I have read a suggestion that no Senators should not be affiliated with a political party. They should be elected on their own merits. Connection with groups like trade unions, corporations etc. - also out.

It makes sense to me.

The Senate is meant to be a house of review, which it cannot be when Senators vote along party lines.

“Senators should be reviewing bills based on the merits of the legislation and the interests of their constituents, rather than the will of their political party”.

Good idea? Bad idea?

1) Great idea.
2) Why only the Senate?
3) May I also use this occasion to propose the policy from [Isaiah 11:6-9]:

"The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.

The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea."

Amen!

Yuyutsu,

Isiah's peaceable kingdom might be too big an ask, but yes, why just the Senate indeed. Australia's political and electoral system is a mess, and needs reforming; perhaps along the lines of the other suggestions of the Australians for Better Government. (australiansforbettergovernment.com)

no Senators should not be affiliated with a political party.
ttbn,
The same theoretically applies to bureaucrats, alas !

Indyvidual,

Thanks. Reform of the Senate is vital, it being our only protection against the uniparty if it actually did what it is supposed to do - review, not react to orders from the party machines most of the current Senators belong to. Legislation is sometimes sent back to the House; but not often enough, and not for the right reasons.

When one side or the other in government also has a majority in the Senate, it is just a rubber stamp. When the government is in cahoots with a minor party, dirty deals can be done. It's a lot harder to get at 70 or so non-aligned individuals, who would of course have to prove that they would act independently before they could get their names on the ticket.

Ninety percent of Australians voting above the line on the Senate paper, and allowing the political parties to decide preferences helps defeat the purpose of the Upper House.

It is not all that onerous to tick 12 individual candidates below the line. As a conservative voter, I have always been able to pick 12 candidates without including a single Liberal, Labor, Green or Teal candidate.

Dear Ttbn,

The link you provided is incorrect - it should be: http://australiansforbetter.com

«It is not all that onerous to tick 12 individual candidates below the line.»

Well I think it is, unless I do so randomly, because I don't know anything about these people, nor would it be reasonable to expect me to know about their lives.
I vote for policies, not for whoever happens to implement them,
hence I read everyone's policies, then rank all the squares above the line accordingly.

Come elections, I will read your party's policies too - hope they will be all summarised neatly in one place so I don't need to search for them across 100's of pages.

Of course I would never allow political parties to take away my preferences.

Yuyutsu

How you vote and for whom you vote is your business, but lazy voting gets lazy politicians.

You say that you vote above the line, but you then say that you “won't allow political parties to take away my preferences”, when you are doing just that.

1-6 across the top leaves the party getting the preferences it wants, not you. Those people might or might not all be suitable to you. For instance, at the last election, the candidate I most wanted was put last on the ticket, an unwinnable position, and that candidate has gone for good. I put him first, but thanks to lazy voters, he was a goner, an excellent candidate though he was in his time there.

I prefer to vote for 12 good people in the Senate. I have no interest in parties, because the Senate is the house of review, and voting for parties and THEIR preferences (which are getting if you vote above the line) is preventing it from doing its job.

Policies. They are for the lower house, where the government is formed.

I don't know what you mean when you say that you will read “your parties policies too”. I don't have a party. Certainly not when it comes to the Senate.

If the Senate is not doing its job as a house of review, free of political strictures, it is not worth having.

So, my current position is: voting above the line should be abolished. Nominations should be restricted to stop people just out for a bit of fun cluttering up the tablecloth size ticket, and a compulsory 12 votes is the way to go. If we can't do that, we are stuffed, and deserve to be so.

The real hurdle to move from incompetent administration to competent administration is to change the heads of Departments at every election. They then should be able to weed out the non performers & actual saboteurs.
When that is not done you get what we have, the majority of the office staff sabotage every attempt of the Government to restore order & bring everything into line. Robodebt was one such blatant example. Constant blaming the previous administration when in fact it is always the same people running the show. Pretty stupid really !

Dear Ttbn,

So let me clarify what I do come election time:

1) I consider which policies are most important for me to have and which policies are most important for me to prevent, then assign them points, positive and negative respectively.

