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 > System reconstruction in Australia is long overdue > Comments

System reconstruction in Australia is long overdue : Comments

By Klaas Woldring, published 3/1/2014

Non-Westminster systems in western Europe provide alternatives Australia needs to look at. The Scandinavian, Dutch, German and Austrian systems provide flexibilities that do not exist here.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
What perception and ambition!

Please make it your indefatigable campaign to get your vision implemented, even if only by small steps.

Best wishes for your health and personal security, so that this much needed task could be undertaken.

chek
Posted by Chek, Friday, 3 January 2014 10:01:43 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
It's pointless to change a system when there isn't a hope in hell to achieve a change in mentality.
The mentalities of everyone owes me a living, grab as much as you can even if it's not needed, pay as little tax as possible, we're the best (yeah right) etc etc are what needs to change.
The first step is to establish a national service so that real thinkers can exercise their privilege for the benefit of all..
Posted by individual, Friday, 3 January 2014 11:21:46 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
Woldring is spot on with his assessment of the Abbott Coalition. People could now be realising that neither of the major parties is worth voting for; it’s just a pity that there are no other options. They have not stopped the boats; they have increased the debt limit (after rubbishing the last galahs for going deeper into debt), and they don’t want to talk about anything publicly. The Abbott inspired maternal leave and payment arrangements are a shocking luxury that cannot be afforded, and then there’s the surrender to the Gonski scheme of billions when money is not what is needed for better education.

Abbott as PM is a shocking blow to conservatism in Australia.

The suggested changing of the Constitution, however, and the German model where extremists like the Greens have more say is a worry, however. Better to make changes from the bottom up; Australians can do it, but they have shown no desire to do so and probably never will.
Posted by NeverTrustPoliticians, Friday, 3 January 2014 11:23:58 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
No, Chek, Woldring has no "vision", but is myopic, and is fostering old illusions. NeverTrustPoliticians does not go far enough in his critique, if Woldring is correct that "a real crisis is around the corner". No Australian government, whatever its constitution, for example, has any influence over the Chinese economy.
Petty parochial politics is bread and circus in today's globalised world of monopolised capitalism.
Posted by Leslie, Friday, 3 January 2014 12:15:41 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
Systems of representative government are all subject to "You elect them, we buy them". How about the system that exists in a variety of forms in 26 American States: Binding Citizen-Initiated Referenda, BCIR, a.k.a _democracy_ which representative government sure isn't though it's wrongly labelled as such?

See http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/34 (which regrettably contains some historical errors about California)
Posted by EmperorJulian, Friday, 3 January 2014 12:43:47 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
It never ceases to amaze me how labor voters can be so judgmental while conveniently forgetting just how we came to be in the position we are in today.

In fact, going back six years, had we engaged the best in the business to stuff things up, they could not have done a better job and, the worrying part is that the mess created by labor, was done so during boom times, times that are simply not going to be repeated during the next term.

My grand kids will be paying for this mess, and they're not even born yet.

As for a better system, get rid of the hanger oners and make people earn what they receive and while your at it, stop pissing into a fan on issues like indigenous reform because I'm sick of seeing my taxes wasted on pointless endeavors.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 3 January 2014 1:23:23 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
My grand kids will be paying for this mess, and they're not even born yet.
rehctub,
I think you're actually under-estimating here. The damage done by that lot is too great to ever recover from.
Posted by individual, Friday, 3 January 2014 2:38:54 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
Yes Indi, I agree, but I just didn't feel like necking myself during the festive season.

Boy are we going to pay for that lot.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 3 January 2014 2:58:14 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
The major parties are reinforced, and alternatives disadvantaged, by the single-member districts in the Reps and the tiny number of Senators elected per state.

The majors act as "umbrella" groups, trying to please numerous perspectives and therefore inevitably fail to please all.

A proportional system would encourage the majors' factions to split into distinct parties, making the choice for voters more precise.

Problem is, many people see the existence of minor parties as a "flaw" or "problem" rather than a blessing and opportunity.

I believe we should only have a single level of government, the national.
There is no need for local or state government.
Regional agendas could be represented by distinct parties in the national parliament (the Riverina Party, the New England Party, etc).

All government functions are computerised these days.
What difference does it make whether the guy punching the computer keys is located in Canberra or three blocks away?
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 3 January 2014 5:14:07 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
The truth is that at some point in time, I would suggest sooner rather than later, we will have to find a strong leader who leads with a strong hand.

Unfortunately this is not possible as people mostly vote for what's best for them, rather than whats best fir the nation.

If anyone out there thinks we can continue along the same path we have been on they are quite simply kidding themselves as the only way back from where we are is goimg to be painful.

Alternatively, those who think we are in wonderful shape can just continue to bury their heads in the sand.

