With a Queensland State Election in the offing and the certain knowledge that whoever wins means the inevitable waste of money and the resultant "more of the same",....it is time that we became mature enough to discard "Party Politics" ( which still indirectly participates in the world`s wars and victim related trauma) and introduce an all Independant Parliament, eventually right across the nation!

Any suggestion in this respect will certainly bring gasps of horror from all the bludgers, parasites and self-servers who are currently leeching from the Public Purse!

We should have a relatively honest system in place which allows candidates to nominate free from Party ties, and utilizing a fixed total level of funding for his or her electioneering campaign. His or her own efforts would ultimately decide if he or she were ultimately worthy and acceptable to the community as a representative.

If elected, the member would truly be able represent his or her communities wishes, being then able to vote along purely "conscience lines" instead of being controlled by party politics and having to run the risk of offending his or her "managers"

Why do they call Political Organizations "Partys"....because they are all having a good time at the expense of the seemingly bottomless taxpayer`s purse!

Cuphandle

"If elected, the member would truly be able to represent his or her communities wishes ..."

Who exactly would the member be representing?

The squeakiest wheels? Those with the deepest pockets? Those who live in the member's street? Those who attend the member's church?

There is no way elected members can know whether or not they are fairly representing the majority of voters on any given issue through conscience voting.

Despite its faults, the party system does at least provide some certainty for the voter. As a voter, it's impossible to know how a prospective independent might vote on each issue. When that member belongs to a party though, voters at least have a broad idea of whether or not their views will be represented, even if they know nothing much about the member which is often the case.

With respect, Cuphandle, I think the scenario you describe is a recipe for chaos and one which would severely curtail rather than enhance democracy as you imagine. The party system, for all its problems, is the only managable way to ensure that the majority view prevails which must surely be the basis of the democratic process.

Nice to agree with you Bronwyn.

Cuphandle, there is no way I have the time to access the response of even a small number of candidates, in a large range of possible policy areas.

Can you imagine trying to get enough indindividuals to agree to pass a bill, "as is" without spending weeks on minor amendments taking months of argument.

No thanks mate, lets keep it as simple as possible. It's bad enough now, when we get a Rudd, saying one thing before election, then doing the opposite once in power.

Now, of course, you could appoint me as Emperor for life, for the best of all results.

Attention “come lately” usurper (aka rightly named ’hasbeen’)
Life time Emperor is mine as I claimed it in the past! Ok I’m still working on the implementation.
Beside which you lie Implying that you would be more honourable than I, Rot! I would be at least honourable to be absolutely predictable …I would guarantee to be the source of ALL corruption and decadence. You on the other hand would only be C&D some of the time…therefore people would still worry about others how would they be any better off than now? Write your excuse on an A4 paper pin it to your chest and report to the firing squad at the back wall of incredibly wasteful folly, parliament house, ( blind fold is optional)…see I even give you a choice! How beneficent am I. :-)
His absolute corruptness Examinator etc, etc, and so on.

Bronwyn,
I would beg to differ from the absolute nature of your assertion. People being what they are will form self serving temporary alliances. Although still dominated by parties US congress members can still vote on the interest of their electorate hence majorities on bills aren’t always along party lines.
The member voting records are available when assessing a local member.
Their problem is that they have a culture of professional lobbyists (scum) who abuse these figures.

In the Aussie system you vote for the party of the Competing PMs rather than individual local member’s policies and specific local needs.

e.g. In one electorate in Qld the sitting member remained so because the rump didn’t want the other side. The MPs history is appalling complete with confusing jurisdictions, extreme religious leanings. These didn’t prelude him from being investigated by the CMC with a not enough evident to sustain a conviction conclusion. He has turned a safe seat into one of the most marginal in the country. Since in opposition hardly heard from. Given his past partisanship and unrepresentative behaviour how can any non supporter be comfortable with him?

Can you honestly say that parliament question time and oppositions (either party) are anything but a ritualized farce? With absolute majorities like Howard had see how he ignored the people and simply ruled.
Remember the old axiom oppositions don’t win elections governments lose them.
Ask your self apart from I R how different are the two parties really ….Tweedle Dum and Tweedle carp. Imagine if Bush had another 4 years hmmm? How much US pressure would have been applied would Rudd maintain his marketing difference except in style?
There are better ways we just need to see them.

the idea is, unfortunately, probably impractical. Too few people will bother to check all the candidates, and the risk of unstable governments being formed is high.
More practical is for Queensland to revert to a bicameral system as the first point.
Having proportional representation in both houses, and never holding elections for both houses at the same time, may be more practical measures. It is certainly unfortunate that Australia has gone down the Canadian path of party discipline coming before the electorate.
As for Bronwyn's comment that "There is no way elected members can know whether or not they are fairly representing the majority of voters on any given issue through conscience voting." That holds true at state/national level as well, but instead of even trying whatever Cabinet decides goes through uncontested as very rarely does this country have minority government, and even more rarely are enough willing to cross the floor to decide the vote on an issue.
All independent would be ideal, but not workable - except perhaps in rural areas, Tasmania and the ACT, where local media can focus on few enough electorates in a federal election to actually allow for the message of main candidates to get out (which largely reflects that happens now, only the two major parties get a chance to sell their message with the odd Green comment thrown in).