In this article (Spectator 24/5/25) Dimitri Burshtein and Peter Swan suggest that Australians “have an unusual habit of celebrating public policies that the rest of the world politely declines to imitate”.

First up is compulsory superannuation, which we are told is the envy of the world, but “ no other country seems eager to replicate this innovation”. (In other countries, super is voluntary, and withdrawals are easier).

Next, we have compulsory, preferential voting. There is nothing democratic about being forced to vote - or lining up just to have your name marked off so as not to be fined.

As the authors say, compulsory voting does not encourage “democratic enthusiasm”, just bureaucratic obedience confusing activity with engagement. And, if voters don't number ALL of the people they don't want and have never heard of, their votes are informal.

The defenders of this undemocratic nonsense have never produced evidence that it is desirable or worth the trouble. It's just a Ponzi scheme for the uniparty, both members lucky to get a third of the primary vote these days.

The authors clearly state that the system is part of a “growing anti-democratic framework constructed and maintained by Labor and the Coalition (soon to team up again) for their mutual benefit”. And, they opine that duopolies in politics breed the same stagnation (now obvious in Australia) as they do in private business.

We, the electorate, are just sheep, forced to vote and pretend that “increasingly indistinguishable options” amounts to democratic freedom.

Burshtein and Swan also believe that recent hints by Albanese for four year terms is another attempt to reduce political competition. The requirement for a referendum is the only thing stopping it. In 1998, two thirds of Australians said no.

Without compulsory voting as per most other democratic countries, the parties would have to sharpen up their policy differences to attract thinking, aware Australians, who don't have to be forced to vote. Preferential voting should be scrapped or made voluntary.

Dear Ttbn,

I agree with your post, but that is only tinkering around the edges:

The undemocratic elephant in the room is the division of Australia into "electorates", practically ensuring that the voters can only choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee to represent them. This also gives significant more power (and bribes) to residents of marginal electorates whereas their neighbours across that invisible line, sometimes even on the other side of the same street, have practically no voting power.

Now your moving ahead, congratulations.

As Ttbn highlighted above; Democracy as dished up slop it is in Australia, is a Ponzi Scheme geared against the Democratic rights of its citizens, and steered entirely towards cementing in the two party system, which from the view at the bottom of the stinking heap, is a total rip-off of Democracy proper. Democracy as a word should be eliminated; the most ill-used word in history. A word that fits between Dictatorship and Autocracy is sorely needed. ( What would it be)?

And a very valid point you make Yuyutsu. I’m not interested enough to think of an alternative; maybe you can come up with one, which leads to the question; how do we invent a truly Democratic alternative?

#… A word that fits between Dictatorship and Autocracy is sorely needed. ( What would it be)?…#

The epiphany! There is a beautifully fitting phrase that fits; “Deep State”. Which is of course the burial ground of Democracy!

And much to his credit, Trump is in the process of blowing up: Or is he just repainting the old room for summer. Time will tell!

It wasnt compulsory or preferential voting that beat the lieberals.
It was their complete incompetence and idiocy.
Their denial of climate change and a nuclear fantasy.
Their admiration for trump and their parroting of right wing culture wars from the US.
Their friendliness with the likes of fat clive, giant gina and the red headed racist put people off as well.

Stop your whiney snowflake whingeing about how the voters got it wrong and how wonderful potato head was and how faulty our democracy is and just get on with your sad little life watching the sky night time murduppets for the next three years.

Oh and compulsory voting was introduced by conservatives because union organisers where better at getting people out to vote.
Are you sure you want to get rid of it?

The Department of Home Affairs has listed 51,000 failed asylum seekers still in Australia even after they have exhausted all legal tricks to remain here. 43,000 more are jamming up the silly tribunal system, with 28,000 more waiting to hear what's happening.

Why hasn't the Albanese socialist regime deported at least the 51,000 who have received a definite NO?

Well, the Socialists can do pretty much as they want now, after forced-to-vote morons put them back in power, and the Liberals were too busy fighting among themselves to run a decent campaign.

Perhaps Albanese will bend the system so that he can force failed asylum seekers to vote Labor.

There is also a very nasty group - the Asylum Resource Centre - pushing for rejected asylum seekers - and asylum seekers who get rejected in Australia must really, really be on the nose - to be given permanent protection. Makes sense. They are not entitled to asylum, but let them stay anyway! And, naturally, they want full access to work, Medicare, study, and welfare.

Labor for Refugees is another nasty mob, directly connected to the ALP.

Labor also has an inner advisor, law professor Mary Kenny, who is pushing for scrapping offshore processing, giving permanent visas to people already denied protection, letting children sponsor their parents, creating new ‘emergency visas’, make detention optional(!), and establishing ‘trauma informed’ counselling for people rejected!

This is what happens when morons who know nothing, and don't care, are forced to vote.

This country’s name should change from Australia to Moronalia.

The informal vote increased in the 2025 election to 5.6%. That's over a million people who obviously shouldn't be forced to vote for starters. But, as those million people can't be identified, voting for everyone should be voluntary, then we would have a much better idea of how many Australians are really interested in their country and their own wellbeing. We have to do something to get a better class of politician, elected by a better class of voter who actually wants to vote and have some influence.

Dear Mikk,

I cannot speak for Ttbn of course,
some of his views I share, others not (like on immigration),
but definitely so, compulsory voting has to go,
no matter who introduced it,
because it is just wrong to compel people. Period.
It is just absolutely outrageous to make it an offence for someone to stay in bed, see their family and friends, go to the beach or whatever, they have done you no harm, they are just not interested in your silly state - that must never be a crime!

Compulsory preferences too must go - it places me in a moral dilemma every time, because when I am forced to choose between two great evils, say between Hitler and Stalin and I place Hitler in the last spot and Stalin in the penultimate spot, and suppose Stalin gets elected then I become morally responsible for voting him in - YUCK!

- And this may also be the reason for the increase in informal votes, people who did want to vote and influence, but could not stomach the above situation.

I do like preferences though, but only as many as you want.

Great result in the Senate vote in Tassie, Jacqui Lambie has been returned for another 6 years. AND, the bigot racists candidate from One Nation, the daughter of the Lovely Pauline, failed, well done Jacqui! We must thank compulsory voting for this result. We can't afford to see a small voter turnout elect these far right ratbags with a minimal number of votes.

The idea that its undemocratic to force people to vote is just toooo precious. There are lots of things we are forced to do - drive on the left side; stop on red; attend the DMV for an eye-test (if you're of a certain age); etc; etc; etc.

Struth during the great WuFlu hysteria, the vast bulk of the population meekly adhered to all sorts of anti-democratic diktats.

So being required to attend a polling booth every coupla years seems rather tame in regards to infringement of theoretic rights.

The beauty of compulsory voting isn't that it forces people to vote. Its that is obviates the needs of the candidates to get them to vote. We see in the US the hoopla that parties go through to generate enthusiasm in order to get people to turn up and vote. As much as I'd love to attend a Trump style rally, I think Australia is better for not having to generate the vaudeville style electioneering that occurs in jurisdictions where compulsory voting doesn't happen.

Dear Mhaze,

«drive on the left side; stop on red; attend the DMV for an eye-test (if you're of a certain age)»

These are only if you want to drive on a public road.
Assuming the road indeed belongs to the state (which is in doubt, but anyway), if you go on the road despite it belonging to others, then you either obey the owner's conditions for being there or you are trespassing.

These conditions are intended to avoid harming other road users.
You can do nobody harm if you stay in bed at your own home.

«Its that is obviates the needs of the candidates to get them to vote»

That's not a "need" - that's their perverse personal desire.
To avoid a US style hoopla, all you need is to expect political parties to abide by the same privacy and keeping-the-peace laws as expected of anyone else.
Compulsory voting for the reason you mentioned is akin to legislating "it is an offence to walk alone in the street because some thugs there may want to knife you".

Democracy as practised by the Democrats & the Woke in general is the worst form of Dictatorship !

Minority groups couldn't exist without Democracy's funding !

.

In “The Republic” (about 375 BC), Plato wrote that Socrates raised a number of criticisms of democracy. He claimed that democracy is a danger due to excessive freedom.

He also argued that, in a system in which everyone has a right to rule, all sorts of selfish people who care nothing for the people but are only motivated by their own personal desires are able to attain power.

He concluded that democracy risks bringing dictators, tyrants, and demagogues to power. He also claimed that democracies have leaders without proper skills or morals and that it is quite unlikely that the best equipped to rule will come to power.

