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.