Timkins I've waited 4 days now for Ozaware’s answer to my question.

I'm not happy with most modern democracies. Our Australian version falls far short of what most people want. However I don't believe there is a superior system. A proper democracy which isn’t abused is about as good as it’s possible to have.

The trouble is that human beings are inherently greedy (at least the ones that aspire to politics are). In a politics they soon become corrupt, ready to lie, cheat, deceive, manipulate. Any system subject to that will be poor.

Ozaware has described his proposed system which so far as his explanation goes is what we have here in Australia; John Howard is the captain selected by "a much larger group of well informed, educated, proved-to-be 'responsible' people" i.e. the Liberal MHRs.

Many people would accept they are wise.

The thing we don't know about Ozaware’s system is who will select the "much larger group" or the MHRs themselves.

Conflict arises in many countries over the appointment of the captain. If its not done in a way that people will accept, then there will be insurrection.

You mentioned that the senators should not belong to a political party. That was the intention of the founding fathers when devising the Australian constitution.

I’m supportive of your view but it’s almost impossible to prevent senators from forming political parties.

Just imagine a group of wealthy senators ignoring the plight of the poor people. You did not have the funds to gain the publicity you need to become elected to counter them in the senate. You’d become aligned with others and a political party would be formed which had the funds needed. In a short while arguments would arise as to the course of action to be taken on issues and compromises and power factions would arise.

Space is too short to enlarge on this. My view is that whenever you try to replace the democracy you create as many problems as you solve.

Ozaware’s suggestion for a power group, not selected by the majority, is a recipe for conflict.

Sandgroper,

I would agree that there are advantages and also disadvantages with any system. However democracy is not a given, or something that is stagnant, but it has to be continuously worked on to maintain it or to improve on it.

There were some other suggestions at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3053#2859 to improve the current situation as well as having independents only in the senate.

- Introduce secrete ballot in both the Senate and the House of Representatives
- Have more public referendums, and more public enquiries.
- Government to actually carry out the results of the referendums, or the recommendations of enquiries.
- Put “none of the above” on the bottom of each ballot paper, and if the majority of people tick “none of the above”, then the election has to be held again (and this time with different candidates or different policies)

These were just some thoughts, but the general principles are for the populace to have more say, and to be able to get corrupt or ineffective politicians or political parties out of government before they become too ingrained or too difficult to remove.

Sandgroper and Timkins,

Sorry, I've been offline for a week.

I confess I do not deal in the minutae, my focus is the fundamental principles. That's because life has taught me that if the foundations are strong a good structure will stand firm. I will leave it to better-informed individuals (Timkins, I suspect being one) to devise the nuts and bolts of a good system.

They just need to remember that the key is a strong and inflexible moral code. That's what made the USA so great from the time of the Dec. of Indep. until about the 1950's.

As their morality has slowly unravelled, so have all their 'good' and 'successful' social management structures slowly started to unravel.

I have previously given 'simple' examples of how a loss of morality destroys our freedoms and opens the door to social disasters. Read http://www.oz-aware.com/morality1.htm and also oloreply.htm on the same website.

The discussions on the OLO forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3042 end up with the same reality that morality is the key.

Which is no coincidence, gentlemen.

And we are an increasingly immoral nation. Which is how I can 'predict' our now-not-distant-future if we don't have a fast and drastic change of thinking....

Sandgroper,

sorry, here's my response re your "who would select the much larger group"?

That's (I suggest) done by a process called 'education' and 'merit'. That is to say, only people who have earned the right to have a say in our nation's future by having (a) achieved certain specified standards of education and (b) met/surpassed some other set standards---such as (perhaps) written knowledge tests to ensure they know what they are voting for.

The point is that no rational society would have a 'mindless mob' pulling its strings. Besides, a mindless mob of voters opens the door to pollies being tempted to offer all kinds of 'mindless' promises.

Hmmm...vaguely familiar innit?

The other way will result in each politician knowing he/she can't fool any of the people any of the time. Do you think that will perhaps make them more 'responsible'?

Ozaware

While I agree with you on the need to educate the voters that's the limit of my support for your proposal to develop a "much larger group" that will vote to select the group that then selects and monitors the performance of the captain.

Your proposal to educate this larger group who will be given the privelege of being involved in the selection process will create a privileged class.

The non voting section of our society that you advocate will be outraged. What group of people is going to accept being deprived of the vote except through force. The people you intend to prohibit from voting may not value their vote at this time but if you deny them the vote they will react violently and the state will have to put down an uprising. Its not as if we haven't seen this reaction before.

Your misguided proposal will inevitably lead to conflict along the lines seen throughout history e.g. French/Russian revolutions.

How are you going to enforce the voting prohibition on every polling day? With the Police and the Army?

I'm amazed that you would suggest such a division of society that has proven to be the cause of conflict.