a genuine democracy would look like this:

it has a constitution that describes the way the nation works, whose every individual element has been supported by a majority of the electorate. this sets the limits, within which officers of state must work. in particular, there is a 'bill of rights' whose function is to allow people to live together peacefully by separating out the areas of life where diversity must be tolerated and the state must not go.

one element would be the establishment of citizen initiative power as the sovereign law. this protects against rogue ministers, and changing circumstances.

the ministries of state would be directed by persons elected directly by the citizens. this will get ministers with a track record of achievement, it will create a public record of what an aspirant minister plans to achieve, it will tell the electorate what his/her plans will cost. the activities of every ministry will be public, so the citizens can know they are getting what they voted for.

there is nothing new or experimental in any of this, california and switzerland have been doing things in similar fashion for a long time. by no coincidence, they are prosperous and peaceful. in fact, all the roughly half of the american states that have citizen participation are characterized by financial efficiency: government by referendum is cheaper than allowing pollies to cook the books.

This is an interesting approach Demos – frequently starting new threads on just about the same subject, while abandoning old ones that you have started even when posters are calling for you to respond http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=831#14545

I want to support your ideas Demos. I want to see true democracy as much as you do. But there are some fundamental problems:

“…whose every individual element has been supported by a majority of the electorate.”

I can’t agree. For this to be the right approach, you would have to assume that the constituency is close to 100% right all the time in its collective decision-making.

But they clearly aren’t. With the combination of short-term vested interests, apathy and lack of knowledge of the issues, the wrong decisions would get made to probably an even greater extent than with the current system.

Sorry, but citizen-initiated referenda or community consultation / voting on every issue just isn’t the answer. On some issues, if sufficient interest can be roused, maybe.

What we need is a strong government that is unbiased by big business or by the short-term desires of the majority of the community or by the need to show short-term results so that it can win re-election, and which has no other agenda but to make the right decisions for our medium and long-term future wellbeing.

DEMOS self confedence is often miss placed.
Your view is somewhat different than about 80% of the population me included.

ludwig, i prefer to offer ideas, not argue.

the notion that there is some 'group' of people better fitted to make decisions than the people is an ancient one. politicians agree with you, and go on to say: "and now it's us."

there is no such group, and your argument is exploded by the existence of peaceful and prosperous societies such as switzerland. democracy is possible, democratic societies are not perfect, but better: they are founded on the notion of citizen equality, while you are rewriting a call of submission to aristocracy.

go on your way in peace, ludwig, but i have little patience for children in search of a fairy godmother. oz needs democracy, if we are to stop looting our corner of the planet, and stop participating in america's determination to loot other people's corners.

i'll say more on this idea in future, and how to get there if anyone shows interest. but don't tell me it won't work. it has worked. i suspect ozzies are frightened of being responsible for their nation's future, but like teenagers everywhere, you have have grow up if you want to be a grown-up.

ok, soap box is open, put your two cents in, everyone.

“ludwig, i prefer to offer ideas, not argue.”

Demos; clarification, more information, a bit of substance behind the broad-brush objectives. This is what I was after in your previous thread, which you have apparently resolved not to respond despite my direct question and then follow-up request for you to do so. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=831#14330

If a discussion turns acrimonious or circular, then by all means leave it alone. But to abandon it at the point of a simple request for clarification is indeed odd. It really doesn’t do your credibility any good at all.

Afterall, there are millions of people who basically desire what you do in regards to true democracy. But how we may achieve it needs a lot of discussion, going into considerable detail. Simply offering very broad ideas doesn’t get us very far at all.

“the notion that there is some 'group' of people better fitted to make decisions than the people is an ancient one”. “there is no such group”.

Of course there is. At all sorts of levels. This is exactly why you are calling for ministers to be elected from a pool of applicants that have demonstrated skills and experience in the relevant field, instead of the silly current system of shuffling people into ministries in which they may have absolutely no knowledge, let alone expertise.

Every organisation of more than a handful of people needs a decision-maker or decision-making authority.

You can argue for a better input from the constituency. But you surely cannot argue for the abandonment of a governing body, or the reduction of such a body to mere administrative duties, with all decisions being made by constituent consensus.

You seem to have this terrible hang-up about the very existence of politicians or governments or any sort of ruling authority. This is exactly what I don’t understand and was seeking clarification from you over.

How can you define the role of each minister by way of constitution? Every issue will cross at least two ministries. What if one minister is elected on a platform of promising to spend money on something while the treasurer is elected on promises to reduce spending?

Demos said “I have little patience for children in search of a fairy godmother” yet he clearly believes in fairytales. You still haven’t answered my questions on who decides what issues are important enough to hold referendum on, or does every issue need a referendum.

You said “one element would be the establishment of citizen initiative power as the sovereign law. this protects against rogue ministers, and changing circumstances.” This is really a fairy tale idea. Everyone knows that the media has control over the short term issues which affect us. Whatever the media directs its attention to becomes THE important issue for that news cycle. Weeks later the issue is as dead as a dodo. No gov’t can effectively plan for the future, if at any time, their decisions can be overruled by the public. TV would be completely dominated by the political advertising of lobbyers of all persuasions. Looking at the polling data for politicians shows that we would have had hundreds of changes of office over the last ten years if we voted whenever the majority changed.