In 1919, Robert Briffault, a French surgeon and social anthropologist, wrote in his book “The Making Of Humanity” :

« Democracy is the worst form of government. It is the most inefficient, the clumsiest, and the most impractical. No machinery has yet been contrived to carry out in any but the most farcical manner its principles. It reduces wisdom to impotence and secures the triumph of folly, ignorance, claptrap, and demagogy. . . . But there is something even more important than efficiency and expediency — justice. And democracy is the only social order that is admissible, because it is the only one consistent with justice. »

In May 1946 Guy Henson, Director of Adult Education in Nova Scotia, Canada published the phrase that was pronounced almost verbatim by Churchill the following year during his speech in the UK parliament :

« . . . democracy . . . it has even been called the worst form of government, except for all others which have been tried. »

On 11 November 1947, the 29th anniversary of Armistice Day, Churchill declared in Parliament :

« Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time ».

.

Dear Banjo,

"The worst form of government" must indeed be the just of them all, because this whole concept of government is unjust.

Like squaring the circle, no true philosopher can morally justify this violent idea of uninvited people dictating the choices of others - not even in the name of efficiency, efficiency in achieving objective(s) which the ruled-over victim may never have sought and does not find desirable.

Though majority-rule seems nicer than minority-rule, "majority" means nothing when it is the majority of an imposed arbitrary cohort one never freely chose to associate themselves with.

Government, if left uncontaminated by academic intellectuals would actually be a good system as it would cut out the dictatorial component that is causing the blatant incompetence we experience every day !

Yuyutsu,

I agree. Compulsory laws to protect other people are not remotely like being forced to vote. The same laws apply in countries where nobody is forced to vote.

.

Democracy is “government by the people” (OED).

It’s a method of collective informed decision-making based on one person, one vote.

The objective of democracy is justice. For it to be just, eligible electors must not only have the opportunity and power to influence the outcome of elections, they must also effectively exercise that influence in practice after being correctly informed of the relevant and pertinent facts.

Irrespective of whether voting is compulsory or not, what seems important to me is that for any motion to be adopted, there should be a double majority :

• More than 50% of all votes expressed should be in favour of the motion

• At least 66.6% of voter turnout, i.e., at least 66.6% of the total population eligible to vote, must have voted, irrespective of what or who they voted for.

Voting was voluntary in Australia at the first 9 federal elections. Compulsory enrollment for federal elections was introduced in 1911.

Compulsory voting was introduced in Queensland in 1915 by the Liberal Government of Digby Denham – who lost his seat at that election.

The impetus for compulsory voting at federal elections was a decline in turnout from more than 71% at the 1919 election to less than 60% at the 1922 election.

Compulsory voting in national elections was introduced in 1924. As a result, turnout at the 1925 election rose to over 91%.

Victoria introduced compulsory voting in 1926, NSW and Tasmania in 1928, WA in 1936 and SA in 1942.

Voluntary voting at federal elections was introduced for Indigenous Australians in 1949 until 1984, when it became compulsory.

There are currently 32 countries worldwide with compulsory voting, of which 19 (including Australia) pursue it through enforcement.

10 of the 30 members of the OECD have compulsory voting.

The average voter turnout in our federal elections has been more than 90% for the past century. For the rest of the world, it has been about 69%.

.

.

I should add that I am in favour of voting blank (the so-called “blank vote”) being considered a valid vote in Australia and officially counted as such.

The interest in doing so would be to allow the importance of the possible discontentment of electors with the political offer to be measured and taken into consideration.

.

Dear Banjo,

«what seems important to me is that for any motion to be adopted, there should be a double majority»

But this is the whole joke, whether having a single, double or triple majority - majority of what?!?

You see, they bundle you up with an arbitrary selection of other people, people you never had anything or wished to have anything to do with, who may even be living 1000's of kilometres away and which you are unlikely to ever meet in your life, as well as people whose philosophy, values and goals in life are 1000's of kilometres away, then they say "the majority of you decided".

They could just as well have added the frogs into the mix and give frogs equal voting rights too, then in the true sense of democracy, "humans were found in a minority - the overwhelming majority has decided to turn the land into a swamp".

“Irrespective of whether voting is compulsory or not, what seems important to me is that for any motion to be adopted, there should be a double majority”. Banjo P

“Irrespective”? Compulsory voting is the topic. BJ. You are either for it or against it. ‘Irrespective’ of what other countries do. Can you list these “other” countries? My investigation prior to posting didn't come up with the number you claim.

Personally, I have no interest in what other countries do or don't do. And your “double majority” made me giddy.

On the side, I know of people in Australia who don't vote who have never been contacted by Big Brother, let alone fined. And, while our own non-voter Diver Dan talks about a $55 fine, legislation provides for about 4 times that. But, if the people mentioned above are telling the truth, there is actually no fine at all. It would probably cost more than it’s worth to chase up a few harmless idiots who don't vote.

The system works without them, and it would work without those who were not forced to vote, as it works in countries where voting is not compulsory.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You ask :

« … double or triple majority - majority of what?!? »
.

As I indicated :

1. More than 50% of all votes expressed …

2. At least 66.6% of voter turnout …

That is what I call a double majority. 1 is a majority of votes expressed, and 2 is a majority of voter turnout.

And you explain :

« You see, they bundle you up with an arbitrary selection of other people, people you never had anything or wished to have anything to do with, who may even be living 1000's of kilometres away and which you are unlikely to ever meet in your life, as well as people whose philosophy, values and goals in life are 1000's of kilometres away, then they say "the majority of you decided". »

Your phrase "the majority of you decided" obviously refers to the mathematical majority of identical votes. There is nothing to prevent individuals of different cultures, philosophies, religions, languages, ethnicities, goals in life, and geographical regions in Australia, from casting identical votes, i.e., making the same choice on a particular topic.

It is not because they are all different from everybody else that they are obliged to vote differently. By the same token, they can all be thirsty and enjoy drinking the same water, Coca-Cola, or orange juice despite their differences. Different people can make the same choices for the same reasons or even for different reasons.

Except, perhaps, in the extremely rare case of identical twins, each individual is unique, no matter who they are, where they come from and whatever their origin – even each member of the same family is different from all the other members of the family. And while many children vote under the influence of their parents, some do not and vote differently.

They don’t have to be members of a different family “1000's of kilometres away” to do that. They can be children of the same family living in the same home together with their parents.

.

Dear Banjo,

Sorry, but I am afraid that you missed my whole point and responded about something else altogether.

Please allow me to rephrase:

You and others discussed here what kind of a majority is proper in a democracy, in terms of both the votes expressed and voter turnout. That is OK, but nobody here previously asked a much more crucial question:

- Majority of WHAT?

Not "what majority", but who and why is to be included in the sample from which a majority is sought.

Please reread my previous post.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

1. « Compulsory voting is the topic. BJ. You are either for it or against it »
.

Philosophically, I place a very high value on personal freedom. Therefore, philosophically, for myself, I favour voluntary voting.

However, as I noted in my previous post, voluntary voting was practiced in Australia at the first 9 federal elections but proved to be ineffective because of the poor voter turnout. Hence the imposition of compulsory voting.

I would have preferred that voluntary voting be maintained with the adoption of the double majority system I indicated in my previous post :

• More than 50% of all votes expressed should be in favour of the motion

• At least 66.6% of voter turnout, i.e., at least 66.6% of the total population eligible to vote, must have voted, irrespective of what or who they voted for.

As it seems we can’t count on the civic sense of our compatriots to go to the polls and vote in local, state and federal elections, I have no problem accepting compulsory voting in the common interest.

It's no skin off my nose. I always vote anyway and will continue to do so.
.

2. « Compulsory voting is the topic. BJ. You are either for it or against it. ‘Irrespective’ of what other countries do. Can you list these “other” countries? »
.

There's no mention of “other countries” in my previous post, ttbn. You wrote that, not me.

I think you are referring to what I wrote as follows :

« There are currently 32 countries worldwide with compulsory voting, of which 19 (including Australia) pursue it through enforcement.

10 of the 30 members of the OECD have compulsory voting. »

The source of that information is an article by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on “Compulsory voting in Australia” (Updated: 20 November 2023) :

http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm
.

3. « The system works … where voting is not compulsory. »
.

Not, as I see it, in the 27 countries where the voter turnout is less than 66.6% :

http://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/01/turnout-in-u-s-has-soared-in-recent-elections-but-by-some-measures-still-trails-that-of-many-other-countries/

.

P.R. Sarkar, the founder of Prout opines,

“The prerequisites for the success of democracy are morality, education, and socio-economico-political consciousness. Leaders especially must be people of high moral character, otherwise the welfare of society will be jeopardized. But today in most democracies, people of dubious character and those with vested interests are elected to power. Even bandits and murderers stand for election and form the government. Prout demands economic democracy, not political democracy. To make democracy successful, economic power must be vested in the hands of the common people and the minimum requirements of life must be guaranteed to all.”

http://prout.info/the-charade-of-democracy/

.

Dear Yuutsu,

.

You ask :

« Not "what majority", but who and why is to be included in the sample from which a majority is sought. »
.

It is compulsory by law for all Australian citizens aged 18 or over to enroll and vote in local, state, and federal democratic political elections. If you have Australian citizenship, and, as I suppose is the case, over the age of 18, Yuyutsu, you have a legal obligation to vote in your local, state, and federal democratic political elections.

