A New Electoral System?

[Astro_Bot]

I've hesitated to post this because it's not fully developed, to say the least, but I may as well open it up to discussion.

It's a suggestion of a change to how we select our Members of Parliament that, although quite different, surprisingly appears to require only minor constitutional change and is still rightly called a modified-Westminster system.

I've fleshed out the idea with some suggested numbers (candidate numbers, timelines, etc.) and a few explanations. The numbers don't matter that much - there can be variations - they're there simply to show how the new mechanisms could work as a whole.

You'll note that I'm obviously not a constitutional lawyer ... but that may be a good thing.

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

A New Electoral System?

Politicians. Most of us hate most of them. So why not do something about it? Since politicians aren't serving us, there's little harm, and possibly much to gain, in replacing the method by which we choose them. Here's an idea for a major change to our Parliament.

Firstly, leave the Senate mostly as is. There may or may not be valid arguments about preference sharing (in our "instant run-off" vote tallying system), but that's a minor point. The Senate would: become the house of "professional" politicians; remain a house of review; remain the "States' House"; and, uphold standards (not that our Senators have been doing much of that in recent times). Forbid the Senate from providing ministers to leave them completely unfettered to hold hearings and enquiries - something they do now but need to do more often, and better, IMHO.

For the House of Representatives, have something like the following:

• Four-year fixed-term elections.
• One year before the election, in each seat, randomly select a "jury" of, say, 25 suitable people - e.g. 21 years or older, no outstanding convictions, citizen for at least 10 years.
• Over the following months, each jury of 25 candidates gets together (e.g. some weekend retreats, meetings, mixers, debates, etc.), where the members get to know one another and rank each other in order of preference until there are, say, 5 survivors - the details of how don't matter at this stage only that they self-select the "best" five for the job of representing the electorate.
• The 5 surviving jurors and the current seat incumbent (providing he/she has served no more than two preceding terms and is a volunteer to stand again) form a list of 6 (max.) candidates for that seat at the next election.
• Candidates receive briefings from government departments (e.g. presentations in lecture halls) in order to form their views and would have access to some parliamentary resources (to a modest degree) to further their fact finding and fine-tune their platform.
• Each candidate gets a set advertising budget, e.g. a CV in "glossy brochure" form (fact-checked before publication), a page (or micro-site) on an election web site, some town hall debates, a few radio spots and a YouTube video (or similar).
• Hold the election a few months before the projected end of term.
• Electees form an incoming Parliament (along with whomever remains incumbent) and discuss selections for government and parliamentary roles (the outgoing government acts in a caretaker role as is the convention now).
• Electees have until their term commences to divest all financial instruments, property investments (save one main residence) and any commercial or foreign affiliations (they will be compensated for reasonable losses).
• Electees take their places in Parliament and represent their constituents. (Well, d'uh, but I say it for completeness).
• No political parties, no party whips, and no outside affiliations permitted.
• All electoral activities are state-funded - there would be no such thing as a party or political donation, and in fact, any approach along such lines would be treated as an attempt to bribe an official.
• No gifts or hospitality permitted at all - do away with the gift register and its threshhold of reporting - all gifts/hospitality are 'attempts to influence' and should be treated as such.
• Any attempt to influence jury selection, candidate selection or electoral processes would be treated in a similar way to jury tampering, election fraud, coercion or bribery, and judged harshly.

By way of explanation, it was no accident that I use the term "jury" to describe the randomly selected group as I want not only to convey how selection would work but also to reinforce that this mechanism has been with us for centuries and works very well. "Sortition" (you can look up that term, if you want) is the process used in most, if not all, common law countries for jury selection and I doubt this will change.

In Australia, we have compulsory voting and, generally, people like to vote. I suggest in this system restraining sortition to candidate selection, rather than directly selecting office-bearers as the ancient Greeks did. Why? Because it's not the election that is the problem; it's the candidates and everything that goes with them in our current system - political parties, fundraisers, donations, lobbying, private forums, vested interests, lucrative jobs for ex-politicians, branch stacking, mouthpiece think-tanks, poor representation of constituents (which often manifests as utter disdain for the electorate-at-large) and, dare I say it, occasional episodes of corruption.

Now for a few more explanations ...

None in the House of Reps need to be a professional politician - it's supposed to be a government of the people for the people. They don't need to be a lawyer - there are a plethora of lawyers in government departments and an entire section (the Office of Parliamentary Counsel) that drafts legislation with all the necessary legalese. They simply have to know their constituents and represent their views in guiding the public service to set and enact policy. And that guidance rarely comes from MPs (well, not good gudiance) - guidance comes from expert policy sections of the government departments, from committees, enquiries, hearings, public submissions and so on.