And as for it having worked in Switzerland, that’s a terrible argument. The Swiss are prosperous because they have used their neutrality to make themselves very rich off the blood of others. During the scourge of two world wars including Nazism, the Swiss maintained their neutrality. Acts of gross neglect. They have virtually no armed forces as they expect others to maintain stability in their region. The Swiss are the worst example of a modern prosperous democracy I can think of

suppose each would-be minister put his/her plan before the electorate, in great detail: activities, staff, and budget. the electorate selects one, through preference voting. the activities of the ministry commence and continue in public, so the electorate can be confident they are getting what they voted for, and that the money they allocated to this ministry by electing this minister is being spent as it should be.

compare this state of affairs with what we've got.

the various ministries will run the nation pretty much as they do today. but they will be carrying out the will of the people of australia, instead of advancing their careers by secret deals with corporations and foreign nations.

the need for citizen initiative is this: to establish the framework of the nation, within which ministries must shape themselves. it is the fundamental expression of democracy that the people in electoral assembly are the masters of their nation and directors of their destiny. once the ground rules are in place, there will be little need for citizen initiative: would-be ministers will shape their plans to public requirements through polling.

how to get there from here? that's not so hard as you may imagine, but i've alluded to the basic plan before and discovered vast indifference, so my next exposition will have to wait for an attack of hope, or at least energy.

if you're interested, keep your eyes open for 'democracy1.2'

if you have said: "it can't be done" , in the face of the reality that it has been done quite successfully, i am unable to offer stronger arguments than reality.

if you have said: "it shouldn't be done", you can explain why. but i may not reply. my purpose is not to actively press change on the minds of people here, so much as to offer an alternative view of how oz can be. i hope that will lead some people to agree with me, out of their own analysis, with the goal of establishing democracy in australia.

But the plan relies on the public paying far more attention and being far more informed. A system that only works well under those conditions will not necessarily create those conditions. A more active public would create just as much good within the current system.

What do you think of the idea of voting by delegable proxy?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html#direct-democracy

It would allow far more intervention by members of the public in whatever issue they are interested in, but would also allow for representation of the disinterested by someone they trust to make decisions for them.

I think freediver is right;

“… the (Demos’) plan relies on the public paying far more attention and being far more informed. A system that only works well under those conditions will not necessarily create those conditions. A more active public would create just as much good within the current system.”

Any system that requires a majority vote from the public or a considerably larger input from the community would be plagued by a lack of properly considered opinion and hence a thoughtfully allocated vote from a large section of the voter base. The vast majority of people wouldn’t give a hoot about a particular referendum subject or a particular ministry that they might be compelled to vote on. Even if voting was made voluntary, we would still have the problem of those with vested interests voting while those without wouldn’t bother to vote to anywhere near the same extent.

Unfortunately it seems that our current system is pretty good, when we really stop and think about how it might be improved in practical and not just theoretical terms.

Of course we do need a much better balance towards the longer term security of society and quality of life and away from the short-term unsustainable stuff-the-future approach. But empowering the general community to a level considerably greater than at present, or compelling them to have a much larger part to play, is not likely to be the answer.

it's still: "we don't do it, so it can't be done. and shouldn't be done. and she'll be right."

i've put up a quick look at how to do it on www.democracy1point1.blog.com, just in case there are some free spirits lurking in the wings.

if it's any comfort, i get the same level of analysis from 'doctors of philosphy.' and it's not just oz- brits generally get wall-eyed and restive about self determination. 900 years of forelock tugging may have had a genetic result.

Demos

Freediver and I have made a very significant point – there is just about no point in changing our political structure in favour of greater citizen input until we improve the level of political interest in the populace…. and get past the short-term vested interest factor.

You haven’t addressed this at all. There is nothing on your blog that addresses it either, as far as I can see.

You can call us ‘she’ll be righters’ if you like. But you’d be wrong. Like you we desperately want to see improvements in governance.

You seem to be a classic avoider of the issues….. or difficult aspect of the issues that you have brought to us and sought responses to!

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; you have a very odd approach indeed. And one that is quite frustrating I must say.

In addition to what I posted above, effective government requires a team effort, not a dozen different people trying to do a dozen different things at once, with conflicting agendas. Government cannot be neatly packaged up into a few different ministries operating independently. Once of the greatest frustrations in dealing with beuracracy is having different branches of government not working in unison with the others. The last thing you want to do is put people with different agendas in charge of each beuracracy. Every real issue crosses several ministries, and you want to have a team that can work through each issue and agree on something, not a dozen individuals with their own reasons for preventing an effective solution. All you will end up with is diffusion of responsibility. Imagine the problems in trying to get Victoria and the federal government to agree on a plan for the Murray, then times that by 10.

Demos, I understand where you're comming from.Both nitpickers above wouldn't know what you are talking about.I agree with you about a true blue australian constitution, made by the people for the people.
As I have mentioned before in one of my previous posts, action is required by some very knowlegeable people who could splice the existing Australian constitution act from mother England. If anyone could sometimes listen to Dr.J.Toscano at 3cr 855am on your dial at 10am-11am every wednesday,then figure out together how to put true democracy in practice. Be however prepared to be called an anarchist.(which in political terms means :without a ruler) To frame your mind around rulers, look at history what rulers stood for and applied to their citizens it will shock anyone to bits.The freedoms of the masses
where always diminished, like what we can see in the US Europe and here in OZ.Here are plenty of good brains with outside influence from past regime experiments and experiences to be tapped for the benefit of people and this planet.It is after all the IDEA'S people who will make the difference so if I was you I could not give a sh.. what some blogmembers say about yours.They seem to be like sheep who could not look further than their own flock, getting personal to boot!

effy, Ludwig the “nitpicker” is undertaking just the sort of discussion that Demos would have me conduct, or anyone else who starts a thread on this forum for that matter.