I mean, most of them think Holdens demise is the governments faut and this just goes to show how nieieve they really are.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 3 January 2014 5:21:01 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
I've lived in three different countries that have multi-party proportional representation (MPR) electoral systems - long enough to know that it is far superior to the two-party heavy system that burdens Australia.

In fact, Australia, the US and UK are about the only countries left in the world that continue to use the archaic Westminster style electoral system, which simply hands almost total dominance to one of two parties every 3-4 years. By contrast, the MPR system creates electoral outcomes that are more reflective of the political tastes and values of the entire population and thus forces politicians to operate within a culture of co-operation and compromise.
Posted by Killarney, Friday, 3 January 2014 8:20:39 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 a wonderful idea. Just like Italy, & France at some periods, we could have a new government every few months.

Surely the example of Tasmania, or the stupidity of the last 3 years in Canberra should be enough for anyone to want to avoid such ideas, but apparently not.

God help us if such foolishness should come to pass.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 3 January 2014 11:44:54 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 downloaded Woldring’s eBook last night. Two thirds into the badly written, poorly punctuate volume, I found that his ideas could/would mean:

More politicians for us to pay (proportional/multiple representation in each seat).
More say for multi-cultis.
A total re-write of the Constitution.
Finish of Federation.
Replacement of the adversity model with ‘co-operation’ (even less say for voters).
More renegade minorities stalling legislation.
‘Punishment’ for Anglos.
Unelected Ministers, and even leaders, from outside parliament.
A system that “…suits it’s (the country’s) multicultural society and historical background.”

Woldring appears to be on another planet; isolated by his personal beliefs and hatreds. He actually calls our media “The deeply conservative Australian media”, and believes lots of good was done under the HUNG parliament of Gillard. His only reasons for his scary nonsense are that he likes it, and 90 other countries operate with the shambles.

It made me shudder. Thanks Klaas, but no thanks. We need changes forced on our politicians by the electorate, not by an isolated elite; and we don’t need more politicians, particularly not the nutters thrown up by proportional representation.
Posted by NeverTrustPoliticians, Saturday, 4 January 2014 10:12:09 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
NeverTrustPoliticians,
I think Woldring wants to create yet another taxpayer funded upper Klaas.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 4 January 2014 12:26:26 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
IT GETS WORSE !
I have been informed that converting the UN into a world government is still active !

Amazing, I thought Bob Brown killed it stone dead by advocating it !
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 4 January 2014 12:55:26 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
Nothing will change unless we get back to Govt owned banks. The private banking system owns us by creating from nothing all the money to = our growth + inflation.

Germany is doing OK because it produces and exports a lot.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 4 January 2014 6:55:39 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
One commentator belonging to the group "Never Trust Politicians", claiming to have read part of my recent eBook, writes:

"I found that his ideas could/would mean":

“More politicians for us to pay (proportional/multiple representation in each seat)”.
“Replacement of the adversity model with ‘co-operation’ (even less say for voters)”
“More renegade minorities stalling legislation”.

My responses:

Proportional representation is based on multi-member districts. Moving from single-member districts to multi-member districts does not in itself change the number of politicians. The abolition of states would. It is well-known that Australia is over supplied with politicians. One would think that the Group would welcome (1) a reduction in the number of politicians (2) improvement in the quality of politicians.

As to the replacement of the adversarial model, a principal generator of dismay about the behaviour of politicians, why would this lead to "even less say for voters"? Proportional representation requires cooperation amongst parties to achieve majorities in Parliament. It also makes the choice for voters much greater and their therefore more meaningful.

"More renegade minorities stalling legislation". The representation of minorities in Parliaments is a democratic value. "Renegade" is a prejudicial generalisation. Many minorities have serious objectives. If they are strong enough, in terms of numbers, they deserve to be represented. However, in almost all P. R. systems there is an entry threshold for representation, usuallly 3% to 5% of the vote, to prevent an excess of minority groups.

The commentator also appeared to oppose:

"Finish of Federation" - sure, federation is very costly and has become clearly dysfunctional
"More say for multi-cultis" - correct, clearly under-represented in Australian Parliaments
"A total re-write of the Constitution" - well, do Australians want another 100 years of ineffectual tinkering by politicians?
"Unelected Ministers, and even leaders, from outside parliament" - definitely, quite common in many other democracies to ensure talent is represented in the government and the legislature does its job effectively.
"A system that “…suits it’s (the country’s) multicultural society and historical background” - well, what might be wrong with that?

My recommendation: Read the book properly.
Posted by klaas, Sunday, 5 January 2014 1:05:37 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
Klass Woldring is the consummate social engineer, for whom the natural foundation of society is anything but the thinking, autonomous, free individual. Social engineers regard the population as a pastiche of GROUPS, membership and structure of which is decreed by social engineers. Democracy is the last thing on their minds. Democracy is government of the people by the people for the people. Representative government, the social engineer’s dream, is government of the people by the political parties for those who buy them. Who has as much say in the composition and decisions of Australia’s representative governments as the tiny group who rule News Ltd?