Banning parties doesn't mean there won't be cliques or power groups that arise - I'm sure that would still happen - but no political parties means that the "worst of the worst" would be gone (e.g. party whips ordering backbenchers, under threat of disendorsement, which way to vote regardless of the prevailing view in their electorate or the backbenchers' own conclusions) and there'd be no political donations (with the ever-present suggestion, if not reality, that donors expect a return on their investment).

One could argue that, with this kind of House of Reps, we would need a more professional ministerial team. Having thought about that at length I don't think that's necesary. I think a healthy cross-section of experience and viewpoints is made available to the Parliament through the mechansim of initially selecting a large number of jurors and selection of the candidates to stand at the election. Certainly, there are quite a number of "ordinary" people in our current Parliament (not necessarily a bad thing) and many of our current ministers are not experts - it's not their job to be the expert. Whereas clear separation of the executive from the legislature in a USA-style system has a certain appeal, the Westminster approach (ministers in parliament) provides well enough for accountability (IMHO), protects ministerial speech as much as for any other parliamentarian and permits questioning of ministers under parliamentary privilege without having to convene an enquiry. Ultimately, this is a debate separate to, but interlinked with, any change in parliamentary candidate selection method. I have some ideas on how Government could be formed within this form of parliament that I will expand on later.

As the Governor General (and/or Monarchy) is a titular role, it seems purely cosmetic (and a distraction) to change that arrangement. But, change it if a majority so desires.

From my layman's point of view, I think it closer to the optimum to retain voting and our bicameral system, and change how we select candidates. I can't presently think of a method by which we could remove inherent bias and potential for corruption in candidate selection without randomising and protecting that process. Every other method I can think of requires foreknowledge of candidates and is therefore open to gaming or undue influence.

On the other hand, once candidate juries are selected they could be prone to attempts to influence, but there we can provide them legal protection to a similar degree as court juries - not perfect but far better than anything we currently have, IMHO. The down-selection from, say, 25 to 5 is there to cater for those who, after random selection, really can't do the job, as judged by a jury of their peers (in a similar way to self-selection of a jury foreman) and promote those who impress that jury with their ability. Though, of course, it is by no means certain, one hopes that candidates who have suspect affiliations or are too ideological will become known within the jury and not selected to the group of 5.

... continued below due to character limit ...

[Astro_Bot]

... continued from above ...

Assuming we persist with the Westminster tradition of selecting Ministers from within Parliament, I have a suggestion for how government would be formed when Parliament is selected in the above way. Keep in mind that there would be no political parties and therefore, one hopes, little "bloody-minded" ideological influence of any flavour as the ideology is not continually reinforced and protected through the party system.

When the incoming parliamentarians first convene, before the start of their term, there would be a period of indoctrination in parliamentary processes and familiarisation with each other. Nominations would be taken for to key position: Prime Minister and Speaker of the House. I envisage nominees each presenting to the assembled members, making a case for their nominated post. MPs would vote - there may be a preliminary vote followed by a run-off vote if there are either too many nominees or the vote is too close for a clear majority. Thereafter, the "Prime Minister elect" would seek nominations for senior ministerial posts and select his/her Ministers to form a new Cabinet. There would be no vote for ministerial positions - the PM should have the opportunity to select the team he/she thinks will best do the job. If there are insufficient nominations, the PM will select a member - it would be understood as part of the election "contract" that an elected member may be called upon to perform a ministerial duty. Each senior Minister would then seek nominations for a junior minister ("Minister Assisting") and Parliamentary Secretary, if either/both are warranted. Further, a Minister may form a permanent advisory committee, if they so choose, though this is more likely to involve experts from outside Parliament.

The incoming PM, having formed a new Cabinet in the months leading up to the term, would then go to the Governor General to commission the Government on the date the term is due to start. If this process does not produce a Government (i.e. it is not commissioned by the GG - an extremely unlikely event - it's there to ensure that conventions have been followed and that the Government will be accepted as legitimate), the internal nomination and voting procedure would be repeated until it does, much the same way as several parliaments around the world currently operate with multiple, small parties adjusting their positions to form a coalition government. If the start date is missed, the Governor General would have the prerogative of dissolving parliament and calling a new election - this is a judgement call of the GG - some leeway would be expected, depending on circumstances. Note that although the PM chooses his/her Ministers, they are each officially appointed by the GG. The GG also officially accepts resignations of (dismisses) Ministers.

