this article & others could get an Australian Themed, "Tea Party" Movement off the ground, here in OZ. I suggest, "Cracker Night" 5 November 1605, Guy Fawkes night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night
Posted by Formersnag, Thursday, 10 June 2010 8:20:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ancient Greek democracy also had a system of ostracising politicians from Office by the Public before the end of their tenure, if the didn't perform. Some Greek City-Sttates (not Athens?) would en-panel citizens as representatives (like we do with juries) to sit for a term to break-up the formation of parties.
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 10 June 2010 8:49:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The bit missing from your post, Formersnag, was giving us all marks out of ten for our efforts.

>>Pericles, dim view, but you don't offer any alternatives... davrosz, positive, but still, no offers on electoral reform... Forkes, he was wrong, about the senate... Sad to see you insulting our military & police... Good to see you realising that our, so called leaders are in fact our enemies...Leigh, again i tend to agree...<<

Sadly, after so diligently marking our homework, your only suggestion was to form our own Tea Party.

>>I think caring people like yourself, on this article & others could get an Australian Themed, "Tea Party" Movement off the ground, here in OZ. I suggest, "Cracker Night" 5 November 1605, Guy Fawkes night.<<

Unfortunately, forming a political party in a country 183 years before Europeans landed here, could be considered a touch premature.

In any event, wouldn't the creation of a new Party simply perpetuate the iniquities inherent in the system? If there is one thing we seem to agree on here is that the present environment is actively inimical to people who are not part of the political process. How would validating that system by conforming to its rules help matters along?

The whole point of my "one step at a time approach" is to address this from within. The insistence, first of all, that politicians of any persuasion should honour the commitments they make in order to be elected, is a difficult one to object to, both logically and morally.

If we are to have a "movement" that doesn't turn into the sort that nurses discuss every morning, this would seem a fairly constructive place to begin.

Otherwise, who is going to believe the promises that your Tea Party makes?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 10 June 2010 8:53:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Formersnag wrote: "Sad to see you insulting our military & police who are good people doing a difficult job."

Sometimes. It's easy to explain why they are necessary to maintain a civilzed society. But think further.

Politicians are happy to fund powerful police forces because it it the police who protect the politicians and force citizens to obey whatever the politicians dictate. We have already agreed that politicians are a bunch of self-serving, power crazed crooks, enemies of we citizens in fact, so how can their hired mercenaries, the police, be anything other than a force for evil? It would be different if police refused to obey some of the wicked tasks they are ordered to do, but we know that almost without exception that they do whatever they are told. Were it otherwise, you would never see pictures of them riding their horses into groups of protesters, bashing them with batons, firing tear gas and water canon... and so on. You might also find them more willing to use their commonsense and discretion about issuing traffic tickets to help raise revenue for the politicians.

The military, unfortunately, also blindly follow the orders of those self-serving, power crazed politicians referred to above. Most of us would support them if they operated within our immediate region to defend Australia, but when they go adventuring off to faraway countries helping the warmongering yanks to bully smaller nations that are no enemies of ours, you have to wonder whether they are really "good" people. Mindless thugs, more likely!
Posted by Forkes, Thursday, 10 June 2010 10:03:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm firmly of the belief that the only way to introduce democracy in this country is with a new party.
A few years ago, a bloke tried to introduce online democracy to the Australian Democrats. Called “the New Democrats”, people were encouraged to post ideas to an open forum, much like OLO.
Apparently, the Democrats found the site a little too democratic; they shut it down.
Another current attempt is senator online, the idea being that:
“SOL's post election website will enable everyone on Australia’s Electoral Roll to vote (free) on important issues and every Bill put to Parliament, with SOL senators voting as you (the majority) direct.”
An interesting concept, but, what about pre election?
Currently, we have 3 theoretically ideologically driven parties – although the ideology of the Labor party is no longer quite as clear as it once was.
This is a bit like offering 20 million people just 3 sizes of shoes.
Who doesn't get annoyed when a government, 2 years into it's term, declares: “we have a mandate...”
In an age when communication has never been quicker or easier, the very idea of not being able to call a democratically elected government to account for 3 years is absurd.
And having as the only watchdogs of government a media controlled by only a few individuals is beyond ridicule.
What is required is a system of Open Democracy, where party members are encouraged to suggest policy and vote on policy in open forum. Once a clear majority opinion (on a local basis) has been achieved, the representative takes it to the national assembly.
In other words, our representative, -our employee- does as we instruct him/her to.
A quaint and bizarre notion, I know, but hey.
I would suggest one of the first policy questions might be, how much do we want to pay our employee? Particularly as neither major party appears to be in favour of collective bargaining...
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 10 June 2010 10:13:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10532#173175

King Hazza, Correct as long as people vote #1, for getup/labour, liberals, Red/greens, or nationals, nothing will change.