If you do not have Australian citizenship, you are not allowed to vote.

To answer your question, “who is to be included in the sample from which a majority is sought”, the reply is :

- everybody who is an Australian citizen aged 18 or over and registered on the electoral roll as being eligible to vote

Next question : “why are they to be included in the sample from which a majority is sought”. The reply is :

- because they have a legal obligation to vote for whoever or whatever they choose among the different candidates and options indicated on the voting papers.

So, if you do not have Australian citizenship, Yuyutsu, and you wish to investigate the question, here is a link to assist you :

http://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship/become-a-citizen

But if you already have Australian citizenship but are not yet enrolled to vote in democratic political elections (which you should be), here is a link to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) where you can enroll online:

http://www.aec.gov.au/enrol/

.

BP,

It is possible to find all sorts of statistics if you rely on Google: some wrong, some right. And you can wear down most people if you keep piling it on, particularly if your writing is not very good, and bores your targets. Most people give up.

You overlook the fact that opinion is the name of the game here on Online Opinion; and after the human brain matures, opinions rarely, if ever change. Attitudes can change, but not opinions.

So, all the arguments here are really a waste of time. I've been on OLO from its inception. I and other posters of the same era have never changed our opinions.

So, it is still my opinion that compulsory voting is undemocratic, no matter where it is enforced, no matter what "gems" of information you find,or invent - I will always be of that opinion. I'm sure that you are of the same mind in what you think, and good luck to you.

BP

As a keen follower and critic of Donald Trump, you might be interested to know that a federal judge has denied California's wacky plan to sue Trump for dealing with rioters in LA against the totally legitimate and expected deportation of illegal entrants.

That's the riots where people who don't want to be sent back to Mexico are actually waving Mexican flags. These people are very confused in more ways than one.

Dear Banjo,

I am already enrolled to vote in Australia.
I regret having done that, but I was young, ignorant and new in Australia at the time: no use crying over spilt milk.

These were the times when I was once asked by a friend, "Please vote Labor because the candidate in our electorate is my uncle and my family really needs this job to pay our bills": who doesn't like to help their friends, so I did. I cannot recall whether these were state or federal elections, nor did I probably knew the difference at the time. That uncle, BTW, lost that elections despite my vote.

Now telling me that information particular to Australia, is trivia, not philosophy.
We were asking here, what possibly can improve democratic elections and make them more just and fair.

We already discussed the compulsion to vote or otherwise and the percentages required to consider the votes as proper - yet we have missed the elephant in the room, which is the arbitrariness in the determination AMONG WHOM is majority to be decided.

Without this crucial initial step, elections can be perfectly democratic, yet still grossly unjust and unfair.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

1. « … opinion is the name of the game here on Online Opinion; and after the human brain matures, opinions rarely, if ever, change. Attitudes can change, but not opinions … So, all the arguments here are really a waste of time »
.

I guess we all have our reasons for coming here, ttbn. If I understand you correctly, you come here to waste your time – maybe to ward off boredom … (?)

Whatever the reason, that is not why I come here. As I already indicated elsewhere on this forum, my formal education ceased at age 13, at the end of primary school. Since then, I have never stopped learning – not what any teachers or preachers might have dispensed but what I personally chose to learn, guided by my own curiosity, interest and necessity.

That should ring a bell with you, ttbn – voluntary education, not compulsory education. Independence, not subordination. Freedom, not coercion. Democracy, not autocracy.

It has been and continues to be a lifelong journey of self-education. OLO plays a useful role in this process. It helps me to formulate my ideas and bounce them off the minds of others for refinement and validation or rejection.
.

2. « … it is still my opinion that compulsory voting is undemocratic, no matter where it is enforced, no matter what "gems" of information you find, or invent … »
.

To vote is to express the electors’ choice of candidates and options. But it is inept to oblige them to choose among candidates and options they consider all to be totally unacceptable.

That is why I preconise the creation of a blank vote (vote for nobody) to be introduced and recognised as an officially valid vote to be counted and published in the final results.

In this schema, by casting blank votes, electors would be deemed to have respected their legal obligations – thus avoiding the massive abstentions associated with voluntary voting.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … we have missed the elephant in the room, which is the arbitrariness in the determination AMONG WHOM is majority to be decided. »
.
Well, Yuyutsu, if we had Albanese and Dutton as candidates for the position of Prime Minister of Australia and 75% of Australians voted for Albanese and 25% voted for Dutton, Albanese would be declared to have won the election with a comfortable majority.

Would you please explain what you consider to be arbitrary about that ?

.

BP,

I am certainly not wasting my time. Nothing recorded is a waste of time.

I am bored by the puerile arguing of some posters. I am also bored by certain posters making personal attacks on the messenger rather than expressing an opinion on the subject.

I keep posting despite personal attacks and the inability of some posters to accept that everyone doesn't agree with them, because there are many people out there who read, but do not post themselves. The message gets out. Billions of words are written, and absorbed without comment, in books, essays, the press and media, mainstream and social.

We should never be put off by some idiot jockstrap who gets his kicks out of badmouthing us.

You should be proud of your continuing education. Most people stop learning after so-called education in schools and universities. Formal education doesn't prepare anyone for life: particularly in today's battery hen indoctrination centres.

Dear Banjo,

«Would you please explain what you consider to be arbitrary about that ?»

Sure - it is the sample, the selection of those who get to vote, among whom some majority is to prevail.

In an indirect democracy, people supposedly get to vote who will represent them in setting the rules and regulations by which they will subsequently have to abide. A majority of voters somehow elects these representatives, but who elects the list of voters? Not the voters themselves, who never in a lifetime received an opportunity to accept or decline that list.

In Australia for example, a list of around 18 million people was compiled (excluding those under 18 and prisoners, and why is that) which happen to live in a certain arbitrary area, most of them not only do I not know, but am also unlikely to ever meet in my lifetime, let alone know them well enough to trust and wish to associate with in any way. Then you say, "The majority of <<you>> decide and is authorised to make laws as to how <<you>> must live your lives".

That <<you>> is the arbitrary factor.
Why particularly the people within this whole continent (which does not occur in any other continent)?
Why the people living in the island of Tasmania - Yes, Auckland - No, Norfolk Yes, Vanuatu No...
Why only those over 18, why not 10? 16? 21? 30? 40? 50?
Who is to tell who is mature enough to vote?
Completely arbitrary!

You could have just as well arbitrarily included all the frogs in Australia, then the majority would vote to turn this land into a swamp... why the frogs but not the mice, humans but not penguins? Your sample is just arbitrary and therefore means nothing and devoid of moral justification.

The bottom line is, some people dictate to others what they must and mustn't do in life, without the victims ever getting a real opportunity to influence the forces which govern their lives. This may technically be a democracy, but in fact it is a sham: cruel, unjust and unfair.

Hi BP,

The idea of a "blank vote" was adopted by the Greens in candidate selection many years ago. Members always had a choice of two with "no candidate" as an alternate choice. I only recall one instance where "no candidate" was successful. It was only a minor position, I think branch delegate to the State Conference or some such thing, but there were legitimate reasons why the person who had nominated was over looked. The membership in general felt she didn't reflect the views of the majority, and therefore was unsuitable for the position.

What I think is a real problem in our system is the general lack of beforehand knowledge the electorate has about local candidates. I am fortunate in that through volunteer work I've got to know all 3 local members. I'm still getting to know the new Federal Labor Member, she's only been in the job a month, will take time. There has been 2 events in recent weeks, and she's been at both, so a good start. Our Councillor LNP, and State MP Labor, both working hard for the local community, and I would vote for them next time. p/s Got an all woman band now in politics locally.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« A majority of voters somehow elects these representatives, but who elects the list of voters? »
.

In the Australian democracy, the voters are “the people,” defined as those citizens of the local community, the state, or the country who are aged 18 years or more. Every Australian citizen aged 18 years or more has the legal obligation to vote since the federal parliament voted that law in 1924.

Voting in federal elections is compulsory for prisoners who are serving a sentence of less than three years. But prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more are not entitled to vote in federal elections. They are not considered to be good citizens.

As I indicated in one of my previous posts, the principle of democracy is “government by the people,” i.e., by all the citizens of the country except children and long-term prisoners.

Apart from those exceptions, everybody has not only the right but also the legal obligation to participate in the election of the members of parliament who vote on the laws of the country.

Political parties representing various interests and ideologies propose candidates for election to parliament, and each Australian citizen is asked to vote for whichever candidate he or she prefers, according to his or her own particular interest or ideology.

The candidate who obtains the greatest number of votes is deemed to have been elected — not just for those who voted for him or her, but for all of Australia.

That is how democracy works. It’s “winner takes all”. It obviously does not please the “losers” who voted for some other candidate, but it’s the best and fairest system we have managed to implement and successfully operate since it was invented about 2,400 years ago in Athens.

