Don't you mean more representative of *your* community? Tell us what your community is, and you'll have your answer.

Incidentally, the correct name for the "organisation" whose goal it is to influence elections is "political party". Why not start calling things by their correct names?

Rhian,

Apart from confusing Liberal with small 'l' liberal (which is socialism), you don't seem to understand how liberal the Menzies breakaway from the Nationalists was, for the times, anyway.

Times change, and as a conservative myself, I have often thought that the party should change its name - after all, it is meant to be more conservative than the alternative. But, despite your opinion, it is not anymore. The last fairly conservative Coalition government was that of the John Howard, and we were all better off than we had been for decades.

Now, with people like Hockey, Turnbull, Pyne and many of the backbenchers who's names are not worth knowing, there is hardly a hair between them and the Labor Party. Even Abbott is not a conservative in any real sense of the word. You clearly don't like the Coalition, but don't blame conservatism: just call them incompetent, which is what they are.

The likelihood of any group such as you suggest representing most people is nil (just like all political parties): and that's what your group would be. Just saying politicians should be representing us in the literal meaning of the word doesn't mean a thing. You might be the only person living who believes what you believe.

The only way to get MORE and different views over is via multi-representative electorates. Then you would get all sorts of ratbags represent a few ratbags. We have a enough trouble with the Greens as it is, thankyou. Apart from the hideous thought of more Green-like snouts in the trough, just think of the size the trough would grow to at our expense.

There also the idea of Citizen Initiated Referenda which raises its head periodically and is ignored and sneered at by politicians. Can you really imagine Australian politicians sharing power with us?

Forget it. Get a hobby.

Hi ttbn

I was being a little facetious, but I’m willing to accept that Menzies was a small-l liberal.

“Liberal” is a term that has different meanings, but I associate it with the Mill traditions of respect for individual liberty and self-ownership, tempered by respect for others’ needs and liberties. That is very different to socialism.

I have no strong aversion to, or affiliation with, any political party or group. I think of myself as a small-l liberal, which means I tend to agree with the left on issues like asylum seekers and gay marriage, and the right on issues like free trade and fiscal management.

The Liberal Party is a coalition of conservatives and liberals, but to my mind the conservatives have been in the ascendency in recent years, and the liberals have all but disappeared. Turnbull and a few of the backbenchers are all that’s left.

If you don’t think Abbott is a conservative, what label would you give him?

//Apart from confusing Liberal with small 'l' liberal (which is socialism)//

No it isn't. The philosophy of liberalism was developed well before the philosophy of socialism, and classic liberal philosophers like John Locke and J.S. Mill did not espouse a philosophy that looks anything like that of Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels. Just because liberals and socialists are both to the left of conservatives doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Rhian and PaulMurrayCbr, it is quite clear what Searching1 means by "more representative of the community" as Direct Democracy is one of the proposed names.

What you fear is that direct democracy won't "represent" your "community" (i.e. arrogant smirking know-it-alls).

A name like Direct Democracy is precise, but only those familiar with the term would immediately comprehend its meaning.

You may need something with the words "People/You/Australians" and "vote" in it. Keep it simple and obvious.

The People Vote, You Vote, Australians Vote?

You must also be careful to never advocate any particular policy (e.g. boat people, gay marriage, capital punishment).
Your *only* policy is that the people decide.

MPs should only exist to technically *implement* the choices of the people, not make those choices for them.

The question is the direct democracy procedure.
Done through the internet, it would be cost-efficient, but not by paper ballots (expensive and tediously time consuming when millions are voting).

A way to avoid voting fatigue could be initial "random representation" ballots.
Rather than millions needing to vote on everything, you do a random sample first (e.g. 10,000) just to ask *if* a full vote should even happen.

Of course the arrogant smirking know-it-alls will inevitably complain that this random sample may not be "representative" and derail their smug utopian agenda.