Direct Democracy or Democratic Alternatives

[ShanDog]

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.

 

[Gough]

Sending a country to war, I'm cool allowing our elected representatives make this decision, even though I think they've ballsed it up the last couple times. I think they can alter the Marriage Act without too much ado.

 

[LennyStarkiller]

There needs to be something where if people are dissatisfied with legislation that has passed they can start a petition where they need to reach a certain number of legitimate signatures for it to be taken to a possible vote by the people. If it has got to the stage where it is voted on by the people it cannot be voted on again by the people unless there is a modification to it by parliament. Also don't think these votes should be compulsory and there needs to be more of an emphasis on the vote against the legislation rather than for it as people who don't vote should be seen as accepting the parliaments vote with passing the piece of legislation but got no idea how they would work it out.

 

[ShanDog]

Sending a country to war, I'm cool allowing our elected representatives make this decision, even though I think they've ballsed it up the last couple times. I think they can alter the Marriage Act without too much ado.

Not sure you are seeing the forest from the trees here.

What are your thoughts on the whole concept of direct or pure democracy?

 

[ShanDog]

There needs to be something where if people are dissatisfied with legislation that has passed they can start a petition where they need to reach a certain number of legitimate signatures for it to be taken to a possible vote by the people. If it has got to the stage where it is voted on by the people it cannot be voted on again by the people unless there is a modification to it by parliament. Also don't think these votes should be compulsory and there needs to be more of an emphasis on the vote against the legislation rather than for it as people who don't vote should be seen as accepting the parliaments vote with passing the piece of legislation but got no idea how they would work it out.

In Switzerland there is a system of petition which affects legislation. Been a while since I looked at it but I believe it was pretty good.

As far as not voting and allowing your elected parliamentarian to do it for you, that's how I imagine it working.

 

[Lester Burnham]

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.

I don't think this is practical. Even most MPs are not across the technicalities of much of the legislation.

Would love to hear people's thoughts on this system and, more broadly, other ways in which the democratic process could be improved.

I quite like the Salisbury Convention in the UK - where effectively the upper house will not block policy that was mentioned in an election manifesto.

 

[ShanDog]

I don't think this is practical. Even most MPs are not across the technicalities of much of the legislation.

This is very true and I don't imagine enough people would log in and vote on everyday legislation (of which there is a shitload) to affect much. However; when it comes to big-news lawmaking, people will be able to engage en mass. Thinking back on some controversial or widely-covered legislation in the last few years, I reckon there would be a few bills that would have gotten a lot of people logging in and voting if we had the system at the time.

Mostly, it wouldn't be used, because people don't care about adjustments to national registration of certified practising oil painters etc. But things like internet restriction laws? You bet.

 

[Lebbo73]

Maybe, when there isn't consensus from the two/three political parties they could send it to the public to decide if the govts legislation passes!

 

[ShanDog]

Maybe I shouldn't have started this thread while the same sex marriage discussion has been turned up to 11. lol

 

[little graham]

Nothing wrong with our democracy if the citizens were informed. The greatest war monger we've known (Winston Churchill) said it himself, "There is no such thing as public opinion, only published opinion"

 

[ShanDog]

Nothing wrong with our democracy if the citizens were informed. The greatest war monger we've known (Winston Churchill) said it himself, "There is no such thing as public opinion, only published opinion"

You don't think having a direct say would improve accountability and force governments to better inform the people?

 

[little graham]

You don't think having a direct say would improve accountability and force governments to better inform the people?

No, because the media control what we are informed with. Currently the media is informing us how coal is good for humanity. They do that because they're paid to buy coal miners ect, who own large chunks of their shares. This is where the power is in a democracy. Give it enough time, they'll have us worshiping Hitler, again.

 

[ShanDog]

No, because the media control what we are informed with. Currently the media is informing us how coal is good for humanity. They do that because they're paid to buy coal miners ect, who own large chunks of their shares. This is where the power is in a democracy. Give it enough time, they'll have us worshiping Hitler, again.

So I take it you believe democracy in its current form is compromised. How can this be changed?

 

[Seeds]

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.

If you are going to get rid of a house get rid of the reps not the senate. The reps is just a giant pork barreling exercise.

I would rather we more greatly constrain what our pollies could do. They don't have control over the courts and no longer have control over monetary policy. They should also lose control over other things where they have an incentive to not do the best thing for an uneducated society such as ours such as the size of the budget deficit/surplus and in some cases the distribution of taxes and welfare. Pollies should only get to decide on things like going to war and frivalous social issues such as gay marriage.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I was just thinking about something similar the other day - any reason we can't get ballot initiatives in this country as they do in the US?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/The-Ballot-Initiative-Process.htm

 

[benchwarmer5]

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.

Kudos for sharing some ideas

BUT.... I don't think party politics is getting in the way, its more that the whole system is corrupted and I don't see the answer coming from within through cosmetic changes either as the system itself is the root of the problem.

