subvert democracy. they all seek to limit the free expression of a citizen's participation in the direction of the nation. in reality, they all become gangs, a tool to provide logistical support to the grandees who enjoy the perks and emoluments of parliament, and the ego satisfaction of ruling a state or nation.

supporting a party is handing over to others your right to participate as an equal. you support a party when you accept that you are inferior, and can best survive by catching the scraps your masters throw to their henchmen. it is essentially a feudal relationship.

life is what it is, and there is no great shame in accepting reality. the only shame comes when people who know they are second class insist on styling themselves 'citizens' of a 'democracy'. empty boasting is always derided, or despised. the cultural cringe of australians comes from always fearing their boast will be exposed, or remarked on.

Reading this post, I at first applauded his conviction; no letter shall stand over any other letter, true democracy tolerates no self aggrandisement, the capital letter is a tool of the ruling hegemony.

Alas, our poster has monopolised the capital for himself.

Revolutionary has become tyrant?

pal, you read it, at least. do you have any observations regarding the accuracy of my (thumbnail) assessment of oz political evolution? i've been asking questions and making similar assertions for some time now, and have never had any argument. apparently,if you're smart enough to understand me, you're smart enough to suspect i'm right.

no one likes to hear it of course. but while i was willing to smile and shake my head about 'oz democracy' for a long time, your masters are beginning to make people disappear. that isn't amusing. what are you going to do about it? perhaps you're one of those who see no problem, as long as your masters confine their police-state attitudes and activities to terrorists.

if, on the other hand, you're worried about just who is a terrorist and how they are chosen- what can you do? join 'getup! and prance around the street? that's about it. protests are not useless, but when the opposition doesn't oppose police state activity, protests chiefly act as a way to get people on 'undesirable' lists.

if you are blinded by culture to the value of democracy, why do you express your opinions at all? don't you see any value in having citizen initiative and direct elections?

Demos, after reading several of your new threads and taking you up on some of your comments, I still really don’t understand where you are coming from.

Surely a properly functioning democracy, or any political or governmental system for that matter, MUST have a government, with politicians, who are empowered to make decisions for us and who cannot be expected to be perfect.

Surely democracy needs opposing parties that compete with each other to be elected and then hold each other to account.

Again I need clarification of just what it is you are on about…please

We have more than enough mechanisms in place to prevent political parties from successfully subverting democracy. We have political parties because people generally trust those institutions more than independent candidates, which is not unreasonable. That's democracy for you.

We have a constitutionally corrupt and inept Governor General

We have a constitutionally corrupt and inept Electoral Commission

We have constitutionally corrupt and inept Politicians

So democracy No!

What we have is Political Dictatorship.

The Constitution is there

The Constitutional Debates are there for those who want to know.

These can be found at parliament house home page.

Within these debates are the answers and the reasons behind the Constitution.

Now if those on this site are to inept to look then you are at fault.

I'm going to be running as an independent in NSW for the Senate, and I'm interested in furthering this conversation.

I've decided to run as an independent, not because I think the party system is inherently corrupt (though some of its players may be) but because I don't see a party that represents my world view.

I am under no illusion as to the chances I have, or the effectiveness I will have if by some miracle I am elected but the balance of power is held by either of the major parties. At the worst I can be voice for those who don't feel they have one in the parliament.

Well James

I will be running as an independent for the house of reps.

I had been working on a new party which is for the people and the party the best way to say would be a collective of independents.

Not to worry about that now.

My email is swulrich@bigpond.net.au if you wish to talk more.

Stu

So Demos I’m also not sure what you are saying. And we in Australia have a word for those who have the temerity to suggest that they are smarter than everyone else. I wonder if you are advocating direct democracy or just plain old anarchy?

If it really needed to be made any more clear why citizens don’t have a vote on absolutely every law and motion I can help you out.

If anyone could put up a law/motion and everybody had to vote on it, no one would have time to even breathe.

Second the direction of the nation would be totally unpredictable as the average person has the attention span of a small child. Just look at how popular big brother is. Depending upon who voted that day policies would be reversed and then reversed again.