You have to expect difficult questions to be asked or clarity to be sought. What else would you expect? For me to just say ‘yes Demos, it’s all good Demos, three bags full Demos’.

You also have to expect a bit of frustration to be expressed when the discussion instigator doesn’t respond, or responds in issue-avoiding riddles.

I’ve taken up this subject at the broadest possible level, by questioning the effectiveness of any form of improved community input while the community remains by and large disinterested or vested-interest-oriented. This is hardly nitpicking at some minor detail is it.

Perhaps you would like to proffer a solution to this dilemma.

Maybe it's one of those things that's only true if you really believe in it.

Ludwig I see that you are taking it personally too.
Well now..as I see this forum as a debating tool with "think tank" capabilities one would expect some serious input to expand on in a positive manner, not in a criticizing way as to make the initiator of that thought feel unimportant as so often is the case in this forum.
It would be better to build on one's ideas and possible look for bag number 4 to fill.

Far from wishing to make the thread initiator feel ‘unimportant’, I wish to engage him in a positive manner and explore the ideas put forward. But he just won’t be in it.

He has obviously moved on from this thread, and will presumably soon start another one on just about the same subject, where someone else will ask a hard question, which will go unanswered……………and so on.

I’ve never struck anything like it before on this or any forum.

We wouldn't bother criticising the idea if we didn't think it was important. The trick is not to take it personally. Ideas only grow stronger if subject to criticism, otherwise they just drift from reality.

Well I for one think this is a pretty interesting thread, with or without Demos. Even if Demos broad proposal is, IMHO, a little utopian, it is definitly a good starting point to any discussion on an alternative, more democratic system than our present one.

IMHO the real problem is that "the people," otherwise known as the electorate, are really just a giant committee, and committee's are hopeless at dealing with complex issues.

Yes you can ask the electorate to vote yes, or no on an issue and we can be sure to get an answer that truly reflects the majority will. Anything more complex often produces uncertain results. Take electoral systems used throughout the 'democratic' world. The "committee" is asked to choose between a number of candites (usually more than two). The result of an election would often depend on what electoral system is used (ie "first past the post", a prefernce system, runnoffs, etc). In such cases the elected official cannot be said to have been unambiguously endorsed by the electorate.

This appears to be an inherent limit on how electoral systems can be applied to executive decision making, or even the election of people to positions involving complex decision making. If a real solution to this problem could be found, then much of what Demos seems to envisage would be functionally possible.

Any ideas?

Part 1 - With respect, all the comments are wrong. Demo means the people, Kratos means strength, power. Kratein means to rule.

From this comes the definition - "Democracy, the form of government in which the Soverign Supreme power is vested in the Common People; the emancipation and ethos of society produced by the power of Juries of ordinary citizens in Trial by Jury, to vet, make, decide and enforce the law; the people rule"

Democracy is in fact the ability of the people to use Trial by Jury to make decisions for the Common People of the society.

Government are servants who are meant to govern under "peace, order and good, government" making, administering and policing rules for the people. A proper "democratic" government, then calls on a citizen's jury to judge the new laws. The juries decision then either allows the law to proceed or it is removed. In the event a citizen disagrees with that law, the jury then listens to the case and makes a judgment which is binding. Remember the jury members were originally called judges.

In a proper democracy, there are no precedents, no High court decisions, no facts withheld in a case, or whatever. Each and every case stands on its own and is decided by a jury of the defendants peers, excluding any government employee (including the judge), family members and anyone who would benefit from the resulting decision.

Part 2 - Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the voting structure which in fact, is biased against a section of the community in its result of allowing a majority to rule over the minority. Voting is called suffrage. Politicians use the term democracy wrongly to remove our understanding of its truth, and to allow it to be used to incorrectly support "mandates" and such. If you think about it, a majority rules vote is clearly an undemocratic process if it refuses to allow an individual to protest the result on a personal level via a Trial by Jury.

Australian government's, both Fed and state have removed democracy from our court system by either refusing an individual his Constitutionally protected right to a Trial by Jury, or stating that it is not part of civil law structure.

Civil law is not recognized under the Common Law of our Constitution and the High court has declared that no court, commission, panel, board, etc except a Chapter III court (local, district, supreme, federal and High) can legally make a judicial decisions over any issue. Only the Criminal law can and should punish a citizen under the Australian Constitution.

Without Trial by jury for every situation, Australia does not operate under a democracy.

Kalin

The electorate is fair bit different to a committee in a couple of ways;

Firstly, a large portion are disinterested in having any input into a referendum or other political decision-making process or researching sufficient information to make a balanced decision about a particular issue.

Secondly, many would vote with a strong what’s-in-it-for-me-in-the-short-term motivation, whereas most committee members would (presumably) vote for improvements on a basis greater than their personal level.

So empowering the public to make decisions to a significantly greater extent than at present would probably be much worse than forming committees to research issues and make decisions.

-
I don’t think that unambiguous endorsement of a winning candidate is necessary. This is only possible with 100% support is it not? Or do we consider anything over 50% to be sufficient? If there are say eight candidates and the winner gets only 20%, does it matter any more than a winning candidate in a two-horse race getting 60% of the vote? I can’t see that it does.

What does matter is that the voting system is fair and that the most favoured candidate wins. This means ditching the god-awful compulsory preferential system that we have in Australia at the federal level and in some states and replacing it with the optional preferential system.