Coming down to Klass Woldring, it is not a good look when he refers to some of the individualistic respondents to OLO articles as a Group (capital G), to be expected to exhibit groupthink. As he has come out as a social engineer it is not surprising that he favours systems like multiculturalism that subsume individuals under carefully fostered, funded and preserved group identities and “consult” the groups through “community leaders”. (At least he spares us the boring repeated reinvention of a global “group” of “lefties” to be addressed not in terms of what they have said but in terms of what others assumed to be grouped with them have said not about the given issue but about other issues. Thus in one fell swoop both to group people and to group issues!

In a fit of curiosity I have downloaded Klass’ book although it is unlikely to bear on what interests me and what should interest everyone concerned about governance – the practice not of ever-so- tweaked systems of representative government but of DEMOCRACY, starting with what happens in the 26 American states that exercise it. Short of democracy, we could for a start do something about the overemphasis on “swinging seats” which the English used to call rotten boroughs.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Sunday, 5 January 2014 6:40:56 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
The will of God...System reconstruction in Australia .U.S. judge asks: Why haven’t the financial executives been prosecuted?

Michael Hiltzik
Los Angeles Times
January 3, 2013

As the five-year statute of limitations approaches for the wrongdoing that bequeathed us the Great Recession, the question of why no high-level executives have been prosecuted becomes more urgent.

You won’t find a better, more incisive discussion of the question than the one by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of New York in the current issue of the New York Review of Books.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jan/09/financial-crisis-why-no-executive-prosecutions/
[...]

In his new essay, Rakoff takes particular aim at the government’s habit of prosecuting corporations, but not their executives — a trend we railed against earlier this year.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130208,0,1163345.column#axzz2oz48CY00
Read more
. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-us-judge-20131230,0,4386369.story#axzz2pLrpUNRM * World Trade Center Asks 9/11 Judge to Dismiss AMR Defense
* http://www.infowars.com/world-trade-center-asks-911-judge-to-dismiss-amr-defense/ Barclays Executives Knew of Libor Lowballing, Guardian Claims
* http://www.infowars.com/barclays-executives-knew-of-libor-lowballing-guardian-claims/ Chevron executives barred from leaving Brazil over spill
* http://www.infowars.com/chevron-executives-barred-from-leaving-brazil-over-spill/ Chevron executives barred from leaving Brazil over new oil spill
* http://www.infowars.com/executives-at-collapsed-iceland-bank-jailed-for-fraud/ Executives at collapsed Iceland bank jailed for fraud
Posted by one under god, Monday, 6 January 2014 5:45:43 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
Emperor Julian suggests that I am a "consummate social engineer" and a "group thinker". This is the first time such labels have been put on me. I would have been happier if this commentator had referred to me as a "democrat". That would be much more accurate.

Apart from reading my book Emperor Julian should also take note of a page on my Republic website which can be opened here.

http://www.republicnow.org/section-128-amendment/

Democracy in large complex societies has many complex facets. Because of the size of national systems it can only be indirect, that is representative democracy, apart from having useful plebiscites and referendums on certain contentious issues. I happen to believe that proportional representation is a better and more democratic way to achieve representative democracy than the single-member district preferential system. Let me assure Emperor Julian and the non-group Never Trust Politicians that having this belief does not place me on a lonely planet at all as can very easily be demonstrated.
Posted by klaas, Monday, 6 January 2014 6:23:38 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
Klaas,

It is not “well-known that Australia is over supplied with politicians”. This is a claim made again and again without figures or argument.

Australia is just one of 80 countries in the world with more than 10 million people, all of which have at least three tiers of government, as does every one of the 51 countries of more than 500,000 square kilometres.

Even citizens of the oft-quoted United Kingdom have four (or, in some parts of the country, five) levels of government – the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, regional assemblies (elected in the case of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Greater London, unelected in the rest of the country) and unitary local authorities or, in some places, both county councils and district councils. The UK has more than 30,000 political representatives for a population of around 60,000,000, or one politician per 2084 people. By contrast, Victoria has one political representative from all three tiers of government for every 6,577 people.

Italy has five levels of government (Europe, national, regional, provincial, local).

