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 > Morality and democracy: public sovereignty is a simplistic approach to policy > Comments

Morality and democracy: public sovereignty is a simplistic approach to policy : Comments

By Max Atkinson, published 12/8/2011

Public policy must rest on a moral standard or value, not an opinion poll.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Max – You say that “a moral reason rests on a moral standard or value, not an opinion poll” and that legislators should “act on principle”.

But you don’t clearly identify what is the foundation or origin of these moral standards and principles. How does the legislator know when he/she has tuned into the “right” standard or principle?

By virtue of the fact that they have been elected to parliament, does that somehow endow them with a moral sense that others don’t have?

Indeed, is there any absolute moral standard? If so where has it come from and how can it be irrefutably ascertained?
Posted by JP, Friday, 12 August 2011 11:31:27 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 afraid this article is just a bit too slick for me. Any politician will take notice of public opinion and polling is useful for determining what that opinion is. Not to take notice of the people's views risks running too far ahead of the population on an issue and perhaps delaying a useful reform for years. So, good government is not a choice between opinion polls and moral principle. It is a matter of balancing the competing interests and views in a democratic society.

The second point I'd make is that governments have a responsibility to encourage moral independence in their citizens. Sadly, we are now in an age when individual moral choices are increasingly subject to government or statutory authority regulation. Plain cigarette packaging, various attacks on so-called 'junk food' and attempts to put a floor price on alcohol are all examples of governments weakening the moral independence of the citizenry, thereby inhibiting individuals from understanding the difference between right and wrong. If you want an insight into the London riots, this is a good place to start.

Finally, using this shaky understanding of democracy to have a shot at Tony Abbott really says all we need to know.
Posted by Senior Victorian, Friday, 12 August 2011 12:45:36 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
Democracy *IS* nothing but a system where the public rule.
And that is fine.

After all, what sounds more just?

1- a system where the majority (at least 51%) of the people decide unto themselves (including those who disagree) what system they are to be subjected to- accepting that they also live within their own prejudices and must pay for every bad idea they come up with.

2- a system where the entire sum of the people are forced to obey whoever happens to be in charge, and be forced to live their lives in accordance to what the people in their governments and courts BELIEVE they aught to behaving. As such it has given us the 'moral' laws that abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage are illegal (surprise!), that we should have chaplains, compulsory religious brainwashing (Scripture classes) in schools, owning a water tank as a crime until the last decade, the privatization of Telstra- the APEC meeting, WYD- do you want me to continue?

Even at the very worst comparison- 51% bullying 49% is better than 50 people bullying 22 million, wouldn't you agree?
The only differences are that some people like to believe in complete myths that because a person got a government position- that this was granted because they are 'wise' or 'sensible'.

Of course- it also occurs because some people don't like it when everybody doesn't want to play to their personal beliefs, and feels that a like-minded authority aught to force them to.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 12 August 2011 12:49:55 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
So there you have it.

The public must be wrong if the academics think differently. What rubbish.

No wonder we are getting sick of paying these self righteous people who want to dictate to us, their employers.

Mark, when everyone is marching to as different drum, it is highly likely you have the one who has it wrong.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 12 August 2011 4:03:06 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
Tony wasn't just "passing the buck back to us, under a simplistic slogan that the public is ‘sovereign’ when he said ‘In Australia the people are sovereign’." He was seeking support from a partisan view about a debate around science, while also elevating that partisan view.

So, it is more narrow than ‘populism’. It is the 'speculative fallacy'. Yes, it is with little regard for the public interest.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 12 August 2011 4:29:45 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
Max that is well said. However you have not taken your conclusion as far as your reasoning has justified.

You have demonstrated that democracy is an unsalvageably immoral arrangement.

If 12 men and one woman vote to have sex, and the men vote for, and the woman votes against, so they use force, that doesn’t mean it’s okay, and it doesn’t mean it’s not rape. And it wouldn’t make any difference to the *moral* conclusion if there were 100 men, or two, or if the majority had claimed or exercised a prerogative to legalise it.