I see the "no confidence" system and the GG's reserve powers working pretty much as they do now, with slight amendment in convention only (I think, though, as I said, I'm no constitutional lawyer). If a scandal occurs, the PM would/should sack the offending Minister and choose a new one. If this does not happen, or if a Government failure is of sufficient scale, there should be a process of "internal government renewal". For example, a motion of no confidence in the House of Representatives, upheld by a majority vote, would/should force all Government Ministers to resign, force a return to the nomination and voting procedure to select a new Prime Minister and Speaker (each of whom could re-nominate), and then for the new PM to select a new Cabinet. Note that some Ministers could return to their roles if not involved in whatever scandal brought down the Government - that woud be a judgement call for the new PM as to whether the Parliament will accept some of the Ministers back into their roles. This "internal government renewal" is a change in convention as, previously, the GG would probably have dissolved the House of Reps entirely if a single no confidence motion were to be upheld. But the GG can still choose to exercise the power to dissolve the House of Reps, and force a new election - I see this happening if the motion of no confidence is repeated and again upheld, if a new Government is not formed within a suitable time (in the GG's judgement), or if a deadlock of some other kind occurs. There may be a useful additional role for the Senate here: it may be advantageous to distinguish between a no confidence motion in the House of Reps alone, which would initially force Ministers to resign and return to the nomination and internal voting process, and a no confidence motion in the House of Reps accompanied by a similar motion (upheld, of course) in the Senate. In the latter case, the GG would dissolve Parliament regardless of whether a suitable time has elapsed before formation of a new Government - this is closer to the current convention with the additional role of the Senate.

For reference, the GG's reserve powers are:
- The power to dissolve (or refuse to dissolve) the House of Representatives. (Section 5 of the Constitution)
- The power to dissolve Parliament on the occasion of a deadlock. (Section 57)
- The power to withhold assent to Bills. (Section 58)
- The power to appoint (or dismiss) Ministers. (Section 64)

Interestingly, our Constitution, like that of many other countries, makes no mention of political parties, party whips, lobbyists, private forums, fund raisers or indeed many other of the blights on democracy we currently endure. The constitutional change necessary to bring about this form of representative parliament is actually quite small (4-year fixed terms does at least require a minor constitutional change). Beyond that, there would be significant changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act (the main act that defines how elections are held and who can vote) and a couple of new Acts, or amendments to Acts, to protect the "juries" and the subsequently-elected parliamentarians from undue influence, to ban political donations, and so on.

On reviewing the above, it's striking how little the key points of this system differ from the modified-Westminster system we currently employ - they're all pretty much retained - and I think it's therefore still right to refer to this system as modified-Westminster.

Now, we turn our attention to the function and constitution of an effective "opposition", but without the party-based political attacks in Parliament and the constant drip of vitriol to the media.

Since there are no political parties in this system, rather than form a traditional party-based "opposition" I suggest that the House of Representatives form non-Government portfolio-aligned discussion groups (which may involve nominations and voting for positions - I'm not fussed how they're formed) and each discussion group have a nominated spokesperson. Each discussion group would follow activities in their portfolio area and formulate pertinent questions for Question Time (either self-generated, or filtered submissions from other MPs or the public) and possibly to inject into committee deliberations, if thought relevant by committee member(s).

The spokesperson for the non-Government discussion group for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet would be a natural choice for a coordinator of spokespersons when it comes to Question Time, i.e. an opposition leader, and the runner up in the nomination for Prime Minister may be a good choice for that role - they could also take on the initial coordinating role of setting up the discussion groups.

With this arrangement, there should be no "Dorothy Dixers", no party-based attacks dressed up as questions and no dubious expulsions from the chamber. One hopes that Question Time would be far more civilised and productive as a result.

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

Questions?

Please read the above completely and thoroughly before commenting and please stay on topic.

[xelasnave]

Where do the 25 jurors come from?
Are they elected?
How do lobbiests fair in your system?
Can the current system be fixed by legislation?
Problems in a system evolve because humans tend to find a way around things why will your system see better behaviour?
Do you believe the reduction of 25 down to 5 will see a process devoid of ..corruption..bullying..intimidatio n etc?
Will we still drive on the left side of the road.. joke to relieve the pressure of my earlier questions

I can see you have given this a lot of thought and I suspect you have he betterment of our system at heart indeed the nation however to implement such a system would be in the nature of a miracle ..you know how difficult change is to achieve with our constitution. Do you have belief that you could get anyone to support the idea and see it implemented or do you see this as no more than a mental exercise?
Can you put into a single sentence the fact and benefit of this system?
O you realise your post is a forum rule breaker what assurances can you give forum members this is really not political but strictly a matter of constitutional law.
Further in conclusion who would be opponents of your idea and why?

[xelasnave]

Even with banning political parties I don't see how your system would take political bias out of the jurors.
Won't unionists still be socialist biased and say someone who ran a small business be more capitalist.
And really do we want an absence of bias ..the two together sort of reduce the extremes of each dogma.
It is a difficult job to build utopia and this is what you attempt really

[jeff.cotter]

Utopia just ain't compatible with human nature.