“If a real solution to this problem could be found, then much of what Demos seems to envisage would be functionally possible.”

I am not understanding this. A candidate that wins with 80% is not necessarily any better at decision-making or at keeping the constituency onside than one that wins with 20%.

SuziQ

Part 1

Here are the definitions I found for Democracy. I did not find one which mentioned juries. If you are not a lawyer you are missing out on a life of pointless hair splitting which it seems you might be good at.

Democracy is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm

Liberal democracy is a representative democracy along with the protection of minorities, the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of liberties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/democracy

a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democracy

"[T]he democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote."
http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/democracy.htm

Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege. http://www.icele.org/site/scripts/news_article.php?newsID=137

The system we live under is more appropriately called a liberal democracy

Democracy is the rule of the people and there is no better way of understanding the will of the people than to listen to the majority. Democracy sure isn’t about minority rule or the right of the individual to override the will of the majority. I suspect that SuziQ and Demos just don’t like the decisions made by today’s democracies. No matter what system of gov’t you prefer, a minority are always going to feel like they have no voice

SuziQ said “ If you think about it, a majority rules vote is clearly an undemocratic process if it refuses to allow an individual to protest the result on a personal level via a Trial by Jury”

The idea of juries reviewing all decisions is even less representative/Democratic than the current process. If the juries are voted in, then the system is like Americas democracy on a much smaller scale. Anyone in the legislature can introduce a bill. It will only be passed into law if it gains the assent of the executive branch. If the juries aren’t voted in, then the idea that the people hold the power is thrown out since only a small select group decide whether something becomes law. Even worse, these unelected jurors are not responsible to anyone for their decisions. Politicians who make unpopular decisions can at least be thrown out at the next election.

Do you have any idea of the number of frivolous cases brought before the courts as it is. Every single law ever made has a least one opponent. Your and Demos’s ideas sounds very nice, but in the real world there are no utopia’s for a reason.

Some quotes for you

Lewis Carroll “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Herbert Humphrey” The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.”

My favourites both by Winston Churchill“ The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

And

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

Kalin that is a fundamental tradeoff in democracy. You delegate your voice to someone else to reduce the amount of effort you have to put into collective decision making, but you have to tolerate inferior decisions. Fiddling around the edges of your system doesn't really change this.

Ludwig,

Electorates are exactly like committees. The objections you cite are true, but this just demonstrates why electorates are actually bad committees.

In regard to the need for 50% support for any particular motion, I was making the point that any time you have less than 50% support it is questionable whether you have a true mandate from the people as the result often depends upon the mechanics of the particular voting system. The will of the people is not then the decisive factor, which is clearly a long way short of the democratic ideal .

Paul.L,

Taking the first definition of democracy you graciously provided, and dividing it into 3 parts:

1) Democracy is government by the people
2) in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them
3) or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

The essence is 1) and I think we'd all agree on that. Demos vision seems to demand 2) exclusively, which is the utopian ideal. 3) is plainly a big compromise since "government by the people" is limited to the nomination of rulers - Nevertheless, others, me included, accept this as a necessary practical compromise on the ideal of 2).

It is unfortunate but true that "the people" cannot, for the reasons set out in my previous post, make cohesive executive decisions and for that reason Demos and others' dissatisfaction with present democracy as it exists in Australia is valid. It is not the democratic ideal.

Nevertheless, for the same reason, there is no utopian fix. I'll go with Churchill's quote above - "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others" - which I too regard as a favourite.

Everyone,

Ultimately, the point of this thread should be to learn why things are the way they are, and to explore ways in which workable government could be more democratic. Simply advocating more democracy is trite. Details please!

Hmm.. I've waffled enough.

Paul.L – in order to truly understand a word, you must go back to its roots. The word democracy is a Greek word. They used direct democracy and duties of the citizens included 1. participating in government, voting and discussing laws. 2. Volunteering to be judges and jury in law courts.

If government continued to use this system, there would be less court cases, because a jury of the people would have made decisions for the people, rather than govt overruling our lives via laws. And it would be hard to deny that most court cases involve people protesting govt interference in their lives via the abundance of laws.
When the American Founding Fathers were formulating the American structure of government they were keenly aware of this danger. “Thomas Jefferson stated that majority rights cannot exist if individual rights do not. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote or government having power to deny any inalienable right.”

“Direct democracy holds that citizens should participate directly, not through their representatives, in making laws and policies. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socializes and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not really rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.”

“Only as long as juries of ordinary citizens have the final say, government remains the servant, not the master, of the people.” -- The Constitutional Treatise

To understand this more clearly www.democracydefined.org

Carroll’s quote relates to a person interfering with someone else’s rights – in these times, govt.

The other 2 quotes are complete insults to the voting electorate because they both refer to the people that vote them in and they have sworn to serve – as fools and idiots. Is that what we want our elected leaders to think of us, because they will decide laws based upon that opinion.

Some thought provoking quotes:

Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. People have the right to expect that these wants will be provided for by this wisdom. -- Jimmy Carter

I prefer tongue-tied knowledge to ignorant loquacity.-- Cicero

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.-- Friedrich Nietzsche

The illiterate of the future will not be the person who cannot read. It will be the person who does not know how to learn.-- Alvin Toffler

As to my credentials, the research I have been involved in includes the history of the Westminster System, the Australian Constitution, High Court cases, govt laws, regulations, international law and cases, treaties and more. Under the guidance of Constitutional lawyers, for several HC cases to define and protect the rights we HAVE which govt are removing.

