In the article, Geoff has belief in media systems such as the Internet to help produce more democracy. (EG. Disseminating opinion, organising support, policy input are now at the fingertips of all, at little cost and to great effect) .

However I became concerned that this is not occurring, after reading a comment by Phillip Adams in an article titled “Political realities of the one-party state” at…http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12177494%255E12272,00.html

“The other day I asked Bob Carr if he'd noticed the net changing Australian politics and his emphatic response was, "no, not at all". Despite the strident blogs, the exuberant conspiracy theorists and the new tribalisms of the web, it's hard to see solid evidence of significant impact. Yet.”

Now I am personally concerned if the Internet has not made much difference to politics within this country. Hopefully it does so in the future, as it appears that mainstream journalists can be bought or pressured to basically lie, distort the truth, or provide only half-truths to the public. I also think that investigative journalism in this country is much in decline.

However it is becoming evident that there is a very wide gap between rural and city people, and while much of the country’s economic wealth and exports originally come from rural areas, the country’s politics is mostly played out in the cities.

Personally I would like to see all political parties taken out of the Senate, and the senate made up of independents only. Such a senate would then act as a true and impartial house of review, and provide over 70 different viewpoints when legislation is passed to it from the House of Representatives. It would also eliminate much of the rorting that is presently occurring in the Senate, that comes about because of the exchange of preferences at election time.

At present I think that most Senators don’t even know who they are supposed to be representing, or what policies they are supposed to be supporting, because of all the preference deals made with other parties at election time.

I also have some thoughts that the Democrats went into decline because they were too honest, too principled, and were not willing enough to exchange preferences with less principled parties. Eventually they have lost their power in the Senate because of this, and so the public has lost it’s third political party. Similar to what has happened to the Democrats, can also occur to other minor parties at present such as the Greens, or Family First.

In the “dog eat dog” world that is our present political system, a more principled party can readily loose out, and so does the voting public.

I don't know why there is this belief that the internet will become a beacon of democracy - especially regards the weblogs etc published online.

A lot of the people who are active bloggers or visit sites such as this probably have an interest in the topics being discussed any way, they don't look on the internet as the only source of info, it is extra information to go with broadcast and print journalism.

In other words, they attract the people who are most interested in politics any way.

There are also demons in internet journalism and political debate.

As witnessed on this site all the time, debate often degenerates into a slanging match between opposing sides - people taking a hard line either way. It seems the internet is a way to attract extreme views and often the middle ground is lost.

Also, the internet, unlike print and broadcast arms of the media (excluding news websites linked to newspapers and tv, radio stations)has very few restrictions on what can and can't be published.
There is more room for lies to spread online because the bloggers aren't bound as much in a legal sense. You can say whatever you like.
The ratio of news to opinion in traditional journalism sources would be a lot higher than content published on the net.

Journalism can be a pretty tough job and the journos i work with and know are honest people. No-one i have associated with has ever got a tap on the shoulder by Messrs Murdoch or Packer and told what to write and their copy always goes in as is.

t.u.s.

I heartily agree with the need for "a broad based centre Party." I believe, even more fundamentally, there is a need for a viable alternative to the Coalition. Labor will not cut it. They just don't get the fact that the voters do not want untalented non-entities running the country at the behest of backroom factional bullies. I am hopeful that the Democrats, with their new incentive to renew their party, will step forward to fill the gap.

Whether or not there is a need for a new political party, there is neither the will nor the ability in this country to create it. The present well-entrenched system of patronage is unlikely to wish to disturb the system that has so comprehensively feathered so many nests in the past. Anyone with the temerity to launch an alternative to the existing power cartel will have to over-bid the incumbents, which will not be a pretty sight.

Labour outsiders and disillusioned Liberals should be spending more time with their grandchildren and considering taxation issues regarding transfer of wealth to future generations, rather than developing obscure theorems about the influence of technological change on political processes. Are you around Saturday night Dad , can you babysit, we want to go see the Waifs??

Dennis

Wand is right about all that stuff that he/she said.

That is a terrible and schematic article, it is incoherent and nonsensical. It is filled with bizarre paranoid conspiracies. I would say it somewhat differently if I could, but everyone else seems to find the article fine.

The Greens had a swing of 2%, gaining 7% of the Reps vote, 1% more than the so-called outsiders party of the Nationals (by article's regional definition). Where is the substance to claims that the Greens did relatively poorly? Rather than simply stating a contentious conclusion in an opinion article, you should back it up with a link to another article that mentions the arguments, or provide your own.