2) I go online over the principles/policies pages of ALL parties on my ballot papers, whether in the lower or upper house, summing up the points for each of my above policies per party.

3) I sort my order of preference for all parties from top to bottom according the number of points (positive or negative) they received.

4) I mark all boxes on my ballot papers accordingly - which means that for the Senate, I mark ALL boxes above the line, not just 6 or 12, hence I make my own preferences, not any party's.

The only thing I do not do and would personally find too exhausting, is to distinguish below the line between individual candidates within the same parties.

I hope this makes sense.

Maybe we need an AI voting / candidate summary.
Something that you can add in certain preferences, and the AI looks at everything, taking into account all factors and gives you a summary of best and worst candidates based upon your own preferences.

And some good videos that make understanding all the ins and outs of elections and to use ones vote in the best manner more easily understandable.

Google: 'What is a senators job?'
AI Overview
A senator's job is to represent their state or territory's people, debate and vote on proposed laws (bills), scrutinize government actions, and work in committees to investigate issues, ensuring laws are fair and government is accountable, essentially acting as a voice for their constituents and a check on power. They debate national issues, question ministers, and vote on legislation, requiring them to stay informed on public opinion and current affairs.

Yep ok ttbn, you've won me over.

"Good idea? Bad idea?"

- Good idea.

It seems they can't possibly do this job with integrity in the best interests of the constituents if they instead represent the interests of a political party.

Yuyutsu

Sorry. You are not making sense to me. You don't seem to be ‘getting’ the difference between the lower and upper houses.

And, when you mark all the boxes above the line, you are voting for boxes, not people.

Finally, policies, government are made in the lower house. The Senate reviews, endorses, or sends the policies back. It's a pity that the majority of Senators merely rubber stamp the policies of the party they are a member of. They are not doing their jobs.

We've now done the full circle on the topic, and it is clear from your comments and the usual lack of interest in how ordinary people can be masters rather than servants, that nothing will change, and people do not understand democracy nor want it.

AC

Good on you. You have looked into it for yourself

Dear Ttbn,

«You don't seem to be ‘getting’ the difference between the lower and upper houses.»

As it stands, the candidates from both the lower and upper houses come from the same political parties: if that changes one day, well and good, that will be great, but for now I have to deal with what is - and political parties do not have separate sets of principles and policies for the lower and for the upper houses.

«And, when you mark all the boxes above the line, you are voting for boxes, not people.»

Exactly, I vote for boxes which represent different sets of policies, which is ultimately what matters most to the average citizen.

Knowing that many people well enough to vouch for them, people I have no interest in anyway, that out of some 100+ politicians when it comes to the upper house, would take me way too long than I am willing to invest - I do have a life besides.

«Finally, policies, government are made in the lower house. The Senate reviews, endorses, or sends the policies back»

Exactly, so why would I not have my representatives in the upper house to try and block the harmful laws schemed by the lower house?

«It's a pity that the majority of Senators merely rubber stamp the policies of the party they are a member of. They are not doing their jobs.»

Correct, but I have to live with what is, and if what I get are lemons then I may as well make lemonade.

«the usual lack of interest in how ordinary people can be masters rather than servants»

I am not interested in being neither master nor servant - I just want to live my life peacefully and wish there never were any states and governments to harass and disturb us.

The great leader found sprawled drunk on a Canberra footpath last year Barnyard Joy, has quit the Cow Cocky Party and joined the fruit cakes of the Lovely Pauline Party. Normally I would say quitting the Cow Cocky's should be applauded, but to hop into the cot with the Lovely Pauline, what can I say. After a late night session with a bottle of Scotch, throw in a couple of steaks, me thinks Barnyard and Pauline should be able to have a very intelligent conversation, about Barney running for the Senate in NSW. I don't think the "marriage" will last, remember Pauline and her "marriage" to Mad Mark in NSW, that ended in divorce.