If the states were abolished, thus making Australia unique among the world’s large countries, the bureaucracy would remain the same size, and the levels of decision-making would remain the same. The only difference would be the people would not get to elect those who made the decisions at the intermediate level.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 6 January 2014 7:11:04 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
When I attempted to post the figures on politician numbers for Australia and the UK at all levels of government, I was met with “There is no need for that many question marks. Remove them to continue.” The post had five question marks in it (one of them in a link name), and I am not going to be told by a computer program how many question marks I am allowed to use.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 6 January 2014 7:16:22 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
In most electorates in Australia the elected person does not represent the people of the electorate. They represent the political party. I would favour abolition of all political parties. I realise this would be hard to do, and perhaps gradual change may be the only acceptable option. True 'democracy" exists in very few places in the world, generally in what people consider "primitive" places. I have witnessed this type of governance in a number of countries and it works.
Posted by ALCAM, Monday, 6 January 2014 10:31:31 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
Just for the record what the situation is in Australia. I would have to dig up comparative figures for other western countries. Have done that before and recall that the claim is substantially correct. A justification in the past may well have been the large size of the country but is this still a valid one?

Total number of Parliamentarians in Australia = 859 for 22 M. people = one for every 2563 Australians (all ages)

House of Representatives 150
Senate 76
NSW Leg. Assembly 98
NSW Leg. Council 48
Queensland Leg. Assembly 90
Victoria Leg. Assembly 91
Victoria Leg. Council 42
South Australia Leg. Assembly 48
South Australia Leg. Council 25
Western Australia L. A. 60
W. A. Leg. Council 39
Tasmania L. A. 30
Tasmania L. C. 17
A. C. T. 18
Northern Territory 27
___

859

Parliamentarians for the
states ONLY 633
____

Canberra now 226
Posted by klaas, Monday, 6 January 2014 6:06:22 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
klaas "Because of the size of national systems it can only be indirect"

Why?
Decisions based on votes of a random sample of sufficient size should satisfy most people.

Everyone doesn't need to vote on everything, just a *sufficient* number (the number itself could be the result of democratic consultation. e.g. multiple choice plebiscite with various numbers: 5000, 10000, etc).

If a decision that's very close (e.g. within the 45-55% range) causes much controversy, a second ballot could be held to get a firmer result (Adding the two results together).

"I happen to believe that proportional representation is a better and more democratic way to achieve representative democracy"

So why can't the whole country be the only "multi-member district"?
Why do you still want to slice the country up into X regions?

This means people can only vote for parties/candidates nominated in their specific region.
If the one you prefer doesn't nominate there, you're stuffed.

With a whole-nation approach, *anyone, anywhere* can vote for any party/candidate on the form.

Chris C "the bureaucracy would remain the same size"

Really? Ever heard of economies of scale?

Duplication would be eliminated.
Currently there's a federal and state department dealing with most issues.
After reform, there'd be only one.

A lot of "bureaucracy" is caused by the multiple levels, with Form 79A (Federal) being shipped of the State clerk, who sends back Form 45G, etc.
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 6 January 2014 9:07:07 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
When councils move to whole of electorate, rather than wards for elections, they always end up with a large percentage from one small geographic area, & none from large areas of the city/county.

I doubt the people of say North Queensland, or the Kimberley would get any representation at all with a proportional system.

As mentioned before, the utter shambles of Tasmania should frighten the daylights out of anyone even for a moment, considering proportional voting.

The fringe, ratbags & the Greens would welcome any change hoping for voters to make mistakes, & vote for them. Look at the mess in the senate this last election. Klass, Shockadelic & the other like minded, take your system elsewhere. Stop trying to make an adequate system a disaster.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 6 January 2014 10:49:32 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
“Democracy in large complex societies has many complex facets. Because of the size of national systems it can only be indirect, that is representative democracy, apart from having useful plebiscites and referendums on certain contentious issues.” (Klaas)

As democracy means government by the people, “representative democracy” is a meaningless contradiction in terms. Why should the size of Australia (ca. 23m) make it ineligible for democracy when California which is much bigger at >39m, has exercised democracy for years. To the best of my knowledge, Australians have NEVER been allowed to rule on ANY issues other than those proposed by the pollies. Even when Australians HAVE been grandly invited by the politicians (three occasions in WA relating to daylight saving when the “big end of town” wanted the clocks changed, all firm “NO” decisions overruled by the pollies when demanded by the big end of town, and a fourth “NO” currently awaiting the expected reversal by the sponsors, and a “NO” in a referendum to allow Coles and Woollies to trade extended hours to kerzonk the independent grocers overruled when the biggies ordered the pollies to reverse it (not a peep from any of the pollies including the Greens). No public ruling allowed on any of America’s demands for our troops for their colonial wars. No public decision on charging GST to make the many pay more tax so the few can pay less. No referendum rulings on flogging off a major part of the community’s assets. No referendum on trade deals to import Chinese and Bangladeshi social conditions.

The enemies of democracy have a sneer word for government by the people: “populism”.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Tuesday, 7 January 2014 12:14:41 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
Klaas,

22 million divided by 859 is 25,611, not 2563.

You have to include all levels of government in politician numbers. Thus, while our states had 633 MPs, the UK had over 22,000 members of regional assemblies, county councils, district councils and borough councils. That does not include parish or community council members.

