belly quote/...""Then asked my self
about my last post,combative?..needlessly provocative.""

sometimes we need to be provoked

""Would I be better just not posting in the thread""

if you disagree with any thought
yet chose to remain mute[silent]
why bother at all..if your not even going to speakup

''I am unsure,..""
im unsure what[or ratrher why]...your being unsure about

"oh I know..some will dislike me for it.""

mate so what
will you like you better
for a hitler or mussolinie greenie
agreeing with you?

""I would be better for not saying it,""

me too mate
but i need to live within me
if others are wrong...can i let their error decieve others?

""Are concerns about such as boat people/refugees,Multi Cultures about a race or a religion.""

they are about fear's
as much as standing up for those allready hard done by

""Can a minority turn such subjects
into directions we do not intend..so as to weaken our views.""

of course..[look at the greens
or the pokie issue]...it all depends on
how much their support is needed...and what they want from you in return

""I think yes
if our country,..made [for inclusiveness]
every one saying what they really thought...""

fear..then..

""majority views would at times be confronting.
But if it is majority..why let minority's overrule?""

because the majority are ruled by delusional fears
they are there..for THEIR special needs...[their fears]
not the needs of others..

im pretty much getting over
the need to tell anyone anything..about anything

[flat/out forcing myself out of bed...
only to have ignorant people say ignorant things]
its only that i was once believing the same errors
that forces me to try now so hard to correct the same basic miss-takes..

so ignorantly parroted
by my brrr-others...decieved into the same old fears..
by the same old media spin and fear..and out and out lie's

morganzola,
sorry about the delay of reply but I was suspended for a couple of days. What is it that makes you fail to understand what I mean by a new system ? You're asking me to place a decisive clear-cut model on the table but on the other hand I get accused of not accepting what others think.
I say, let's work on a new system via input from everyone. Surely, you don't think this can be done in just a couple of OLO sessions ?
My starting benchmark is one vote one value, flat tax, national service, limits to Public Service pay, Compulsory pension contribution, Politicians go on a pension like everyone else, People who put their life on the line for us are to be paid accordingly, Public Servants should not be immune to dismissal, Medical upstarts spend three years in the bush, in a Police shortage situation Army personnel become deputies, Magistrates be made accountable, etc etc.
your turn now.

Ps.
As we apparently can't have the afore mentioned conditions under the present Westminster system then I suggest we conjur up another one. I don't give a hoot what you want to call it I just want a system that is fairer, more honest & more accountable than the present one.
Forget the artificial academic complexities which only serve those who aren't contributing but are rather conservative when it comes to sharing the worker made wealth with the workers.
Of course to change a political system as such is not as simple as saying let's change. We might even get away with just making the present system work according to its principles.

May I join in? and if we first keep to politics then social change we may cover more ground lead I will follow.
I support one vote one value, totally.
But want to be Devils advocate, Small party's and independents will mostly die, so too without deals party's like the National.
So what do we do? Morgonzola says more seats, ok by me, lets say rural seats, all non city ones have set numbers much lower than average as of now, not enought seats to over rule majority's.
Fixed terms, shorter so accountability comes set dates 30? months apart.
Take the American recall law, ability to get individuals out of office mid term if they do great wrong.
On positive side one value voting sees majority representation, Wilkie sits in Parliament on preferences being third past the post.
Family first time waster won a seat on ALP preferences and never supported them.
No reason we can not change referendum rules so massive majority's are not needed ,and put difficult issues at every election then act on them.

@ individual:

Thanks for the reply. Depending on what you mean by 'one vote one value', I think all those objectives you list would be achievable under the current system. Indeed, we already have one vote, one value at the Commonwealth level and the States are far less gerrymandered than they used to be:

"In Australia, one vote one value is a legislative principle of democracy whereby each electorate has the same population within a specified percentage of variance. In the case of the Commonwealth, the maximum variance for the House of Representatives is 10% above or below the mean"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_vote_one_value

Perhaps you mean 'first past the post' voting (as opposed to preferential voting), in which case it's probably achievable by legislation or referendum under the present system. Beattie changed the Queensland system from compulsory preferential to optional preferential voting without needing to amend the Constitution, as I recall, so you're effectively just asking for a policy change that can be achieved within the system.

The same goes for all of your wish-list: it's all policy that you'd like to see enacted, which is entirely possible under our current system if you can attract sufficient support from an existing Party, or form your own. None of it requires fundamental change in "the system", but it would require fairly radical change in the electorate, since I imagine that the main reason your ideas haven't been taken up already is that not enough people agree with them. First past the post voting and flat taxes aren't new ideas, rather they are antidemocratic and exploitative policies that have never found favour with most Australians. With respect to relative pay scales, there's nothing in 'the system' to prevent their alteration, except the unions, professional associations and influential lobby groups. Good luck with them :)

Or have I got you wrong?

Well I clearly, want an end to preferential voting,that my first preference dies there.
I can find no single point nothing, to put third choice candidates in Parliament.
Yep know you can not agree but the majority will.
I discard the list from Individual, have never been able to see his quaint thoughts about national service other than an old mans dream.
Politicians are behind business managers and it is true.
IF you pay peanuts you get monkeys.
Sorry about that Christoper Pyne!, rather see his after parliamentary life as Ronald MacDonald,no make up needed.
If we get a more democratic Parliament, one house fixed election dates we can start to lead not follow.
We hear time and again about the Westminster system,on what basis is it better? forever?