A New Electoral System?

[AndrewJ]

I reckon its even simpler.
Our pollies now want to know everything about us ( and fine us if its not correct ), and for everyone to live online and do everything online.
They also want us to then close our minds to reality and blindly believe the idealogical drivel they come up with after ( basically ) lying to get voted in.
OK, then lets exppand it to a point where every "major" decision they want to legislate for has to be approved by the population, "online", not just the senate who can be usurped by backroom deals.
If it is accepted by the masses as good, it will pass, if not, it dies.
True Democracy
Wonder if that would fly

Andrew

[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.

[AndrewJ]

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

[xelasnave]

To Astro Bot
Thank you for your answers.
I have read and reread your original submission and I confess I like what it is you propose.
You are to be congratulated as most people will criticise a system..not confined to political systems..without suggesting a credible replacement.
I am interested in how you will manage lobbyists because of my belief of their excessive influence.
I would encourage you to continue and I hope considered questions will flow to help firm up your idea
I was very surprised the limited involvement you point out.
I find that to be something that should change.
Best wishes alex

[rat156]

Originally Posted by avandonk

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

Bert

This must be a new definition of "benevolent", one of which I was previously unaware.

Cheers
Stuart

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

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.

Unless "no" isn't an option. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, only that it doesn't add anything to my proposal.

No argument from me about the meaning of "mandate" but, please stay away from contemporary politics in this thread.

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.

What you describe is, in effect, what we have now and that I propose we keep. Why in effect? Read on.

Here's how it works, at least the layman's description. A Bill (a draft Act) gets edited by the drafter (the OPC on instruction from a sponsoring Minister or private MP/Senator) then read and voted on in both houses - first the title/description (vote to continue), then the content (debate ensues or it's sent to committee/s), there's probably some re-editing, then the final reading (vote to pass/reject in its final form). The Bill can be introduced into either house first - and sometimes different versions are circulating at the same time due to edits being out-of-sync or competition of related ideas, with amendements flowing in both directions - but it must pass both houses in identical form.

Once passed by both houses, the Bill goes to the GG for Assent. On assent, the Bill becomes an Act and comes into force on the given date, at which point, it's law.

If a Bill passes the House of Reps, and fails in the Senate, and that sequence happens twice, the GG can dissolve both houses of Parliament ("double dissolution") at which point the people get their vote on that issue along with anything else that's changed their minds.

After the double dissolution, if the same Bill fails again, there is a combined sitting of both houses to vote on it, but that hasn't been used in living memory.

There is never the case of a Bill becoming an Act (i.e. a law), contentious or otherwise, that doesn't pass both houses.

The direct vote on a Bill (contentious enough to pass in the House of Reps but fail twice in the Senate) is handled through the double dissolution. IMHO, it's this mechanism that drives the habit of many Australian voters to vote one way in the House of Reps and another in the Senate - to allow that mechanism to be activated, as it surely wouldn't be if one party controlled both houses.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

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.

One person, one vote is the reason we a ruled by morons. Morons out number intellects and therefore morons get voted in.

The criterion for who votes should be based on intellect, achievement, honour, ethics, bravery, sacrifice etc; those things that make someone stand out from the drones.... to be blunt.

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by el_draco

... and therefore morons get voted in.

That doesn't follow: the quality of candidates isn't limited by the identity of the voters; it's limited by the degree of engagement and subscription in the political process.

The criterion for who votes should be based on intellect, achievement, honour, ethics, bravery, sacrifice etc; those things that make someone stand out from the drones.

This is a topic that's come up before, and no doubt will come up again.

There is a long and involved discussion to be had as to why that, though it sounds seductively simple, is a very dangerous proposition. However, it's off-topic for this thread. Suffice to say at this juncture, that universal suffrage is a right that people fought and died for and, I suggest, will fight and die for again if you try and take it away from them.

[Larryp (Laurie)]

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

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.

-------------
Astro-Bot,
Not at any time did I use the word "options", so please do not change the meaning of what I wrote. And no, I have never worked in government-Thank God! But I have seen the results of well-meaning government committees interfering in the professional field in which I worked-absolutely nothing to recommend it.
Unless government consults with the groups/professions that they are making decisions for, they will continue to stuff things up under your system just as much as they do now.
We need smaller, less intrusive government before we need a change in how politicians are selected.

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

[AndrewJ]

Unless "no" isn't an option. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, only that it doesn't add anything to my proposal.

You still miss the point.
"NO" should always be an option available to the masses, and it then changes everything. Much of your proposal becomes irrelevant if the masses are allowed a true vote on EACH specific offering.
The pollies can propose, but the masses approve or deny if its in dispute.

No argument from me about the meaning of "mandate" but, please stay away from contemporary politics in this thread.

Politics ( with a few limited exceptions ) is now a "i was potty trained at media school" profession, ie my comments have nothing specific to do with "contemporary" politics, just that the current carry on is the best latest incarnation of an "i won, i can do what i like" mentality.
We need to kill that off as soon as possible.

Andrew

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by Larryp

Not at any time did I use the word "options", so please do not change the meaning of what I wrote.

I don't believe I did change your meaning, not substantially. And there's no rule that says I can't use this or that word in a reply. But just for you, you can read my previous reply as: "100 different direction or 100 different agendas is usually the way any effort starts."

Unless government consults with the groups/professions that they are making decisions for, they will continue to stuff things up under your system just as much as they do now.