The system will not let me post my detailed politician numbers because the post has “too many” question marks in it, so here is a summary from a few years ago.

I made a mistake in addition in my earlier post. The UK had at least 23,947 politicians (including local councillors). That was one politician per 2546 people or one politician for every 10.1 square kilometres.

Australia had 824 politicians (not including local councillors). That was one politician per 25,485 people or one politician for every 9,329 square kilometres.

I have not been able to find the number of local councillors for Australia, but I have been able to for Victoria. Victoria had 777 politicians (including local councillors). That was one politician per 6,577 people or one politician for every 305 square kilometres; i.e., about one third of the UK’s rate.

Shockadelic,

I have heard of economies of scale. That is why the states, not local councils, run hospitals. But it is not necessary for the national government to run everything.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 7 January 2014 7:30:54 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 reckon it's a grand idea, Klaus. Although I'd also like to see the abolition and outlawing of all political parties. A government of true independents who legislate by consensus, would approximate the ideal of democracy most people have.
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 7 January 2014 11:09:28 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
Hi Chris, You are right I made a decimal error. We have 25,611 people per politician.

According to Wikepedia that is still the highest number of all countries in the world! Although they have it wrong sometimes - and do not provide comparative figures - they cannot be far out.

Please check here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_country_in_the_world_has_the_most_politicians_per_capita?#slide=2

However my eBook is not about that. It is about improving our democracy and especially the two party system, the dysfunctional federation and the frozen archaic constitution. If we could reduce the number of politicians and the nine bureaucracies engaged at present in the process that would be great. It is hard to see that anyone could argue with that.

I do point out in my book, something Emperor Julian may approve of, that Australians have NEVER had an opportunity to express a choice on the electoral system that favours the major parties so grossly.

Those who complain about the PR system in the Senate should realise that the particular kind of PR system, Hare-Clark, is of British origin as well and is not suited to large scale elections. What made it a great deal worse was the introduction of "above the line" voting in 1984, an option that over 90% of voters have chosen since because of the outrageous complexity when having to choose and number "under the line". I favour the Open party List system, explained in the book, which is used in most other PR countries. The Thomas Hare system of PR came into being prior to the development of the party system in the UK. It was later adopted in Tasmania by Justice Andrew Clark one of the principal founding fathers of what became the Australian Constitution, still to this day an Act of the British Imperial Government. An entirely new Constitution can be put to the Australian people in terms of section 128 of that Constitution.
Posted by klaas, Tuesday, 7 January 2014 3:33:25 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
Hasbeen, the "mess" in the senate is a result of preferences.

Proportional representation doesn't need preferences, you can simply allocate the seats left over after full quotas to those parties with the largest remainder/partial quota.

Nor should the ballot papers have to list all candidates if they're nominated under a party name (the party name should be sufficient).

"I doubt the people of say North Queensland, or the Kimberley would get any representation at all with a proportional system."

They'd get what they deserve: one vote, like everyone else.

And what if a Kimberley voter wants to vote for one of those "ratbag" inner city parties?
Will the Nudist Gun Owners Party be nominating candidates in Woop Woop?

Chris C "But it is not necessary for the national government to run everything."

If you want to simplify and minimalise government, it is.

If the national level doesn't do everything, you'll still need other levels, which is exactly the excess we're trying to get rid of.

ybgirp "outlawing of all political parties. A government of true independents who legislate by consensus"

Political parties are based on "consensus".
People join them because they fit their own perspective.
A Green without The Greens would still be a Green.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 7 January 2014 8:45:26 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
Klaas,

I’m not accepting a one-word answer on a website as the last word on which country has the most politicians per capita, particularly when I’ve already shown that the UK has three times the rate of Victoria and, by extension, probably more than Australia as a whole.

Given that every country in the world of more than 10 million people and every country in the world of more than 500,000 square kilometres has at least three levels of government, I can’t see a single argument for ending federation.

Nor are party lists systems superior to the single transferable vote. We are guaranteed the right to elect individuals to the Senate under section 7 of the Constitution, and there is no chance at all of a whole new Constitution every being put to the people much less voted for.

There is nothing wrong with above-the-line voting as it has reduced the informal vote while protecting our constitutional right to vote for individual candidates.

Shockadelic,

PR does not need preferences, but the superior STV version does. It ensures that every one elected to the Senate from a state has received the necessary level of support, a quota of 14.3 per cent of the vote. (See Post 288 at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2013/09/25/senate-call-of-the-board/?comment_page=6/#comments.)

The national level doesn’t do everything just about anywhere. The issue is whether you to get to vote for those who do the doing, not the size or organsiation of the bureaucracy.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 7:38:19 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 US House of Representatives has 435 voting members. The Senate has 100 members. There are also 7250 legislators in the US’s state assemblies
(http://www.empirecenter.org/html/legislators_number.cfm). That makes a total of 7785 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 40,334 people (in a population of 314 million).