Ludwig -

"In regard to the need for 50% support for any particular motion, I was making the point that any time you have less than 50% support it is questionable whether you have a true mandate from the people as the result often depends upon the mechanics of the particular voting system. The will of the people is not then the decisive factor, which is clearly a long way short of the democratic ideal ."

Sound comments – under the preferential system we use, the people we actually want to be elected, very often are not. Each person reading this thread should investigate their council elections to understand this comment. If in a town of 10,000 people, most vote for 1 person, but place them as their 4, 5 or lower choice, this person will never get in. Yet those who are elected may have only received 10% of the overall vote. That is not majority rules.

Before we all make comments we should clearly and intelligently understand how the governmental, constitutional and voting structure currently in place works.

"If in a town of 10,000 people, most vote for 1 person, but place them as their 4, 5 or lower choice, this person will never get in. Yet those who are elected may have only received 10% of the overall vote.

That doesn't make sense. If you vote for someone, you rank them first. Even if most rank a person 4th or 5th, they could still get in. If by vote you merely mean ranking them above say, the second most popular candidate, then the second part makes no sense as you need 50% of the votes after distribution of preferences to win. It's like you are switching between extreme opposites of the meaning of the term 'vote', picking the least favourable interpretation of the outcome under each meaning, then combining the two as if they apply to the same meaning of the word vote.

SuziQ

If you really want to go back to the origins of Democracy, you might see that their version of people power was not something you would be comfortable with, since you would never have had a voice. Ancient Greek democracy was a men’s only club. According to best estimates the jury pool in ancient Athens was 6000 men from a population of roughly 250,000. You also had to be a native since foreigners were not allowed. Sound fair to you?

You are making a lot of assumptions SuziQ. If you are talking about making the whole electorate a jury, what makes you think that the majority is always right? Many times in our past gov’ts have passed laws which are majority supported and yet are clearly not appropriate. If, on the other hand, you think the juries should be small groups, what right does any small group have to dictate terms to a majority? A small group of people overturning laws made with the consent of the majority is not people power. That is an oligarchy. By the way, you are aware that juries decide matters of fact and not matters of law under our system of jurisprudence?

I challenge you to provide examples of laws made by the gov’t which you think were against the people’s wishes. Just because you don’t like a law doesn’t mean that it wasn’t democratically made.

As unpalatable as it is to you I completely stand by the all the quotes I gave above. Most people just do not care about political issues. That means they are unlikely to be able to make an informed decision on those issues.

I had a look at the website you gave me and I have rarely seen a less coherent, less intellectually rigorous website. See if you can find some academic backup for your arguments because just saying something doesn’t make it true. As for your credentials, they are irrelevant, the arguments you make and the evidence you back them up with are the only important things here

Also, suppose that one month after the election, everyone realises that the directly elected treasurer just isn't up to the job. He can't do long division and doesn't play well with others. How would you go about getting rid of him?

Kalin, just because a candidate wins 50% or more of vote doesn’t mean they have a mandate.

A mandate can only be won if an election is fought by and large over a single issue, the vast majority of voters vote according to their views on that issue, and the result is a resounding win for the relevant candidate. It would then only exist for that particular issue.

A mandate could be won with well less than 50% of the vote if there are several candidates.

Ludwig, I'm not sure what you mean by a mandate then. Even if you have a hundred choices, if 50% of the electorate votes for just one of those options, then it seems to me the electorate has made it's choice clearly and unambiguously. The government then has a mandate to act accordingly.

The problem is that an electorate, being an enormous committee made up of diverse members, is rarely capable of producing such a clear result and instead, preference or other electoral systems have to be used to contrive a meaningful result.

What I'd like to hear are how people think Australian society could be made more democratic without compounding government inefficiency?

The meaningfull result is not contrived.

What do you think of this idea?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html#direct-democracy

Kalin

A true mandate is a clear choice made by the majority for a government to act on their behalf.

While it is possible that a mandate could be won with far less than 50% of the vote, it is also possible that it cannot be won with well over 50%.

If voters feel that it is a case of voting for the lesser/least of two or more evils, or for less than ideal candidates or parties, then they are hardly intending to give a mandate to the one they vote for, are they. They are voting because they have to, despite not liking the choices available.

If voters disagree with any actions of a government that they have voted for, then they can rightly say that they didn’t give the government a mandate to act in that manner.

Freediver,

Thanks for the link. Some very interesting ideas, especially the direct democracy and the right to shift support to alternate candidates at any time. That might just have a lot of merit. The big obstacle for such substantial electoral reform in Australia, however, is that our system works well enough so that it would be hard to persuade people to give up the existing system in favour of something so 'radical.'

Have saved the link and will read and think more. Great website.

Ludwig,

You are right about a 50% plus majority not providing a mandate if the choices available do not reflect the realistic options. eg, if you limit the election to either a vote for the Australian Democrats or the Nazi Party probably the Democrats will get more than 50% (at least I hope so) but this would hardly be a mandate.

Nevertheless, if the options put to the electorate are a fair reflection of the realistic true options available then it seems to me any vote over 50% would be a mandate.

I'm also interested in hearing how you can have a real mandate with less than 50% of the vote as you've suggested?

Kalin, I can see that a mandate could be won with less than 50% of the vote for the winning candidate if the vote is based on a single issue, there are three or more candidates, and the winner and one or more of the losing candidates basically have very similar positions and together score more than 50% of the vote.