That being so, it is impossible to see how the moral case for democracy is in any better position. In terms of the logic of human action, legal or illegal rape or robbery are indistinguishable.

“But” people say “Did not Churchill say democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms?”

But that is to misunderstand the issue, which is whether a moral or immoral way of social action is preferable. The question is not, given that many immoral persons choose government as their instrument of bullying (since it is safer for them), how best to secure its continuance?

While it is true that for the use of force - policy - to be moral, there must be recourse to values or principles over and above majority opinion, it is no solution for politicians to appeal to vague unspecified “community values” which would only take the matter back to the original problem.

The solution cannot lie in any kind of assertion by politicians that they represent the common good, because:
a) there is no evidence for the common assumption that politicians or governments represent the majority or "community values"
http://economics.org.au/2010/08/unrepresentative-government/ ;
b) even if they did, that does not justify a conclusion that they stand for the greater good, since the majority may be wrong or ignorant or immoral, just as much as the minority ;
c) nor does it justify asserting that legislators represent the common good, because the good cannot be ascertained in common:
http://economics.org.au/2011/08/government-is-criminal-part-3-subjective-utility/ .
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 12 August 2011 10:55:36 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
JP
I don’t know about an “absolute” moral standard, but a universal and irrefutable moral standard is Hans Herman-Hoppe’s argumentation ethics.

“Argumentation is a conflict-free way of interacting. Not in the sense that there is always agreement on the things said, but in the sense that as long as argumentation is in progress it is always possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement about the validity of what has been said. And this is to say nothing else than that a mutual recognition of each person's exclusive control over his own body must be presupposed as long as there is argumentation (… it is impossible to deny this and claim this denial to be true without implicitly having to admit its truth)”
[i.e. you can’t deny that you have a right to exclusive control over your own body without implicitly admitting that you do by exercising a right to exclusive control over your own body in the process of arguing. A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism http://mises.org/books/Socialismcapitalism.pdf p. 158)

Thus, the very fact of argumentation proves a presupposition of
• self-ownership
• the right to own homesteaded scarce resources as well, since without that, self-ownership would not be possible.

Thus
“by engaging in discussions about welfare criteria that may or may not end up in agreement, and instead result in a mere agreement on the fact of continuing disagreements — as in any intellectual enterprise — an actor invariably demonstrates a specific preference for the first-use-first-own rule of property acquisition as his ultimate welfare criterion: without it no one could independently act and say anything at any time, and no one else could act independently at the same time and agree or disagree independently with whatever had been initially said or proposed. It is the recognition of the homesteading principle which makes intellectual pursuits, i.e., the independent evaluation of propositions and truth claims, possible. And by virtue of engaging in such pursuits … one demonstrates the validity of the homesteading principle as the ultimate rational welfare criterion.” http://mises.org/daily/5322/
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 12 August 2011 11:01:32 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
Difficult topic. However what future in areas of " rights, values, justice and punishment", ever more critical as the "freedom" we have known in Australia since the [1960s till part of 1990s] before narrowing at the "me too" [gone too far] saga got completely out of hand. Leaves us now with less collabrative room then previous as [bloody] competition matches during the 1800's on who can be toughest. Ever more spare are elements of Human Ecology.

Your article began well [expect the focus on Abbotts tactics, redeck and dibilitating]. I fall at the crux where the question is and needs to be; no one wants a 'tyranny of the majority'. A hard issue to discuss. Often it is the selected few [cash strapped] with the power and then there is the problem of "critical thinking". And, even within community the culture can be ignorance based on local status, pride and fear. My own thought on Leadership is about the craft. Being the kind of leader that people can vote for [safely], knowing that they have the public's rather then their own personal agenda at heart. I thought we had it for a moment during Kevin 07... as a public emancipated. Ground gained finally? Enter the selected few. I.E., Mining Companies vs Native Title [needs Urgent Reform]}.... ignorance prevails hence leading into a "patchwork" economy.

