A Small Idea With Big Potential

I have had an idea raging inside me for a long time now. It would really be more of a dream.

You see I have long held that the problem with democracy tends to be the majority rules logic behind it. A lot of Australia's government can found strategy and policy based on 51% of people voting it in. To me this is bad governing as there is so little difference between what is majority and what is minority.

The same cannot be said when it comes to elected officials. The problem I see there is the party system. Too many people just constantly vote for the same party no matter what. It is on the same par as religion or football. You won't find me for instance changing my religious views very quickly nor my allegiance to M.F.C.

I can point out two solutions to these problems, though I know many would disagree with them. The only other catch is that if it ever were achievable it will be at a future time and only after major alteration and preparation.

I will deal with the second first.
I believe we must rid ourselves of the party system as we know it. Instead ( I can hear the collective shudder) everyone that would like to join up goes into a database. There are then drafts to select a set number of people randomly across the country. Yearly in nature this would eliminate the current sickening trend of promising change... after the next election. Also it would somewhat eliminate the problem of people supporting that which they normally wouldn't just because their team suggested it. It would offer a true cross section of the community and it's needs, rather than what we have: a parliament full of people slimy enough to rise that far up through party politics.

The next solution concludes the first.
I think that when we have this in effect it would be a lot easier to take just being told what is being enacted and changed. We could still keep the vital bureaucrats and staffers reluctantly needed to take care of the minutiae of turning things into law.

Anyway I think it would be a good system to have in place for the future. Would be interested for feedback. There are problems with what I say, but if anyone reads this and thinks of them I am sure I will be told exactly what they think. That is good though. It is a serious idea and some other option needs to be found in a time when politicians are exeedingly removed from the real world.

Cheers
Pablosity

Not only are you on to something with this idea, but a lot of people in the right places are thinking the same thing as a natural evolution of the political spectrum.

This is what has to happen -the abolishing of parties. Parties ARE organized crime against 49% of the population.

reply to post by Atlantican


Mate which other people in the right place do you mean exactly? Wouldn't mind more info on that call. It is a difficult subject matter fraught with unknowns. Any help formulating a viable model would be appreciated.

People tend to forget that a minority wins in elections due to not everyone voting.

Minorities of people pick who wins, not the majority.

OR instead of having 'political parties' as we currently know them, perhaps we could just pile up all the bankers and politicians, set them on fire and have a 'massive party'?

reply to post by andy1033


In Australia you have to vote or you get fined.
Because so many people have no interest in politics,So many people seem so resigned to the fact nothing ever happens and their lives are never impacted in a positive way that they just habitually vote for the same party election after election, usually the same party their parents voted for, often without even knowing the policies of each party.

This leads to complacency in the political ranks.They have forgotten they are OUR servants, in fact they are even labeled as leaders, which to me is clearly at odds with the supposed role of "serving" your electorate.
That is why the 2 party system is so flawed,and in OZ you have to vote, so they assume you have o vote for one of them, which sadly is true,because even though there are any number of minor parties and in dependent candidates people see it as throwing the vote away, i see 2 party voting as throwing your vote away, it's a vote for complacency, it's a vote for a government who does not listen, rather tells.Which is not true democracy at all.

I personally believe that if you rid politics of money and capital influence, true, genuine ideologies and politicians will begin to appear. Parties are only screwed up because they pursue their own power and financial interests. The way to get rid of this (and indeed it would be very complex) would be to somehow replace lobbyists and corporate influence in politics, and thus the people would be able to properly vote based on the party who promises (and follows through) with the policy best suited for the nation.

Random Candidate Selection: I thought that's a brilliant piece of original thinking! So thanks pablos

The main practical, problems, I see is ensuring the random selection, process, was random! So it would NEED to be done like the lottery!!

ALSO
You ought to ensure that every candidate is serious about wanting power, and (preferably) has some ability to either gain or represent popular support.

To do this I'd promote demanding that every candidate should gain e.g. 1000 signatures just for entry into the lottery. You wouldn't want it to be 1000,000 signatures either; as that would completely miss the point of opening up politics.
Yet it seems silly, to recklessly encourage incapable, people to be our leaders. Requiring all "Representatives of Public Opinion" to go face the difficult (but not necessarily impossible) task of passing an entry, vote, threshold would ensure all our leaders wanted power in its own right (rather than simply the benefits, it delivers them (personally).

This Would Be Great For Reforming the U.K's House of Lords!!!

