With the internet now available to most people, we have the power to pass all bills by referendum as opposed to the senate system. In addition to this new bills could also be proposed. Voting could be open for several weeks giving everyone a chance to contribute.

The only flaw I can envisage is the bill could read something like a bank account conditions clause with the devil hidden in the details, but at least we could represent ourselves.

Would'nt that make an improved democratic system?

The trouble with this, phooey, is that if all bills get passed or blocked by the majority opinion of the people, we are not likely to get the sort of governance we need.

A particular decision could easily be determined by a very small majority. Another closely related decision could easily be reached which sits in conflict with it, with only a very small difference in the overall vote. When lots of things need lots of unconnected decisions, then we’d have a mess on our hands.

And most people who would be voting wouldn’t really give a hoot, if voting was compulsory.

Or if it wasn’t, we’d very likely get a bias in the number of voters towards those with strong vested interests. Well, we’d always have a bias towards lower taxes and charges, which would make it even harder for government to keep up a decent standard of services and infrastructure than at present.

Your suggestion might be an improvement in democracy, based on the strict meaning of the word, but I can’t imagine it would be better for the country or our collective future.

We need a government that has a well-developed basic philosophy and makes decisions in accordance with it.

But then of course, the philosophy has to be right. And THAT is the overwhelming problem.

I would not want to vote on all bills proposed to the parliament. I do not want to spend the time informing myself as to the merits and demerits of each piece of legislation. I think most citizens are in the same position as to gaining knowledge to make a wise decision. Unfortunately the same thing is true for many parliamentarians. Rather than consider each piece of legislation on its merits they vote the way they are told to by the party room.

Removal of the obligation of parliamentarians to vote the party line except for legislation specified in the party platform on which they were elected would be better than replacing the senate by referenda. That should also be true for the house.

Legislators are paid to legislate. They should earn their salary by becoming familiar with proposed legislation, finding out and considering the political positions of their constituents on proposed legislation, consulting their conscience and considering the good of Australia and the rest of the world.

A great majority of bills are not new legislation, it is amendments to existing legislation. So there is a great incentive of knowing what you are voting for.

I think a better first step would be to hold and have higher regard for non- compulsory on line indicative plebiscites.

Additionally, with the advent of the NBN, I would have mini (say nor more than 3 individuals) media production teams within all of the departments and set them up with their own on line broadcast facilities, and do away with the gross waste of tax payers money which is spent lining the pockets of monopolistic, media moguls and their organisations.

I would additionally restrict individuals to no more than one tv station and one newspaper. It may be convenient for mainstream politicians to have to deal with only a very few individuals to peddle their at times simplistic, moronic and duplicitous rhetoric but it does not lend itself to good governance in my opinion.

It is all very well to have an increasingly complex and self serving political and legal system, but not to avail everyone of the opportunity to inform themselves in an effective and affordable manner AND maintain that ignorance of the law is no excuse is absolutely despicable.

Just get rid of the senate.
Every upper house too
QLD is doing ok and did so long ago.
I do however think we should get to have our opinions heard,and the idea of online voting on every issue appeals.
But as it could not be compulsory as voting is, or policed, it should only be to advise p[politicians.

<<I would not want to vote on all bills proposed to the parliament. I do not want to spend the time informing myself as to the merits and demerits of each piece of legislation>>

That's an excellent point, David, but it can be easily solved by a system of proxies. If you are not inclined to vote yourself, then hand over this right (temporarily for a specific vote, for a period of time, or indefinitely, as you wish) to someone you trust - it could be your wife, or a friend who is more interested in politics, or someone who's wisdom you appreciate; and if you don't know or trust anybody better, you can always fall back on your current favourite senator, so for those who want no change, things can remain as they are.

Overall the idea is good, but my concern is about those who do not have or use the internet - surely they cannot be left out, so there should also be other ways to vote, by phone and by visiting a physical location.

<<Or if it wasn’t, we’d very likely get a bias in the number of voters towards those with strong vested interests>>

Which is exactly as it should be - suppose parliament proposed to ear-mark all Jews, then I see nothing wrong with a higher turnout among Jews, who would have an extreme vested interest relative to others who don't really care.