The German Bundestag has 631 members. The Bundesrat has 69 members. There are also 1689 legislators in Germany’s state assemblies (Wikipedia articles on each state). That makes a total of 2389 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 34,324 people (in a population of 82 million).

The Canadian House of Commons has 308 members. The Senate has 105 members. There are also 757 legislators in Canada’s provincial and territorial assemblies
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_assemblies_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories). That makes a total of 1170 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 29, 915 people (in a population of 35 million).

The Austrian National Council has 183 members. The Federal Council has 62 members. There are also 448 legislators in Austria’s state assemblies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_seats_in_the_Austrian_Landtage). That makes a total of 693 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 12, 266 people (in a population of 8.5 million).

The Swiss National Council has 200 members. The Council of States has 46 members. There are also 2728 legislators in Switzerland’s cantonal assemblies (Wikipedia articles on each canton). That makes a total of 2974 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 2690 people (in a population of 8 million).

Australia clearly does not have the highest ratio of politicians to population in the world.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 10:54:21 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
Here are another three countries with lower population-to-politician ratios than Australia.

Belgium’s Chamber of Representatives has 150 members. The Senate has 71 members. There are also 1115 legislators in Belgium’s regional, community and provincial assemblies (various Wikipedia articles and Belgium government websites). That makes a total of 1336 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 8234 people (in a population of 11 million).

France’s National Assembly has 577 members. The Senate has 348 members. There are also 1880 members of France’s regional councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_regional_elections,_2004) and an estimated 4147* members of the general councils of the 96 departments of metropolitan France (various Wikipedia articles). That makes a total of 6952 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 9494 people (in a population of 66 million).

(* The estimate is calculated from a sample of 10 randomly chosen departments, whose average number of councillors was 43.2.)

Spain’s General Assembly of Representatives has 577 members. The Senate has 266 members. There are also an estimated 1249 members of Spain’s autonomous assemblies (various Wikipedia articles). That makes a total of 2092 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 22,467 people (in a population of 47 million).

(* I found 921 members for 14 autonomies, giving an average of 65.8 deputies each, suggesting a total of 1249 for all 19 autonomies.)

I’d say the myth is well and truly busted.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 1:41:27 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
Chris C "We are guaranteed the right to elect individuals to the Senate under section 7 of the Constitution"

It says nothing about electing "individuals", only "senators".
Both independents and party members can become "senators".

"PR does not need preferences, but the superior STV version does"

Why is it "superior" to last remainder?

If they don't get a full quota *without* preferences, then they don't really have 14.3 percent support at all.

Both preferences and last remainder allow elections with less than the full quota (on first preferences), but the former is more complicated.

And if those preferences are party-determined (most people vote above the line), may result in election outcomes the voter would never intend.
Many Lib/Nat or even Labor voters might have preferred their votes be distributed to One Nation back in the day, but they were listed as *last* preference by the apparatchiks.

"The national level doesn’t do everything just about anywhere."

Someone has to be first. Why not us?
Australia has been the first in many other electoral/political innovations.

The political systems of the world were invented long before computers.
Computers change everything.
The entire nation's garbage collection could be organised by a single clerk on a single computer. It could even be fully automated.

"The issue is whether you to get to vote for those who do the doing, not the size or organisation of the bureaucracy."

So you agree it wouldn't matter if the national government did everything, as long as it's elected in a truly democratic way.

Size is an issue for me and many other reformers. Cut, cut, cut!

Any reform that doesn't include a *nationally* proportional result doesn't qualify as true democracy in my book.

"Australia" (the whole enchilada) is a more valid political entity than any regional subdivision could ever be, yet has *no* representative body!

And however low our pollie-pop ratio is, it could always be lower!
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 8 January 2014 5:06:09 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
The Swedish Riksdag has 349 members. There are also 1662 members of Sweden’s county councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Councils_of_Sweden). That makes a total of 2011 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 4724 people (in a population of 9.5 million).

The House of Representatives of the Netherlands has 150 members. The Senate has 50 members. There are also 764 members of the States-Provincial, the provincial legislatures of the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Provincial_(Netherlands). That makes a total of 989 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 16,987 people (in a population of 16.8million).

The Folketing of Denmark has 179 members. There are also 205 members of the regional councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Denmark). That makes a total of 384 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 14,583 people (in a population of 5.6 million).

The House of Representatives of New Zealand has 120 members. There are also 207 members of the regional councils (regional council websites). Some regional councils are also local councils, but most have several local councils below them. That makes a total of 327 politicians (not including local councillors), or one for every 13,456 people (in a population of 4.4 million).

I have not included the members of the European parliament in any of the calculations, but if I did, all the ratios for EU member countries would be even lower.