Federal elections in Australia take place every 3 years, so the “losers” don’t have to wait too long before they get another chance of winning.

.

Dear Banjo,

What you described is merely the present factual situation:
that doesn't make it right, fair or morally justified and one doesn't need OLO for these details - one could simply find the information, these bloody grim facts, on the regime's official websites, which even a robot could recite.

There is no justification for turning people into "losers" unless they willingly entered some game for a chance to win, nor does a chance to play again and "win next time" provide any comfort for those who were never interested in playing with you and winning your games in the first place, including these silly majority games.

You seem to think of life as a game where people are the pawns.
The fact that you have not found a better game to play in 2,400 years is no excuse for making others suffer: playing with other people's lives is just not on!

BTW, even if democracy was somehow justified, which it is not, Australia's bizarre electoral system is anything but democratic, it is a grotesque mockery for show and tell.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … even if democracy was somehow justified, which it is not, Australia's bizarre electoral system is anything but democratic, it is a grotesque mockery for show and tell »
.

Democracy is generally regarded as the best form of government since it practices free elections, allows citizens to choose their elected representatives, and provides people with greater freedom of speech than any other political system.

Representative democracy, as we have in Australia, is the most often practiced kind of democracy. The least employed types of governments are anarchies and military dictatorships.

Democracy is the most popular form of government. More than half of the nations in the world are democracies. It comes in many forms (direct democracy, representative democracy, etc.), but each model is based on an electoral process where eligible citizens vote for their leadership.

The duties of governments are as follows :

• Law and order
• Protection from external attacks
• Economic stability
• Security
• Social welfare services
• Human Rights
• Income redistribution (via taxes)

What complicates voting in Australia is the system of preferential voting for the House of Representatives that was introduced in 1918. It’s a system where voters have to rank their preferred candidates from first all the way through to the last on their ballot papers. Numbers must be put in the boxes next to the candidates' names.

With preferential voting, candidates have to receive more than 50% of the total number of votes in order to be elected – not just the most number of votes of all candidates (“first past the post”).

Proportional Representation (PR) was introduced for Senate elections in 1948. Under PR, parties, groups and independent candidates are elected to the Parliament in proportion to the number of votes they receive.

In seeking to be more equitable, voting has become a bit of a gas factory – extremely complicated and practically incomprehensible for the average voter.

If you know of a country with a better system, Yuyutsu, please let me know.

Maybe we should go and live there.

.

Dear Banjo,

«Maybe we should go and live there.»

Whatever I write here has nothing to do with my personal circumstances, but is about general principles.

Just because some people around me do wrong and violent things, doesn't mean that I should give in to their bullying by fleeing my home, more so when similar such bullies exist practically everywhere on earth.

I see it as my duty to point these bullies out and expose them for what they are: presently every state on this planet which I am aware of, is a bully organisation.

Had Australia openly been a dictatorship, then I would be exempt from pointing it out here because everyone would have already been aware of it, also because then whatever the dictator(s) did, would not be falsely claimed to be done "in my name", "for me" or "representing me". Had that been the case then it was clear that the dictator(s) do whatever they do for themselves. Period.

But presently, the Australian regime claims to be a democracy - so this I must debunk, making it is most clear that none of what it does is for me, in my name or represents me.

Thus I made two separate points:
1) That a democracy, even the truest democracy, is not necessarily just or morally legitimate.
2) That Australia is not a democracy.

So far I was mainly discussing my first point,
then in my last post I briefly mentioned the second, in a "BTW" clause.

You then chose to quote my "BTW" claim, then flood the discussion with all sorts of irrelevant details which, though I potentially could, I did not even yet discuss.

Instead of allowing the conversation to spread uncontrollably and be thinly dispersed, let me address just one of your points:

«Democracy is the most popular form of government.»

Popularity is not a measure of morality and rightness.
Masses have been known throughout history to be cruel and inhumane.
Gladiators were a popular form of entertainment in Rome.
Then there was the famous shout from the crowd: "Crucify Him! Crucify Him" [Luke 23:21]

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« I made two separate points:

1) That a democracy, even the truest democracy, is not necessarily just or morally legitimate.
2) That Australia is not a democracy. »
.

As I wrote in one of my previous posts on this thread, the objective of democracy is justice. But justice is a moving target and extremely difficult to attain. That’s not the fault of democracy. It’s due to the difficulty we have apprehending and weighing up the intricacies and circumstances of a particular state of affairs, or events, some of which may be quite contradictory.

The task is difficult, and we humans have our limits and imperfections and are far from infallible.

Also, I consider that despite all its imperfections, democracy, defined as “government by the people” (OED), is much more morally legitimate than all other forms of government that exist in the world today.

.

Dear Banjo,

«the objective of democracy is justice»

The stated objective of democracy is to minimise the injustice caused by government, by reducing the maximal number of victims to no more than a half.

The "demo" part is thus supposed to mitigate the "cracy" part, and in theory under [non-existing] ideal conditions, reduce its damage to no more than half.

Yet "cracy" remains, where some people (even if they are a majority of some arbitrary cohort) violently impose their will on non-consenting others.

«But justice is a moving target and extremely difficult to attain.»

Well of course - and as you noted yourself, humans are not equipped or meant to create justice.
Only divine justice is infallible.

«Also, I consider that despite all its imperfections, democracy, defined as “government by the people” (OED), is much more morally legitimate than all other forms of government that exist in the world today.»

This claim is difficult to ascertain because there is no true democracy in existence today, only technical resemblances.

Apart from the faults due to the technicalities of electoral systems, the fundamental difficulty is in the ease of abusing the above definition.
You see, "government by the people" does not define WHICH people, so this definition still allows any dictator (or elite) to select and link together an arbitrary cohort of people to suit their selfish goals, people who otherwise may not know or wish to relate with each other.

Being told that you must lose what is dearest to you because "the majority" so decided, is no comfort at all when you never agreed to belong or have anything to do with the cohort out of which that majority emerged. As far as the loser is concerned, "the People decided" is no better than "the King decided".

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « … as you noted yourself, humans are not equipped or meant to create justice. Only divine justice is infallible. »
.

What I wrote was : “justice is a moving target and extremely difficult to attain”. That does not mean that it is impossible to attain. We human beings can and often do manage to attain it if we put our minds to it, especially in our dealings with children.

What you call “divine justice” is what I call “whatever happens next, including nothing happening”. I am happy to go along with the idea that “whatever happens next or nothing happening” is “infallible”. It’s infallible because it’s beyond human control. It’s fatalism – whatever will be will be ! Call it “divine justice” if you wish.

I call it fatalism.
.

2. « "government by the people" does not define WHICH people, »
.

In a representative democracy such as Australia, the “people” who govern are the freely elected representatives of the Australian citizens.
.

3. « … this definition still allows any dictator (or elite) to select and link together an arbitrary cohort of people to suit their selfish goals »
.

That’s correct, Yuyutsu. Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez, Maduro, Putin and Mugabe are a few examples. Trump seems to be headed in the same direction.
.

4. « Being told that you must lose what is dearest to you because "the majority" so decided, is no comfort at all when you never agreed to belong or have anything to do with the cohort out of which that majority emerged »
.

I presume you are referring to something that is considered illegal. As you indicate it is something “dearest to you,” you do, of course, have the right, by virtue of Australian democracy, to contest that judgment in a court of law.

Have you done so ?

.

Dear Banjo,

1.
«I call it fatalism.»

But I was not speaking of "whatever happens next": I was speaking of actual divine justice which is a reality, just like gravity, which none of us can avoid. Either way, all that is relevant here is that it's beyond human control.

2.
«In a representative democracy such as Australia, the “people” who govern are the freely elected representatives of the Australian citizens.»

Well not quite, Australia is not truly a democracy, but that was not my main point, which you seemingly missed.

Perhaps an even more brutal and shocking example is required to bring my point across:

Suppose you live next to a lake full of alligators.
Suppose the alligators decide to create a democratic state, Lekgator, then define Lekgator's territory as "the area within 5 kilometres of the lake's shores".
Suppose the alligators declared that all creatures over 1m in length are eligible voting citizens.
Suppose the lake has 1000 alligators and the villages within 5km of the lake have only 300 humans, 100 horses and 200 cows.
Elections take place.
The "Alligators' Trumpet" party wins.
Parliament is convened and legislates that humans should be eaten.
You become alligator food.
- In a perfectly democratic manner.
You had your vote. You lost. You got eaten.

The problem being not the lack of democracy, but that you were never asked whether or not you consent to be part of that state!

Had you only been asked in advance, then you could at least negotiate with the alligators. You could tell them for example: "Look, I am happy to be part of Lekgator, but only if the voting eligibility criteria drop down to those over ½m", in which case your dogs and sheep would also be counted and your life could be saved.

3.
«Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez, Maduro, Putin and Mugabe»

To the best of my knowledge these dictators used brute force rather than the subtler trickery of manipulating the list of eligible voters.

[continued...]