<<but I can’t imagine it would be better for the country or our collective future>>

A "country" and a "collective" are inanimate objects - nothing whatsoever can cause them pain whereas individual people can be hurt very much by legislation. Therefore, leave it to those who are liable to be hurt and should they not care about their inanimate creations, then it would be an indicator that those creations are probably not worth caring for!

Why not simply get rid of the senate?

<<Why not simply get rid of the senate?>>

Because then you are left even more than now at the mercy of whoever is in power in parliament, even more helpless than now against whatever evil decrees they want to make.

now at the mercy of whoever is in power in parliament, helpless now against whatever evil decrees they want to make.

Are you on drugs? And who will ensure the website you visit will be 100% secure? Microsoft perhaps? Or the creators of those infernal voting machines the yanks use that have been shown to be corruptible a thousand times over!

Anything that involves a computer program to this day is not trust worthy, I don't care who programmed it!

But then again we put our trust in models to tell us the climate and form policies on the crap data that comes out of them, so I guess anythings possible in this day and age, what a joke!

What do these comments really mean.

"Why not simply get rid of the senate?" SM

"Just get rid of the senate." Belly

Is it all about democracy? No, its all about get rid of your political enemies, muzzle those contrary voices and have us all singing from the same 'song sheet'. Here in unison we have the conservative right as espoused by SM and my friend from the conservative left Belly singing like two song birds. "Get rid of the Senate la la la." Don't be fooled, what they are really on about is get rid of our political opponents, The Greens, get rid of any dissenting voices, any political opposition. Then we can 'enjoy' a truly dictatorial conservative state.

And how would you vote on the "Government's official stance on the recent incident in Lower Chad"?

Anybody who has listened to entire Senate debates or read Hansard would have a very different view on actual proceedings performed in that chamber.

It's far more than the 20 second media bites or edited highlights broadcast on the ABC and mostly consists of poring over endless and mundane administrative adjustments to existing legislation as well as considering new Bills.

What of those without internet access? Are they no to be longer regarded as citizens? What if somebody wants to challenge a decision because they did not have enough information to be able to cast an informed vote.

We have a representative democracy (dumbocracy) in this country - not some sort of "Dancing with the Stars" phone-in poll system.

Dear Wobbles,

If you have no specific view about Lower Chad, or have insufficient information, then you need not vote about it. Alternately, there should be some proxy mechanism whereby you can pass your vote in the matter to your Lower Chad expert. If you know of no such expert, or trust none, then pass your vote in the matter to your favourite senator.

Thus, you don't need to work harder if you don't want, but those who want can, so there are no losers - only winners!

Paul,

Is the senate about democracy? Not at all. The number of voters per senator in NSW is nearly 10x that of Tasmania, and the senators have double the terms of MPs which mean that 50% of the senators are out of synch with the recent electoral cycle.

On top of that the purpose of the senate is not to create legislation but to protect the vested interests of the states by blocking legislation, or by extracting "sweeteners" or compromises that are often contrary to the interests of Australia as a whole.

The senate is an anachronism whose time has well passed.

Dear SM,

<<The senate is an anachronism whose time has well passed>>

I agree that representing the states is a crude way to represent the people, but at least it is better than nothing!

The senate is there to mitigate the damage of the parliament and this thread discusses whether there are better ways to mitigate that damage.

Ideally, once there is no parliament, then the need would not arise for either a senate or for referendums.

The best is to do away with the commonwealth: why allow a bunch of politicians to control a whole continent, forcing their laws on everyone living in that vast area of land and sea? at least if the units of control were smaller, then if one felt too oppressed in one state, s/he would have the option to move to another where the laws that affect him/her are more relaxed.

"I agree that representing the states is a crude way to represent the people, but at least it is better than nothing!"

Are you kidding me? what is state government for, or local government? The senate is a vestigial undemocratic remnant of state protectionism. The federal elections are based on a representative from each electorate representing them in the best way they can. The senators are not voted for in person, but are appointed by their parties based on allegiance to a voting block.

Senators are yet another drain on the taxpayer, and mostly contribute stuff all.

For the very small %age of people who do not have access to the internet, these people could be given government funded access (if they are that disadvantaged they need assistance anyway) for an insignificant cost compared to senators costs. The remainder could opt in for a chosen representative.