When I was as school, it was explained to us that the house of representatives was just that.
It represented Australia as a whole.
It made decisions for Australia as a whole.
On the other hand, the Senate represented individual states.
Its purpose was to ensure that decisions made by the 'lower' house did not give advantage to one state over another.
In other words, to ensure that decisions were fair to all states.
All my life I have wondered why the Senate makes decisions based on other factors.
Clearly, they are entitled to legally.
And what I was taught at school was the teacher's assessment only.
But that teacher's idea still seems to me to be a worthwhile approach.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

Well I didn't realise that some such naive people still exist to this day who believe what the regime tells them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucczIg98Gw

Look at it logically.
Is it better that we live in a democracy?
I say yes.
And for that we need elected representatives.
We have them.
And whatever they are, they are chosen by the people.
To assess their conduct and performance as they go along is a good thing.
But to 'throw mud' is quite another.
By all means be aware of any shortcomings.
And use those to decide if you vote for them again.
But please don't degrade them to make yourself feel more important.
It does not improve anyone's lot.
Least of all, yours.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«Is it better that we live in a democracy?
I say yes.»

Only if it helps.

Democracy is a tool, not an end in itself.

The idea is that if you must be ordered around, what you may do, must do and must not do, then in the least you should have a say in it and try to mitigate these decrees.

We technically have a democracy, on paper we do, but for every practical purpose we have no one to represent us, I certainly have no one representing me in parliament, no one there to defend me against the brutality of the state - so if that is democracy then I don't need it!

«And for that we need elected representatives.
We have them.»

They are elected alright, but they are not elected to represent me, they are elected because they are believed by most to do less harm than the other candidates.

Every ecological environment has its predators, and in ours these are states and their kings/princes/ayatollahs/oligarchs/chairmen/governments. I rather face this reality square in the face, but if believing in democracy helps you to reduce your anxiety and feelings of helplessness, then so be it, go on and play that game which I have no need for.

We live in Australia.
We live in a democratic system.
No individual who lives here can survive by themselves.
They cannot defend territory they might claim.
They cannot do everything needed to survive well.
They cannot be doctor, nurse, patient, cleaner, mechanic, driver, etc etc, all at the same time.
For that we need a lot of persons, all doing individual jobs to add to the whole.
Those who pretend otherwise are simply not being logical.
They appear to be very immature.
But they are citizens.
And still need the support of the rest of society.
If one of these 'separate persons' gets seriously ill, we should still attend to their care.
But they rely on that.
It is part of the pretend world in which they live.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

Whether and how I survive or otherwise is none of your business,
nor what I can or cannot do, which I don't need to report to you.
So far, it is you who claims a territory to yourself, not I,
this whole continent in fact - which you did not make, nor could!
It is you and your gang who desire to "defend" it,
denying this air from all other children of God who want nothing to do with you and your ways:
you have no moral backing for those sick desires of yours, only brute force,
which makes you and your "Australia" thing brutes!

You seem to think that there is no God and nobody is watching,
that you can get away with all this bullying,
yet your cup of sins is filling up quickly!

Nothing is perfect.
Democracy has its downsides.
But I would rather live in our democracy than in some other places in this world.
If I beleive news reports. many other places are in turmoil.
And yet here we live peacefully and safely.
We are well fed, well looked after. and provided with much opportunity.
We can keep tabs on our leadership, and change it if we need to.
But not all citizens are appreciative.
I think they would still find fault, even if they were able to design and build their perfect world.
In this world, their way of life seems to involve using others as a kind of 'foil'.
As something to rail against, which they will do on the slightest pretext.
They have an innate need to feel a sense of strength and sufficiency.
And by taking this aggressive stance, they get a feeling that they have some form of control.
Which of course they don't.
For they are simply citizens, expressing a very illogical point of view.
But they are still citizens.
And I think most citizens would prefer to be respected.
And the way to gain respect is by being logical and forthright.
Then people will listen to you.