Systemic change through some kind of revolution is going to be needed, anything less wouldn't be enough. Too much power benefits from the status quo

A GFC 2.0 or equivalent economic crises will speed things along.
To go a little conspiratorial, I honestly think all this anti-terror legislation being rushed though parliament is some kind of defense mechanism from the establishment because of where this is all going. They know it in their bones they have been corrupted.
So when it becomes blindingly obvious to the average person that the elected are only representing their donors, something has to give.
The rising inequality that comes from a corrupted system will increasingly have people becoming more and more desperate.

"The biggest threat to a government is its own citizens"

Somebody said once....I think

 

[ShanDog]

Kudos for sharing some ideas

BUT.... I don't think party politics is getting in the way, its more that the whole system is corrupted and I don't see the answer coming from within through cosmetic changes either as the system itself is the root of the problem.

Systemic change through some kind of revolution is going to be needed, anything less wouldn't be enough. Too much power benefits from the status quo

A GFC 2.0 or equivalent economic crises will speed things along.
To go a little conspiratorial, I honestly think all this anti-terror legislation being rushed though parliament is some kind of defense mechanism from the establishment because of where this is all going. They know it in their bones they have been corrupted.
So when it becomes blindingly obvious to the average person that the elected are only representing their donors, something has to give.
The rising inequality that comes from a corrupted system will increasingly have people becoming more and more desperate.

"The biggest threat to a government is its own citizens"

Somebody said once....I think

I think the idea of all citizens having a say in the running of the sovereign state they are citizens of is the only way to ensure that no one elitist group or sect gains all the power, leading to all kinds of possible badness.

To that end, democracy is a must for me. The problem I have with it is that in this modern age of communication and technology, the level of power each citizen has is greater than ever before, but our political power hasn't changed. We still elect someone to represent thousands in a geographic area, then have no power to intercede on anything other than through persuasion until the next election. I think we can do better, and in doing that, we can alleviate a lot of the concerns you have. My idea is just one way of doing it but there are surely many others.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

God no.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Kudos for sharing some ideas

BUT.... I don't think party politics is getting in the way, its more that the whole system is corrupted and I don't see the answer coming from within through cosmetic changes either as the system itself is the root of the problem.

Systemic change through some kind of revolution is going to be needed, anything less wouldn't be enough. Too much power benefits from the status quo

A GFC 2.0 or equivalent economic crises will speed things along.
To go a little conspiratorial, I honestly think all this anti-terror legislation being rushed though parliament is some kind of defense mechanism from the establishment because of where this is all going. They know it in their bones they have been corrupted.
So when it becomes blindingly obvious to the average person that the elected are only representing their donors, something has to give.
The rising inequality that comes from a corrupted system will increasingly have people becoming more and more desperate.

"The biggest threat to a government is its own citizens"

Somebody said once....I think

At least some kind of direct democracy like ballot initiatives can still get some progressive laws through with grassroots support. There is no way they ever would have got things like "medical marijuana" through in the US without ballot initiatives. It would be a useful way of trying to get some progressive legislation through especially where the arguments are often dictated by ideology (for example legalising abortions, taxing religion etc)

 

[telsor]

I like the idea in theory, but if it were to happen, I would require people to be adequately informed of the detail, nuance and potential consequences of legislation before voting on it, which would probably mean you'd never reach quorum.

 

[ShanDog]

I like the idea in theory, but if it were to happen, I would require people to be adequately informed of the detail, nuance and potential consequences of legislation before voting on it, which would probably mean you'd never reach quorum.

Each electorate would be voting to either approve or disapprove of their ministers vote in parliament in my idea above, so its not like a referendum.

Definitely has consequence with regard to informing the public. The big issues that get talked about will attract a lot of attention and votes, but the mundane day-to-day will probably go unnoticed.

 

[telsor]

Each electorate would be voting to either approve or disapprove of their ministers vote in parliament in my idea above, so its not like a referendum.

Definitely has consequence with regard to informing the public. The big issues that get talked about will attract a lot of attention and votes, but the mundane day-to-day will probably go unnoticed.

There is a difference between voting and a popularity poll.

Without reference to consequences, you'd never get a tax rise or spending cut...

 

[Seeds]

This would never work as too few would vote. A citizens house where people are chosen at random as with a jury to be ministers for a set period of say 2 to 4 years would be a better way. They would have to be paid appropriately and guaranteed their old jobs back after their time was up. I would also advocate that citizens have to have a uni degree to be nominated.

 

[Taylor]

I'm curious how much someone would read the laws and not just swipe right or left because "More Cash for Schools Act 2015", which takes money from pensioners, sounds better than "Forced Prostate Exams for All Act 2015" which is about dental care.

Also I expect lobby groups to allow citizens to input their voter ID and the lobby group will automatically apply your vote to how they see fit. For example a union saying they will use your vote to block any anti worker laws but in reality they just vote no against any coalition bills with a big block of auto votes.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I like the idea in theory, but if it were to happen, I would require people to be adequately informed of the detail, nuance and potential consequences of legislation before voting on it, which would probably mean you'd never reach quorum.

You mean like the electorate having to be informed prior to voting for their local member?