Some very interesting ideas above. Alchemist, i like your meritocratic ideas.

I don't like the annual election idea though, to me that means constant campaigning and no work done.

PerthWestern, i am with you on still having some optimism about our existing system and elected representatives.
It is questionable whether a more direct system of democracy would be superior to what we have. It places a lot more trust in the general population and the will of the people to decide what is right. It assumes that the majority knows best. But this is not necessarily so. The majority can be quite irrational, it can often vote for the likeable above the capable, with emotion rather than reason.
I may be being sacriligious towards the ideal of democracy here, but it is worth thinking about.

So a more representative democracy shows a lack of understanding how democracy works... Sorry PerthWestern it shows you may grossly not understand democracy.

You say a two party system works best... so you are pro parties... you sure have kept it simple... do nothing... yep that's as simple as it gets.

The system I outlined didn't get rid of preferential voting... the person would still need 50% + 1. It just got rid of parties & alliances... No biggy really. This proves that it is nothing like the Israeli Knesset.

Also I could argue that with the current misuse of it's power in the Senate... your two party system has big holes in it. Plus we actually don't have a two party system we have a multi party system. Are you against any other parties and want just 2?

I don't want annual elections... God it would send us all loopy.

Im mostly interested in preserving and re enforcing the secular system.

Not interested in yearly elections, or referendums on national issues.Councils are good enough locally there.

How would unofficial alliances be avoided? If I was an elected member of such a hypothetical totally independant parliament, I would get the drift of how my fellow members tended to speak and vote on various issues. And from that I would have a pretty good idea of who would be likely to support or oppose a motion I may put on behalf of my electorate.

Presumably we would all be free to meet each other for a private chat. And tell one another who had agreed to say what about whatever and how they were likely to vote when it came up for consideration.

Next thing we knew, some of us may be prepared to compromise on something in order to get something else passed.

Sounds a bit like the two party system, with a few minor party people and a handful who may remain independant.

This scenario isn't carefully thought out, just whizzed down off the top of my head, so feel free to pull it to pieces.

a lot of good worthwhile thoughts here..

Gecko ..

well said on the indirect influence of religion. Could not agree more. To understand the 'evil' side, one needs look no further than the human heart, and see how it tends to 'manipulate' truth and skew it for personal enrichment or gratification.

In the case of the faith delivered through Christ, a simple comparison between His teaching and ethics and those of the 'evil' manifestations you cataloged will show the truth of His parable of the Weeds and the Wheat.

The American situation is not an easy one to understand, as there are many diverse religious and secular interests at play. You have Focus on the Family (Dobson)(cheers and claps) and you have Reconstructionists (boos and bricks) who want to revisit the Old Testament law as modern social/criminal law.

REX "unofficial alliances" :) spot on mate.

ALCHEMIST had an 'idea' ? shock horror.. I'm so programmed to just read abuse in his posts :)

I am absolutely 'ho hum' about a 'secular' party, -not worried about it, its too reactionary to be enduring.

FAmily First are VERY active at the moment in Victoria.. watch out for a good result in November.

-Adloph Bracks 'TOLL' freeway.
-Adolph Bracks beefed up RRT2001 'suppression of valid free speech' (such as MINE on OLO about Mohammed)
-Adolph Bracks in general.
-Adolph Bracks also caused the 40+ degree days :)

Rex,

Of course you would be free to talk to others and meet with them... I was not aiming for a Stalinist State (ha!). It's a better democracy with more input from the people!

Please remember I only had a thought the other day.... I haven't been thinking about it for years.

Like minded people are always attracted to one another and that isn't an alliance. If they used block voting or some other form of vote rigging then that would be an alliance.

Basically I am against voting on party lines. Every vote should be a conscience vote... as every vote affects people's lives and therefore needs people to have thought about how the vote affects
their electorate. Afterall they are the people the member represents.

Perhaps Parliamentary votes should be by secret ballot through some electronic voting system. This allows people to genuinely vote on conscience and if someone was being pressured by lobbyists or pressure groups they could easily vote the opposite way without the pressure group knowing. Doing deals would be virtually impossible

On the Family First Party... Fancy trusting little Johnny with their preferences. What happened to the Telstra Sale family impact statement? Did Johnny Howard tell a fib to a Christian Party to get
their preferences? Will 10,000 job losses have an impact on familes?

Keep religion out of politics... Politicians use religious groups to capture votes and then spit them out after they get in as above. Also anyone can say they are Christians... look at George Bush, are his actions Christian? Is bombing innocent Iraqi families Christian? Is keeping people in Camp Xray and torturing Christian?

I think we have a secular democracy on the whole... sure they say a prayer (big deal) but the antics of our parliamentarians are rather "unGodly" at times. As soon as the prayer is over... it's gloves off... sort of like the footy after the National Anthem Ha! Also members in Australia are not usually questioned regarding their belief systems and neither they should be.