"Democracy is unquestionably good."

The principle that the majority, by being the majority, are right is certainly questionable.
The principle that they have a right to force everyone to obey their opinions, and pay for them, is certainly questionable.
The principle that the politicians, by being politicians, have a legal privilege of misleading and deceptive conduct, is certainly questionable.
The idea that rights are whatever the State says they are, is certainly questionable.
And if the only thing that stops majoritarian rule from being abusive, is entrenched legislated standards preventing the majority from voting to get their way, that's not much of a recommendation, is it?

Aidan
Did ancient Sparta make it illegal for people to cut their grass or use household lighting that the State disapproved of?

At least with tyrannical non-democracies, people didn't believe that they were doing it to themselves.

Over the past 12 months federal government agencies have referred stories by journalists from Guardian Australia, news.com.au and the West Australian to the Australian federal police (AFP) for their reporting on the government’s asylum seeker operations during the time Scott Morrison was immigration minister.

Campbell Newman says he cannot guarantee the Liberal National Party's big spending promises, even those with bipartisan support, if the party wins government but not the seat a project is in.

We all know polls usefulness & accuracy depends on who wrote the questions, who conducted the questioning, how they conducted it, who they chose to question, & who interpreted the result.

You don't have to look very far to see this article is based on a "desired answer" poll, conducted by one of the most biased institutions in the country. Just a little thinking will tell you it was conducted in Canberra, mostly on the university's campus, & the results are not worth the paper they are printed on.

That makes the whole article totally meaningless, based as it is on a con job.

Just another example of the left piddling in each others pockets, for that warm feeling it gives them.

Just you remember that when it suites you to believe polls.

I liked the article, but I think you made it more complicated than it needed to be.

For my way of thinking, don't tip-toe around it.
Pretend you are bartering for a good deal on a product, like a used car for example. (in this case democracy)
Start at the extreme level, (like offering them $100) and then make concessions back.

Our federal government isn't democracy's weakest link.
Western democracy isn't really democracy at all.

Start here with a top-down approach.

STEP 1.
Ban people that hold dual citizenship from voting or holding office.
- You are either loyal to the country or you are a foreigner.
STEP 2.
Ban political donations so that democracy can't be bought.
- No more special treatment for anyone.
STEP 3.
Ban lobby groups that serve to dilute real democracy.
- Let the people's voice be the only voice.
STEP 4.
Ban political parties so that candidates stand on their own merits.
- Are politicians loyal to the people who vote them in or the party they belong to?
STEP 5.
Politicians must keep election promises, or face jail.
- If they change their view on a certain topic they were voted in on, they should hold a referendum or bring new policies up at the next election and let the people decide.

ITS REALLY THAT SIMPLE.

43% believe it made a difference on who is in power you stated.
That's because people a slowly waking up.

Confidence in its Defense Forces (40%), Police Force (31%), and University System (26%)
I wouldn't call those numbers reasonably healthy.

As for confidence in Defense forces, those 4 out of 10 Aussies that have confidence must have rocks in their heads.
If NZ attacked us maybe.
If a POWERFUL foreign enemy REALLY WISHED us harm it would only take 2 or 3 nuclear armed subs sitting off our shores to VAPORIZE our cities before any of us could run to the toilet to change our underwear because we knew what was happening. And our nation would be mostly destroyed and ready for invasion with an unarmed population.

Armchair Critic,

I would like to see citizen initiated referenda, such as they have in Switzerland, with voter veto (of legislation passed by the politicians) and voter recall.

Some of your ideas are good, but others would present a problem. Some people who have migrated to Australia and their children have no choice about being dual citizens because their home country won't allow them to renounce their citizenship. Banning political parties might well increase uninformed voting because of difficulties in finding out what often huge numbers of candidates stand for. I have long felt that candidates should be required to post a policy statement on the internet, but there would probably just be too many of them. If a politician sells out his constituents to toe the party line, he will be vulnerable to losing to an independent or minor party candidate at the next election.

Banning donations is good, but we will need some other method of campaign funding. Maybe we could pay for a certain number of debates, but no sound bites or advertising. I am not sure how banning lobbyists can work. Where do you draw the line between lobbying and a constituent telling a politician his concerns?

We all hate lying politicians who make promises that they have no intention of keeping, but sometimes promises have to be broken because circumstances really have changed, and there isn't time to hold it off until the next election or until a referendum can be organised. If a politician can't convince most of us that breaking the promise was justified, then we should have the right to recall him or her.