I believe that our current form of representative democracy is sometimes more of a hindrance than an enabler, with party politics getting in the way of genuine governance for the betterment of our country.
In 2015, I think it's a good time to start talking about the possibilities of 'improving' our democratic system, and I would like to throw up a suggested way of doing it:
Direct and Representative Democracy
Parliament stays the same, but we remove the upper house completely. The upper house, among some other things, is essentially a check and balance to the lower house where the party with the majority of seats holds government. Under the system I am proposing, the people become the check and balance, therefore removing the need for an upper house.
We still elect our parliamentary representatives based on the ideologies or policy into the House of Representatives. All aspects of this process remain the same.
Every bill and piece of legislation introduced has an automatic 14 day hold on it once passed. From there, the bill goes to a public vote that is conducted through the AEC online. Everyone has a voter ID and can log in, clicking yes or no to a bill should they want to.
The results of the public vote can work in several ways, but I like the idea of it working in the same way as an election does; every seat's vote is tallied and if more than 50% of the registered voters vote against the way their elected representative in parliament has, then that minister's vote is effectively reversed. If people generally abstain from voting, or vote the same as their representative (as redundant as that would be), then their vote stays the same. After the 14 days has passed, the results determine the outcome of the bill/legislation.
There's obviously a lot by way of detail in how the system would work that are important, but the overall concept of the people being able to have their voice heard on any issue they choose to engage with is the important principle.
Advantages
1. Everybody has the opportunity to participate in the democratic process.
2. Elections and subsequent government still represent the majority of the country's views and are responsible for legislation.
3. Accountability to the public is there 100% of the time.
4. Governments will have to focus on informing or selling their legislation to the public to ensure support, meaning greater transparency.
5. Improved civic engagement and reduced disenfranchisement of the public with the democratic system.
Disadvantages
1. Obvious security issues for internet based voting that must be addressed.
2. The argument that some lawmaking and legislation should be left to those who are qualified to do it is a valid one in some circumstances.
There are dozens of aspects to this system that need consideration for it to be able to work, such as what is the scope of legislation the public votes on (do governments get autonomy on certain things like emergency management, military operations and budgets?) and how the system could actually be implemented, but it's the thought that counts.
Would love to hear people's thoughts on this system and, more broadly, other ways in which the democratic process could be improved.
In 2015, I think it's a good time to start talking about the possibilities of 'improving' our democratic system, and I would like to throw up a suggested way of doing it:
Direct and Representative Democracy
Parliament stays the same, but we remove the upper house completely. The upper house, among some other things, is essentially a check and balance to the lower house where the party with the majority of seats holds government. Under the system I am proposing, the people become the check and balance, therefore removing the need for an upper house.
We still elect our parliamentary representatives based on the ideologies or policy into the House of Representatives. All aspects of this process remain the same.
Every bill and piece of legislation introduced has an automatic 14 day hold on it once passed. From there, the bill goes to a public vote that is conducted through the AEC online. Everyone has a voter ID and can log in, clicking yes or no to a bill should they want to.
The results of the public vote can work in several ways, but I like the idea of it working in the same way as an election does; every seat's vote is tallied and if more than 50% of the registered voters vote against the way their elected representative in parliament has, then that minister's vote is effectively reversed. If people generally abstain from voting, or vote the same as their representative (as redundant as that would be), then their vote stays the same. After the 14 days has passed, the results determine the outcome of the bill/legislation.
There's obviously a lot by way of detail in how the system would work that are important, but the overall concept of the people being able to have their voice heard on any issue they choose to engage with is the important principle.
Advantages
1. Everybody has the opportunity to participate in the democratic process.
2. Elections and subsequent government still represent the majority of the country's views and are responsible for legislation.
3. Accountability to the public is there 100% of the time.
4. Governments will have to focus on informing or selling their legislation to the public to ensure support, meaning greater transparency.
5. Improved civic engagement and reduced disenfranchisement of the public with the democratic system.
Disadvantages
1. Obvious security issues for internet based voting that must be addressed.
2. The argument that some lawmaking and legislation should be left to those who are qualified to do it is a valid one in some circumstances.
There are dozens of aspects to this system that need consideration for it to be able to work, such as what is the scope of legislation the public votes on (do governments get autonomy on certain things like emergency management, military operations and budgets?) and how the system could actually be implemented, but it's the thought that counts.
Would love to hear people's thoughts on this system and, more broadly, other ways in which the democratic process could be improved.