[...continued]

4.
«I presume you are referring to something that is considered illegal.»

Well of course, this is what democracy is all about - to give individuals at least some limited recourse regarding the laws and regulations that restrict their lives.

Yes, states have other functions too, but for ordinary people they fade in importance compared with the effects of criminal law.

In other words, from the individual voter's perspective, democratic elections are primarily not about who and from which party will the next transportation minister be, but about the maximal speed one can drive their car at, over which they will incur a violent response from the state.

«As you indicate it is something “dearest to you,” you do, of course, have the right, by virtue of Australian democracy, to contest that judgment in a court of law.

Have you done so ?»

This is a general discussion about democracy where "You" could be anyone, not Yuyutsu in particular, and not particularly in Australia.

In yesterday's news (just an example so let us not digress into the content), the UK parliament voted to stop criminalising women who abort in their final term of pregnancy: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-18/uk-parliament-votes-to-decriminalise-abortion/105434012

This seemed to be a case where democracy worked and the people's representatives did their job and echoed the sentiments of their voters.

... but it took over 100 years to achieve this little bit of justice.
And let us not forget that at the time of criminalisation of abortion, only men over 21 were eligible to vote, and earlier than that, only men over 21 who owned real-estate property.

That is not good enough.

For some women, not having to carry a baby could be dearest, but no court of law could assist them while the law said otherwise.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « But I was not speaking of "whatever happens next" »
.

Yes, you were, Yuyutsu. Justice is posterior, not anterior, to whatever is to be judged. You were commenting on what I had written as follows :

« What you call “divine justice” is what I call “whatever happens next, including nothing happening”. »
.

2. « I was speaking of actual divine justice, which is a reality, just like gravity, which none of us can avoid »
.

Reality is that which exists independently of ideas concerning it (OED). Whereas divinity is an idea that has never been proven to exist independently of ideas concerning it.

Gravity is evidenced by the physical attraction the earth exercises on everything it contains and supports, including us human beings. It also determines the motion of planets, stars, galaxies, and even light.

Unlike divinity, the reality of gravity is beyond all possible doubt.

And contrary to your claim, we can avoid the Earth’s gravity. Voyager 1 was the first spacecraft to cross the heliosphere, the boundary where the influences from outside our solar system are stronger than those from our Sun.

Elon Musk is planning a trip to Mars in 2026 – well beyond the attraction of Earth’s gravity.
.

3. « Australia is not truly a democracy »
.

Yes, it is, Yuyutsu, but, as we all know, it is not perfect.

Democracy is a human institution and nothing human is perfect. It’s not so much the institution that’s at fault. It’s certain individuals who compose and operate democracy that tend to divert, distort, and denature it from its intended objective of justice.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

4. « The problem being not the lack of democracy, but that you were never asked whether or not you consent to be part of that state! »
.

Applying for Australian citizenship, Yuyutsu, is not just a “consent” to be “part of the state”, it is a specific request to be accepted as “part of the state”. Anybody who does not wish to be part of the state should not seek Australian citizenship.

As you indicated in one of your previous posts that you requested and were granted Australian citizenship, it was you who asked to be “part of the state” — not ”the inverse. The state did not ask you to be part of the state. You did.
.

5. « For some women, not having to carry a baby could be dearest, but no court of law could assist them while the law said otherwise. »
.

The major world religions have taken varied positions on the morality of abortion and capital punishment, and, as such, they have historically impacted the way in which governments handle such practices. Although the viewpoints of some religions have changed over time, their influence on abortion and capital punishment generally depends on the existence of a religious moral code and how closely religion influences the government. Religious moral codes are often based on a body of teachings, such as the Old Testament or the Qur'an.

I understand that classical Hindu texts are strongly opposed to abortion and that traditional Hinduism and many modern Hindus also see abortion as a breach of the duty to produce children in order to continue the family and produce new members of society.

And even though Hinduism has historically not taken a stance on the death penalty and has little influence on the Indian governments opinion of it, it appears that India has the lowest rate of execution of any other country.

.

Dear Banjo,

1-2:
I mentioned divine justice in passing. Actual divine justice which I believe exists and is real no less than the force of gravity. You believe otherwise - but either way that is not the topic.

3:
Yes, Australia has a TECHNICAL democracy, but the convoluted way in which it was implemented ensures that it will not serve the spirit of democracy.

4:
I did so under duress, because otherwise I could be kicked out of my new home and thrown back to where I escaped from.

5:
I wrote in advance that I am not interested in discussing the topic of abortions at this time, that it was only an example.

May I remind you that my original remark to you was:

"Though majority-rule seems nicer than minority-rule, "majority" means nothing when it is the majority of an imposed arbitrary cohort one never freely chose to associate themselves with."

You seem to be a champion in changing the topic.
If you aim for attrition then you won - I have so many other things to do in life.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« 4 : I did so under duress, because otherwise I could be kicked out of my new home and thrown back to where I escaped from.»
.

Whether it be under duress or at your own initiative, I’m sure you made the right choice, Yuyutsu. There are many countries in the world whose political regimes are more restrictive than Australian democracy.

Australia is also a multicultural country, and it is difficult to satisfy everybody, but we do our best, and we count on the comprehension and tolerance of everybody, whatever their culture and origin, in order to maintain a safe, peaceful and harmonious environment for all to share.
.

« 5 : Though majority-rule seems nicer than minority-rule, "majority" means nothing when it is the majority of an imposed arbitrary cohort one never freely chose to associate themselves with. »
.

In a democratic election, the vote of each individual has exactly the same value as the vote of every other individual. Nobody has an advantage or privilege over anybody else, no matter who they are or what they represent, whether they are the garbage man or the multibillionaire.

When all the votes are counted, the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes is elected. The garbage man may have voted for the candidate who was elected, and the multibillionaire may have voted for one of the other candidates who was not elected.

The candidate who was elected may be a member of the party that obtained the greatest number of elected candidates, or he may not. Perhaps he may be a member of a party that obtained only a small number of elected candidates.

The party that obtains the greatest number of elected candidates, together with its allied parties, if it has any, becomes the “ruling majority”. All the other parties become the parliamentary “opposition”.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

That is the result of the vote of the people in a democracy. And that is what we value and respect when we accept to be ruled by a democracy rather than be ruled by some other form of government.

The opposition has an important role to play not only in questioning and criticising the politics of the ruling majority but also in proactively proposing alternative solutions to problems.

It is wrong to say that : “majority means nothing when it is the majority of an imposed arbitrary cohort one never freely chose to associate themselves with”. There is no such thing as “an imposed arbitrary cohort” in a freely elected, democratic majority.

As has often been said, the value of a democracy depends on how it protects and respects the rights of minorities – both cultural (including religious) and political.

Only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.
.

And, as a final remark, please be assured, Yuyutsu, that my sole intent, right throughout this discussion, has always been to respond to your remarks on the subject in hand, to the best of my ability.

.

Dear Banjo,

I am glad to have this discussion back on topic.

«Whether it be under duress or at your own initiative, I’m sure you made the right choice,»

I fully agree.

«There are many countries in the world whose political regimes are more restrictive than Australian democracy.»

I also agree, even while Australia is a democracy in name only.
There could be lots of worse things than not having a democracy.

«Australia is also a multicultural country,»

All well and good. It makes me happy, I am not complaining, just stating a trivial fact, that Australia is not a democracy. No big deal, it could have been much worse.

«In a democratic election, the vote of each individual has exactly the same value as the vote of every other individual.»

Well, every ELIGIBLE individual.
But then there are trillions upon trillions of individuals who do not get to vote, such as children, long-term prisoners, animals, and humans living in other countries, likely ex-terrestrials too.
I am not complaining - just stating a fact.

In Australia's electoral system, however, unlike in a democracy, the votes of different eligible individuals have different values:

People who happen to live in a "marginal" electorate have much more say about laws and policies than those living in a "stable" electorate - possibly in the opposite building on the other side of their street.
Come elections, politicians will visit and ask them what they want and make promises - not so their less-fortunate neighbours whose vote is not expected to make any difference.

Same for people in geographically concentrated communities. Say when some ethnic group, comprising 10% of the voting population, likes to live together in the same neighbourhood - their interests are then likely to be considered by politicians; but if some other 10% of the population has a crucially important and unique issue, but are evenly spread all over the continent, then nobody will listen to them!

[continued...]

[...continued]

«whether they are the garbage man or the multibillionaire.»

An archaic example which probably belongs over a century ago.
You know, a garbage man can also be a multibillionaire - what if they just like their job?
Sadly, Australian politics is so removed from today's reality with politicians still focused on silly and irrelevant "Left"/"Right"//"Have"/"Have-not" old divisions.

It's Australia's absurd electoral system which preserves and perpetuates the dominance of these two ice-aged Left=Right parties.

«The party that obtains the greatest number of elected candidates, together with its allied parties, if it has any, becomes the “ruling majority”.»

