The other problem with enviros idea is it will create a monopoly on who can become a politition or indeed, president.
Thats where partys are good, it gives a fairer chance.

Quote:


Monopoly?  Anybody in Australia with the skills can run as a candidate. The first time people vote allows us to shortlist the candidates. If their were 2000 people running for Finance Minister, that pass the initial selection criteria, we would take the top 6 to 12 from the initial voting and then hold another vote with final candidates. Yes this means voting twice but the ease of doing it at home, or work, on your computer would make it viable. Beats lining up for 2 hours at a poll booth.

Democracy should carry into parlaiment not just rear it's head at voting time.

Freediver I'll get back to your comments later. Have to go.


*Why you started another thread is beyond me Freediver, this one should be under Aus Nat's original thread.

freediver wrote on Mar 7^th, 2007 at 9:43pm:


This is an absolute ridiculous notion you have of the workings of party's.

The only people with a finger in the pie are the corrupt politicians that force nepotism within the party based on rigid ideals. A job for your mate or lets get rid of such and such to foriegn minister so he is no longer a threat to the stabilisation of the party's ideals is what happens when you put a party together. Within that party, under the surface of all the pomp and ceremony, it is realy a dictatorship. The bean counters control the party. When you vote for the Prime Minister your not voting for him but for some bean counter in the backroom forming party policy. The Prime Minister is just an educated salesman.

Freediver Quote:


No, people in a political party have a vested interest on whether you are going to Kow Tow to there ideals. The bad apple in party's has been there since their foundation. The party's of today were built from the foundation of a rotting apple.

Freediver Quote:


How do independants ever get elected then?

What I am suggesting would be like having an independant in each seat and they are there to do a certain job.

Freediver Quote:


So you promote vindictiveness in our parlaiment?

---

At the moment we only have 2 directions we can go either Liberal Ideals or Labor Ideals. Do you honestly believe that this is healthy for the country?

Democracy and debate should be constant within our parlaiment but debate only happens when the 2 ideals clash. They could be both wrong but we would have to stick to it.

With 100 ideals (independants) in parlaiment and healthy debate should prove more accurate when it comes to the direction of this country. The debate would also consist of a higher educated level meaning a better understanding through parlaiment benefiting the people.

Freediver Quote:


You wouldn't even know an alternative if you fell over one.

You are conditioned to believe in Party's, this is obvious. If not, list me three alternatives of running a country with no party's.

Oh, you can't? I wonder why?

Freediver Quote:


I just finnished explaining how you can ban parties.

Freediver Quote:


What I suggest makes this impossible until after they are elected but, the President, being impartial,  must also agree. The Presidents job is to work with the facts that are presented to him from each individual member. You won't be voting for a party's common policy (which isn't really common through all members of that party) you will be voting for an individuals beliefs.

---

Keeping in mind, a parlaiment that is party based actually restrains free speach and healthy debate.

---

Freediver Quote:

enviro Quote:

Freediver Quote:


What stops them Freediver is the fact that they might be backing a loser. As for trusting the institution of each party an independant would never be elected because they are not party affiliated. They are a true representative of the people. We have many independants that win elections because of their impartiality.

The reason why, what I have suggested would work, is after elections the elected people would form their own labor, liberal, green etc factions within giving healthy debate over each issue. Keeping in mind each one can be elected out of office every 4 years under my alternative.

I believe that people have been conditioned to believe that they need party's. Parlaiment should be represented by people not party's for the people.

So people will know where this discussion above has derived from I have pasted previous mixed text from another thread in what I have written in regards to a Republic.

Critisism can be viewed at;

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1173182998



I think you should think a little bit more out of the square. What we really need to do is have the populace select each individual minister's position based on merit. CV's can be displayed of each candidate with the focus to finding the right people to do the job. Somehow we need to take popularity or charisma out of the contest.

I think we should have a president. The next best time to raise the republican issue is now because people want change. Politics have become stale with them. Too much emphasis is being put on how a politician sells himself rather than his skill to do the job.

I believe there are many different ways you can do this but my favourite is that elections should be run on our computers where candidates, who have to pass a criteria test, can submit there CV. We peruse their CV's over a 6 week period then vote online. Maybe the candidates only provide avatars and who they really are is not revealed until after an election. This also takes vanity out of the equation.

I believe the President should select the Foreign Affairs Minister because this job does entail personality being the salesman for Australia. The President would have to accept full responsibility for all actions provided by the Foreign Affairs Minister.

Only if the focus was on collective thought and not individual thought.

We have many party's in this country being Labour, Liberal, Democrats, One Nation, Greens etc. These party's are made up of like minded people. The problem with this is, because they are party affiliated they have to agree and vote on the party's preferred choice not their preferred choice. This is what happens when you create teams. (Collective Thought)

To be a real republic or even a democracy you need to get rid of party's. The only Party that counts is the one that forms after each election with the CEO, I mean President, at the helm.

The President can still give direction of the nation but he will need to convince each individual within the newly elected party. This will instil democracy within the government.

The individuals CV would have their beliefs illustrated.

Policy change's or addition's would be argued in parlaiment and 51% passes the bill. The president makes the final decision based on whether it is allowed to pass or not. This makes the President the fail safe switch. The president is generally voted in for the direction that he wants to take the country, so when judging these policy changes he will be able to take that direction into account.

You really need to get the concept of not having political party's.


By becoming a republic it allows us to change the structure and the foundations of democracy modernising it for today and the future. This allows us to change the system to suit for example, how we vote.

In our modern society it is possible, with technology, to change how we vote. People will vote based on how much interest they have in voting. If they are interested enough they will read pages and pages about the people they plan to vote for. But if they are disinterested they may just read the candidates beliefs in certain areas. I believe you personally Freediver would read all the pages because it is your interest to do so.

Even today people will go to vote and hardly any of them would know the policies or the beliefs of each party or even the candidate they vote for. John Howard would never have been voted for if he focused on GST, yet we now have GST.

They are not seperate issues Freediver. Anything that is part of the system is the same. Democracy is all about voting and giving the people the choice.

If you were running for environment minister you would display your Green Shift Tax Policy as your belief. Can you tell me what todays environment ministers personal belief is when it comes to GST (as an example). Of course you can't because you can't ask him.

What we really need to do is have the populace select each individual minister's position based on merit.

That doesn't involve banning political parties. Furthermore, unles you constitute 'extra' powers for each minister, then the position of each minister will be fairly meaningless, because each member of parliament has an equal say in how each area is run.

Somehow we need to take popularity or charisma out of the contest.  

Popularity is based on more than charisma. It is based on trust. If you plan on doing this by anonymous candidates, you will severely restrict the flow of information to the public about each candidate. That is not good for democracy.

I think we should have a president.

Whether we have a president is irrelevant. What matters is the role of the president. You can call Howard president if you want, but it won't change anything.

BTW, I only started a new thread to discuss the issue of banning parties. There is no need to bring the other issues over. Whether we switch to a republic is a completely separate issue from whether we ban parties.

You really need to get the concept of not having political party's.

I get the concept. I just think it's a really bad idea.

If they are interested enough they will read pages and pages about the people they plan to vote for.

The vast majority are not that interested.

No agenda. I just think it is an interesting topic for debate, regadless of how it fits in with your suggestion. I've heard the same criticism of parties from other people. Your suggestion is a combination of several different concepts and I think it makes more sense to consider them in isolation, at least initially.