Consultation - both the method and extent - is quite independent of the method by which MPs are selected. If anything, I'd suggest there's be a natural inclination for consultation to increase under this proposal due to neutralisation of ideology within the parliament.

We need smaller, less intrusive government before we need a change in how politicians are selected.

The "size" of government is independent of the size or nature of the Parliament - they're quite different things. That you think government should be small is your opinion and you're entitled to it, but if you want to expand on it, please take it to a new thread as it isn't related to my proposal at all.

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

You still miss the point.
"NO" should always be an option available to the masses, and it then changes everything. Much of your proposal becomes irrelevant if the masses are allowed a true vote on EACH specific offering.

No, I don't think I've missed anything major. It's incredibly unwieldy (I would say impossible) to have every Bill voted on by the entire population - there are hundreds of them and the voters need to be right across the issues of every one, which they don't have time to do - that's why we have a Parliament in the first place! Where something is truly contentious, we already have a mechanism - the double dissolution - and very clear definitions and instructions as to how and when that comes into operation. Anything in between becomes a matter of interpretation and you have the issue of how to decide what should get a direct vote (it's called a plebiscite) and what doesn't. In California, they do sometimes do that and they structure it like a referendum each time, but there's significant room for the proposition (as they call it) to be worded to get the outcome desired. (There are many who believe that California's plebiscite system is broken because party politics still plays a role and because only the wealthy can afford to effectively campaign for them).

Your suggestion doesn't invalidate my proposal because the MPs still play the key role, even with plebiscites. So the independence (i.e. not railroaded by party whips) and representative nature (i.e. of constituents) of MPs is still paramount.

As I said, it's not that it's a bad idea, but it doesn't add anything to my proposal.

[AndrewJ]

It's incredibly unwieldy (I would say impossible) to have every Bill voted on by the entire population

I didnt propose that,
only the contentious major bills would go to the people.
General housekeeping bills just get passed as they do now.

Your suggestion doesn't invalidate my proposal because the MPs still play the key role,

But im saying they DONT play the key role, the people do.
The pollies can come up with whatever harebrained scheme they want, but if they cant convince the people it is OK, it doesnt happen.


Andrew

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by AndrewsJ

the masses are allowed a true vote on EACH specific offering.

I took this to mean each and every Bill is voted on. It seems what you meant is only those selected for a plebsicite (again, that's what it's called). I've already mentioned how that happens and associated problems.

But im saying they DONT play the key role, the people do.
The pollies can come up with whatever harebrained scheme they want, but if they cant convince the people it is OK, it doesnt happen.

I get the general idea, believe me, I do. The plebiscite is an old idea - well known - and with well-known problems.

But I can only say this so many times: it's not that it's a bad idea, but it doesn't add anything to my proposal.

[xelasnave]

To Astro Bot
Re Statement of fact and benefit in one sentence.
My question if you could construct a sentence outlining fact and benefit had to do with just that..I was not seeking a dumbing down but if you could in fact construct such a sentence.
It can contain as many ,,,,,s or bracketsas you like.
My old master solicitor was a very smart man and held perhaps the highest office in the country during WW2. He was the Director of Man Power ..you could say the man who effectively ran the country.
He always insisted that the most complicated issue should be capable of being presented in a single sentence. In law such sentence may state the position of both the plaintiff and defendant and probable out come.
This is quiet a challenge but clearly the benefit is you can in one sentence provide a clear picture.
I dont rate a sound bite in this category.
It demands clear thought and careful generalisation and of course be a summation of the situation.
I feel it could be helpful but it up to you if you can or can not see the merit.
I expect one could reach more people.
As a practical application when preparing a brief for a Barrister the opening sentence told the story that over subsequent pages would be expanded to expand the facts and comment on available evidence etc.
Regard this as an explanation of my question as I felt you though I had not read properly your post...I have now read it four times and at this point have no further questions other than the one regarding how to manage lobbiests.

[Astro_Bot]

Well, Alex, how about you reduce all your posts to one, succint sentence, first?

I want to avoid sound bites, because, in my experience, detractors will simply turn that around any way they want, which is easier to do than with a more in-depth explanation.

[xelasnave]

I don't think I said it had to be succinct.
But ...and I doubt if I would do your work justice..I may have a go at constructing such a sentence that I ask of you..both by way of demonstration and in support of your cause...It sounds like hard work but I will give it consideration in the morning..I have a portrait on my plate of the nurse who removed the staples from my surgery wound ..and I only make one promise at a time..
As to summing up my post that's easy ...This man offered little more than a word salard raising various questions bout the proposed idea and a general support for the author...
How's that as a 3 rd party observation at midnight.
Best wishes alex

[Astro_Bot]

Ah, I'm just lightening the moment. I hope you're out of hospital and back on your feet soon.

[AndrewJ]

But I can only say this so many times: it's not that it's a bad idea, but it doesn't add anything to my proposal. http://www.iceinspace.com.au/vbiis/i...tons/quote.gif

Dont understand here??
Your proposal seems to involve a "committee/jury" to be an arbiter of good taste for all.
Im saying you dont need a committee, just let the populace decide"

Get rid of all the middle men and their corruptable minions,
and yes, i believe that if you have a committee/jury, and people know whos on it, they will eventually be corrupted.
Its very easy to corrupt 25 or so delegates, not so easy to corrupt 15 million voters???

Andrew

[Astro_Bot]

Andrew, you really need to read the proposal top to bottom because you're missing most of it.