Politicians from everywhere have been mouthing platitudes, about more transparency & accountability for decades.

The Loony, Left, especially have also been attacking the CEC, as some kind of Raving, Right, Neo Nazi group, for daring to suggest, CIR several decades ago.

Of course the Red/greens got all, their sensible, reasonable policies & principles by copying them from the http://www.democrats.org.au/ but unfortunately they then, twisted, poisoned, these once good ideas with CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialism.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

http://www.reich4.de/Begriffe/sittlichkeit/?lang=en

http://www.cruelhoax.ca/

http://www.cruelhoax.ca/#top

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10532#173196

Pericles again, we have been brainwashed by negative, people, like yourself into, THINKING, that we cannot change anything, so, many do not bother, but i got Tony Abbott elected leader of the Opposition & killed the ETS, just by blogging on OLO & http://www.thepunch.com.au/.

"The pen is mightier than the sword"

The power to change rests with us effectively lobbying politicians to make them bend, to our collective will, with an Australian themed, "Tea Party" style, movement.

Not to be a new political party, there are already too many of them, but to be a Citizen's lobby group, pressuring for effective change.

The US "Tea Party" has been active inside both the Democrats & Republicans to change both candidates & policy.

We can do the same here.

Actually Pericles there already exists in our constitution some punitive sanctions, but so far no citizens lobby groups have used them.

I agree with your idea about "Polly" promises, requiring them all to sign "Stat Dec's" might do it.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10532#173198

Shadow Minister, The http://www.democrats.org.au/ always in their constitution guaranteed a "conscience vote" & many did use it to cross the floor.

Preferences did not stop Pauline Hanson from winning one of getup/labour's safest seats easily.

Compulsory, "Donkey" voting can favour minor parties & independents as much as Major Mistakes.
Posted by Formersnag, Thursday, 10 June 2010 11:35:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Formersnag: << i got Tony Abbott elected leader of the Opposition & killed the ETS, just by blogging on OLO & http://www.thepunch.com.au/ >>

Wow, who would have thought that Formersnag wielded so much influence with his unique style of political commentary?

Incidentally, Formersnag - what you do isn't "blogging". Rather, you post comments loosely related to the articles published at websites that allow anonymous commentary.

To be a blogger, you'd need to write your own articles and publish them online yourself.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 10 June 2010 1:42:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suggest that there be a grading of bills - so that certain bills only can be passed without calling an election/referendum. I don't know about anyone else, but I for one fail to see the correlation between what a lot of politicians are elected over and what they then do, it boils down to a lot more than election promises, it involves them passing legislation that, if they had ever asked the electorate, they know damn well would never have gotten passed.

For instance, does anyone here realise that the various drugs misuse acts and the illegality of ALL illegal drugs, was never ever the subject of an election? The Politicians and the Medical Board, decided amongst themselves, that certain things we shouldn't have.

The difficulty I have with that is, that if approximately 25% of people use drugs regularly, or have done, then that means that about a quarter of the population not only disagrees with the law, but has been subjected to living in fear of the State kicking down their door as a result.

How exactly can that be justified democratically? That a quarter of the citizens of the State live in fear of the State? Without ever having had a say in what the State should or should not do? It is an interesting question, because it is the reality. How many people here have used drugs, or are related to people who have?

That is the number of people who have lived with the real fear of their door being busted open by armed officers, their house being ransacked and torn apart and whatever the police deem necessary being accepted (up to and including removing wall panels with a sledge hammer).

Do the other 75% of people on here approve of that, that so many should live in fear of the Executive?
Posted by Custard, Thursday, 10 June 2010 2:08:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Formersnag, the Greens would actually change a lot if they live up to their own policy promises (and to their credit, they have stuck to their guns). The system of mixed-packages would remain, although on the flipside they seem to be most open to citizen lobbying and less open to corporate lobbying.
My only problem is that I personally have a less enthusiastic stance to the UN and refugees than they do- otherwise I generally agree with them.

But the only answer is to NOT vote Libs, Lab, Nats and Dems- and pick a party or independent that you feel;
1- is actually serious about their job
2- represents you views
3- explicitly states issues they want to reform.

Of course, the one good thing about our system is we can vote for all parties or independents in varying degrees- so you can do what I do and write a whole chart of who you will support in what order.
For me:
1- most prominent parties who correspond closest to my criteria
2- parties that don't, but seem to earnestly endorse CIR, and single issue parties I endorse (Save Our Suburbs)
4- parties I simply don't care about
5- religious/libertarian parties (the worst- but no threat of getting elected)
6- Libs, Lab, Family First, Nats and Dems- if there are any 'small l liberal' parties they can go there too (most disturbed people in the nation IMO).
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 10 June 2010 6:56:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy