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.

.