Ok. I know I'm asking have my nose bitten off on this one, but what I don't want is outrageous vilification of the Australian Democrats, rather, an open debate on just how the Democrats might again take the mantle of "keeping the bastards honest."
Lets remember that we all have our own axe to grind with the Democrats including the GST fiasco, but at the moment, the Australian press would have us believe it's a two horse race to the polls later in the year and that so far, the Rudd nag has it's head in front by a mile. Perhaps, by taking stock of our choice between two equally oppressive parties, together we can come up with some ideas that, if adopted by another party, may go some distance towards creating the viable and visionary political party which is so desperately required in this country.

aime, a political party is not an association of saints. it's a group of people who want to direct the state/nation in a way that suits themselves. looking for a 'good' one is as naive as looking for a 'good' crocodile.

the only way to make the policies of the state/nation benefit the majority of the people, is to decide the policies by the majority of the people. it's called democracy.

if you don't want democracy, then you do want to be ruled by a small group of people who are looking out for them selves. lucky you, that's what you've got. why are you complaining? is it because your small group is not in charge? then change groups, be a labor politician, or liberal, they're interchangeable.

aime, bad news: to have a good society, you need good citizens.

Demos, I'm not complaining, nor do I belong to a small group. I've read many of your posts in relation to your ideas of democracy and agree to many of them in principle, but I'm also a very practical person.
Australians go to the polls later this year and yes, I wish the silly old bugger would tell us all exactly when, but we'll be going to the polls with the usual suspects as regards to politicians. That's not going to change in time for this election, nor will it change in the foreseeable future. No matter what you might wish for, Australians simply will not change en mass.
Therefore, isn't it allowable that those who make up the small proportion of swinging voters actually to see all cards on the table before they vote? Hence my question, from an uneducated point of view, what's wrong with the Democrats? If that question cannot be answered, then I would take that as a very good reason to vote for them since nobody was able to tell me why I shouldn't.
So, ok Demos, what's wrong with the democrats?

Two problems happened with the Democrats. One is "fence jumping". If you remember, Cheryl Kernot fell for former ALP Foreign Affairs minister: Gareth Evans. Fence jumping over consistency made people suspicious about what kind of people the Democrats were. Were they honestly keeping the Bastards honest as they claimed, or where they sleeping with them? The Democrats starting losing ground then.

Then came Meg Lees. What a whip-dang of an inspiration she was. The image of Mrs Doubtfire in American Gothic and the ethics of a ferret.

With personalities aside the a turning came finding the balance between good policy, good politics and a strong example. The Greens are stumbling on this one with their drug policy as they want to "grow" to significance making "responsible" decisions.

Meg Lees thought she was making a "responsible" decision in voting for a GST. In reality, the only parties that need to make "responsible" decisions are those in Government. The minor parties are left with their policies, good politics which means consistency, and setting an example.

Andrew Bartlet did not set a good example when he had a drinking problem. He poked a woman in the back. Not a good look in Parliament.

There is lots of door knocking, demonstrations carrying cards, rallying, lobbying, advocacy, bla bla bla before you can convince people that the Democrats can make the difference. There is only one way and that is the hard way.

Some have to get their hands into the ground and mix with the locals, particularly in local Government. This is one of the strengths in the Greens. They do well in local Government.

The Deomocrats have some good people who are very intelligent. Andrew Bartlet is brilliant in intellect and so is Natasha Stot Despoia. (how do you spell that name?). In NSW Chesterfield-Evans was academically dynamic, brilliant in philosophy but on his feet, sluggish to say the least.

They did sprout from the Liberals, but it is a shame that there is no rage against the dying of the light.

No nothing wrong they are just dead not to rise again, self inflicted wounds.
Poor leaders no direction sad but there is no after life for them without leadership.

The Democrats failed to keep the bastards honest.

Failure use Constitution s128 force contentious issues to Australian voters for them to decide as should occur when politicians disagree.

Democrats failed take ALP opposition several policies to force relevant substantive issues with s128 ballot papers for Australians to decide.

Constitution s128 gives EITHER Senate OR House of Representatives, despite lack of support, despite opposition, from other House power ask Governor-General present Bills to voters for decision:

Section 128
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter8.htm

Australian Democrats refused, failed, exercise their numbers, their swinging votes, to force issues onto ballot, eg Telstra,Iraq, other issues.

Democrat failure to demand presenting s128 questions to resolve serious issues questions sincerity of claimed committment to accountability, to keeping the bastards honest.

Essential if you believe Sovereign Power does belong to the people.

At Federation state support for creation of Commonwealth required our Constitution include s.128 as protection of rights of states.

Many state rights ideas Commonwealth with assistance from High Court has certainly trimmed - to date.

Yet Senate was and remains a House designed to protect states insterests. Federation expected conflicts between Senate and House of Representatives.

Australian Constitutional system created with checks and balances, s128 tool available to either House, Senate or Representatives, to force resolution of any conflict, by means of demanding clear demonstration support, or rejection, from Australian voters with protection of double majority of voters and States.

s128 far clearer demonstration than claimed support for principles of a party chosen to govern.

Sure Governor-General could refuse s128 request, and be treated worse than Sir John Kerr.

Rejecting bill requiring ballot resolution of an issue creates far more serious Constitutional issue, as s128 present for purpose of resolving House disagreements, conflicts through voting by Australian People as The Sovereign Power of Australia to resolve.

Any High Court responce to whichever House of Parliament came arguing against such voting would be very interesting reading... rejection of such vote perhaps announce time for revolution not evolution !