telsor
Hall of Famer
You mean like the electorate having to be informed prior to voting for their local member?
That would be nice, but at least that involves an election campaign where they (supposedly) get some idea.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You mean like the electorate having to be informed prior to voting for their local member?
Come on, teh laborz is terrible, and probably kills kittens as well, was pretty much enough to get the Coalition elected last time round.You mean like the electorate having to be informed prior to voting for their local member?
That would be nice, but at least that involves an election campaign where they (supposedly) get some idea.
i don't mind
the system sucks, but none of the radical revolutionaries so enraged by every topic have all the answers. their isms would just lead to similar levels of suckage, just the shape would change. people are s**t, that's just how it is.
The problem with democracy is that roughly half the electorate are of below average intelligence.
I'd be in favour of having to pass some sort of civics course in order to vote. Something specifically tailored to the newly voting-age person that outlines their rights, responsibilities, the functions of government branches and how the voting system works.What is your alternative?
I'm not suggesting that we need an alternative. I am just pointing out that aspiring to make a system 'more democratic' is not necessarily a good thing.
A strong case can be made for profoundly 'undemocratic' democracies like Singapore. An element of popular sovereignty is retained to prevent full autocracy, but functional decision-making is essentially handled by a technocracy.
I'd be in favour of having to pass some sort of civics course in order to vote. Something specifically tailored to the newly voting-age person that outlines their rights, responsibilities, the functions of government branches and how the voting system works.
Doesn't have to be exclusionary by actively trying to fail the bottom 30% or something, but at least it requires everyone to receive the same information and acknowledge it.
That's a fairly simplistic reading of Singapore's system. PAP's benevolence is far from a happy coincidence - there is a lot of stuff about the political system that encourages it.Singapore is interesting. By many indicators its people are well off. They are wealthy, have long life expectancy, students do well, there's a low crime rate. They also rate their government high on trustworthiness and low on corruption. However, like you say, their system of government is mostly a pretence of democracy. Nominally they have a multi-party Westminster style democracy. But PAP has won every general election since 1959. PAP has put in place measures to disadvantage opposition parties. Effectively, Lee Kuan Yew was a dictator, but a benevolent one who believed that 'Mandarins' who put the public good above their personal interests are necessary for good governance.
It has worked for Singapore but as a political model it can't be applied generally. Dictators tend to be self interested rather than altruistic.
No doubt some people would struggle to pass even very basic tests on civics, but that's sort of the point.Not exclusionary but you have to pass in order to vote?
Can you imagine the arm wrestle over what would be in the test that might exclude some voters? I doubt it's practical.
That's a fairly simplistic reading of Singapore's system. PAP's benevolence is far from a happy coincidence - there is a lot of stuff about the political system that encourages it.
For example, multimember electorates are very easy to retain above a certain vote threshold, but result in seats falling quickly and in large numbers once you drop below it.
This means that a government who does the fundamentals right - ensures good jobs, economic prosperity, safe and comfortable lives - will hold government pretty easily, as they won't get anywhere near that tipping point. This allows them the freedom to take daring/controversial decisions in other areas without facing much electoral consequences.
I completely agree and because of our compulsory voting system and our relatively wonderfull education and health system plus our access to justice, we are without doubt, I believe, a shining example of democracy.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"
I used to be all for removing the Upper House but as I settled down a bit and thought a bit more, not to mention living in Australia when Bjelke Petersen ruled Queensland, I reckon that the Upper House serves a good and necessary purpose.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.
I think the point you raise is very good. External influences on the public is an important issue - I used to think that it was no different in principle to the media giving favour to one party over another in the leadup to an election, or big businesses getting in the pockets of politicians, but it's not so simple. There definitely needs to be a way to mitigate "gaming the system" as much as possible. It's more an issue relating to the practicalities of the idea though, not so much whether the idea is of value as an idea.I used to be all for removing the Upper House but as I settled down a bit and thought a bit more, not to mention living in Australia when Bjelke Petersen ruled Queensland, I reckon that the Upper House serves a good and necessary purpose.
Your proposal for a 14 day "withholding period", so to speak, would be unwieldy, prohibitively costly but much worse than that, it could and most certainly would, come down to which vested interest has enough doe to spend convincing us which way to vote. One need not look further than the vile and dishonest media campaign by the mining companies when the super-profits tax was proposed and the all too disingenuous and laughable campaign waged by the big banks against the SA Governments attempts to tax them but regardless of the merits of these proposals, I would argue that the might of corporations scuttled these initiatives.