A New Electoral System?

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

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

Thank you that is very kind of you and very much appreciated.
Regards alex

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Astro_bot you clearly thought about this but you've still managed to come up with a dumb idea. You fall down even before you get out the gates. The jury system doesn't work very well, studies have shown that cases can be one or lost on jury selection.
In the end there not much wrong with our political system, just us.

@el_draco are you calling for a system that wouldn't let you Vote?

[xelasnave]

I am out that' why the portrait has me under pressure.
I could not complete it there and I did sso much drawing to pass the time I am sick of it...but a promise has been made and I must complete it before I do another thing..otherwise I would commit to constructing the sentence.
I am trying to run down so I can sleep for a couple of hours.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Astro Bot

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

No i'm not.
Your proposal still assumes some "comittee/jury" of people selected by some new process will have some say in what goes on.
Notwithstanding i cant see that happening,
I say once selected they would still be corrupted, just as the current lot have been proven to be corrupted.
If the world is fully wired up and interconnected
then let the people decide the important issues,
not some compromised minions with their own personal agendas.
Again as i said in my first post, i cant see that happening

Andrew

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by KenGee

Astro_bot you clearly thought about this but you've still managed to come up with a dumb idea. You fall down even before you get out the gates. The jury system doesn't work very well, studies have shown that cases can be one or lost on jury selection.

What does that have to do with this system? Have you read through, thoroughly? It seems not. I used the term 'jury' to give a sense of how the random selection would work - it's a term familiar to all. But there is no "jury selection" (as occurs in a criminal case, by counsels quizzing prospective jurors). Basically, the juries are randomly selected for each election (I expect the AEC or like body would administer the random pick and oversee the administration of "jury" processes ... but such a body does not arbitraily choose anything), in each seat, and down-select (themselves) to the 5 most-preferred candidates. Those candidates then stand for election.

Think about it: right now, you get a candidate selected by a political party's opaque processes, vaguely controlled by less than 2% of the population, and even then there are frequent complaints of branch stacking and unfair pre-selection. Then there are the factional deals that end up seeing selected candidates dumped. Even amongst party members, how many actually control candidate selection? A few of the elite. There's a lot wrong with this system.

The quality of current candidates is also highly variable - some good, some appalling. My proposal does not make anything worse on that front, and in all probability, actually improves candidate quality.

Remember that MPs are not the font of expertise - they're not supposed to be.

In the end there not much wrong with our political system, just us.

Studies show that a majority seem to disagree with you. As I spelled out in the proposal:

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

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.

If you don't like the idea, fine. But calling it "dumb" (especially when you clearly misunderstand parts of it) isn't a good move.

[Steffen]

Democracy is but an instrument of power wielded by the ruling class.

Tinkering with the system of government is futile, it will always turn out in a way that suits those who are in power. Right now that's multi-national corporations.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Your proposal still assumes some "comittee/jury" of people selected by some new process will have some say in what goes on.
Notwithstanding i cant see that happening,
I say once selected they would still be corrupted, just as the current lot have been proven to be corrupted.
If the world is fully wired up and interconnected
then let the people decide the important issues,
not some compromised minions with their own personal agendas.
Again as i said in my first post, i cant see that happening

Well, you're comments show you haven't understood the process - seeing as I wrote that process, I ought to know.

If you don't like it, fine, but whatever it is that you think, it's not based on a thorough understanding. Just sayin'.

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by Steffen

Tinkering with the system of government is futile,

You may be right. But the surest way to fail is never to try.

[xelasnave]

Indeed the proposal seems unworkable but it is often difficult to accept new ideas.
They are attacked for why they can't work rather than why they can work.
It is in our nature to reject new ideas and many ideas take years to evolve.
The big bang started with a priest who was a scientist presenting a mere idea as how the Universe was created..and I not that the theory deals with its evolution not its creation...but it evolved over time to become the best theory on the evolution of the Universe that we have..it fits our observations..however I suspect when the idea was first run around the tea room it probably found little support.
It is a big ask to offer a new and better system but we have a man having a go and sharing his vission.
We could chose to be tolerant and helpful...it could be a discussion not an argument and if offered politely flaws could be addressed without things getting a little personal.

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

You may be right. But the surest way to fail is never to try.

Oh, you should definitely try, but you need to change what counts, not put lipstick on a pig. Revolution, not reform.

Cheers
Steffen.

[xelasnave]

I have seen lipstick ..and eye makeup on a pig..hilarious.
Revolution
Lives lost on taking of power then the mandatory rein of terror where blood list runs rampant
No rein of terror you get counter revolution very bad.
Not nice at all...and having seen a pig with lipstick I would prefer the pig

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Sorry, but I don't understand what your proposal really addresses. It seems to limit who can stand for election, and has a jury of people selecting nice guys and gals to stand for election, on the basis of unknown criteria.

