Any suggestions gratefully considered for the name of an organisation that may (and it is a very big may) be formed at some stage to contest election(s) with the objective of making Australia's legislatures more representative of the community.
Simply as conversation starters, what about: Participate in Democracy; Democracy in Action; Direct Democracy; or Your Party?
Looking forward to reading any suggestions.

Hi Searching1

what do you mean by "more representative of the community" - e.g. electoral reform, gender or ethnic quotas for parliament, citizen initiated referenda, equal-sized electorates?

There seems to be an impled grievance behind your question (the comumnity is not represented), but without knowing what you think the problem is and how you might address it, we probabably can't help you much.

You should call yourself the Free Beer & Hookers Party. The name might not reflect your platform but it will attract lots of votes regardless.

I don't know Toni, the sex party didn't do too well at the last election (I ranked it pretty high, though)

perhaps the beer will work, though

Or you could steal a move from the Liberal Democrats: call yourself the Libberal Party, and collect extra votes from people who mistake you for the Liberal Party. It's cheap and underhanded, but who cares as long as you get the votes, right?

Good point Toni

Which is the greater deception, though: the Liberal Democrats pretending to be Liberals, or the Liberals pretending to be liberals?

Don't you mean more representative of *your* community? Tell us what your community is, and you'll have your answer.

Incidentally, the correct name for the "organisation" whose goal it is to influence elections is "political party". Why not start calling things by their correct names?

Rhian,

Apart from confusing Liberal with small 'l' liberal (which is socialism), you don't seem to understand how liberal the Menzies breakaway from the Nationalists was, for the times, anyway.

Times change, and as a conservative myself, I have often thought that the party should change its name - after all, it is meant to be more conservative than the alternative. But, despite your opinion, it is not anymore. The last fairly conservative Coalition government was that of the John Howard, and we were all better off than we had been for decades.

Now, with people like Hockey, Turnbull, Pyne and many of the backbenchers who's names are not worth knowing, there is hardly a hair between them and the Labor Party. Even Abbott is not a conservative in any real sense of the word. You clearly don't like the Coalition, but don't blame conservatism: just call them incompetent, which is what they are.

The likelihood of any group such as you suggest representing most people is nil (just like all political parties): and that's what your group would be. Just saying politicians should be representing us in the literal meaning of the word doesn't mean a thing. You might be the only person living who believes what you believe.

The only way to get MORE and different views over is via multi-representative electorates. Then you would get all sorts of ratbags represent a few ratbags. We have a enough trouble with the Greens as it is, thankyou. Apart from the hideous thought of more Green-like snouts in the trough, just think of the size the trough would grow to at our expense.

There also the idea of Citizen Initiated Referenda which raises its head periodically and is ignored and sneered at by politicians. Can you really imagine Australian politicians sharing power with us?

Forget it. Get a hobby.

Hi ttbn

I was being a little facetious, but I’m willing to accept that Menzies was a small-l liberal.

“Liberal” is a term that has different meanings, but I associate it with the Mill traditions of respect for individual liberty and self-ownership, tempered by respect for others’ needs and liberties. That is very different to socialism.

I have no strong aversion to, or affiliation with, any political party or group. I think of myself as a small-l liberal, which means I tend to agree with the left on issues like asylum seekers and gay marriage, and the right on issues like free trade and fiscal management.

The Liberal Party is a coalition of conservatives and liberals, but to my mind the conservatives have been in the ascendency in recent years, and the liberals have all but disappeared. Turnbull and a few of the backbenchers are all that’s left.

If you don’t think Abbott is a conservative, what label would you give him?

//Apart from confusing Liberal with small 'l' liberal (which is socialism)//

No it isn't. The philosophy of liberalism was developed well before the philosophy of socialism, and classic liberal philosophers like John Locke and J.S. Mill did not espouse a philosophy that looks anything like that of Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels. Just because liberals and socialists are both to the left of conservatives doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Rhian and PaulMurrayCbr, it is quite clear what Searching1 means by "more representative of the community" as Direct Democracy is one of the proposed names.

What you fear is that direct democracy won't "represent" your "community" (i.e. arrogant smirking know-it-alls).

A name like Direct Democracy is precise, but only those familiar with the term would immediately comprehend its meaning.

You may need something with the words "People/You/Australians" and "vote" in it. Keep it simple and obvious.

The People Vote, You Vote, Australians Vote?

You must also be careful to never advocate any particular policy (e.g. boat people, gay marriage, capital punishment).
Your *only* policy is that the people decide.

MPs should only exist to technically *implement* the choices of the people, not make those choices for them.

The question is the direct democracy procedure.
Done through the internet, it would be cost-efficient, but not by paper ballots (expensive and tediously time consuming when millions are voting).