Third, as a nation we would be total reactionaries, since only those things that were of current concern would ever get recognition. I think that those for whom you weep, like terrorist suspects, would get an even worse reception than they currently get. Are Osama Bin Laden, Mohammed Atta and Amorosi patsies chosen by the west?

Fourth if we had no representatives, no group action could ever be undertaken, like policing, utilities such as gas and water and electricity as there would be no one to organise them

I could go on but I realise that I am wasting my time. It is clear that you have never lived anywhere that your rights really were curtailed. That you could even pretend to compare Australia with a police state indicates this.

If your advocating anarchy then you shouldn’t even be using the web since it is clearly a restriction on the manner in which you communicate

A properly functioning democratic governmental system is likely to have a government made up of persons delegated to make decisions on issues for us; However such representation is pointless whilst we are unable to instruct our representatives from time to time on specific issues.

Lack of committment amongst our politicians towards democracy and democratic process is clear where such contentious issues are NOT presented on ballot papers for citizens to decide the issue.

Is rubbish to suggest voting for a candidate to represent you for three years is the same as voting to determine a particular issue.

Contentious issues, as arise from time to time are such as involvment in Vietnam or Iraq, conscription, sale of Telstra1/2/3, development of nuclear power stations...

Takes only one determined House of the Parliament - Reps or Senate, to force an issue to ballot paper for the electorate to determine, yet rarely is it exercised.

Most likely reason is our politicians not wishing to be bound by any instructions except those that suit them...

.

Who decides what a contentious issue is? Everything is contentious to someone as evidenced in this discussion and others on OLO.

What about when an issue is voted up but only a quarter of the people voted. When everyone else finds out should it be revoted on? I mean they might say the voting was contentious.

How do we deal with everyone else in the world. Do we say, well we can't really give you an answer on that; we have to poll the people.

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to ask the people for every single descision.

No one could deal with the gov't since it is entirelyly possible that the people will just change their mind in the meantime.

Populism would rule the day. politicians are populist enough without having to pander to an ill informed public on a daily basis.

I mean politicians get full briefings on issues. The public would need real briefings if they were to make an informed choice. People wouldn't have time for anything else in that situation

James what do you think of this party:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/sustainability-party.html

Who decides what a contentious issue is ?

A good question, what answer do you suggest ?

The Australian Constitution s.128 enables a single House of the Parliament pass a bill to send an issue back to the people.

Sending to voters issues not regarded as important enough, likely people express displeasure clearly, including not voting for their re-election.

Weakness is absence of procedure for The People to get an issue onto the ballot paper without support of politicians.

A procedure likely require say at least 10% of enrolled voters to demonstrate support for ballot through signing petition, then signatures and process checked for accuracy, before accepted to place an issue on the ballot paper.

Works ok elsewhere like that.

Is ability have issues placed on ballot paper for resolution which encourages political parties work out solutions between themselves, they prefer so rather than have voters impose solutions on them.

Ability to present an issue on ballot paper for resolution does not automatically produce over usage of the process.

.

First of all one has to get back to basics, and explain the 'Magna Carta'as it stood to everyone and whoever wants to enter this country Second we should create our own Constitution with the name of the Queen scrapped out of all articles.Thirdly we should vote for the party (at this point) who promises to write up the Constitution with each seperate article to brought before the people to vote on.If people are found NOT to voting on each (or bundle) article one forfeit ones right to vote in future and have a 200 dollar fine to boot.All state borders need to be scrapped. No blank checks should be handed to whoever is voted in for the position of Prime Minister.

DEMOS WHERE ARE YOU??

Are you not even monitoring your own thread? Or is the question I ask too hard? I notice you have posted away to your heart’s content elsewhere on this forum

Perhaps go read up about attempt to ban Communist Party in Australia, the ban rejected by the High Court, then by the People when Constitutional Referenda was conducted.

Politicians like to think they are smarter than the voters... so know better...

.