http://yindjibarndi.org.au/yindjibarndi/?page_id=945

I am gravely concerned about the future of the North West regions to mention a critical issue. How Australia appears powerless to control the domination of Mining Companies as are the Less Developed Nations. Kevin Rudd was right when he attempted to 'balance-the-books'. He asked Australians to support his policies; demanding a "resource super profits tax ". The story to be told now is about how Australia sold her soil and then cried crocodile tears. Remember crocodiles weep either to lure a victim or when eating one. The media, as reactive as it can be, is partly to blame. The climate of the today reflects a sunny day lost for a majority who had no idea what was actually 'going on'.

http://www.miacat.com/
Posted by miacat, Saturday, 13 August 2011 3:29:47 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
I read the article, reread it and searched and searched for the author's comprehensive definition of democracy. The author gave a very simplist view.

I've been able to deduce two things.

Firstly the author thinks, his version of, Tony Abbott's comment

‘In Australia’ he said, ‘the people are sovereign’.

(Abbott actually said, in answer to a specific question. 'The public. In a democracy, in the end the people are sovereign.'

is Abbott's definition of Democracy.

The author assumes much when he extrapolates Abbott's statement into a definition he suggests Abbott holds.

'that politicians, when deciding on their policies, should be guided by public opinion - their duty, as political officials, is to do what the people want.'

And secondly, the author enlightens us to his simplistic thinking, with his simplistic definition.

'In its simplest and most defensible form democracy means only that the representatives of the majority have a stronger right to make the rules than any other person or group...'

I think the author misses the point of a mandate in our democratic electoral process and of Parliamentary Representation. The vast majority of Australian voters expect politicians to abide, by and large, to the mandates.

Tony Abbott along with the vast majority of Australian voters understands mandates and Parliamentary Representation.

The lying Gillard, her few remaining supporters, her leftie media commentariat and other assorted leftie apologists don't.

The vast majority of Australian voters also reject the miriad weasel word defences of the lying Gillard.

I'd also challenge the following

'... on a carbon price, which gave rise to this appeal to sovereignty. The dispute had seen a challenge to Abbott’s policy from economists and business leaders who agree with environmental scientists that a carbon price, followed by an emissions trading scheme, is the best way to go.'

That is one very skewed view.

Abbott was simply asked to whom he'd listen when forming his views on a carbon tax if he wouldn't accept the views of economist and scientists (No mention of business leaders). A listen to the exchange leads to disagreement with the authors expressed view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NrJILLCiJ0&NR=1
Posted by imajulianutter, Saturday, 13 August 2011 10:27:17 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
Max Atkinson
Surely the discourse about homosexuality cannot be limited to Morality and Legality.

The other dimension that we have consider is Ethnicity.

Sexuality in all living organisms has proven to be not a fixed dimension but a floating one, so that some organisms can be totally of partially Male or Female, condition that excludes the Moral factor and introduces the Biological one.

To somebody homosexuality is nature’s only tool capable of preventing human overpopulation.

The legalizing of the union of two homosexuals is than only a question linked to the division of what chattels our lives
Posted by skeptic, Saturday, 13 August 2011 9:08:08 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
Ah Hume, the old "in-a-democracy-people-vote-to-rape-others" analogy;
When it is usually in practice the reverse is true; the majority tends to have a problem with rape in every democracy- yet a handful of disgruntled individuals who feel that the government is interfering with their freedoms and everybody should be their own sovereign, decide to treat themselves to raping another person anyway.

What does that sound more like to you?
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 14 August 2011 9:46:36 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
JP asks how a legislator knows which is the ‘right’ moral principle. The short answer is he doesn’t ‘know’ in any sense which presupposes a method to authenticate moral principles, although there is no end of theories to fill the role. I do not believe JP uses such a test to confirm his judgments and certainly I don’t. Why should a legislator be different ? And if someone does claim to have such a test, how can he know it is the ‘right’ test ? The assumption that one needs this meta-ethical level is a fallacy, responsible as much for sceptical as for absolutist theories.