So a whole bunch of individuals are elected without any unified goal to work towards - sort of like he government of Iraq.

The main problem with our electoral system requires constitutional amendment.

Currently, there has to be one senator for every two MHRs. This led to relatively stable government when there were 10 senators per State, requiring a quota of 17% of the vote to get elected. When it went to 12 senators per State, the quota dropped to 14.2% making life a lot easier for minor parties to get in.

My thoughts are that Senators should be at one for every three MHRs, and even that is probably too much. The US Senate, on which ours is based, only has two senators per State.

The other problem with your idea is fixed four year terms. Why fixed? And at the moment, Senators have to serve twice as long as MHRs, which means they'd be elected for 8 years. Strikes me as a great reward for those who have been stuffing up our political and fiscal system.

As things currently stand, at least 10% of the population will vote Green no matter how ruinous their financial policies. Fortunately, the Coalition seems to be backing off the electoral reforms to stop people getting elected on minuscule votes, but if they do go ahead with them, they are shooting themselves in the foot - as they will cement the Greens always having the balance of power.

Problem with the Greens, a quasi religious movement, having the balance of power, is that their idea of being a House of Review, is that they happily tick off any spendthrift government's grandiose schemes, and completely block any frugal government's attempt to rein in spending. Result - Greece and Spain - here we come. Government debt in Australia is 30% of GDP and rising fast. Apologist for big spending say that Federal debt is 12% of GDP, but neglect to mention that most countries they compare us to aren't Federations - our States and State Authorities have huge debt.
Regards,
Renato

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

Problem with the Greens, a quasi religious movement, having the balance of power, is that their idea of being a House of Review, is that they happily tick off any spendthrift government's grandiose schemes, and completely block any frugal government's attempt to rein in spending.

Ah, classic Renato. They signed off on Hockeys grab mega billions of bucks to support Abbutts empire building scheme. Hardly Frugal...

[xelasnave]

Come on guys stay nice and stop with using any opportunity to get political.
Why the anger when it is just not appropriate.
Nothing in the opening post deserves some of the angry replies.
If you disagree with the posters idea I am sure one can manage a polite rejection.
As I said it is easy to be a critic but few offer and alternative as has Astro Bot is that not deserving of respect

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by Renato1

Sorry, but I don't understand what your proposal really addresses.

It addresses, mostly:
(1) that MPs represent their party's centralised viewpoint (and vote in a block) rather than represent their constituents views directly - a common complaint of first-term MPs is that their party whip gives them no freedom in how to vote. IMHO, there are not enough independents that survive the "two party" dominated system to make a difference.
(2) that MPs are sometimes unduly influenced, either directly or indirectly.
(3) that the current system can be easily subverted through control of (or at the very least, heavy influence over) candidate selection.
(4) lack of engagement by most of the electorate.
Edit: It also partially addresses (5) that policy "debate" mostly occurs in back rooms and party rooms, invisible to the public.

The vast majority of us (>98%) have no say in who the candidates are in the current system. We can, now, in the main, only vote for candidates selected for us by party heavyweights and have little, if any, influence on policy formulation. Occasionally, there's an independent who gets elected, but they are very few and far between. The parties distort our system and restrict effective representation of each electorate's views.

I've covered more in previous comments, but would like to re-iterate this:

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

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.

To continue ...

Originally Posted by Renato1

It seems to limit who can stand for election, and has a jury of people selecting nice guys and gals to stand for election, on the basis of unknown criteria.

My proposal randomly selects a pool of people (the "jury"), in each seat, for each election - a protected process that cannot be gamed or influenced - then down-selects (the "jury" members rank each other, that is, each is effectively judged by a jury of his/her peers) for the job of representing that electorate. (I initially suggest 25 down-selected to 5, but those numbers are just the starting point for debate). The process is fairly robust, because it only selects the top 5 who then become the candidates at an otherwise bog-standard election. That is, down-selection is a coarse filter (with plenty of room for error), with the fine filter being the election itself.

There are no particular criteria in down-selection, just as there are no particular criteria at an election in our current system.

Keep in mind that MPs aren't the experts and, for the most part, simply vote on Bills - in my proposal, that vote is informed by the MP's electorate's views rather than party instructions.

So a whole bunch of individuals are elected without any unified goal to work towards - sort of like he government of Iraq.

Actually, Iraq has political parties like us. But they also have deep ethnic and religious divisions and nowhere near our level of education and free political communication. Plus, they prefer to assassinate each other physically, rather than verbally. It's hardly a fair comparison.

As for other comments, as tempting as it may be, please refrain from mentioning contemporary politics (specific parties, personalities, current policies or issues, etc.) in this thread.

[rat156]

All I can say is that some of you seem to be of the mistaken belief that the elected Government governs. Really, the unelected bureaucracy is who is really in charge. The elected government may pass legislation, but it's up to the public servants to put that legislation into place and enforce it.

