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).

examinator (Your honourable highness!)

I concur with all the points you've raised. (I hope that sounds sufficiently deferential!)

I'd be the first to agree that the party system, as it currently operates in Australia, is far from ideal. All I'm saying is that a party system, to me, is preferrable to the idea that Cuphandle's advocating of having a whole lot of independents. I'm not necesarily championing the party system we have now.

BTW, examinator, first - OLO rule maker, and now - emperor! What's next? God?

I know you'd like us all to be subservient little sycophants, but I think I should warn you, with all the pomposity you're showering around here lately, there's likely to be a serious revolt within the ranks before much longer! :)

Ignoramus Maximus

I agree, having proportional representation in both houses, and not holding elections for both houses at the same time, would both be good measures.

I also agree that party discipline is far too rigid and that there should be a lot more crossing of the floor.

And, yes, Queensland should be a two house system. There isn't enough in the way of checks and balances as it currently stands, especially considering the quality of the opposition.

A party system, whereby the minor parties are more fairly represented, would be a great improvement on what we have now, in both state and federal politics.

What a great thread, with two of their majesties offering their services as Emperors! Cuphandle, I suspect that even independent politicians will be there for their own agendas rather than for for their constituents, unfortunately, but I certainly agree that the party discipline philosophy is wrong. Why? Because I vote for someone because I believe that they will follow their conscience on matters that are important to me. Once they are elected, what happens? A character transplant, as the party dictates how they will think from now on.

Bronwyn, your point is valid too, but not necessarily insurmountable. A conscientious member will canvass his/her electorate to properly represent its views. For the sake of practicality, those views would be from the people who care enough to make them known. If they don't (and this is a responsibility we all should take seriously), then they have got the politician they deserve. How often have we written to out "local member" expressing views, only to see them sitting behind Rudd (or formerly Howard) religiously and ritually nodding their heads in unison to everything "the party" says, in direct contradiction to views made known to them? How often have we received a standard, "word for word" letter from different members/Ministers (they must have standard templates for each issue raised with them, and forget to change anything.

Parliament Question Time is nothing more than play-acting by a bunch of spoiled brats who should have been brought up to behave better; it is really a sick caricature of government, with "questions" pre-determined on the day, and the answers carefully staged.

Australia is also far too over-governed, with three tiers of government. Either get rid of the states, or get rid of the Feds and let the States run themselves.

Nicky

I agree with fixed expenditure limits for electioneering.

I would like to see politcal domations banned but that is not likely to ever happen.

One thing I do believe is an elected representative is accountable to their electorate first, their party second.

For that reason, I favour first-past-the-post voting, for any and every given electorate.

Whilst preferential voting might seem "fair", in fact all you doing is to present a compromise, with the winner being the "least objectionable" (to more), rather than the "most preferred" candidate.

Proportional representation, as in the Federal senate, through the collective voting in larger electoral divisions, has the fundamental disadvantage of losing the strong tie between the electorate and their representative.

Of course, all government presents problems one way on another, regardless of the party in power.

The best solution to that is

leave more authority for doing things with the individuals, rather than pretending handing responsibility over to government actually helps anyone, except power hungry politicians.

In short, small government, rather than big.

Bronwyn,
Oh dear me no Foxy made the point Thatcher had that seat. :-(
Your points and noted and to a point I agree.
I would also suggest that the absence of the two party dominance doesn't necessarily indicate chaos.
As emperor "I proclaim that is there be chaos let it be organized and controlled" :-)

My concern/observance is that the two party polarity isn’t good for this or any country it limits choice, options (solutions to issues) ultimately resorting to dogma based thinking. The primary reason I haven’t joined a party after 1969 when my membership to Australia Party expired.

I suggest that there should be more parties contesting an election the major inhibitor is funding and there are many ways to curb/control that and single interest groups.

In essence Col's assertion that banning political donations is a good one and despite his reasonable doubt that it can be achieved I think it can notwithstanding the conservative mindset preoccupation with fear of rules.

*Blue skying* for the moment suppose it was mandatory that possible coalitions be negotiated before the election. Say that it must be published that if in the largest winner but unable to form a majority a party who and what policy blending would be taken up and number of representatives in cabinets and potential PM etc.
e.g. Governments would no longer be say Labor and Green but binding Green Labour for the duration of the elected period.

That way people could choose which style of government that suits them best.
As it stands if you accept a party representative you take all party policies lock stock and egos.
If you join a party you have to accept policies from existing power structures or suffer the consequences. Personally I favour some of labor’s policies and some of Lib’s.
As written I am under no illusion that this would work but currently all debate is on how to maintain selfish party interests. We must break that nexus.