A way to avoid voting fatigue could be initial "random representation" ballots.
Rather than millions needing to vote on everything, you do a random sample first (e.g. 10,000) just to ask *if* a full vote should even happen.

Of course the arrogant smirking know-it-alls will inevitably complain that this random sample may not be "representative" and derail their smug utopian agenda.

New suggestion: iVote 2.0

Because it worked so well for vegemite.

Shockadelic

My question was sincere. You may think you know exactly what Searching1 had in mind, but I’m not so sure. The original post says the aim is to make “Australia's legislatures more representative of the community”. That suggests the legislatures are the issue.

Searching1’s post did not propose a discussion on the merits of direct democracy, it merely asked for suggested names. You are the first to raise this as the issue Searching1 addresses.

I find your baseless leap to abuse other posters for holding opinions they haven’t actually expressed a little bizarre.

Thank you for the suggestions regarding a potential name.

I apologise for being a little coy regarding the possible proposal, however, I'm keen to have something formally established before it may attract interest.

The first part of the post by 'Shockadelicis' (reproduced below) is closest to the mark, in terms of the substance of the proposal.

I can assure you that the motives behind this question are altruistic if judged from the perspective of the community as a whole.

Grateful any further suggestions re a potential name.

Part of previous post:

[] it is quite clear what Searching1 means by "more representative of the community" as Direct Democracy is one of the proposed names.

What you fear is that direct democracy won't "represent" your "community" (i.e. arrogant smirking know-it-alls).

A name like Direct Democracy is precise, but only those familiar with the term would immediately comprehend its meaning.

You may need something with the words "People/You/Australians" and "vote" in it. Keep it simple and obvious.

The People Vote, You Vote, Australians Vote?

You must also be careful to never advocate any particular policy (e.g. boat people, gay marriage, capital punishment).
Your *only* policy is that the people decide.

Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 2 September 2015 6:52:40 PM

Rhian,

My description of Abbott - nothing man; self-serving; uncommitted, belelieves in nothing; deep shade of pink; coward.

You consider yourself to be a small 'l' liberal. Fine. You know what you believe but it makes you a lefty. The continuing use of the name Liberal is quite ridiculous now. It merely proves that they don't know what they are - just like Abbott. They claim to be a "broad church", but they have been narrowed down by wets.

You have a choice, but I and people like me have been disenfranchised by Abbott's mob.

JS Mill? Like all philosophers, too waffly for me.

Nice to have a nice to have a chat.

Hi Searching1

If a direct democracy party is what you're proposing then it may be best to call yourself something that reflects that. Other ideas could be:

People Power
You Vote
Our Choice
The Real Democrats
The Athenians
Citizen Power
Online Democracy Party
Free Democrats

I'm not sure what kind of organisation you have in mind
so here's a wide mix:

1) Deadly Serious Party

2) Commission For The Future

3) Capitalist Australia

4) Advance Australia

5) Affirmative Action Party

6) Australians All

7) We Are One

8) Cohesive Australia

9) Team Australia

10) We Are Winners

11) Give Us A Break

12) Closed Borders

13) Deportation Party

14) White Australia Party

15) It's Not Us - It's Them Party

16) We Decide Who Comes Here Party

That's it for now.

"Simply as conversation starters, what about: Participate in Democracy; Democracy in Action; Direct Democracy; or Your Party?"

A reminder Searching1 to be aware of how a name sounds or appears when shown as an initialism.

For example, Democracy in Action, sounds the same as Democracy Inaction. Also the initials DIA would be sounded as 'dire'... either outcome probably not your intention.

Searching1, have you heard of these guys?:
http://www.onlinedirectdemocracy.org/

Suggestions for Foxy's party:

1. Smartypants Party
2. Know-It-All Party
3. Clueless Ostrich Party
4. Free To Contradict Yourself Party
5. Blame Whitey Party
6. Kumbaya Party
7. Die Real World Die Party
8. The Nazis Weren't Really Socialists Even Though They Said So Party

Thanks - useful suggestions, information,and advice.

I've probably got enough to go on, for now.

cheers

It appears that Shocker has a "treasury" of
name suggestions. They're full of "Zumph!"

We all now know who to turn to if we want to
start a political organisation.

Current Canberra is the place for him.

Direct Democracy Party sound pretty positive, plain enough and succinct to me. . . . particularly if, in the party policies, you support citizens initiated referendums that must be held once 5,000 or 10,000? electors add their names to object to an issue that is contentious that federal pollies 'in their wisdom' want to foist on electors. Electronically controlled 'petition'-like site that Queensland Govt has to record valid voters supporting a petition could be utilised by federal parliament.

Please send me more info to citizensinitiatedaction@fastmail.fm

Thanks Peter Johnson