The short answer suggests he should follow the great eighteenth century British conservative philosopher Edmund Burke, and be guided by conscience; the long answer would need to reconcile this with the moral values and principles we share as a community. According to the modern view, Burke relied on classical Natural Law ideas, but we do not need this support.

Senior Victorian makes two good points. Of course politicians must respect public opinion; it sets parameters for all their aims. But they do not take their moral compass - what they aim to achieve - from polls; they take it from their understanding of the public interest, as Burke insists. Otherwise important reforms (like homosexual law reform) are delayed for years. Secondly, I agree that moral independence is crucial,and with Mill that individual freedom means resisting the excesses of the ‘nanny state’.

Peter Hume agrees with most of what I say but does not realise it. This is probably my fault for speaking of ‘community values’ instead of ‘values or principles over and above majority opinion’.I think his terminology is very good and am happy to adopt it.

Finally, any theory of moral reasoning must make sense in the ‘real’ world. The theory which insists that majority opinion is not a moral value explains the difference between democracy and ‘mob rule’ and can be further tested against real world cases, such as the case of homosexual law reform.
Posted by maxat, Sunday, 14 August 2011 11:25:35 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
Maxat
“The theory which insists that majority opinion is not a moral value explains the difference between democracy and ‘mob rule’ …”

No it doesn’t. The fact that democratic legislatures sometimes do acts that protect the rights of minorities, no more shows that democracy is based in principle on moral values higher than majority opinion, than does the fact that pirate crews may sometimes show pity for their victims. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Most politicians wouldn’t recognize a moral principle if they fell over it. The democratic process indeed selects *against* principled individuals, rewarding expedience – called compromise – as the highest virtue of politics, thus selecting for unprincipled and immoral sociopaths as a result.

If the de-criminalisation of homosexuality showed recognition of a general right - above majority opinion or prejudice - to freedom of consensual sexuality, then they would have legalized bigamy at the same time, wouldn’t they? The more accurate explanation for such occasions is nothing more principled than that enough individual legislators are currying marginal favour which they hope to aggregate to a majority in their respective electorates come election time.

Similarly, prostitution was not legalised because the legislatures recognised as a moral principle that other people’s consensual sexuality was none of their business, but because they hoped to control it more effectually in view of the rise of AIDS.

As I have shown, the democratic system cannot even evidence that any given act of government does represent a majority, or not, so even with their perverse moral theory, the majoritarians don’t even get to first base.

However there can be no question that the basal moral theory of democracy asserts the legitimacy of majority rule. The fact that democracies entrench certain rights in constitutional sections requiring a special majority to amend them, proves that such entrenched rights are the exception to the general rule, namely that the majority may infringe whatever other freedoms it feels like with impunity. The entrenched freedoms only beg the moral question why the others aren't entrenched as well.

(cont.)
Posted by Peter Hume, Sunday, 14 August 2011 8:01:57 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
Maxat
“The theory which insists that majority opinion is not a moral value explains the difference between democracy and ‘mob rule’ …”

No it doesn’t. The fact that democratic legislatures sometimes do acts that protect the rights of minorities, no more shows that democracy is based in principle on moral values higher than majority opinion, than does the fact that pirate crews may sometimes show pity for their victims. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Most politicians wouldn’t recognize a moral principle if they fell over it. The democratic process indeed selects *against* principled individuals, rewarding expedience – called compromise – as the highest virtue of politics, and selecting sociopaths as a result.

If the de-criminalisation of homosexuality showed recognition of a general right - above majority opinion or prejudice - to freedom of consensual sexuality, then they would have legalized bigamy at the same time, wouldn’t they? The more accurate explanation for such occasions is nothing more principled than that enough individual legislators are currying marginal favour which they hope to aggregate to a majority in their respective seats come election time.