The present government has, so far, managed to do only a couple of things this term, they have repealed the Carbon Tax and made border protection a "black Op", but it isn't them who do the work, it's the APS that do it all (with a bit of help from the ADF in this case). In order to really change the way Australia is run you have to remove several of the top layers of the APS, good luck doing that.

The only real control over the APS that our elected government has is over their numbers, which is typically why the "slash and burn" types of governments can wield a bigger stick. Even the senior APS don't want their hard built empire torn down.

Watch "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister", or for an Australian flavour, "Hollowmen", they are so accurate.

I'll now pass on the "thought ball" to the next person...

Cheers
Stuart

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by rat156

All I can say is that some of you seem to be of the mistaken belief that the elected Government governs. Really, the unelected bureaucracy is who is really in charge. The elected government may pass legislation, but it's up to the public servants to put that legislation into place and enforce it.

The present government has, so far, managed to do only a couple of things this term, they have repealed the Carbon Tax and made border protection a "black Op", but it isn't them who do the work, it's the APS that do it all (with a bit of help from the ADF in this case). In order to really change the way Australia is run you have to remove several of the top layers of the APS, good luck doing that.

The only real control over the APS that our elected government has is over their numbers, which is typically why the "slash and burn" types of governments can wield a bigger stick. Even the senior APS don't want their hard built empire torn down.

Watch "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister", or for an Australian flavour, "Hollowmen", they are so accurate.

I'll now pass on the "thought ball" to the next person...

Cheers
Stuart

Yes Minister etc, intensely funny but if the APS actually had the power, they would have a long term plan. They don't. Short term political expediency rules as is demonstrated by the radical changes to border protection and the scrapping of the CO2 Tax. By all accounts, the slash and burn policies of both state and federal twits are in full swing and the shift in political rhetoric is making us an international pariah.

Its as obvious as the rising sun that the "leaders" of this country have no concept of long term vision and are prepared to devastate this country for their own personal gain or adherence to some twisted dogma, of what ever persuasion, that suits their own twisted ideology.

Interesting suggestion on the radio theis morning was the idea of establishing independent bodies like the reserve bank within the country to oversee real issues like climate change, education, health and security and marginalise the pollies to the role of quacking ducks in their extravagant aviary... Certainly as valid a suggestion as any other. Reserve bank seems to do the job well enough.

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by rat156

All I can say is that some of you seem to be of the mistaken belief that the elected Government governs. Really, the unelected bureaucracy is who is really in charge. The elected government may pass legislation, but it's up to the public servants to put that legislation into place and enforce it.

I'd agree that the bureaucracy have 99% of the intellectual input, but I disagree that they're in charge. The public service provides data, projections, options and recommendations to Government. Government accepts or rejects recommendations (sometimes with surprising or unpopular results) and selects which option to pursue - i.e. which of the "viable" options becomes policy. Government does also sometimes direct that a skeleton policy (a few key ideas) be fleshed out by the public service and/or rushed through ... and personally, I think this is where they get themselves most into trouble (e.g. home insulation).

There're also the "Statement of Expectations", to some departments and statutory bodies, about broad goals and how affairs will be conducted, as well as other Ministerial directives.

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

If anyone is getting hung up on the idea of only 25 "jurors" being randomly selected in each seat, then there are alternatives.

For example, it could be done in a two-stage process:
Stage 1: Randomly select 100 people (in each seat, for each election) to form a "superjury". The superjury meets at a mini-convention - over, say, 2-3 days - and the members rank each other to self-select the top 25.
Stage 2: The top 25 form the "jury" (in each seat, for each election) and continue as previously described.

More people selected increases the range of experience and viewpoints available and is more likey to average out ideology and bias. If one were to be unkind, one could also say that it reduces the chance of a "no hoper" getting onto the jury of 25. If one were to be really unkind, one could say that anyone who wears thongs and a T-shirt to the mini-convention is not going to go further.

With around 70,000 eligible voters in each electorate, when selection occurs once every 4 years, the probability of being randomly-selected to a group of 100 over an adult lifetime is only around 1 in 40 (2.5%) ... which is too low to game or stack.

[AndrewJ]

which is too low to game or stack.

A big part of my concern is that after being selected, they are still open to outside influence and corruption, just like now.
You only need to see whats going on in the courts to see how sophisticated and entrenched the means are to corrupt people.

As i said earlier, in a wired world, it will soon be simple to give the real vote to the people and bypass all the other stuff.
True democracy ( on a case by case basis when reqd ).

Andrew

[xelasnave]

To Astro Bot
Sounds good so far.
I am curious how the convention would run, do you have in mind a format.
Would jurors address the others with their vission for example.
I can see a big brother..the TV show..or survivor..another TV show where someone prevails through a combination of personality and strategy...
But rather than second guess what are your views on how the many select the few