BUT: You want Parliament to be like the Big Brother House where every week someone gets voted of, yet unlike Big Brother they would always be replaced. An advantage to this is that parliament could be smaller (saves money AND time) because Parliament would (at the same time) also be much more representative!

reply to post by Liberal1984


I don't really want people voted out. Just short term periods so no one gets that sinister complacency that tends to follow professional politicians. Maybe one year. It ensures a freshness of opinion and debate.

I believe we could then stop paying for politicians pensions for the rest of their lives, which would definitely reduce the cost of maintaining parliament.

Cheers

I don't think it's the party system as such, but the reality that Dems and Reps can basically exclude everyone else from the process. It's a rigged game! That is NOT the American Way. The arrogance of the Dems and Reps makes me want to spit in their faces. It's been politics as usual for way, way too long.

reply to post by pablos


With a federal election looming i am again painfully reminded that I do no wish to have either party controlling our interests in the thinly veiled guise of representation.

In the unlikely event I am able to relate to a minor party enough to vote for them i am likely to disagree with their allocation of preferences.

Party politics as we know it needs to be replaced.
I am for the candidate voluntary "conscription" model you have suggested.

Ever heard of puppet show ?

The face is different, voice is "i'll try my best", the string puller is the same.

Taking of the model, a new candidate everytime still will not bring any new improvement, because if the string puller is behind it never change, nothing change except the face.

I'm thinking of another weird politic -
You must deliver what your opponent promise.

Give it a thought

reply to post by RainCloud


Major political parties that currently operate may be etrenched in a culture of loyalties ad controlling influences.If yu wan't to be involved with, and rise to prominence within such major parties you must learn to guard these influences and interests.

It seems more likely that under the suggested model it would be far harder for the 'puppet masters' to control political interests.
With no party to conform to an independent candidate has no reason to buckle to powers that weild little influence over their political career.

Ahh I see, a no party politic, hmm yeah that would be good. I think a comparable politic system is democratic socialist.
That is better than party based were having right now.

Doesnt its like what the roman do ?

reply to post by For(Home)Country


I agree, if we did what The Greens are advocating which is essentially an end to party donations above a threshold that would qualify/identify as buying political influence, real politicians would begin to emerge.

What we need is a participatory democracy like Venezuela has been building. Or a direct democracy like Switzerland (I think? may be Sweden)

A yearly parliamentary turn around wouldn't be too good either, I am in favor of extending our term, from 3 to 4 years and when society is evolved enough to 10.

As it stands now, after you get elected you've got.

1 year to settle in, get organised and begin
1 year to oversee your plans put in a few new ones and basically brag
1 year to cop heavy flak from the opposition and prepare for an election.
repeat.

The main thing, is to get money out of the equation - that way the lobbys don't have any power beyond candinates coming from them (which can then be put to the public)

But I agree, the 2-Party system is faulty.

I dunno, these are all just disjointed thoughts...

One of the other problems not yet addressed here is the cost of joining a political race. I mean serously it is expensive to win an election. Obama had to get funded from major banks and huge corpertions, he is a shill just like the rest, he just palyed a better game.

Also one of the other major issues would be the pay, if someone gets elected byt th people they shouldnt make more than the average contituant.

reply to post by KingAtlas


In the pablos proposed model it would seem (we shall have to ask him)
There would be no elections, just a term of service, like military service, is that right pablos?

As it is, depending on which set of earning statistics the gov presents us with the average pollie earns around 30,000 - 60,000 more than the average worker.The wage does not necessarily have to be average, it should be above average to encourage a broader section of the community to participate.

Yeah but higher pay also leads to greater greed.

Take this as an example, A Pilot in the United states of america,makes 17-25 thousand , numbers are gettign lower all the time, yet pilots continue to work BECAUSE THEY LOVE TO FLY.

I think that by having wage as an insentive for a politician to strive for sucess is counter productive. A politician should have a lower pay because it would eliminate those that would chase the cash, and any extra monitary spending by a politician would be far more noticiable....As in "How can he afford that on a politicians salary"

Originally posted by KingAtlas
Yeah but higher pay also leads to greater greed.

Take this as an example, A Pilot in the United states of america,makes 17-25 thousand , numbers are gettign lower all the time, yet pilots continue to work BECAUSE THEY LOVE TO FLY.

I think that by having wage as an insentive for a politician to strive for sucess is counter productive. A politician should have a lower pay because it would eliminate those that would chase the cash, and any extra monitary spending by a politician would be far more noticiable....As in "How can he afford that on a politicians salary"

That may encourage greater corruption.

Besides, being a politician is often a very stressful job.