.

Dear Bazz, Josephus and ttbn,

.

Josephus asked : “So Banjo what is the best [political] system in your opinion?”

In my opinion, no matter what political system we adopt, certain powerful individuals, major corporations and organisations (including political parties and religious organisations) will always seek a way to influence the decision makers for their own benefit.

Einstein is quoted as having said : “If I had only one hour to save the world, I would spend fifty-five minutes defining the problem, and only five minutes finding the solution”. I am not sure if I have correctly defined the problem, but the best I can do at this point in time is what I have described in my previous posts on this thread.

The most effective solution that comes to my mind is to seriously limit the extent of the intermediation of representative democracy to – for want of a better term – what I would call “run-of-the-mill” matters, and introduce direct democracy for all major decisions.

There were 16.5 million individual votes registered at the federal election in May this year. It would be totally unrealistic to imagine those 16.5 million individuals voting on every single motion presented in the House of Representatives. The only way direct democracy could possibly be envisaged would be to use well-secured, safety-monitored electronic voting systems in all state and federal legislative chambers.

It seems to me that only highly controversial matters and those of particular importance and interest to the general public should be subject to decision by direct democracy. I expect that their number could be no more than three or four per year, probably less.

Those are my initial thoughts on the subject …

.

Banjo, Parties who have listened to their constituents go to elections with policies that represent interests in an electorate. The Party with the most representative policies that affect that electorate garner the most votes. That makes that person the representative for that area. That substitutes population voting on every Bill before Parliament.

However I myself believe that the Senate should have representatives of sectional interests, like Farming, Mining, Manufacturing, Food retail, Energy, Roads and Rail and Shipping, Education, Military, National development and housing, Water resources and Energy, Retirees and Pensioners etc. Maybe cross sections of several representatives in each individual field, eg Farming into dairying, cropping, fishing, orcharding etc. The best in their field of expertise, no party politics. They are voted to a position by their peers and hold office for eight years.

Interesting proposal Josephus. One catch I can see is that by the time
you multiply the sectional interest by regional areas you end up with
a very large number of senators.
The oft suggested remove the sentae have a one chamber parliament
has its attractions.

I think people voted into public office should have at least some background/work experince in the field they represent !
I mean Lawyers & school teachers as Ministers for agriculture or transport is just idiotic.
The education system should be re-formed & any aspiring teacher should have some National Service under their belt.
It looks to me that it is during the school years that most kids are being dumbed-down by even more dumb teachers !

Bazz, The representatives in the Senate would be national or State, not regional.

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote :

« Banjo, Parties who have listened to their constituents go to elections with policies that represent interests in an electorate. The Party with the most representative policies that affect that electorate garner the most votes. That makes that person the representative for that area. That substitutes population voting on every Bill before Parliament »
.

Yes, you are quite right, Josephus. The problem arises when some major multinational corporation with loads of funds wants to set up a giant coal mine or something similar in one of our (agricultural) constituencies (for example) with the promise of rich rewards in terms of local, state and national gross revenue as well as creating a huge boost in local employment – coupled, of course, with much needed infrastructure development jointly financed by public funds and the private investor.

Unfortunately, in situations like this – which are numerous and varied – the aspirations and requirements of the residents of the constituencies that voted the politicians into power are invariably ignored. Politicians toe the party line. If not, their political party affiliation is rescinded. The elected representatives owe allegiance to their political parties and are accountable to them. If the party decides to support some particular project or policy, that is what they do – irrespective of the protestations of any highly disgruntled residents – many of whom may have voted for them and brought them to power.

It is the multiplication of examples like this, both small and large, that is causing so much dissatisfaction with representative democracy. It is why trust in democracy in Australia has deteriorated to 41% in 2018, from 86% in 2007 and 72% in 2013.

It is also why trust in political parties has fallen to an all-time low of just 16%.

Hence my recommendation to limit the scope of our present system of “representative democracy” to mundane or “run-of-the-mill” political decisions and introduce a system of direct democracy in our state and federal parliaments for all highly controversial issues and matters of particular importance and interest to the general public.

.