This would effectively mean that the voters would give a mandate for a particular course of action, but not a majority (>50%) vote to the winning candidate. This could easily happen, as candidates with similar platforms often split the vote.

This vote-splitting phenomenon on similar stances could easily result in a candidate with one particular view being elected while the mandate effectively lay with the losers. For example in a three-horse race, the two losing candidates could have very similar stances and could together score more than 50% of the vote.

Ludwig,

I agree with your example, but that is what is flawed about the "first past the post" system.. it can often split the vote if there are multiple candidates standing on one, or similar platforms. This is exactly the sort of thing the preferential voting system is meant to overcome.

Unfortunately, the ethos of the preferential system is that you elect the member least disliked, rather than the candidate you want. Which for most peope would be a vote for the status quo. It's much better than the first past the post if you want to keep extremist parties out but if the system needs reform, but no one can decide how, the voting system will favour the status quo.

Seems this thread's gone silent unfortunately. Time to start a new thread perhaps? Demos, I gather that's your thing?

Yes an optional preferential system is certainly preferential to a first-past-the-post system. But a compulsory preferential system certainly is not.

I think it is highly antidemocratic for voters to be forced to choose the least liked candidate. The compulsory preferential system does this, for voters who don’t like either of the two major candidates and specifically wish to vote against them. They simply can’t, as their vote will effectively count, by way of the filtering down of preferences, for whoever they put second last.

There are quite a few rotten things about our brand of (pseudo)democracy. But this is the worst.

We should all have the choice of making our vote count where and only where we want it to. This means being able to mark as many boxes as we wish or to formally mark no box if we think that no candidate deserves our vote. In fact there should always be a box labelled ‘no candidate deserves my vote’.

The optional preferential system operates in Queensland and New South Wales. There is no reason why it can’t operate in every state and territory and federally.

"The compulsory preferential system does this, for voters who don’t like either of the two major candidates and specifically wish to vote against them.

If you don't rank the major candidates, you might as well not vote anyway. A vote for minor candidates without ranking the major ones is a wasted vote.

"In fact there should always be a box labelled ‘no candidate deserves my vote’.

Effectively there is. It's called a donkey vote.

"The optional preferential system operates in Queensland and New South Wales.

No it doesn't. All that happens is that you assign the right to distribute your rpeferences to whatever single party you vote for.

My mistake. I just checked out the OPV rules here:

http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/content/12942001126163592578.pdf

“If you don't rank the major candidates, you might as well not vote anyway. A vote for minor candidates without ranking the major ones is a wasted vote.”

Not at all freediver. The optional preferential system allows the voter to opt to not rank the major candidates. It works perfectly well.

There is no such thing as a wasted vote if the voter gets to vote for just who they want to vote for. The very principle of voting is that the voter gets to exercise their choice freely. Anything else is a rort.

If they are forced to rank candidates when they don’t wish to do so, then one of the fundamental principles of democracy has been violated. And by crikey, if their vote ends up counting for the candidate that they put second last or for one somewhere down the list that they really don’t want it to count for, then the system is fundamentally flawed.

This is exactly how the compulsory preferential system operates. And it is indeed a rort and a total affront to democracy.

“Effectively there is. It's called a donkey vote.”

Yes. But it is not legal. As a fundamental principle of democracy, voters must surely have the right to vote for no candidate if they wish to, in a proper and formal manner. To not be able to do this amounts to a rort, because a portion of the voter base will be either forced to vote for a candidate that they really don’t want to vote for or lodge an illegal null vote.

I detest this aspect of our system as much as the compulsion to mark every box. It is also part of the optional preferential system.

“No it doesn't. All that happens is that you assign the right to distribute your preferences to whatever single party you vote for.”

No, no. Preferences are entirely up to the voter in the optional preferential system. Parties/candidates can only suggest how voters should allocate their preferences.

"Not at all freediver. The optional preferential system allows the voter to opt to not rank the major candidates. It works perfectly well.

You kind of missed the point here.

"There is no such thing as a wasted vote if the voter gets to vote for just who they want to vote for. The very principle of voting is that the voter gets to exercise their choice freely. Anything else is a rort.

So if a voter decided to exercise their choice to fart on the ballot paper rather than writing anything down, that wouldn't be wasted?

"If they are forced to rank candidates when they don’t wish to do so, then one of the fundamental principles of democracy has been violated.

No it hasn't. And they are not forced to do anything.

"And by crikey, if their vote ends up counting for the candidate that they put second last or for one somewhere down the list that they really don’t want it to count for, then the system is fundamentally flawed.

This is where most people misunderstand preferential voting. If their vote counts for their second last preference, that means that they succeeded in preventing their last preference from getting elected. The voter got what they wanted.

"Yes. But it is not legal.

Yes it is.

"As a fundamental principle of democracy, voters must surely have the right to vote for no candidate if they wish to, in a proper and formal manner.

Proper and formal? You just don't vote. Do you expect the vote counters to sit there and ponder the meaning of a blank sheet?

"To not be able to do this amounts to a rort, because a portion of the voter base will be either forced to vote for a candidate that they really don’t want to vote for or lodge an illegal null vote.

You do not vote for someone you don't want. You merely indicate that you dislike them less than the candidate at the bottom. You do not reduce the liklihood of your favourite candidate getting elected.

