Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewJ
then lets expand 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".
|
I understand the people would only get to vote on whats presented, but that still gives the "population" the right to say no if desired. Something we dont have now.
The current propaganda that the Libs have a "mandate" on anything they choose to implement, because "they got voted in", is trite populist drivel.
I dont know about others, but i reckon the last lot were voted out, vs this lot voted in, and as a result we got the current pack of idealogues by default, not by desire.
Each party has good and bad ideas, so lets work on that basis.
Ie No matter who gets in under the system i propose, the population would still decide if a "major" policy change was to be accepted or not.
Any "mandate" would have to be approved based on the populations view of the specific policy under review, not simply based on who won the last election.
ie If a party wins the election, that gives them the right to put forward their visions for the country, but not the unchallenged right to just railroad in anything they like.
And to simplify the meaning of "major", i would say if both sides of both houses agree on a policy, it doesnt go to the people, it passes.
If its contentious, the people get the say.
Andrew