SM,

If I thought you and Belly were genuine in calling for the democratizing of the Senate, then I might entertain what you have to say. I suspect however your calls have nothing to do with democracy but everything to do with getting rid of your political enemies, them troublesome Greens. Why is it 1,800,000 people voted Green in the lower house and The Greens got only 1 seat, that can't be seen as democratic, do you agree? Could replace the Senate with the Gulag.

Paul,

If the lower house was simply first past the post, then the coalition would have walked the last election. The greens vote was expressed as preferences to the Labor party.

A proportional voting system brings out all the fringe elements such as the racists the lunatics etc, and is no surprise that it is the refuge of the Greens.

Why don't we make the senate more democratic and include seats for other marginalised groups such as the criminals and mentally incompetent.

Adam Bandt is a self avowed communist, as is Lee Rhianon, and while the greens occupy a niche position as a protest vote, I doubt that if most of those voting green actually knew what hare brained policies they were voting for that they would do it again.

"Why is it 1,800,000 people voted Green in the lower house and The Greens got only 1 seat, that can't be seen as democratic" sounds even more like evidence for a revised democratic system.

My (and your) political enemies are the politicians themselves, operating in a system that essentially makes them a dictator once in office with little representation of those that put them there. The true opposition is not represented at all.

At least on the bottom of the ballot paper they should have a box "Alternative Democratic System".

"brings out all the fringe elements such as the racists the lunatics etc" too right SM the Mad Monk and his wombat crew almost got into power!
"Adam Bandt is a self avowed communist, as is Lee Rhianon." I don't know Adam Bandt, never met him, but Lee Rhiannon I know quite well, as for your claims Lee is a communist she has never espoused any bolshevik ideas to me, but then again you never know. I always take it with a grain of salt whenever anyone from the extreme right labels a person a 'communist' as they see this as the ultimate vilification, "you communist, you....."
"the greens occupy a niche position as a protest vote," 1,800,000 voters at the last election that is a very big niche SM, I like to think of it as a yawning chasm.
"I doubt that if most of those voting green actually knew what hare brained policies they were voting for that they would do it again."
The only political party in Australia with detailed policies is the Greens. Naturally, any policy to do with equality or social justice you would not agree with and you would view such policies as 'hare brained'. I must say SM, for the life of me, I can not find any Liberal Party policy that is 'hare brained'. In fact I can not find any Liberal Party policy, does it exist or will all be reveled after the next election, assuming they get into power.
SM, comrade, once more I call upon you "Come out of your dark and dingy conservative cave and enjoy the sunshine with us Greens."

There is no doubt that our political system is fractured, but there is nothing to be gained by replacing it with a system that has no chance of ever working effectively.

Given that we presently have a compulsory voting system to elect the principal law-framers, using a purely voluntary process to approve or disapprove their decisions is fundamentally illogical.

Any compulsory system would be comprehensively unworkable. I don't know about you, but I don't even have sufficient time to conduct my own business affairs, let alone give detailed legislation the attention it requires. Result: administrative chaos trying to ensure everyone votes, and a decision that could only be based on the tritest of sound-bites.

The fundamental flaw of a non-compulsory system, on the other hand, would be that it would by definition not reflect the will of the people, which completely negates its purpose.

Paul,

1- Self avowed means that Bandt and Rhianon have declared that they support communism themselves. This is not a liberal label, but one they have made themselves.

2- With 55% of the 2pp vote, the coalition is far from fringe politics. the greens inability to gain a single seat in the lower house makes them the perfect protest vote refuge. PS they got 1,458,982 votes in the lower house not 1,8m. This came almost exclusively from the Labor party.

3- The greens have never bothered to try and cost their policies, so saying that their policies are detailed with out this is a joke.

SM,

I stand corrected 1.8 million votes is a yawning chasm, 1.4 million votes is a niche.
"With 55% of the 2pp vote," at what election did your party achieve this 55%, or have you dispensed with elections and some poll conducted by one of Rupert's chip wrappers is all that's need to determine who governs the country. Sorry, Rupert's been sent to the naughty corner has he not. After all that's been going on at Rupert's chip wrappers I would not rely on anything they say.
The conservatives are past masters at making promises without telling the voters where the moneys coming from. Then again the coalition under Howard had the famous core and non core promises "so saying that their policies are detailed with out this (core and non core rubbish) is a joke."
When will you point me to Liberal Party policies? They are the joke. they want power without saying what they will do when given that power.

