fawkes wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 7:37pm:



Spell out what you think is wrong with the current system.
Spell out how you would do it differently.
Convince lots of people to agree with you.  You may find it useful to formalise the association of these people if they are spead across the country.
You will need to find ways to fund the activities of your association.
You ill find that you will have to compromise with some of your comrades because people want slightly different things even when they want the same sort of change. You will have to be prepared to have a few opportunists in the ranks who are just pretending to agree with you. But that's life.
You will also find that some other group that is completely against evrytrhing you stand for ill work hard to kill off your association. SO you will have to find an outlet where your association can exercise some power to demostrate its practiical credentials. This will require more compromises but it's worth it if your ideas are so good.

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2010 at 11:09pm:


The explanation  you linked to did not indicate that to me. Can you quote the bit that explains how someone can vote on each issue?

Thanks.

fawkes wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 10:20am:


You can change your delegate before each vote. You could probably include a direct voting option, but I don't think that would be necessary.

Quote:


Out of all the sitting delegates, I'm sure there would be at least one who declared their position for and one against on each issue. Delegates who sprang it on their supporters at the last minute would soon find themselves low on supporters.

Quote:


We already do. I call it the media. The outcome of any contentious issue would be fairly well know before the actual vote, except for the flow of votes from people switching delegates.

The reason I like the scheme so much is that it does not force people to vote on issues they know nothing about. It is unreasonable to expect them to do so. It gives them the choice of delegating all of their decisions with a trusted representative, or making all of them personally, or any combination. Instead of having 3 or 4 parties in the house to choose from, their would be 50 or 100 different ideologies. It would be much easier to find someone you trusted to delegate your decisions to.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 9:01pm:


Many issues are not so clear cut that they can be properly covered by simple for and against propositions: a whole range of options might be viable, and with delegates free of restriction imposed by party interference, each option is likely to find one delegate at least who will champion it.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 9:01pm:


Too little, to late to prevent us being stuck with a bad decision, unfortunately. Remember the lady who changed her mind at the last minute to saddle us with a GST that the people clearly did not want? She ruined her political career and her party by so doing, but we are still left with the GST, and I would be surprised if the lady responsible was not paid off handsomely for her treachery, behind the scenes somehow.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 9:01pm:


You still trust the media?  I would prefer  a better reporting system that need only be an Internet website, with a database in which all delegates policy positions and voting history was recorded. That way the most junior of delegates would get the same degree of coverage as the most famous, so you could expect to find them all. You would have all the history at your fingertips, instead of what the media chose to talk about currently. And a database of facts would not be continually trying to manipulate your thoughts and vote the way media commentators do.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 9:01pm:


Well said!

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2010 at 9:01pm:


I am still very wary of allowing parties to have any involvement in the process, lest they spoil the system as they have with representative democracy.  With the enormous funds they are able to command, they will through advertising (and perhaps more sinister methods) attract undue power to their candidates from the same sheeple in our community who are fooled by them now.

mr fawkes?
what a great name, and what a great guy. LOL.
anyway, you a totally right, you have my support, whatever that means.
this is all so obvious.

but and its a really BIG BUTT...hehe.

when i walk down to burwood nsw shopping center, which is every day, at present, all i
see are b, c, d, grade ppl.
nothing A grade., a was the case a few years back.
none of these ppl are white.
this suburb is suffering badly.
20% of retail in burwood road is not rented. closed and looks really bad.
very very noisy. can't hear the shop attendants for traffic noise.
none of which helps the failing commerce.
these are just examples of  failing system.
btw, i am NOT racist. never. never could be. i love ppl too much.
and that IS the point - our so-called gov't is manipulating ALL of us.

i can only say: do not vote.
call for referendum on all matters.
let the ppl speak.

atm, australia sucks.
and it's not the ppl, it's our gov't.
respect to all of you, you are as concerned, no matter what your beliefs are, as i am.
i do not want to die here, knowing this country has failed, when, i my life 'ive this place A LOT BETTER.

sincerely,
john robinson.
(yes this is my real name.).

Quote:


Why not? Politicians, BANKERS and corporate execs do it.

Who would be so stupid as to fight amongst themelves when the real criminals are blatantly getting away scott free?