Similarly, prostitution was not legalized because the legislatures recognized as a moral principle that other people’s consensual sexuality was none of their business, but because they hoped to control it more effectually in view of the rise of AIDS.

As I have shown, the democratic system does not even provide evidence that any given act of government does in fact represent a majority, or not, so even with their perverse moral theory, the majoritarians don’t even get to first base.

However there can be no question that the basal moral theory of democracy asserts the legitimacy of majority rule. The fact that democracies entrench certain rights in constitutional sections requiring a special majority to amend them, proves that such entrenched rights are the exception to the general rule, namely that the majority may infringe whatever other freedoms it feels like with impunity. In practice this amounts to nothing more principled than what politicians think they can get away with.

(cont.
Posted by Peter Hume, Sunday, 14 August 2011 8:05:58 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 for checks and balances, the executive chiefs and the legislature’s controllers are all one in Cabinet – so much for separation of powers. And the judiciary, being state agents, are usually biased in favour of the state, as shown by the judicial trashing of constitutional protections wherever they exist(ed). The US government is scarcely recognizable from its prescription in the US Constitution. And if judgments like Australia’s “Franklin Dam” were correct, there would be no need for a Constitution – “government has power to do whatever it feels likes” would suffice.

So, even if government represented majority opinion, there is a need to appeal to values over and above it, and such values must
1. resolve to individual freedom rather than the common good else it will only lead back to the original problem
2. recognise a universal moral *principle*, that does not permit of a double standard privileging the political class to expediently exempt themselves or their pet favourites
3. be logically irrefutable.

Hoppe’s argumentation ethic satisfies those criteria. Does anyone else’s?

Hazza
“yet a handful of disgruntled individuals who feel that the government is interfering with their freedoms … decide to treat themselves to raping another person anyway.
What does that sound more like to you?”

Sounds like more of your misrepresentations. Who is making that latter argument?

You have failed to understand the moral issues. There is nothing *in principle* stopping any legislature from authorizing acts which are serious crimes for everyone else – they’re doing it all the time! And it makes no *moral* difference to one being violated or subjugated, if 51% bully the other 49%, or if 50 bully 20 million.

“Democracy *IS* nothing but a system where the public rule.”

Nonsense. “The public” doesn’t rule. *The state* does. The fact that you confuse them doesn’t make the assertion true.

Besides which, there is no evidence that the state does in fact represent the majority. Unless and until you refute all the points in “Unrepresentative Government” http://economics.org.au/2010/08/unrepresentative-government/, you don’t have a feather to fly with.
Posted by Peter Hume, Sunday, 14 August 2011 8:07:43 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
"Sounds like more of your misrepresentations. Who is making that latter argument? "
And yours about publics voting to rape people most definitely wasn't.
I also noticed that you avoided answering.

And nice try- A majority voting for something a minority doesn't want is FAR more moral than say, a Libertarian subjecting others to things they don't want to help himself alone- as when the majority votes, most people stand to benefit and the negatives are fairer as the costs and benefits are incurred by everyone at the degree they would tolerate- and the minority is included in the decision-
While the libertarian building a lead paint factory next door (or using your own example, raping others) is subjecting absolutely everyone without their say in the matter at all to suffering- where almost everyone profoundly suffers so a single person can profit or exploit them- creating a system of cutthroat anarchy.

"Nonsense. “The public” doesn’t rule. *The state* does. The fact that you confuse them doesn’t make the assertion true. "
Actually you're confusing them- and coming from someone who confuses these with the Soviet Union, I'm not surprised.
In virtually direct-democratic Switzerland, the public DOES rule- they can repeal and pass legislation, with every office of authority helpless but to enforce the people's will.
Australia is barely democratic at all- no referenda, no political accountability, not even directly-elected ministers.