Are you aware that having political parties is not required in Australia?
The only mention of them in the constitution is in clauses 15 and 75, both on minor technicalities.

And how unfair it is to be ruled by a fixed majority, rather than by the majority view of the people (and/or their representatives) on each matter as it arises.

«And that is what we value and respect when we accept to be ruled by a democracy rather than be ruled by some other form of government.»

Democracy means the rule of the people, not "the rule of democracy" nor "the rule of government". Australia does not have it.

«There is no such thing as “an imposed arbitrary cohort” in a freely elected, democratic majority.»

Why then, for example, only "those over 18"?
The Greens would like to lower that bar while conservatives would like to raise it. The end result is arbitrary.

Why just humans? Animals and their interests could be represented too (again, the Greens would love it).
Why just those living in this continent and an arbitrary list of nearby islands?
Why not prisoners who are the worst victims of this system but get no say about changing the laws which imprisoned them?

«Only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.»

Which is however meaningless without freely agreeing first about {the majority of WHAT} and {the minority of WHAT}.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « People who happen to live in a "marginal" electorate have much more say about laws and policies than those living in a "stable" electorate »
.

Irrespective of where people live, everyone’s vote has the same value : one. And it is highly improbable that everyone in each electoral district – “marginal” and “stable” – always votes for the same candidate at every election. There are always some voters in both “marginal” and “stable” electoral districts who do not vote like everybody else in their electoral districts.

Nor is the mere fact of living in a “marginal” electoral district a guarantee of having “much more say about laws and policies than those living in a "stable" electorate. The odds of voting for a candidate who is elected or not elected are exactly the same, irrespective of the electorate in which the voter happens to live.

The “swing” vote is a pendulum that swings from left to right and from right to left, and the “swing” voters are usually positioned around the centre – near the borderline between the left and the right. They are the principal focus of attention of the political parties and candidates. But the “swing” voters have no predetermined political allegiance to either left or right.

As fate would have it, the “swing” voters often determine the final result of the elections.

I couldn’t imagine a better arbiter than the centrists even if I tried.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

2. « Democracy means the rule of the people, not "the rule of democracy" nor "the rule of government". Australia does not have it. »
.

What we have in Australia is representative democracy, Yuyutsu.
Fair and open elections at regular intervals is the method of representation. While the elected representatives have a certain measure of discretion in their action, the people retain the right to voice their opinions and grievances to those in office at any time, as well as to manifest peacefully and petition the government.

At the end of their term the elected representatives are held to account by the people.

Elections not only select leaders, they also affect the actions and policies of those in power. While in office those who govern have an incentive to anticipate the retrospective judgment of voters at the end of their term.
.

3. « Why then, for example, only "those over 18" [are allowed to vote?] The Greens would like to lower that bar while conservatives would like to raise it. The end result is arbitrary. »
.

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1973 lowered the limit from age 21 (which had been in force since 1918) to age 18, the new age limit for adulthood.

Adulthood is the age at which an individual is considered capable of assuming full legal responsibility, for his or her own acts and omissions. As such, he or she has the legal obligation in Australia to comply with the compulsory voting law.

Perhaps the time has now come, a little over half a century later, in 2025, to lower that limit from 18 years to 16 years. But, for the that to happen, the Australian Parliament would need to pass a new law.

.

Dear Banjo,

What you describe is Australia's technical democracy.
All i's are dotted and t's crossed, the shield of formality is there, but spirit is not there.

Why? because this description is propaganda from the state/government perspective, not the individual's.

1.
At the end of the day, is it not a fact that those living in a marginal electorate, especially the "swing voters" who live there, have a better chance to be heard and their wishes fulfilled by politicians, who spend less time and effort on other electorates, saying either "they will vote for us anyway" or "no chance they will vote for us regardless"?

2. «What we have in Australia is representative democracy»

At the end of the day, is it not a fact that the vast majority of us are not represented by whom we would like to represent us?

3.
At the end of the day, is it not a fact that individuals never got to choose the cohort among whom a majority could completely wreck their lives?

As others can potentially be added or removed to that cohort as suits the political class, the idea of "majority" becomes a joke.

In my previous example, the majority, being crocodiles, voted democratically to eat the humans. Humans have no recourse to justice because they never agreed to be included in that democratic cohort with crocodiles.

«I couldn’t imagine a better arbiter than the centrists»

Did they manage to convince you that life is all about the one-dimensional "Left" versus "Right" spectrum? That economical policies are the be-all-and-end-all?

The state/government is playing with the lives of real people, who are not economic toys. Each one of us has things that are most dear to us, mostly having nothing to do with economy, yet all that is dear to you could be snatched in a moment by an arbitrary cohort and you will have no say about it because "the majority said so", that too, by a one-dimensional majority chosen around some particular economical question and an electoral system designed to perpetuate the dominance of that question over all others.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I can’t say I share the bleak picture you paint of our representative democracy, but if I did, Yuyutsu, I certainly wouldn’t waste my time and energy dwelling on it. I would rack my brains to find a solution to the problems and propose it to our political leaders.

Nothing in this world is perfect and our representative democracy is no exception. But as I already indicated on this thread, the only problems I ever encountered were marginal and not imputable to democracy per se but to particular individuals.

And, as I’m sure you will recall, I proposed the introduction of a “blank vote”, a vote for nobody, as a possible improvement to the system in order to express voters’ lack of satisfaction with the political offer.

I, personally, see democracy as an excellent concept whose architecture has been remarkably well designed and periodically amended to keep up to date with the evolution of modern society in all its complexity.

The hub of the ancient Athenian democratic system was the assembly, which met at least once, and often several times, each month on a specified hill in Athens. The hill was large enough to host the 6,000 male citizens eligible to vote. Assemblies were overseen by nine presidents who were elected for that occasion and monitored the proceedings and tallied votes.

Athens at the time (5th century BC) was a city-state and all the male citizens eligible to vote gathered together to debate and vote on the laws and politics. That was obviously impossible for modern nation-states with their huge populations, hence the necessary introduction of the representative democracy system.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Unlike the Greek direct democracy, the United States established a system where citizens elected representatives to make decisions on their behalf and was the first nation-state to do so. This approach allowed for a broader and more practical application of democratic principles, accommodating a larger and more diverse population.

American representative democracy was drafted & approved in 1787 and ratified in 1788.

France and the United States are considered the birthplaces of modern democracy. But while the U.S. enjoyed political and institutional stability, France experienced a succession of short-lived regimes ever since the revolution of 1789 against its reigning monarchy and the subsequent instauration of its democracy.

.

Dear Banjo,

«I would rack my brains to find a solution to the problems and propose it to our political leaders.»

I have already gave it much thought many years ago.

In the least, have proportional representation - that's not rocket-science, it already operates in a limited way in Australia's senate!

But proposing it to politicians (and why do you call them "leaders"?)?
They are predators, they feed on us ordinary people, so that would be like asking the crocodiles, "Please be nice, stay hungry and don't eat me"...

I like your "blank vote suggestion - it would be a positive move, yet still a drop in the ocean which does not even touch the fundamental flaws.

Do you think the politicians will listen to even that?
For you telling them in the face, "I don't like any of you"?

«I, personally, see democracy as an excellent concept»

"Democracy" is made of two greek words: Demos (people) + Cratia (rule).

People is nice, alright.
But rule?

For certain people to uninvitedly rule over others under threat, is plainly a form a violence.
Them being a majority of something is no comfort to those at the receiving end of the stick.
I don't see violence as an excellent concept.

«That was obviously impossible for modern nation-states with their huge populations, hence the necessary introduction of the representative democracy system.»

Not till recently, when technological developments allow for it again.

Present technology can enable a nice hybrid model which combines in one both direct and representative democracy.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « But proposing it [proportional representation] to politicians (and why do you call them "leaders"?) They are predators … »
.

Like everything else, there are advantages and disadvantages to proportional representation. The principle of apportioning the same percentage of parliamentary seats to the percentage of votes obtained in an election is perfectly logical and seems fine in theory.

PR seldom results in one party holding an overall majority but rather leads to governments that need to compromise and build consensus. Which is no easy task, not always possible, and sometimes produces a paralyzing effect on governments unable to make badly needed reforms.

100% PR can lead to what some have labelled “a coalition of chaos”. It carries an inherent instability. The Italian parliament, which uses PR, is constantly in a state of uncertainty and has been prematurely dissolved three times as a result.

While it has the advantage of allowing for higher numbers of MPs from non-mainstream parties, as a Harvard Kennedy School of Government study pointed out, PR systems tend to favour extreme right-wing parties. Sweden and Italy are two examples.

Under the “first past the post” (FPTP) voting system, MPs serve the constituency for which they campaign, so are more inclined to tackle local issues and represent the specific views of their constituents at a national level. Under the PR “list” system, electoral constituencies would have to be much bigger in order to have multiple seats to fill proportionately, possibly leading to local issues being overlooked.