Some more problems with this scheme:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187572706

Just to clarify, when Freediver said you could effectively not vote for anyone by way of a "donkey vote" I believe he meant you could vote informally (ie invalidly). A donkey vote, on the other hand, refers to simply distributing your preferences in the order the candidates occur on the ballot form, ie, number them 1 - 5. This differs in that you are casting a valid vote, just without using your brain. If you want to protest the system, voting informally is a much better idea.

Freediver, although you are right that for most practical purposes, it doesn't matter that people are 'forced' to distribute their preferences, is there any sensible reason why people shouldn't be permitted to distribute preferences only as far as they wish to - or indeed not at all if so desired.

If people validly voted by choosing the "none of the above" box wouldn't this give useful data regarding the electorate's disatisfaction with the system? Your idea of voting informally, and while achieving the same direct practical effect (ie not voting for anyone) does prevent such a vote from registering as real voter disapproval of the candidates. Such votes are generally written off as those of people too stupid to understand how to fill in the ballot forms, rather than being genuine protest votes.

Shouldn't we all be favouring changes that enhance voter expression, rather than obscuring deliberate voter choices by mixing them with accidental informal votes?

“So if a voter decided to exercise their choice to fart on the ballot paper rather than writing anything down, that wouldn't be wasted?”

(:>|

If a voter chooses to not vote for any candidate, he/she should be able to…legally. If a voter exercises his/her free choice, then how can their vote possibly be construed as wasted. It is a realistic indication of their position.

If a voter is in any way coerced into voting in a manner that they do not wish to, then the whole principle of voting has been violated. In this case, their vote is worse than wasted – it is a false indication.

This is surely obvious freediver.

“No it hasn't. And they are not forced to do anything.”

I’m not sure you understand compulsory preferential voting. Voters are forced to number every box. Their fundamental democratic right to allocate preferences freely has been denied to them.

Worse than this, if a voter specifically wants to vote against both of the two major candidates/parties, they CAN’T!! !! !!. Their vote will end up counting for one of them! In this instance, they are forced to effectively vote where they specifically don’t want to vote!

I’m sure that if you understood this freediver, you wouldn’t be debating the merits of compulsory preferential (or two-party-preferred) voting.

continued

“If their vote counts for their second last preference, that means that they succeeded in preventing their last preference from getting elected. The voter got what they wanted.”

Ohmygoodness! How many voters do you think would be happy with their vote counting for the candidate/party that they marked second last??

Given that the two major parties are of very similar political doctrine, those who wish to vote for a different approach effectively CAN’T!! !! Sure their vote counts for the Greens, Democrats or whoever in the final weigh-up. But it can’t count for one of these minor entities without also counting for a major candidate, unless a minor party candidate happens to be one of the two major candidates, which is very rare.

“Yes it is.”

No it isn’t (:>/)

“You do not vote for someone you don't want.”

You certainly can be forced to vote for someone you don’t want to vote for, as explained above. Either this, or pass up your vote altogether by making it null. And all you need to do to nullify your vote in the CP system is to miss marking one square, even though your intentions might be perfectly clear.

CP is indefensible, especially when the optional preferential system is well established in some states and obviously works well.

"is there any sensible reason why people shouldn't be permitted to distribute preferences only as far as they wish to

Yes. See the link above. Basically the same argument for voting also applies to ranking all candidates. In practice you only need to rank down to one of the two main candidates, if there are two clear favourites. However given the ignorance among voters of the technical spects of vote counting, it is better that they rank all candidates.

"If people validly voted by choosing the "none of the above" box wouldn't this give useful data regarding the electorate's disatisfaction with the system?

Not in any way I can see. If I was a politician looking at the data, I would just assume it was someone who was too lazy to vote properly or a crank who couldn't be pleased no matter what.

"Your idea of voting informally, and while achieving the same direct practical effect (ie not voting for anyone) does prevent such a vote from registering as real voter disapproval of the candidates.

No it doesn't. Having a 'non of the above' box would not separate the conscientous objectors from the lazy.

"Shouldn't we all be favouring changes that enhance voter expression, rather than obscuring deliberate voter choices by mixing them with accidental informal votes?

Requiring people to rank all candidates enhances voter expression. Just like demanding that they turn up to a polling booth does.

"Their fundamental democratic right to allocate preferences freely has been denied to them.

There is no fundamental democratic right to allocate preferences in any particular way.

"Worse than this, if a voter specifically wants to vote against both of the two major candidates/parties, they CAN’T!! !! !!.

Yes they can. You just put them at the bottom of the list.

"Their vote will end up counting for one of them!

Only when all other options have been exhousted. Their vote still worked against the major canidates to the greatest extent possible.

"Ohmygoodness! How many voters do you think would be happy with their vote counting for the candidate/party that they marked second last??

It only counted to the extent that it was a vote against the last candidate. There is no rational reason for voters to give up this choice.

"Given that the two major parties are of very similar political doctrine, those who wish to vote for a different approach effectively CAN’T!!

Yes they can. It is the popularity of the major candidates, not the voting system that is working against them. The vote still counts against the major parties to the same extent it would under any other system.

"You certainly can be forced to vote for someone you don’t want to vote for, as explained above.

But the explanation was wrong.

Basically, the argument in favour of OPV rests on an incorrect assumption that ranking both major parties last somehow gives them some kind of advantage, or gives a disadvantage to the parties that were ranked above. It doesn't.

Some more problems with OPV:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187572706

Using my my own voting practices as an example, I am one of those obnoxious people who insists on determining my preferences all by myself and never, ever, ever, as a matter of principle, allow a party to distribute my preferences.

