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.