Who changed David?

The swinging Senators or the leader who believed his power to decide policy was a divine right and carved in stone?
Or that the party members were just highly paid rubber stamps brought along to do his/her bidding?

As a liberal and a libertarian, I believe not only in the right to cross the floor on any issue but leave the party if my first and only loyalty to the electors was about to be compromised.
Or if the moral compass that's guided me most of my adult life is somehow placed in jeopardy?

I also retain the right to change my mind on any issue, if persuaded by rational reasoned logic! You?

As a final observation, only the Nazi or communist parties expected, nay demanded the fixed position loyalty you seem to want?
And perhaps tells us more about the real you than you care to reveal?
Alan B.

I have found that the ones the abc are backing are generously the most dangerous Senators. They use them as 'useful idiots' like they did with Clive in order to spew hatred on Abbott. They also used Lambie when it suited them.

The article provides a good argument why electing citizens at random is a better system than democracy.

But there is one drawback: this would favour people with fewer personal obligations who are thus more easily able to fly to Canberra and fulfil their parliamentary duties, creating a bias in favour of people with much time on their hands.

A good related biblical reading can be found in Judges 9:8-15.

Yuyutsu

You should elaborate on that.

Try this:

We actually need less characters like this author. Corporate puppet, voted in to parliament by a default mechanism, under a foreign party flag. In other words, duped the electorate.
Neoliberal Libertarian doing due dilligance to corporate executatives (Joyce eg), proposing SSM private members bill. Gun toting hillbilly, opposing Howards gun control and public safety intentions. Non-intellect.

What else can I say?

Dear Dan,

Are you sure that your last post was intended for me?

If so, then it is you who needs to elaborate because I don't understand half of it, nor have any idea how it even remotely relates to my previous post.

Thank you.