//On the other hand if there are no good candidates to vote from, then don't vote. Don't pick from the lesser of two evils, either be willing to stand by the choice you vote for, or back away from the election as a whole. That's the only way I can think of for changing how the election processes are run is if the voters withhold their votes on the candidates and the issues they disagree with.//

Yeah, that's not how it works. Electoral processes don't get changed because a few disgruntled voters protest by spoiling their ballot. Some of our electoral processes a laid out in the Constitution, and therefore can't be changed without a referendum. And some are laid out in Acts of Parliament, so they can only be changed by the parliament. In the real world, the only effective way to change electoral processes is to vote in a party that will enact electoral reform.... and spoiling your ballot won't achieve that.

Not that any of this has any bearing on you, since you're not eligible to vote in Australia.

Toni, snipes and digs aside, I thought the same many years ago, then realised that because of preferences, we got screwed.
So I thought that voting for 'someone' who was not associated with the main parties, might go someway towards achieving my chosen goals.
Those goals were to weaken the power and the chances of the main players from getting in.
So it is that I promote the truly independents.
I pretty much don't care who they are, as long as it weakens the main parties base or power.
I guess my preferred objective is a 'hung' parliament.
If you can't actually change the players, then removing their power is as good as removing them, so I guess that's the closest we're going to come to getting anything like a reformed govt.
I for one, and I know I'm not alone, am sick and tired of being the brunt of these scum-bags laws.
Every time they make a law, we 'the people', cop the blunt end of the stick.
Enough, about time they were actually stopped, not that that's possible, by aiming for a hung parliament, at least gives us some breathing space.
Because this system does NOT work.

Not_Now.Soon,

How is what you are proposing different from a theocracy? It has been tried over many centuries, but was surpassed by a better system in the case of western civilisation. The principle of an instruction manual also got applied to medicine and science. How well did that system work? As much as it would be nice to an operating manual for civilisation, I have yet to see one that could not be improved. My concern with your proposal is that it does not appear to allow for the possibility of editing.

To Fester.

The basis of my suggestion is on two ideas. That a person's faith should affect all parts of their lives, not just their private lives. This would include service in office, voting, and business. (Three areas that it seems to be neglected, or given the idea that these areas of life are ruled by "different rules." The second idea is that the lessons in the bible are practical and good to put to use, regardless of your faith. (Which not surprising only adds to my belief that the bible is reliable).

Here's the take away from it all. But instead of just choosing an elder this can be applied for choosing a candidate to vote.

Blameless, faithful to their wife (or husband if voting in a women) and who's children are not wild and disobedient. Manage their own family well. Choose these attributes because these responsibilities in the household show they can be responsible to serve the people they are responsible for.

Not over bearing, easily angered, alcoholic, violent, quarrelsome, or pursues dishonest gain. Nor should they be a recent convert. (Apply the last one perhaps to someone who is not a native or who hasn't lived in Australia for at least X # of years).

Instead choose a leader who is hospitable, loves what is good, self-controlled, gentle, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Now I ask. Which of these things are attributes do you find a fault in. So to not apply it to choosing who you will vote for. They seem like practical measure to grant a good and balanced parliament seat or PM. I'd recommend looking up the bible verses I referenced to compare them to, and make sure I am telling the truth.

but was surpassed by a better system in the case of western civilisation
Fester,
Yes & it's about 80 years past its use-by date now. Time for something better again.

Not_Now.Soon

You come across as good and well-meaning, but the well worn cliche about paving can apply to systems that set parameters for the ideal citizen, more so when the authority considers itself the embodiment of goodness. You need to think long and hard before making a choice without an historic precedent preferable to the system we have. It reminds me of the Iranian morals police arresting and raping a young orphaned girl for alleged promiscuity before she was hanged in the town square.

Individual,

What is the answer? What changes do you think are needed to the system we have?