The PR voting system is like sand in an oyster : a little produces a pearl, too much kills the animal.

.

.

(Continued …)

.

2. « … politicians – why do you call them leaders ? »
.

I call “leaders” in this context the members of the executive branch of government, including the prime minister and ministers who have overall responsibility for enforcing and executing laws made by the legislative branch of government.
.

3. « For certain people to uninvitedly rule over others under threat, is plainly a form a violence. Them being a majority of something is no comfort to those at the receiving end of the stick. I don't see violence as an excellent concept. »
.

As you noted in your recent post, Yuyutsu, democracy is rule by the people. The people (via their freely elected representatives) vote the laws to which they, themselves, agree to adhere to. The government is responsible for enforcing and executing those laws if they are not respected.
.

4. « Present technology can enable a nice hybrid model which combines in one both direct and representative democracy. »
.

Quite so, Yuyutsu. The only problem, as I see it, is that hackers can corrupt the system and falsify the results of the votes. We have not yet invented a system that is 100% secure. Perhaps we never will.

Or perhaps that will come with the development of advanced computer technologies such as quantum, photonic, neuromorphic, and beyond …

Who knows ? Time will tell.

.

Dear Banjo,

1.
It is often somehow forgotten that democratic elections are not for electing the executive branch of government, but for electing representatives for the legislative branch, the operation of which has far more significant and potentially devastating repercussions to individuals.

Some countries have or tried to have separate elections for the executive, so that is an option alright, but it does not come in place of everyone having a true representative in the legislative branch to try and save them there and mitigate the effects of legislation, including both direct criminal legislation and indirect legislation that is effectively criminal by allowing the executive branch to control one's life under threat of criminal punishment to those who do not obey their regulations.

Should there be separate elections for the executive, then for that purpose political parties and less-than-democratic electoral systems like Australia's may make sense, but not when it comes to legislation which is by far more important.

For electing the legislative, PR is the minimum, although there are ways to improve representation even further.

2.
We know that is not happening, but in theory, the executive ought to be our servants: not leading but following their duties.

3.
Ruling over others is still violence, by whatever name you call it.
Most Australians were born here and have not agreed to adhere to anything just by taking birth.

4.
I presume that even in ancient Greece there were hackers who interfered to a degree with the clay shards that were used for voting. That doesn't mean we should throw the baby with the dirty bath-water.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2943195835887549&set=a.109112135962614
I suppose this Democracy is deemed racist by our resident hangers-on ?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Yes, of course, the executive branch is not elected, per se, though most, if not all, its members are usually elected in their respective constituencies.

That said, electors are well aware of the fact that the leaders of the main political parties are vying for the top post of prime minister in our federal elections. We all knew that either Peter Dutton or Tony Albanese would be prime minister at the last election even though we were not asked to vote to decide who should become prime minister.

My vote at that election was simply to prevent Peter Dutton from becoming prime minister. It had no other purpose.

As a matter of fact, I suspect that many of our compatriots do likewise. They tend to vote against politicians they don’t want, rather than vote for politicians they consider capable of doing a better job.

As to why I refer to the members of the executive as “political leaders”, I guess it’s because they have been chosen because of their superior aptitude, knowledge, experience, etc. compared to others.

Also, from my personal experience I have observed that some people are natural leaders. It’s a sort of gift of nature. They are capable of rising to the occasion in extremely difficult circumstances and inspire confidence to others who recognize their superiority.

In a certain sense I see the pilot of a commercial aeroplane as a leader too. The pilot is, as you say, at the service of the passengers, but the passengers are incapable of flying the plane to their destination. They place their trust in the pilot to take them there safely.

The same goes for the captain of an ocean liner with thousands of passengers on bord. None of them could navigate the ship safely to its destination. The captain is at their service of the passengers, and he leads them there.

By the same token, our elected politicians, whether we voted for them or not, are at our service and we entrust them with the all-important task of leading our nation.

.

Dear Banjo,

For me, casting my vote for or against some executive candidate or a party is a luxury I cannot afford - since I only have one vote, which I rather use to try save my skin from nightmarish laws and policies that political parties propose.

It would be best if we could vote on the actual laws proposed, whether directly or through true representation, rather than for some party that promises to save us from 55% of them, then may or may not keep their promises. True it was not technically feasible for a couple of millennia, but now modern technology allows for it again.

Those "leaders" could perhaps be leading their like-minded political parties, but not myself and I do hope nor intelligent people like yourself. For me they are just oppressors who rule by might and threats. Unlike the "passengers" you mentioned, I never asked them to take me along to any destination, by air or by ship. If I ever "follow" their laws, then that is only out of fear.

and we entrust them with the all-important task of leading our nation.
Banjo Paterson,
yet no-one helps them let alone corrects them ! Parasitism is the most heinous mentality for leaders to deal with.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Those "leaders" could perhaps be leading their like-minded political parties but not myself … For me they are just oppressors who rule by might and threats … I never asked them to take me along to any destination … If I ever "follow" their laws, then that is only out of fear »
.

Perhaps you may not have fully realised the nature and extent of what you agreed to at the time, Yuyutsu, but in order to obtain Australian nationality, you were required to make a certain number of pledges :

• to be loyal to Australia and its people
• to share Australia’s democratic beliefs and respect its rights and liberties
• to uphold and obey the laws of Australia

Naturally, you were not obliged to make those pledges, but if you had chosen not to make them, you would not have been granted Australian citizenship.

And as I understand you have become an Australian citizen, like the rest of us, you are expected to share Australia’s democratic beliefs and respect its rights and liberties.

Here is the full list of responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship :

http://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship/what-does-it-mean

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

On becoming an Australian citizen I was required to pledge allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors.

I do miss Her and wish our present good King to live forever.

Democracy was not even mentioned.

It was only years later when they started asking people to "share" and give lip-service to democratic beliefs, all while democracy never even existed in Australia: had Australians in general really believed in democracy, then surely they would have implemented one, so how possibly could one "share" a belief with others who do not believe so?!

And anyway, I did so under duress, plus I was too young then to pay attention to or truly understand any of this nonsense:
So what if some arrogant bullies declared that this whole continent belongs to them and them alone and won't let me stay here unless I agreed with their distorted and violent views?

The real question is, why you consider yourself so superior by virtue of your mother giving you birth here and not elsewhere in some other continent, that you consider it fair for you to not be required to make that or similar silly declaration yourself in order to become an Australian citizen and be allowed to remain in this continent, while I was.

I do not share your inferior and coercive beliefs,
I respect only God's laws,
I do not respect silly human-invented "rights",
But I do respect your liberty, and everybody else's liberty, far more than you or your state respect mine and others' or can even imagine.

I have been an asset to Australia and still am, taking care of myself, giving and not asking. One of the ways I still contribute to Australian society is by being here and challenging people to gain sense and shake off such stupid and irrational nationalistic parroting. Go arrest me if you can, for thinking differently...

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « On becoming an Australian citizen, I was required to pledge allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors. »
.

For several years my successive passports indicated that I was “a subject of her Majesty the Queen”. They don’t indicate that anymore.

The fact is, the reigning British monarch, Charles III, inherited the position as our head of state on the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. There is nothing democratic about that. But, as there is nothing I can do to change it, I accept it.

Nevertheless, quite frankly, I would prefer Australia to become a republic and elect our head of state.
.

2. « The real question is, why you consider yourself so superior by virtue of your mother giving you birth here and not elsewhere in some other continent, that you consider it fair for you to not be required to make that or similar silly declaration yourself in order to become an Australian citizen and be allowed to remain in this continent … I do not share your inferior and coercive beliefs. I respect only God's laws.
.

Well, I guess you could step into Australia and say “Hey, guys, move over, I’m coming to live here permanently. I’m the one who decides. I don’t need you to tell me what I can do or not do. I don’t have to obey your laws. I do not share your inferior and coercive beliefs. I respect only [what I believe are] God's laws.

That’s what the British did in 1788 when they colonised this country that the Aboriginal peoples had occupied for the previous 65,000 years.

If you could do that today, anybody could do it, including 1.4 billion Chinese. But the international principle of State sovereignty now prohibits colonisation.

Every country in the world, today, protects its sovereignty.

To respect a country’s sovereignty, is to respect its territorial integrity and political independence. This means allowing the country to have exclusive jurisdiction over its internal functions, and to respect that exclusiveness.

.

Dear Banjo,

«For several years my successive passports indicated that I was “a subject of her Majesty the Queen”. They don’t indicate that anymore.»

Sure, that is the present fashion, to claim that Australia is a democracy, but when it comes to myself, what counts are my obligations at the time I acquired my Australian citizenship.

When I immigrated to Australia I knew nothing about the Australian monarchy and had no feelings about it whatsoever, this way or the other, thus this requirement for allegiance to some stranger seemed ridiculous, yet due to my commitment, over the years I grew to love my Queen, and now my King.

Do they really think that they can change migrants' oaths at whim?

