Re “Australian law recognises women and men as primary steakholders of community, “

Ah Whistler I do so love your posts

The notion of “Steakholders” leaves me with the image of a BBQ and each “steakholder” burning their own bit of cow.

-(that’s just the men, of course..

the women are all congregating in the kitchen – as happens at most of the BBQs I have been to)

“thus the mandatory, yet changeable, designation of gender on birth certificates.”

“yet changeable” for the gender-benders… a less than insignificant number within the wider Australian community of men and women

“a claim by a male that gender is inconsequential is an obvious attempt to eliminate the influence of women.”

Not at all

I am recently remarried, to a woman (no weird stuff for me).

She is free and has equal right to me to to vote as she sees fit

but we are “mirrors” of one another and I know she would not vote for the sort of bunkum you try to promote here.

Your notion, that people are less than people simply because of their gender, is utter rubbish.

The fact is: women are free to vote as they see wish and if that means they choose a male as their parliamentary representative, so be it.

Men are also free to vote for women…

I voted for dearest Margaret when I was in UK…

Mind you she had bigger balls than most men but is still quoted as saying she owed nothing to the women’s liberation movement.

Keep 'em coming Whistler.. I am rolling around the floor over your last “Gaff”

(and that is a “Gaff” as an error

and not a "Gaff" as an article of clothing, worn by the gender-benders who seek to change their sexual designation on their birth certificates)

whistler, get with the programme.

>>Australian law recognises women and men as primary steakholders of community<<

Men are the steakholders. Women are in charge of the salad.

Without wishing to be too picky - because I do believe that we are horrendously overmanaged, and that the sheer unadulterated waste involved in what we presently term "government" is totally abhorrent - there are a couple of inconsistencies in your proposals, Peter Hume.

Let's accept for a moment that we get to the point where we have abolished the parliamentary assemblies.

From your summary, we would be left with a Chief Executive, and some "Ministers", who form a "Cabinet". I missed the part which explains how these people get elected, and how they are removed from office.

There's not much point in having a vote, if there's no-one in cohort from which you are allowed to select that represents your views. You'd effectively have been disenfranchised, which I don't believe is the objective.

Or is it?

And who proposes the laws? It sounds as though you will allow anyone to do this, at any time. After all, you allow any elector to amend a proposed law, so it would follow that anyone can put one forward.

That would be interesting.

I also doubt that any of them would actually get passed.

>>If and when a proposal gets a majority of votes of all electors, it becomes law.<<

Getting past the fifty percent mark with voluntary voting, plus the ability for anyone to amend along the way, would be a challenge.

I can see a certain amount of excitement about it, though, watching the approval snake wiggling its way to the magical 50% mark... but hold on a moment. What happens if someone makes an amendment that I don't like, after I've placed my vote? I'd have to be able to retract it.

Or are you suggesting a separate vote, each time an amendment is made? What happens if there are two amendments that conflict with each other. Or, what happens when a thousand amendments are offered, all on the same day?

And incidentally, who is going to draft these proposed laws in a manner that eliminates ambiguity, is clear about the existing law(s) that are being amended or eliminated?

Gee, I really hate to be negative, but...

Here's another thought.

>>Each Minister remains responsible for ensuring that his Department carries out the law as enacted.<<

So we haven't actually rid ourselves of the departments? Or are they determined by the electorate as well?

And what happens when a law that is passed on Tuesday, is countermanded (by 51% of the people) the following Tuesday?

How will the "Department" be able to maintain any consistency, if we all keep changing our minds?

I guess all this (and I have more) leads to the obvious conclusion that the "government by Twitter" that you are proposing simply isn't going to happen.

In fact, when you think about it, it has all the vacuity of social networking, without the feeling of community...

Would we all be visible to each other in your Twittertopia, Peter Hume?

I presume we would be at some level, simply to prevent voting fraud...

Talking of which, given the nature of the voting, how would you prevent me from selling my vote to the highest bidder?

Yet another use for eBay...

Sorry. Won't work. Not in this century, anyway.

Pericles
“Men are the steakholders. Women are in charge of the salad.”

LOL.

Yes, anyone can propose a law.

Did you ever use newsgroups? It would work like multi-party emails, with nested hierarchies, so you can create new responses in sub-posts, instead of in a long scroll like OLO.

This is already the deep structure of ordinary meeting procedure, judicial proceedings and Parliamentary proceedings. You proceed by motion. An amendment, if carried, supersedes the foregoing motion. A number of amendments is not a problem; might be an improvement.

The executive branch of government remains the same, except at the top. The removal of the legislative capacity of the Minister means in effect that the office of Minister would merge with that of head of the department. Having no legislative capacity, they wouldn’t be elected, they would be appointed as now. The people of course could always modify the executive, by adding or removing departments.

“There's not much point in having a vote, if there's no-one in cohort from which you are allowed to select that represents your views.”

I don’t understand. There’s no need for someone to ‘represent’ your views, because each voter represents his own views. It’s not a representative democracy, it’s a direct democracy. Our current epi-centre of government, the Cabinet, has both legislative and executive functions. This Cabinet would be only a meeting of executive officers, without any legislative function. Their job would only be to carry out the law.

If not many laws were passed, this would prove that the laws currently being passed are not in fact representative of the will of the people.

“And what happens when a law that is passed on Tuesday, is countermanded (by 51% of the people) the following Tuesday?”

The same thing, and just as unlikely, as now.

Preventing fraud? We have ATO, ASIC, and bank accounts online, so presumably it’s doable.

“…simply isn't going to happen. “

“No man can predict the future. That is in the hands of the gods.”
Homer

“There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.”
Burke

It's nothing to do with the technology, Peter Hume.

>>Yes, anyone can propose a law... It would work like multi-party emails, with nested hierarchies, so you can create new responses in sub-posts<<

You are kidding? Apparently not...

>>You proceed by motion. An amendment, if carried, supersedes the foregoing motion. A number of amendments is not a problem; might be an improvement.<<

And each amendment needs more than 50% acceptance, am I right?

That doesn't sound at all practical to me.

And when does a proposal actually become law? Or does each amendment automatically rescind the previous law? If so, how does anyone actually know what is in force at any one time?

>>The people of course could always modify the executive, by adding or removing departments.<<

That, on the other hand, is a steamingly good idea. If only...

>>There’s no need for someone to ‘represent’ your views, because each voter represents his own views. It’s not a representative democracy, it’s a direct democracy.<<

Oh, sorry. I thought you mentioned that the populace could hire or fire a department. And the Ministers in charge of those departments - you mentioned there is still a Cabinet - they are appointed by whom?

You omit any mention of enforcement. How do we, the people, get to ensure that the executive enforces all these laws we impose upon them? We are left without any power, since there is no body that we are able to authorise to do so.

>>Preventing fraud? We have ATO, ASIC, and bank accounts online<<

I wouldn't sell my bank account details. But if I am able to propose a piece if legisation that advantages me significantly, I might also take the trouble to buy enough votes from other people in order to get it through.

>>“There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.”
Burke<<

And there's nothing so embarrassing as an idea that is less than half-baked.

The form of our representative democracy has many faults.

But that doesn't mean that any random load of old cobblers will be an improvement.