The summary of the ratios of politicians to population follows:
1. Switzerland 1:2690
2. Sweden: 1:4724
3. Belgium 1:8234
4. France 1:9494
5. Austria 1:12,266
6. New Zealand 1:13,456
7. Denmark 1:14,583
8. The Netherlands 1:16,987
9. Spain 1:22,467
10. Australia 1:25,485
11. Canada 1:29, 915
12. Germany 1:34,324
13. USA 1:40,334

Australia thus ranks 10th out of the 13 countries I have examined. It is nowhere near having the fewest people per politician in the world. In fact, its ratio is 10 times that if the country in my list with the lowest one
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 9 January 2014 2:37:47 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
The UK’s system is so varied that a direct comparison is not possible. Some parts of the country have unitary authorities. Some parts have county council and district councils. London, Northern Ireland and Wales have assemblies and local councils. Scotland has its own parliament and local councils. Some places have civil parish councils and others do not.

The UK had at least 23,947 politicians (including local councillors). That was one politician per 2631 people (in a population that is now 63 million).

Australia has 824 state and federal politicians. There are about 6600 local councillors in Australia (http://alga.asn.au/?ID=42). That makes a total of 7424 politicians, or one for every 3098 people (in a population of 23 million), still more people per politician than in UK.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 9 January 2014 2:38:31 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
Shockadelic,

Section 7 says that senator must be “directly chosen by the people”. That means that people have the right to vote for individuals.

Preferences are not party-determined. People have the right to vote below the line in nay order that they wish. If they chose not to do so, they choose to follow their party’s wishes, but it is still their choice to do so.

STV is superior to list systems because it allows the voter to chose the individual candidate that best suits that voter’s wishes.

Once those who have reached a quota on the initial vote are elected, there is a series of counts. At each count, there are several candidates in the race. The one with the least support drops out and those who voted for him or her have their votes transferred to their next choice. The process continues until one person has the support of a quota. That person is obviously the most supported of those remaining in the race. The simplest comparison is with preferential voting in a single-member electorate. The aim is to reach the quota of 50 per cent plus one. At each stage, the candidate with the least support drops out and those who voted for him or her have their votes transferred to their next choice until one candidate reaches the majority. STV operate sin the same principle, but there is not one quota of 50 per cent plus one, but several quotas.

The garbage truck is out the front at this very minute collecting the rubbish. The idea that it could be controlled more efficiently from a computer in Canberra is fanciful.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 10 January 2014 8:06:35 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
What we really need in Australia is not a System Reconstruction, but a System Restore. I am called vexatious because I refuse to accept that lawyers are the only people qualified to de-construct and examine what the Australian Constitution, actually means. The “Kable Principle” supposedly made as Judge Made Law in 1996, should have done a System Restore, and given every Australian the right to expect that if put upon by any Local or State Government that his/her civil and political rights would be respected and the question of whether he or she must comply with a disputed law, be decided by “judges” not by a Lawyer Judge drawn from a cartel that dominates all Parliaments. There is nothing wrong with the Australian Constitution. It took away State Sovereignty, and created One Jurisdiction, but its provisions were made negative in 1986 by the Australia Act 1986 and at the same time, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights became Schedule 2 to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, but because the Australia Act 1986 both repeals and continues the Australian Constitution, no Lawyer judge will accept the truth of this Statement. There is a Wild Card entry into the game, in the election of Clive Palmer and up to four allied Senators. If John Madigan will join that alliance, then some very hard questions should be asked in the Parliament about the way the 51 lawyer/lobbyists in the Parliament of the Commonwealth are obstructing the course of justice in Australia and preventing good laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth from being enforced. I am vexatious or declared so in four jurisdictions, Queensland which went bad in 1991, New South Wales which went bad in 1970, Victoria which went bad in 1986, and the Commonwealth which went bad in 1976, and in every case it was a single individual drawn from the Legal Profession who made the declaration. With a bit of gumption Palmer United Party and its allies will do so much good for Australia just by asking hard questions.
Posted by Peter Vexatious, Friday, 10 January 2014 12:37:15 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..<<..There is nothing wrong with the Australian Constitution. It took away State Sovereignty, and created One Jurisdiction, but>>

in my opinion..'the states'..FORMED A HIGHER legislative* EXECUTIVE*/judicial body[chap 1,11,111]..[ie all state laws are retained*..[but where state law is DIVERGENT*..it falls UNDER the federal legislations

i feel they HAVE THEIR CAKE..AND EAT IT TOO
BUT THERE IS A REASON..FOR PETER BEATY..TO REWRITE THE QLD CONSTITUTION..INTO THE CONSTITUTION ACT..of 2002..[THEN SIGNING IT INTO LAW himself..

please explain FURTHER<<..its provisions were made negative in 1986 by the Australia Act 1986 and at the same time, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights became Schedule 2 to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, but because the Australia Act 1986 both repeals and continues the Australian Constitution,>>..