Any arguments or links to this idea are appreciated.

Penekiko,

If one were to look at the political scene in the short term, then it might appear healthy. However a longer-term view shows quite different.

If a party wants to get into federal politics then it is easiest to get into the senate first, and the federal government has a list of which parties have been in the senate since 1949 at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/briefs/briefone.htm.

The Labor party and the coalition have been the stayers, with several smaller parties forming, then disbanding over time. This is not good for democracy, as it means an enduring two-party state (which can often result in a choice between two evils for the voting public)

It is now quite difficult to form a political party that may have a chance in federal politics, as that party has to have considerable financial backing, and it has to make sure it has dotted all the I’s and crossed all the T’s (as One Nation found out). That is a considerable deterrent, but it also appears that a political party has to be prepared to sell it’s soul along the way to establish itself in parliament, and then keep itself there.

The article titled “The grubbiest preference deals” at http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/2004/10/03-0005.html gives an idea of the rorting now occurring in government involving preference deals. This is also highly non-democratic, because these preference deals means that a member of the voting public has minimal idea of who they are actually voting for, or where their vote is going.

So in the longer term, Australia is heading towards a bureaucratic dictatorship, where backroom deals determine who is in power, and the voting public has minimal idea of what is occurring.

That is why I would like to see all political parties out of the Senate, (together with their grubby preference deals), and independents only voted in the Senate. The Senate then becomes a proper house of review, and becomes the people’s house in parliament. Politicians can play out all their games and political bun-fights in the House of Reps only.

I hope the included links provide you with sufficient information.

I agree with you Timkins, there is not much to disagree with and I am a very disagreeable person.

I'll just add a couple of things, one of them is that having the taxpayer fund political parties a certain ammount for each vote they get above some percentage in each seat is a good idea and goes a long way to end the financial difficulties of starting a minor party.

Your idea about independents only, has merit and is a real solution to the problems you have mentioned above. But I still don't agree that the Greens did poorly in 2004, yes they lost potential senate seats due to the culture of dodgy dealings, but they didn't do poorly.

I still find the 'insiders and outsiders' article a bit crazy, perhaps if the author cleared up exactly what a centre party would stand for. This includes broad policies and principles. I know I wouldn't vote for what I imagine a centre party would stand for.

Timkins,

I put forward your supposition in an essay i wrote about democracy at uni. Lecturer didn't really like the idea - said it had too many holes in it to work.

He saw a problem would occur that groups of people would clump together any way and vote along similar lines often.

You would need an ACCC type watchdog to ensure people wouldn't collude and of course it would be undemocratic to not let parties in the Senate - just as it would be undemocratic to ban independents.

People like to form groups. Strength in numbers. Divide and conquer.

Good in theory though.

t.u.s

Politics is about compromise, whether that happens inside a party where each mp has a vote and a say on the party's stance. Or outside parties in the parliament between independents and parties. So our current party dominated system is only un-democratic in that independents (and minor parties) don't recieve equal financial support compared to the bugger parties. But essentially you would have the same dealings and compromise (no matter how collusion riddled it is) with an independent or party dominated senate.

So in regards I don't think it would matter much either way, but it would probably be better to have parties recognised, rather than underground institutions, that way the voter can be informed the most.

While the Coalition's opponents engage in academic arguments about voting demographics, indulge in wishful hopes for changes to voters' attitudes and squabble about abstruse differences of principle, the Coalition holds its ranks and the reins of government untroubled by an effective opposition or a credible threat to its tenure. We do not have the checks and balances of the American system or its separation of executive and legislative powers.
The electorate, furthermore, has demonstrated its disdain for an independent Senate. How many would care if the government now made changes to the way Senators are elected? (Not all changes require a referendum.)
Even the devolution of some jurisdiction to the States is overshadowed by the fact that the federal Government has the principal taxing powers and, therefore, economic power.
Party discipline is rigid here; we do not have the dissenters found in the United States or the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister and his government have their caucuses in thrall.
Within constitutional definitions of federal jurisdiction, where is the check on the government's power? Who can challenge it? What restrains it? Not the nominal Opposition. Not "public opinion". Not the "yes-men" in the government caucuses. Not the splinter groups in the Senate, nor the independents in the House of Representatives.
We need an effective Opposition and a credible alternative government. The contest for the Treasury is the game; everything else is a mere distraction.