Democracy: a rabble begging a psychopathic guidance system . A point in Australia already reached!

Surely the elected representative should represent the wishes of their electors.
It is high time the party system was made illegal.
The person most qualified for the task is given it to do unlike the present system.

We all know this, yet we keep on voting the same way election after election. Not much point in discussing it, really.

Joining a party, with a charter of known rules and expectations! Is not what you do, if you want to hold private non party positions? Particularly when you are able, with persuasive reasoned logic, to argue a preferred position in the party room!

[Ve haf vays of makink jew enchoy jaw zelf!]

If that's not doable? Then the "Lady" in question has the right to resign and stand as an independent! Jawohl?
Alan B.

How typical for an academic member of the elite to get it so wrong.

Unlike academics, employed or retired, most of us have to work more than a couple of hours a day for our living, & do not have the time to research the possible voting intentions of each & every candidate standing in a single seat, let alone the senate, with it's cast of thousands.

So Peter, we vote for a party, or perhaps against a party, or it's even it's leader. Often we have no knowledge of the individual candidate in our electorate, let alone their personal beliefs. We expect them to faithfully follow the party line, because we at no time voted for them other than as the representative of that party.

Of course I would expect someone like to be pro the EU rip off that the Poms have suffered for years. Organisations like the EU, & thousand of Quangos here, have very lucrative & prestigious opportunities for senior academics to grow rich, while wasting taxpayers money.

I understand it is galling to you that some of the common herd, hell even tradesmen, can earn as much as you, & your vote is no more important than theirs, [thank god], but mate you'll just have to learn to live with it.

God don't we need to trim academia, down to the useful, rather than the useless & fat.

We all know that we vote for a person that will represent our view in Parliament, or the view of the majority of people in the electorate. That's how it's supposed to work.

The reality is that the person representing the Electorate is picked by the Party to Represent the Party's view. The Party's view may or may not represent the general view of everyone in the Electorate, that's why we have different Party's.

Some of the people may agree with all the Policies of the Party, some of the people may agree with most of the Policies of the Party. Those people will vote for the Party, regardless. Some of the people may not agree with many of the Party's Policies at all but still vote for the Party because; that's what they've always done, "My Husband/Wife/Father voted for that Party so that's how I vote. A lot of Australians are really not all that fanatical about any particular Party.

It's because of the Fanatical Party followers that nothing ever gets done. Politicians rely on those types of people for their support.

I don't like the Greens because of their Communistic views, their fanatical support for Drugs/Gays/Political Correctness at any cost, etc. There are a few things of the Greens that I do support, but not the way they go about supporting that particular Policy. Likewise with LNP/ALP/ON/Independents. I apply the 80/20 Rule. A particular Party may represent my view on one Policy but not on another.

The Elected Represented of any Electorate, in most cases doesn't represent the Communities view. He put forward his own view then all the Representatives reach a Consensus of Opinion with some heavy persuasion from the Upper Ranks of the Party. The Elected Representative then "has" to hold the view of the Majority of the Elected Representatives not the view of the people that have elected him.
Cont...

Cont.
This is supposed to be Democracy. Not really, but close enough I guess. In a Socialist Society the Party comes up with the Policy then the people vote for a representative to carry out that Policy. If you don't agree then you will just, disappear. Sort of what the ALP & the Greens want to implement.

Most people would be amazed at how little most members of political parties actually know about...well, anything. But it becomes very obvious when you see some of the proposals that are put forward in relation to what governments "ought", "should" and "must" do. Fervent desires don't always translate into good policy.

Many of those proposals would be political death if acted upon.

"Democracy" has many definitions. Not many of them are practical. And not many people can actually function democratically because they have little or no information on which to base rational opinions - they lack what the American academic Robert Weissberg calls "civic competence".

Weissberg wrote a thought-provoking book about this, published in 2002: Polling, Policy and Public Opinion: The Case Against Heeding the "Voice of the People". That book sold for $114 in Australia when released; fortunately, I found a copy on sale for $12 and it has been one of my best investments.

There is also an article which summarises the key points:
http://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS234/articles/weissberg.pdf

Unfortunately, Mr Bowden's article is not in Professor Weissberg's league.

Jayb...

**Are Australians disenchanted with democracy?

(This paper was presented as a lecture in the Senate Occasional Lecture Series at Parliament House, Canberra, on 7 March 2014).**

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/~/link.aspx?_id=01FD7901F7E14E9A86A44F9C217BFEC6&_z=z

True democracy doesn't have elected representives.