This is a little off topic, but I think it is relevant.
So here goes...
When we venture opinions on subjects, our opinions must be based on sound and truthful principles.
Unless our basis is truth, our opinions are almost certain to contain elements of falseness.
And there is one basic truth one really needs to keep in mind.
We must keep it front and centre of our consciousness.
As we live our lives each day, everything we are is controlled by our computer brain.
All of our thoughts and all of our actions come from that one intangible resource.
However, of necessity we interact with the world around us using our PHYSICAL FORM.
Our body is our 'interface' with the world, and it also supports and nourishes our brain.
All of our instincts, and all of the things we learn, are stored in our brain.
Whilst our computer brain runs, we have awareness, and we are alive.
It all begins shortly before birth.
Before that, we have no awareness, and so there is no life.
Hopefully, we will all live a long and very full life.
But eventually, our body will fail, and will not be able to support our computer brain.
Then, the brain will shut down.
All brain activity will cease.
We will never have thoughts again.
All of our instincts, and all of the knowledge we had, will vanish in an instant.
There can be no more awareness.
We will be dead.
It is clear we live life between birth and death, and at no other time.
Until you fully understand and appreciate this truth, your concept of life must be based on false assumptions.
And a life based on untruths must be flawed, and irregular in its path.
And opinions then expressed, are likely to be irregular too.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«But I would rather live in our democracy than in some other places in this world.»

Well here is one reason why, everything else being the same, I rather live NOT in a democracy:

Every state oppresses its people and there is nothing really you or I can do about it, people suffer everywhere from their respective regimes, but in a democracy this is done presumably "in my name".

In a democracy, theoretically at least, I should be able to stop that state-violence, or at least, come elections, I must choose as carefully as I can those political candidates who would do the least harm relative to the others.

That is heavy and if I make any mistake, if I fail to study them all very well and locate the least harmful people correctly among them, then part of the responsibility for the ongoing oppression and sufferings should lie on my shoulders.

In a dictatorship, me and others suffer, but there at least my conscience remains clear as I am not the instigator and there is nothing I could do about it. Not so in a democracy!

---

«As we live our lives each day, everything we are is controlled by our computer brain.
All of our thoughts and all of our actions come from that one intangible resource.»

Brains are very tangible - ask the brain surgeons.

We, on the other hand, are not tangible at all.
Nobody can even locate us, let alone touch, see, hear, taste, smell, cut or paste us.

«Whilst our computer brain runs, we have awareness, and we are alive.»

Awareness never ceases: when the brain has not yet been born, or is dead, in a coma, or even deeply asleep, there simply is nothing to be aware of, so we are aware of nothing - but even then we still experience nothingness!

A camera filming in the dark is not broken, it still records blackness.

Ipso Fatso said "it's better to live in democracy"

Answer- I remember President Bush saying that he didn't do many poles because the American people expected him to make decisions, not avoid decisions by going to poles. If the people decided that his decisions were wrong then they could vote him out. Of course a sagacious President should be in touch with the sensibilities of the people.

Others (Rousseau and Hobbs from memory) have said that government should be of the people, that the government should have a mandate.

Saddam Hussein said that even dictators have to obey the people in a sense (but his uncle apparently locked his enemies in and burned them alive).

I think that most people would be happier having a local dictator than a foreign democrat. A local dictator would conform to the principle of "government by the people" in a sense. In the sense that a small locality traditionally had citizens that were essentially from the same small group of families and so even a dictator had a common interest in the survival of the group. This is not necessarily true with the fractious nature of mass society.

You have to ask, what is democracy, does it work, in what context, and within what structure, etc.

Ttbn- With the rise in independent parties the uniparty may be losing it's grip around the neck of Australian society. So party politics may not be as relevant soon. As we know One Nation is at 16% of the primary vote, and the Liberal Party is at 24%, due to Liberal commitment to certain problematic "realist" ideological priorities. Traditionally the party system has been seen as a source of stability but I'd admit that the current uniparty has extreme issues (and probably has had since WWII). The main problem is not the parties but the collusion between the ALP and Liberal Parties.

We are made of matter.
We come in to being when matter changes state.
Atoms and molecules are rearranged.
And there has always been matter, so there has always been the potential for us to happen.
We most certainly cannot come from nothing.
In the real world 'nothing' doesn't exist.
It is merely an imaginary concept.
Like the 'number' zero.
There is and has always been something.
And that something is arranged logically.
Which means there is intelligence in matter itself.
That intelligence enables everything we know of to be as it is.
To say anything exist without matter is absurd.
And wherever matter exists, there is space.
For matter makes space.
Altogether, we owe a lot to matter.
Without it, we wouldn't be here.