But how will you pick and choose, King Hazza?

>>I for one would seriously doubt we would still be debating whether to implement Euthanasia legality, an Internet Filter and the sale of public assets to Macquarie Bank just to watch the service drop and the price rise, at the very least.<<

You might think these are the important issues.

Others might choose capital punishment for paedophiles, or a 95% tax rate for CEOs. The former would walk in, with a sufficiently emotional campaign, and we'd then have to introduce it for other offences. The latter would be carried by the sheer weight of numbers, and we'd have "the people" deciding how you and I should be taxed. Unlimited fuel for the politics of envy.

Is that really where you believe democracy should take us?

A preliminary question has been ignored, that being the relevance of any public referendum. Ever since the passing of the Reprints Act in 1992, politicians in Queensland can change any law without Parliamentary approval.

This is but one of many changes about which most Australians know nothing. It is why Anna Bligh says bluntly "You will have recycled water whether you like it or not." Given the changes that have occured in the last two decades (e.g. replacing Common Law with Civil and Statue Law), public referenda are meaningless because completely powerless.

Pericles, indeed the people would be more inclined than politicians to jump on such policies- however, after doing so, would face the consequences and be more likely than a politician (who put their reputation on the line to sell this concept) to change it back realizing they screwed up.

Also, it would be easier to bring common sense into a situation where there isn't any, and that is to simply circulate a more powerful argument to convince everyone of a stronger case. You will get people like Runner who will simply ignore it as the Devil's work, but generally it seems to work out (and again, much easier to convince a mad public of the virtues of your policy, as their motivation lies primarily in the better outcome of the referendum- a politician following a mad policy not as much so- surrounded by lobbyists pushing for it, and is easily more likely to personally benefit from a specific cause regardless if everyone else does).

As it is, we have a system where only a handful of people relevant to their local area call the shots on entire sections of policy, and a single politician on the fringe likely gets to call most of the shots that the majors will pander to in order to win them over to form a coalition parliamentary/senate majority.

Either which way we simply lack politicians who are actually more knowledgeable and morally-sound than the public for it to make much of a difference, with the only differences of a transfer to a more DD/CIR system that the forms of corruption of the process are more difficult.

Remember that even Malcolm Turnbull couldn't sell his Republic Model to referendum regardless of how many celebrities and patriotic, feel-good slogans and ads he tacked onto it- the lack of an elected president was the prime motivator instead.

Pericles and Flo do have valid concerns.

There would need to be protections for minorities, perhaps an inbuilt and constitutional understanding that other rights would not be easily dismissed when an issue may infringe on other long fought for personal liberties.

Democracy is not always easy and it is not perfect but it is better than the alternative. My first choice as a matter of environmental importance would be voting on a sustainable population having not bought into the Big Australia furphy.

This is just one example of the sort of issue that will not affect anyone adversely particularly if we continue to fulfill our obligations to asylum seekers. It is a good example of an issue where we should not have to rely on politicians to make those decisions when they might be at the behest of corporate and other global interests.

At least it offers an opportunity to let the people decide on a number of options presented - which would include flexibility given skill demands, family reunion and other population needs as they arise.

I can see many problems that might arise however humans are clever beings and there could be some easy criteria put (perhaps to parliamentary committee - not the Humphrey Appelby kind) where some of these issues could be discussed sensibly with input from various individuals, organisations and other groups.

There has to be a better way than what we have now where the populace are more and more separated policy decisions.

Referendums are expensive...and we can ill afford that at this time, or any time in the near future.

While I have strong views on topics such as euthanasia, the burqua, and the republic, I would not be happy with a referendum on these subjects.

Any questions on the referendum ballot papers would be structured towards the thoughts of the current Government of the day.
The results of any referendum would thus end up being exactly what the Government wants.

How would you answer questions like:

"Would you be happy with state-sanctioned killing of all dying people?" (Yes or No)

"Should we jail all women who wear the Burqa in public?"

"Would you like to see Australia secede from the Commonwealth and join with our Asian neighbours instead?"

Maybe not such silly questions, by some of our politicians

Flo >>The majority should not have the right to impose their beliefs on the minority in an democracy.

So please explain what a democarcy is then, if it is not 'majority rules'!

Suzonline

Would you be happy with state-sanctioned killing of all dying people?" (Yes or No)

My answer is 'No', but, people who find themselves as 'vetatables' should be given the right to 'pre-choose'.

"Should we jail all women who wear the Burqa in public?"

I for one think it should be banned in public. After all, this is Australia you know, and they are 'invited guests'.