Unfortunately, whilst reasonably politically informed, I find the upper house ballots in both State and Federal elections usually have in the order of 70 or more candidates. Whilst I usually have some knowledge of 20 or 30 of these, the rest are completely unknown to me.

It seems to me that when faced with a ballot sheet like this, it is unreasonable to expect voters to give informed preferences to every candidate. But nor do voters like myself have an option of giving preferences only to the limit of our knowledge.

A middle ground might be to allow preferences up to a point and then default to the preferences of a particular party (unfortunately the current system doesn't allow this).

Freediver, you said there was no rational reason why a voter would want to give up his right to choose between the last two candidates. Well I think when there are 70 plus candidates on a ballot sheet, a very valid reason to give up the right to a preference vote is that the candidates are completely unknown to you.

Surely you agree with that people shouldn't be expected to give informed preferences for every candidate in a ballot with 70 candidates?

Freediver

“There is no fundamental democratic right to allocate preferences in any particular way.”

There certainly is (or should be) a fundamental democratic right to be able to allocate your preferences as you see fit. Anything else would not really be a preference, would it. The very notion of compulsory preferences is absurd and oxymoronic!

“Yes they can. You just put them at the bottom of the list.”

Oh dear. This appears to be proof that you don’t understand my major concern about CP voting. If you put the two major candidates at the bottom, your vote will end up counting for the one you put second last !! !! !! So you simply CANNOT vote against both major candidates!

“It only counted to the extent that it was a vote against the last candidate.”

YES! You can only effectively vote against the last candidate, if you put the major candidates last and second last.

Freediver, in response to your critique of optional preferential voting on Ozpolitic:

“The spoiler effect.”

If you are a strong supporter of the current political methodology and direction, then you could label OP voting as having a spoiler effect. But if you wish to see a change in direction, then you could call it a progressive effect on our political evolution. CP works towards maintaining the status quo. OP works more in favour of changing it. As far as I’m concerned, that makes OP eminently better.

“More extreme policies from the two major parties.”

Again, if you support the current political paradigm, you could say this. But I would say that the tendency for OP voting to encourage the major parties more carefully consider the views of the minor parties and to adjust their policies accordingly, has surely got to be seen as a good thing. You say that this could lead to instability in government. Well, where do you think the status quo is going to lead us?

“Increased chances of minor parties being elected.”

And you think this is a bad thing? OP voting gives a much truer reflection of the preferences of the people. And if that happens to be away from the major parties and towards minor parties and genuine political change, then good!

“It is inevitable that many people will be misled.”

Not at all. It is clear that few people really understand the sinister antidemocratic connotations of the CP system. OP is much simpler.

OP voting is a much better system for those who are not very interested or informed. All they need to do is mark one square for their favourite candidate and leave it at that, which is fine.

"Worse than this, if a voter specifically wants to vote against both of the two major candidates/parties, they CAN’T!! !! !!.

Actually, the only way to vote against both major parties is to rank them both last. If you fail to do this, it actually works to their advantage.

Kalin, with the senate it is even more important to carefully rank all candidates, because your vote can contribute to the election of multiple people. I have no problem with the voting above the line scheme. I have no problem with your scheme either, provided it achieves the same thing as ranking all candidates and voters are not likely to be mislead by it.

"If you put the two major candidates at the bottom, your vote will end up counting for the one you put second last !! !! !!

So you should put the one you dislike least second last. There is no rational reason to not want to choose between the lesser of two evils.

"YES! You can only effectively vote against the last candidate, if you put the major candidates last and second last.

That is an absurd interpretation. You could just as easily argue that you can only vote for the first preference. It is a meaningless argument. You vote against the candidate you rank second last, in the sense that you indicate your preference for every other candidate, bar one, above him. OP does not allow you to vote against anyone to any greater extent.

"CP works towards maintaining the status quo.

Only in the sense that CP is the status quo.

"OP works more in favour of changing it. As far as I’m concerned, that makes OP eminently better.

For that line of argument to make sense, you would have to say what the net result would be, and why you think it would be better.

Dammit, I keep running out of posts.

"It is clear that few people really understand the sinister antidemocratic connotations of the CP system.

There are no sinister antidemocratic connotations. People just get confused with the whole 'voting for' and 'voting against' bit. If you think of it as ranking candidates in order of preference (which is what it is), there is nothing at all sinister about it.

"OP voting is a much better system for those who are not very interested or informed.

In other words, too lazy to contribute to our democracy.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187572706

Freediver, I think Ludwig does have a point though that OP is better for the uninformed.

Your assertion that such people are lazy and don't want to contribute to our democracy is right, but irrelevant. Such people make up the bulk of our society, else it wouldn't be just the three of us discussing this point. The voting system needs to reflect the reality, not the ideal. After all, not being involved is a democratic right too.

Whilst you are right that there is no reason why people should give up a choice between the lesser of two evils, the reality is that most people get to the bottom of the list and aren't making a choice at all, since they have no idea. It is better that people in that situation do not cast a vote at all. Call them lazy if you will, but the system shouldn't force people to choose between candidates they know nothing about.

Ludwig, Freediver,

Noting the posting limit is 'cramping' expression, why don't we move this discussion to Freediver's site.. he posted it before. It's an excellent site (though I'm not a fan of the colour scheme).

Freediver,

Could you set up a thread for this topic?

Just a thought. The posting limits here are my only issue with OLO.

Option preferential voting:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187572706/1#1

Colour scheme options:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1164152775/12#12