Paul,

You have not been corrected sufficiently. Newspoll is not owned or managed by Newscorp. Newscorp have purchased the publishing rights for its political polling, as has Fairfax for the Galaxy results. On top of this Newspoll has consistently been shown to represent current opinion more closely than anyone else, predicting voting patterns within 1% in all recent elections. If you want to bury your head in the sand and believe that nothing has changed since August 2010, then I feel sorry for you. That all the polls that have nothing whatsoever with Newscorp give similar results should rub more salt into your delusion.

The Liberals stands on policy issues are clear on their website. For example, they intend to revoke the carbon tax, the costing for this will depend on how long it takes for Australia to be rid of Labor, and begin to undo the damage.

P.S. Was Labor's promise of No Carbon Tax a core or non core Lie?

SM,

I visited the Liberal Party web site and checked on 'policy'. The so called policy is mostly nothing more than a philosophical diatribe followed by attacks on the Labor Party.
After getting rid of the conservative virus on my 'puter I had another go, The Liberals claim to be economic gurus, I visited their 'web site' again this is their economic plan.

1. Get Labor’s debt under control as quickly as possible. ( How long will this take 1 year 25 years does not say)

2. Sell Medibank Private. (How predictable look after our mates by selling another juicy plumb at a fire sale price)

3. Ending Labor’s waste. (General attack on the Labor Party)

4. Stop Labor’s higher taxes, (On who, big miners, big polluters and big Business. (In that way, our mates will be well cashed up to buy them juicy plumbs at the fire sale.)

Then the 'policy' goes on and on attacking the Labor Party. (Ho hum)

SM, if looking after 0.001% of the population with fire sales and big tax cuts along with attacking the Labor Party is the recipe for economic success the the Liberal Party are indeed true economic gurus,

And I'm not even an ALP supporter! I need a lough. Think I'll wander down to McDonalds and pick up a free copy of Rupert's chip wrapper 'The Daily Telecrap' and read the joke of the day The Piers Akerman column, another diatribe of attacking the Labor Party no doubt. Rupert and his rags are so predictable. Should rename his company to 'NOnewscorp'.

Paul1405 & others who ask to see Liberal policiea and suggest they have none - check out their website. Admittedly, they are dated as of the last general election but that's rather the point.

To address the original post, phooey - I'm reminded of a little-know British film from 1970 with Peter Cook in the eponymous role - "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer". I recognised it as brilliant and frigtening satire even as a youngster at the time. Spoiler follows:

Basically, the fellow gets elected as PM with the promise that the people will have a say in every decision made and installs flashing lights & sirens on all TV's to announce a decision and vote requirement. Everyone gets sick of this quickly and the last referendum is to have no more say! The PM essentially becomes ultimate ruler with full "executive" powers.

Be very careful what you wish for.

Paul,

Next time spend more than 5 minutes skimming one article.

My contention is that the senate contributes pretty close to nothing to Australian society, and can dispensed of without any impact on our democracy. Your contention is that it is needed to keep the greens employed?

SM,

As I stated earlier if I thought your 'get rid of the senate' line was driven by your desire for a truly democratic system, then I would entertain the notion that the senate is an anachronism with no true democratic base. rather I consider your motive has nothing to do with democracy but more to do with short term political advantage, that is get rid of those pesky Greens.
You did not answer my question with 1.4 million votes should a party have only 1 rep in the lower house? That is people who voted to have the Greens represent them in parliament not the Labor Party as you would have it.
p/s I don't know if you were around in the good old days of Australian democracy when your party who were in the minority used the senate to have a legally elected government dismissed by a non elected person. If you were around in those days I suspect you were all in favor of senate action (2 members of the senate then were unelected as well). Can't have your cake and eat it to. Again Rupert's NOnewspapers had a lot to do with that.

" with 1.4 million votes should a party have only 1 rep in the lower house?"

If their votes are spread thin enough not to get sufficient to get a candidate through in another electorate? ABSOLUTELY. Note that the greens vote was sufficient on preferences to get many Labor MPs in that would not have under the Westminster system. Is our system not democratic, or does it simply not suit fringe parties like the greens?

Would you prefer the proportional vote system, where you vote for a party not a person, as in Italy, where it has been an abject failure?

Then if one party gets 10% of the vote, is it democratic that they get to pass 10% of the legislation?