Do they believe that I can be swayed by their popular mood swings?

Too late - they should have thought of it in advance!

Their past demands looked ridiculous then and their present demands still look ridiculous now.

«Well, I guess you could step into Australia and say “Hey, guys, move over, I’m coming to live here permanently. I’m the one who decides. I don’t need you to tell me what I can do or not do. I don’t have to obey your laws. I do not share your inferior and coercive beliefs. I respect only [what I believe are] God's laws.»

Exactly, except for the "move over" part. This is how it ought to be, and so long as I do not hurt anyone here, that should be none of your business.

«That’s what the British did in 1788 when they colonised this country that the Aboriginal peoples had occupied for the previous 65,000 years.»

Yes, but they DID hurt the Aboriginal peoples, they were not benign!

[continued...]

[...continued]

«If you could do that today, anybody could do it, including 1.4 billion Chinese.»

And why not?

So long as they arrive as individuals and not as spearheads for the Chinese Communist regime attempting to subdue the present inhabitants of Australia, and assuming they do not spread crime, diseases or terrorism, you have no moral right to oppose them. This earth is theirs no less than it is yours.

«Every country in the world, today, protects its sovereignty.»

Yes, but might does not right make.

«To respect a country’s sovereignty, is to respect its territorial integrity and political independence. This means allowing the country to have exclusive jurisdiction over its internal functions, and to respect that exclusiveness.»

That would mean endorsing coercion, which is a form of violence.
I do not support violence.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … they DID hurt the Aboriginal peoples, they were not benign … might does not right make … That would mean endorsing coercion, which is a form of violence. I do not support violence »
.

Settling illegally into a foreign country permanently is a form of violence, Yuyutsu. It’s just as violent as some foreign family walking into your house or apartment and settling there permanently without being invited.

That said, I understand your difficulty separating man-made law and what you refer to as “ God's laws”, the latter being considered superior to the former by all those, like yourself, who believe in a hypothetical God or Gods.

But, that belief does not justify everything you feel authorised to do, irrespective of the local community's social and judicial norms.

In 2021 the most common religions were:

1. Christianity (43.9%)
2. No religion (38.9%)
3. Islam (3.2%)
4. Hinduism (2.7%)
5. Buddhism (2.4%)

Despite all its contradictions in practice, Australia has no official religion and is basically a secular country that respects all religions and, at the same time, the separation of religion and the state – thus reflecting the biblical phrase attributed to Jesus of Nazareth :

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

The things that are Caesar’s, i.e., the things of the State, such as the sovereignty of the country, its territorial integrity, and political and judicial independence, are subject to our secular (man-made) law, not to so-called “divine law” that various illuminated individuals claim to have been inspired by their hypothetical God.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. We have no way of knowing. As they were reputed to have been illuminated individuals, it may have simply been their extraordinary imagination that surpassed their own human understanding as well as that of their followers.

But, since you say you do not support violence, Yuytsu, I think it would be wise to avoid provoking the violence of others by the misguided and unadapted social norms you express here.

.

Dear Banjo,

«It’s just as violent as some foreign family walking into your house or apartment and settling there permanently without being invited.»

I assume that the house/apartment in question was built by your own effort (or was freely given to you by the one who built it, etc.).

You cannot say the same about this earth or any of its continents,
which is why the cases are not similar.

When Caesar coins coins, these coins are his and he may ask for them back.
But Caesar did not create the earth, nor did the English, nor the Aboriginal peoples.

You do not believe that God created the earth? fair enough, but you are not claiming that it was you instead or any other people, that created it, are you?

- Once you create your own planet, then you will be welcome to set its rules in motion.

Now, you seem to have missed my earlier point when I wrote, "I respect only God's laws":
If you think that there are no such "God's laws", then fine, let that be a discussion for another day, because the stress in my above sentence and in the present context is on the word "only", meaning in other words that I do not respect the laws of states: imposing them is violence and claiming sovereignty over a region of land is robbery, thus not worthy of respect. This is all that is relevant to this specific discussion, so let us not digress into theology here.

«But, since you say you do not support violence, Yuytsu, I think it would be wise to avoid provoking the violence of others by the misguided and unadapted social norms you express here.»

Why is that provoking violence - do you wish to hit me?
And if you do, is that because I openly expose the immorality of your social norms?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« I assume that the house/apartment in question was built by your own effort (or was freely given to you by the one who built it, etc.).»
.

I might be able to buy a small tent for my wife and myself and install it. But I very much doubt that I could build a house. I wouldn’t even know how to begin.

As far as I can remember, nobody ever gave me anything apart from Christmas and birthday presents, which are more of sentimental rather than merchant value. I was the black sheep of the family and left home at the age of 18 with some small change in my pocket, and that was it. My mother wrote to me a few years later to tell me she had decided to will the old family home to my elder brother when she died. When my brother died, the home was inherited by his children who sold it to get the money.
.

« You cannot say the same about this earth or any of its continents … claiming sovereignty over a region of land is robbery, thus not worthy of respect. »
.

You didn’t indicate who you consider is being robbed, Yuyutsu.

Sovereignty is the authority of a state to govern itself. Owning land is the exclusive right to control a specific parcel of land. The latter may be passed on to somebody else by sale, lease, rental contract or gift. It is the exclusive right that is passed on, not the land itself.

The same principle applies to property in general, be it buildings, houses, apartments, etc.

If you have built, purchased, leased, or rented your house or apartment, you have the exclusive right to occupy it with your family. If a foreign family moves in and occupies it without your permission, that is an act of usurpation (robbery).

Usurpation is not just man-made law. All animals practise the same law and defend their exclusive rights to their homes as best they can.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

I leave it to you to decide what your so-called divine law has to say about the self-defense of :

• human territory and animal territory
• human homes and animal homes

The principal difference between us humans and other animals, in my view, is that we have invented a peaceful means of transferring the right of “ownership” (exclusive control) of territory and homes to third parties, thus avoiding the unnecessary robbery and violence that often continues to exist in the animal kingdom.

As a closing remark, allow me to add, Yuyutsu, that when I was a child, I was told “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”. That is a general rule of conduct I have practised all my life, and I thoroughly recommend it.

It is futile to expect the Romans to do what you do.

Naturally, if the “Romans” in question happen to be cannibals, it would be preferable to leave discreetly before they decide what to prepare for lunch.

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Despite the principles I outlined above, perhaps I should say a few words about human conquest of territory which, regrettably, also continues to exist.

The right of conquest was historically a right of ownership (exclusive control) of land after possession via force of arms. It was recognized as a principle of international law that gradually declined until its proscription in the aftermath of World War II.

The United Nations Charter subsequently banned the use or threat of force as a tool of international relations, even when used to rectify prior injustices, the sole exception being self-defence.

Unfortunately, that has not prevented Russia from invading Ukraine nor the Hamas-Israel-Iran war.

.

Dear Banjo,

«You didn’t indicate who you consider is being robbed, Yuyutsu.»

By being deemed the black sheep of your family, you were made to leave the house where you grew up and had a natural share in, then you were prevented from returning and living there because your elder brother's children sold it. You were effectively robbed.

In a similar way, idiomatically of course, we are all God's children.
We did not create this earth, nor is it ours. We only share it by God's grace.
For one sibling to deny their other siblings access to their Father's property, is robbery.

«Sovereignty is the authority of a state to govern itself.»

"Itself" cannot include that which does not belong to it.
The earth belongs to God, not to any state(s).
States have never received any authority from God to exclude His/Her/Its other children.

«Owning land is the exclusive right to control a specific parcel of land. [details follow]»

These are internal arrangements among those who agree to have a state.
They have no moral authority outside that group.

«Usurpation is not just man-made law. All animals practise the same law and defend their exclusive rights to their homes as best they can.»

You are now confusing "land" from "home".
People and animals are entitled to the improvements they made by their toil, such as turning a parcel of land into a home. The improvement(s) are their creation, but not the land itself.

«The principal difference between us humans and other animals, in my view, is that we have invented a peaceful means of transferring the right of “ownership”»

One simply cannot transfer the ownership of that which they do not own!
The "ownership" you are speaking about is only an internal convention among those who agreed to have a state, and is meaningless for all others.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«when I was a child, I was told “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”.»

I see - you were brainwashed by Roman propaganda.
Others wanted you to conform, so they tricked you.

In modern terms, this is called "Child Abuse".

«It is futile to expect the Romans to do what you do.»

But no one was expecting anything of the Romans. It is them who wrongly expect you to conform, even while they have no right over your lifestyle.

«Despite the principles I outlined above, perhaps I should say a few words about human conquest of territory which, regrettably, also continues to exist.»

Yes, barbarism from Alpha to Omega.

.

Yes, it’s been a long conversation, Yuyutsu. Not to worry. I understand.

Take it easy. I’m sure we’ll have more to say to each other on some other thread of mutual interest.

All the best,

.

Dear Banjo,

It has been a pleasure.