This is an interesting idea, but probably unworkable in the current Australian political environment.

The conscience vote on the RU486 drug was certainly a refreshing break from the dullness of regular Parliamentary debate.

What Chris fails to consider though, is the impact of instructions from the various party factions, particulary evidend in the ALP. Even though the Party Whip provides a single underline, the factional bosses may issue another note with three underlines.

Until all Parliamentarians realise that they represent the people that elected them, and not vested interests, this just isn't going to happen.

The best system, which we occasionally achieve, is to have a hung parliament, and I hope that that is the outcome in the NSW election next year. Trouble is, I don't know where you would locate the gallows.

The reason that american politics doesn't require the level of party disclipine that exists in Australia is that a president cannot be removed just by refusing supply, which is the position here. The only way you can remove a president ahead of time is by impeachment, which has never succeeded. The republicans tried the idea of supply refusal on Clinton a few years ago, and all it did was paralyse government for a few weeks.

Alright, so a party whip system might improve debate. I certainly agree that the current setup is pathetic and I can understand why politicians in America would refuse to serve in such a system.

But while this would improve the freedom for parliamentarians to vote according to their conscience, it wouldn’t improve the presentation of majority views or the breadth of views of their constituency. That is what is really needed – true representation.

Extending from a point made by Narcissist – while there may be single underlined votes, it may still be apparent that parliamentarians dare not go against their party more than once or twice without incurring a backlash. So in that regard, it may not be that different from the current system where people can cross the floor or speak out against their party’s position…..occasionally.

There are much bigger reforms needed. We have got get government to represent the people instead of being tangled up with big business and the consequent profit motive and continuous growth paradigm.

The thing that disgusts me most about our system is compulsory preferential voting, which favours the two big parties and serves to keep all others suppressed. It means that our vote can and often does end up counting where we have no intention of it counting. It is grossly antidemocratic. The alternative which is practiced in some states is optional preferential voting, which is a truly democratic system.

How on earth anyone who believes in democracy or wishes to improve our system of governance cannot be outraged by this voting system and consider it to be one of the highest priorities for reform, is beyond me.

A party whip is not needed, what is badly needed is a change in philosophy. The ordinary people need a party to represent them, which is sadly missing at present.

Shonga

You've got the Liberals, the party of the battlers, with the leader who has his finger on the pulse of the common man. What are you complaining about?