[Astro_Bot]

Some questions are already explained in the main text. And there are quite a few off-topic or alternative comments that'll I'll leave alone.

Originally Posted by xelasnave

How do lobbiests fair in your system?

I've been working on a separate proposal to (I hope) defeat the effects of lobbying.

Can the current system be fixed by legislation?

Most of it is indeed in legislation, or in convention - there's very little constitutional change.

Problems in a system evolve because humans tend to find a way around things why will your system see better behaviour?

Randomised selection, legal protection from external influence and frequent renewal are our best defences. That's why we have enduring confidence in the jury system and that's part of what I'm trying to repeat in Parliament.

Do you believe the reduction of 25 down to 5 will see a process devoid of ..corruption..bullying..intimidatio n etc?

Mostly already explained. But with regard to bullying, who would do it? It's 25 randomly-selected people. A bully won't get the (internal) votes of their respective jurors because there's no leverage anywhere in the jury system, and jurors are the only people who have any influence at all at that stage of the process. The group of 5 will naturally be those (as assessed by their respective jurors, i.e. a "jury of their peers") able to work with others, listen to others' views, express their ideas, and so on. It doesn't matter whether a juror thinks him/herself the best "representative" - they have to convince their peers of that!

As for bias (asked elsewhere), random selection will mostly average out any bias and ideology - the final decision, however, is made by the whole electorate at the election. It will never be perfect, but the majority of inherent ideological bias will be averaged out and neutralised.

Can you put into a single sentence the fact and benefit of this system?

No sound bites. Read and understand!

... who would be opponents of your idea and why?

Vested interests - those who benefit from being able to choose candidates or influence our elected representatives either before or after the election. And then there're are those too tired or afraid to change (and that's a subject in itself that would, unfortunately, stray into current parties, policies and contemporary politics, all of which I'm trying to avoid in this thread).

-------------

Originally Posted by Wavytone

IMHO our system is less efficient, makes poorer decisions and is more corrupt than china.

I think you should look more closely at corruption (the little that gets reported), the absence of "free" media, absence of personal freedom/free speech, etc. and then re-evaluate whether the decisions are "poorer" here. But China is efficient, I'll give them that.

-------------

Originally Posted by el_draco

The right to vote should be earned through demonstration of an ability to contribute positively to the world

And who decides that criterion? Is being a respected member of the aristocracy sufficient? We've been there, done that - it came shortly after the age of "the divine right of kings".

One person, one vote. Enough said.

-------------

Originally Posted by Avandonk

The real escape is a very good education. Not indoctrination.

Education is important, not just in general, but about how our processes and Government really work. A positive of the system I suggest is that it engages more people since basically anyone can be selected (initially, for the "jury" in their electorate). Did you now that only around 2% of citizens join a political party? Not exactly great engagement.

As for indoctrination, with no parties, it's minimised. A common complaint of MPs in their first term is that they go through indoctrination and don't get the chance to vote as their constituents would like them to.

-------------

Originally Posted by Larryp

It would essentially be a government of independents, and we know what happens then! 100 different pollies running in 100 different directions with a 100 different agendas, and to think anything else is to defy human nature.

No, we don't know what happens then - it's never hapened before. And the fact is that the "hung" Parliament wasn't hung at all - it passed more Bills than previous Parliaments in the same timeframe. Different directions? Sure, just as there are now. That's why votes on Bills are either "yay" or "nay" and not 100 different options. I disagree strongly with your pronouncement that "human nature" means that such a system couldn't work. Clearly, you've never worked in Government and been in the meetings/discussions I've been in - 100 different ideas/options is usually the way any effort starts. But you miss the main point - the expertise (the ideas, options, projections) mostly comes from the the public service, and where it doesn't, it's from committees and enquiries. Private member's Bills are rare. And another thing - party room discussions are not smooth sailing - far from it. Part of this proposal involves moving the debate out of the party room (as there'd be no parties) and into the chamber and/or committees so we (the people) can see it.

-------------

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

then lets exppand it to a point where every "major" decision they want to legislate for has to be approved by the population

That has merit - there's something similar to that now in California - but you can only vote on what's presented, and the options may always be "bad" and "worse".

-------------

Our forefathers created a system that lasted well for the most part of a century before degrading. We're no less smart than they.