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.

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.

“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”.

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.

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.

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.