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.

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

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?