“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.