Does that answer your question?
(of course it does- not that this will stop you pretending otherwise and trying to skew the issue in your next post, before then making another bizarre insinuation that is the same system the USSR used to oppress people with).
Then again, coming from the person who once recommended a self-appointed lynch mob be the most just option for enforcing unwritten justice on wrongdoers, I'm not expecting much.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 15 August 2011 9:25:13 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
Maybe it's the term "morals" that's the problem. It's been used for so long and in the most oppressive manner in our society that the idea of morals trumping majority view has some serious problems.

My idea's on what's moral can be very different to yours. There is a balance in this, the balance being that all major policies should be spelt out during an election campaign. If the voting public agrees with those policies then they elect the person and or party.

If circumstances change sufficiently to warrant major changes from what was in the announced policy then there should be bi-partisan support for those changes for them to proceed before the next election. That's part of what I consider moral government.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 15 August 2011 2:50:35 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
Hazza
Your post comprises only misrepresentation, irrelevance, spiteful personal argument, and a failure to address, or even to understand, the moral issues raised by the article, so there is nothing for me to reply to.

R0bert
“My idea's on what's moral can be very different to yours.”

But all agree that they have a right to self-ownership, don’t they? Else they couldn’t participate in the argument?

“There is a balance in this, the balance being that all major policies should be spelt out during an election campaign.”

Good luck with that. At present all and any acts of government are taken to represent the will of the people. Who would say whether a policy was major or non-major, “core” or “non-core”? And if all major policies weren’t spelt out and they passed them without bipartisan support - as with the current government - then what? Would we have a right to sue politicians on grounds of misrepresentation and have their personal assets forfeited to their victims, and have them prosecuted and imprisoned for fraud, as we can for private businesses?

If not, then how would your proposal be any improvement on the current situation? If it’s not enforceable, don’t kid yourself that politicians will do it; it’s really just wishful thinking.

“If the voting public agrees with those policies then they elect the person and or party.”

How would you know whether they agree or not? The process provides no way to distinguish one policy from another. The only thing you have to fall back on is the idea that all and any acts of government is taken to represent the will of the people, which is to return to the original problem.
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 15 August 2011 3:52:57 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
Hume
"Your post comprises only misrepresentation, etc, etc, so there is nothing for me to reply to. "
I thought you'd try to make an excuse to avoid it- no problem for me- though it won't stop me highlighting your other posts when you try to insinuate that democracy is comparable to communism, cannibalism or gang rape.

R0bert
That is basically what it comes down to. Everyone's views of morals are different, so the closest thing to 'moral' governance in a democratic society is that the morals at least correspond to those of the voters. Otherwise it becomes nothing more than a case of whoever happens to be in charge forcing everyone adhere to beliefs that nobody but themselves cling to (which gets more complicated seeing that Tony Abbot is currently leader of the opposition).
The only time this is ever accepted as ok is by commentators who happen to agree with the politician's views- and coincidentally, usually complain that it is 'immoral' when they simply don't agree.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 15 August 2011 4:30:25 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
Peter the best chance we would have is the democrats (or another minor party) got serious about "Keeping the bastards honest".

We are unlikely to get the major parties to agree to anything which required them to act in good faith or honestly when dealing with the electorate.

The existing federal system though does give scope for a relatively small number of senators to achieve something like I've spoken of.

Maybe in practice it would have scope for the minor party to make it clear which announced policies of the major's that they would not support during the lead up to the election as well.

Blanket support for previously announced policies (in the form that they were announced) of the party which forms government unless they had during the same election campaign made it clear that they would not support that policy.

Blanket voting against initiatives announced post election unless there was bi-partisan support from the major for that initiative.

That's about the best chance we have of stopping post election surprises such as the carbon tax and Work Choices.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 10:16:32 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
Public opinion is commensurate with the information available to the public. Information is absent or denied in a totalitarian state. The information available to the public in a democratic society should not be taken for granted; - it is a slowly improving process.

Who is responsible for increasing the information available to the public? Is it the media? Is it the politicians? Is it academia? Is it the people themselves? Or is it a combination of all these?
Posted by Istvan, Monday, 22 August 2011 8:15:01 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. All

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