[rat156]

Originally Posted by jeff.cotter

Utopia just ain't compatible with human nature.

That's why we live in the Matrix...

[casstony]

I'd like to keep the present system but have a citizens committee which can assess politicians on a regular basis, with the power to dismiss if the politician has been found to be less than truthful. There would need to be a grace period to allow the politicians to change from their present modus operandi to avoid a situation where nobody is running the country.

[Wavytone]

There's a much simpler solution - similar to what China has:

A. Ditch the senate, it won't be needed

B. Ditch the whole business of elections, too. This means pollies can make rational decisions rather than "how do I get reelected"

C. Run the country as a series of committees of competent people.

D. Pollies are selected to sit on the committees for a fixed, one-off 8 year term - not elected - based on there professional achievements in other walks of life - barring sports and media personalities. This is long enough to give them some sense of tenure and make it worthwhile but after the 8 years you're out.

This is staggered too, so that only a few enter government at a time when a vacancy arises - no "Big Bang" election. Our election cycle is very disruptive.

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

[xelasnave]

Building utopia although I believe is impossible is perhaps the grandest endeavour and although never achieved often results in improvement.
Hitler in effect was trying to build his version and therein we can see the unhappy results.
However it is nevertheless a noble thing you attempt as you are trying to improve the lot of your fellow man with no benefit to yourself.
You never know we may be witnessing the birth of a new idea which may well be the future.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by casstony

I'd like to keep the present system but have a citizens committee which can assess politicians on a regular basis, with the power to dismiss if the politician has been found to be less than truthful. There would need to be a grace period to allow the politicians to change from their present modus operandi to avoid a situation where nobody is running the country.

I think the present system is supposed to work closely to what you outline.
Barry would certainly say so I expect.

I often think it is the public service that runs the country hampered only by the latest political big idea.
I suspect the TV show..Yes Minister..probably is closer to reality than we suspect.

[xelasnave]

Could it be that the part played by lobbiests is what should be reviewed.
Consider the new light globe introduction and the deamonisation of the old light globe.
On the face of it a move to reduce carbon however I suggest someone saw opportunity for profit and lobbyied succesfully. Nothing more than a business plan using the system to get up.
However as could be expected I..we.. drift off the matter to be considered

[Wavytone]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I suspect the TV show..Yes Minister..probably is closer to reality than we suspect.

Which is why elected politicians - all of them - are a grotesquely expensive bunch of self-serving bludgers the taxpayer could well do without.

Oh, wait... Anthony Albanese would have to find a real job for the first time in his life...

[avandonk]

The only rational solution is benevolent dictator, with me in charge of course!

Bert

[Larryp (Laurie)]

I can't see your system working, Astro-Bot. 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.
We need to streamline our political system, get rid of state/federal duplication, and definitely make drastic changes to the way the senate is elected.
Government in this country is just too big. I remember reading in the "Financial Review" back in the mid '80s that 41% of taxpayers in Australia worked in government or semi-goverment administrative jobs, compared to 21% in the USA-it's probably worse now.

[el_draco (Rom)]

I suspect that where the average num-num has the right to vote, the system will be doomed. The right to vote should be earned through demonstration of an ability to contribute positively to the world, and that does not mean kick, bounce, chuck or hit a bloody ball! Voters should be highly intelligent and well educated. Candidates should also have the highest standard of ethics and be bound by an overarching code that defines long term goals, rights and obligations of its citizens.

Those who have the guts to do the job, should be accountable for their performance and rewarded accordingly and not necessarily monetarily. The role should come with a right to respect and be a position of honour instead of being farmed out to some dud with a big mouth, money and vested interest behind them.

Anyone with any association with the legal profession should NEVER have any say whatsoever in decision making.

[avandonk]

Democracy is up to ALL of us! It needs eternal vigilance so it does not go awry.

Human nature should guide your judgment. Most of the biggest turds float to the top of a cesspool.

If you as an individual do not keep up with what is happening in your own society you have abrogated the right to complain!

If you really think our system is democratic you are deluded.


Nothing has changed over centuries. The few control the many by obscene wealth.

A small factoid 87 of the richest people have as much wealth as the bottom 3.4 billion people on planet Earth.

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

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by avandonk

The only rational solution is benevolent dictator, with me in charge of course!

Bert

Bert the Benevolent.
I am with you Bert...can I have a real big gun and a tailored camouflage jacket.

[Astro_Bot]

Not that I want to stifle discussion, but ...

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

Please read the above completely and thoroughly before commenting and please stay on topic.

[xelasnave]

Sorry I got distracted waiting for a reply to what I hope you regard as on questions

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

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

Could not have said it better. Alas, the uneducated have the numbers and this is the fundamental failure of our system. The stupid are easily conned.