Yup, and particularly if we could eliminate the road block (opposition for its own sake) element that prevents it?

After all there's enough divergence of views inside any caucus/cabinet, to ensure ideas are thoroughly aired and reviewed, before they are introduced to the house.

The same could apply to the senate; but only if it were a real house of review, rather than as all too often, a rubber stamp for the ruling party.

And you'd further erode the power of tinpot tyrants, if every vote had to be a secret ballot and conducted electronically, with a personal key, under a vote/intention hiding cowl!

Meaning, if people had first to be thoroughly persuaded of the merit of good ideas, rather than bulldozed into accepting increasingly bad ones, our Parliament would function far better!

As they would in the case of states, if an intending governor sort election in a winner takes all contest, even if that needed a rerun between the to leading nominees, to decide the outcome.

Who would then be charged with selecting a cabinet from the world of private endeavor and experience, as new department heads, who also must be held equally or more accountable for outcomes; and or, thanks to an entire independent media, And a more muscular ICAC, any internal corruption or nepotism.

This way, we could likely improve our parliaments out of sight, massively reduce government and duplication; and half the cost to us, the eternally suffering taxpayer, of having them.

I rest my case.
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, how would we keep the senators accountable if we can't see their voting record?

Voting records under the Westminster system mean little. Because of party discipline parliamentarians must usually vote as the party room tells them or risk disendorsement or other penalties. Due to party discipline the parliamentarian must place the wishes of the party room ahead of the desires of his or her district so the parliamentarians are not really representatives of their districts. The decision of the party room also takes precedence over conscience, justice and the good of Australia and the world.

Under the separation of powers recommended by Montesquieu government is divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. The legislative body makes the laws, the executive enforces them and the judicial system oversees their application. The three branches are checks and review bodies on each other. That is not true under the Westminster system as the executive body is part of the legislature and not separate.

Considering the flaws in the Westminster good government under it is accidental.

Perfect, David:

<<Considering the flaws in the Westminster good government under it is accidental.>>

The Westminster system ensures that only a handful of voters will be represented in parliament.

One way to make parliament work better would be to give any member of the public a right to sue any member of parliament for misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct that is likely to mislead or deceive. This is the expression from the Trade Practices Act which is the ordinary standard now applied to companies and natural persons, but only in trade or commerce.

The effect of exempting politicians from this standard is to extend to them a legal privilege of deceptive conduct even concerning huge amounts of public money in which politicians have a personal interest, so long as they're acting in their official capacity. That's why, for example, Gillard was able while campaigning to induce electors to vote for her by saying "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" or words to that effect, and then when elected, to introduce a carbon tax. John Howard was also notorious for his distinction between core and non-core promises.

It's actually a disgraceful state of affairs. It's a big conflict of interest, obviously, which is why it's illegal in advertising. In a word, it's fraud.

You often see where companies offer goods for sale on a 'satisfaction guaranteed or your money back' basis, and I have sometimes taken advantage of this with no problems. For example a while ago I bought a musical instrument from Aldi, took it home and tried it, decided I didn't like it, and returned it for a full refund, no questions asked.

It just goes to show how far the political sphere is from ordinary standards of honesty and decency, when we reflect what a joke it would be currently if the people - the supposed principals of which government is the supposed mere agent - were to sue to get our money back if not satisfied with the services they're providing.

Aidan:
Accountable? By who? Us or those who effectively control Parliament?

We've made a secret ballot compulsory in all or unions; arguably to limit the power of tinpot tyrants to control them or any funds under their management!

Voting records count for little when measured against rigid party control; and or, progress and actual results!

I remember well a time during the eighties, when the Gold Coast City Council was so gridlocked by competing ideologies!

The state government had no choice but to sack the lot and replace them with a single administrator; who reportedly got more done in just six weeks, than the literal years of gridlocked council.

Had that council been compelled to install electronically assisted secret ballots, the totally inflexible tyrants creating the very gridlock, would have been dealt out of the power games all politicians seem to play, and just decided on merit?

Hopefully, occasionally?

The secret ballot, video conferencing and key-locked voting pads, would enable a member to attend the floor of the house from anywhere!
[Particularly if that enabled them to avoid an in your face, abusive expletive riddled "secret conference".]

The Parliamentary or electoral office/home.

Anyway, voting records count for very little, when all the ever are, it would seem, a rubber stamp or proxy for the ruling elite!

Besides, electronic voting records could be kept and or accessed, the way our private phone conversations are now; say, just before any new round of elections/after the final selections; and to ensure they were still made accountable, when it really counted!

In other words, you really would have to stand on your record, not the too clever by half, spin that invariably replaces it!

And all you (or competing parties) need to see to know that voting record, would be an open or closed electronic gate or 0 or 1 (meta data) in relation to x, y, w, v or z!

Just not on the day, so as to remove the control of the usual medley of control freaks at the centre of most parties?
Cheers, Rhrosty.