as a convenient fiction..<<..no Lawyer judge will accept the truth of this Statement...>>..I BELIEVE chapter 5/108/109..are key..BUT STATE COURTS ARE NOT GOING TO RULE..THEY GOT NO POWER

any lAWYER IS A SERVANT..OF THE COURT

[sorry about cAPS=COMPUTER VIRUS]
BECAUSE THEY are servants of the court..plus subSERVIENT TO THE LAW SOCIETY..PLUS LAWYERS MAKING LAWS JUDGING LAWS..ITS JUST ALL TOO Convenient

anyhow..we created gOVT TO REGULATE ARTIFICIAL 'PERSONS'[CORPORATIONS/BUSINESS TRUSTS BIRTHS MARRIAGES ETC]
BUT SOMEHOW THE PERVERSION HAS BECOME BAILOUT BUSINESS [dead]..AND JAIL/tax to death..THE LIVING ..[take income=EARNED NOT BY VALUE ADDING/..IT*ISNT WAGE..YET ITS WE THE LIVING PAYING THE taxes..to corporatist..DEAD STATE

DO You have a web site?

NOTE ALSO..117[FED/CON]
Posted by one under god, Friday, 10 January 2014 5:18:36 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
Chris C, why should a seventh-preferred candidate be considered "chosen" to the same value as a first preference?

"the individual candidate that best suits that voter’s wishes" is the one they put first, not seventh.

Yes, people *can* vote below the line, but very few do.
Which should tell you how much people value giving preferences.

Which means it's the parties, not the voters who are deciding where those 2nd, 3rd, 4th preferences go.
Hardly the voter's "chosen" candidate.

With last remainder, you only consider the first preference (which should be paramount to the voter).
You don't consider the last preference as *equivalent* to their first (which can happen with transferred votes).
If you give a reduced value, that just makes the whole thing even more complicated.

"The idea that it could be controlled more efficiently from a computer in Canberra is fanciful."

Not the garbage truck itself, bright spark.
The planning of collections.

Do you think the drivers themselves sit down with a pen and a map and decide where and when they'll collect?

No, it's all arranged on computer by a clerk.
It doesn't matter where that computer and clerk are located.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 10 January 2014 9:03:47 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
Thank you Chris for checking on the ratio of politicians and citizens in several countries.

I don't know how the Wikepedia figure is arrived at but I assume that they include the number of local councillors. There are around 700 local councils in Australia and although most councillors are voluntary positions that would add a significant number of politicians to the total.

Again, the number if not my concern but the electoral system, and the resulting two-party system, is. Australia needs to get away from the adversarial political and industrial relations systems. It is unproductive from many perspectives. We should concentrate on achieving flexible parliamentary majorities rather than having to deal with another three years of oppositionism. The Westminster system too has serious problems in that much talent in the nation does not end up in Parliaments. The legislatures are dominated by the Government and Opposition, both often of very mediocre quality. I think the time has come for Australia to question these systems rather than continue to boast of their presumed superiority. As an independent and sovereign people questioning a system that has been passed on from a colonial power makes perfect sense to me.

Klaas
Posted by klaas, Thursday, 16 January 2014 9:41:08 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
Klass said: As an independent and sovereign people questioning a system that has been passed on from a colonial power makes perfect sense to me. He like many more educated people has not twigged to the fact that none of us are part of a Sovereign Nation while the Australia Act 1986 creates what was abolished in 1900. A de-facto system of dual citizenship has been recreated after it was abolished by referendum in 1900 by consensus between the two major political parties whose members draw salaries as members of nine separate Parliaments.

There are 51 lawyers in the Parliament of the Commonwealth who are career politicians whose power base is based in State Political Parties. The English adoptcd the New Testament as their Constitution in 1297 as the Magna Carta the Great Charter of the people, and in reliance on the words of Jesus Christ in Luke 11 Verses 46 and 52, banned lawyers from the Parliament for 498 years from 1472. The principles of Christianity are contained in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, in S 5and in S 79 Constitution where it refers to judges, not a Judge. The Australia Act 1986 in S 16 the Parliament uses the word judge, not judges in the definition of court. Sloppy Parliamentary draftsmen are at fault.

The Abbott Government promises there will be a Repeal Day in March 2014. We may get a bit of honest government and a System Restore if they will repeal the inconsistencies I have identified that have had me labelled vexatious. Lawyers cannot stand criticism, and will not take seriously my assertion that the New Testament is in fact the basis of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights legislated as law in 1981 and confirmed in 1986 as Schedule 2 to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. Eleanor Rooseveldt in 1945 first proposed the Covenant as a world wide template for peace. It vexes lawyers to think that all people should be equal before the law, and civil litigants should have the same right to jury trials as indicted criminals.
Posted by Peter Vexatious, Thursday, 16 January 2014 1:24:27 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. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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