Here is an idea I heard a while ago.


Have a non party political system.  Everyone is an independant.
Every decision made by the government must be unanimous.

Other people here would have heard of the same idea.

Any comments ?

without parties, then how do u select a prime minister??

if u suggest a direct vote by the people, that wouldn't work since you would have a long list of candidates and i hardly doubt someone is that popular to the point that they would receive more than 50% of the population's vote.

Independents would more or less divide along the current lines and you will have made no difference. Then there is the other issue of the ministry, although that can easily be voted on by the houses.

Don't get me wrong, ideally I agree with you... but human nature tends to screw with idealistic scenarios :)

I would just like for the current party discipline to break down a little, and politicians adopt a more open attitude towards voting independently on local issues with local constituents in mind, like Barnaby does. The Liberal party I believe is way ahead of Labor in this regard in that they allow floor crossing, as far as I'm aware if you cross the floor in the Labor party you are out of the party (but I could be wrong).

hey you can say god wears a thong but its not going to make one iota.

Why you need a government to make change see that happening here with talk.

Not going to happen.

Why am i here typing wasting my time

www.tapp.org.au

Hi JJJ , Zoso and Stu,

These are just my guesses, I am making it up as I go !!! (always the best fun)

JJJ - The PM would be just a spokesperson to represent the Govt.  He would not be a "leader, as such.


Zoso - interesting. Yes, human nature is the .... crucial point. From what little i know, I like the sound of Barnaby.

Stu - All things start with a dream

SC, what you are proposing is a form of non-partisan democracy, which is one step away from direct democracy. Absolute power to the people. All decisions are voted upon by the individual electors (kind of like a perpetual referendum).

Interestingly, the first government of USA was non-partisan. It didn't last very long, and has now morphed into a two party system.

I think you and Stu (TAPP) share the same POV, that a lack of choice breeds parties that no longer represent the interests of the public i.e. an oligarchy. In principal, I agree with a large number of independents/parties. But it does make for a less stable government, as allegiances between independents in a non-partisan system will change over time. It is also far more expensive, because the system becomes increasingly complex.

Stu wrote on Mar 30^th, 2007 at 6:20pm:

Why am i here typing wasting my time www.tapp.org.au

Only you can answer that, Stu.   :-?

AUShole wrote on Mar 31^st, 2007 at 5:32pm:

SC, what you are proposing is a form of non-partisan democracy, which is one step away from direct democracy. Absolute power to the people. All decisions are voted upon by the individual electors (kind of like a perpetual referendum).

But isn't that what direct democracy is about? Wouldn't getting rid of political parties be a step towards direct democracy?

Quote:

But isn't that what direct democracy is about? Wouldn't getting rid of political parties be a step towards direct democracy?

Yes. I don't understand your point, or are you just agreeing with me?  :)

No you said getting away from a party system is moving away from direct democracy, but I thought it would be moving towards direct democracy?

Quote:

what you are proposing is a form of non-partisan democracy, which is one step away from direct democracy.

That was intended to mean:

Government of independents = non-partisan --> direct democracy

One step away is a point of comparison, that direct democracy is only one step from non-partisan government (i.e. Shirley lives around the corner, she is only one step away from me). You are interpreting this literally (i.e. Shirley smells, I am taking one step away from her, where the air is more fresh).

What I should have said is "what you are proposing is a form of non-partisan democracy, which is one step from direct democracy".

Got ya, sorry :)

Its amazing what you miss without vocal intonations :)

what would happen to all those generational labor and liberal voters, they wouldnt know what to do...

we dont want to confuse anyone

The cruicial part is EVERY decision HAS to be unanimous.
Not even anyone abstaining.

There is no point having a government that requires absolute unanimity because it will always default to the lowest common denominator - which everybody already agrees on beforehand. There's no meaningful decision to be made there. Who needs a law that everyone already obeys instinctively?

Government is about resolving contentious differences peacefully and expediently - it requires compromise, and also needs a mechanism which can break deadlocks when necessary. A majority vote of some kind seems the only practical way of doing this to me.

Rousseau, I think, suggested that unanimity was inevitable when the "General Will" was accurately determined, and also suggested that any kind of factionalism was a sign of a failure of the democratic process. The only sense I've been able to make of this is to recognize a distinction between the acceptance of the process (ie. there has to be unanimous acceptance of the legitimacy of the parliament and therefore it's decision), as opposed to an expectation that the process itself would be determined by a unanimous vote. Rousseau emphasized the distinction between the "General Will" (acceptance of process) and the "Will of All" (sum of individual wills). I suspect that when you have a functioning direct democracy this distinction might disappear, which I think was Rousseau's assumption, and it might be a source of confusion if we are talking about representative systems.

Political parties are simply a regulated form of political association. Freedom of association is a basic democratic right.

Hi rat,
Interesting comments.

The crucial stipulation that every decision has to be unanimous brings about a different mindset to a governing body.
As it is, the govt is an adverserial system. Similar to the judicial system.
It is terrible to listen to the politicians discussing when in govt.
In any workplace i have been in, noone would waste resources (time) like that.
In every good work place and good house I have been in, the goal is for the BEST decision.

If the goal is the BEST decision, as oppoed to a "my sides" decision, a unanimous decision is the culmination of the decision making process.
After all, it IS the best decision .

Hi sprintcyclist,

Yes, agreed. However, the difference between a workplace or a home, and a national parliament, is the degree of common interest shared by the members. The first two would most likely be instances of direct democracy, with overwhelming shared interests. A national parliament needs to cater to widely varied interests, often in direct and vigorous opposition. Some competing points of view cannot be reconciled without complete capitulation by one side or the other - do you mine uranium or not? - do you sell Telstra or not? People can have very strong, and very understandable, but very different priorities in their lives. When you have an agenda on a national scale you cannot expect unanimity on important decisions. Even in our households and workplaces we often just outvote one another, and agree to accept that as the verdict in order to keep the peace (do we order pizza or Chinese?) - it's effectively unanimous in the end, but it's really about an acceptance of process. The vote takes place. The factions exist. When the issues/disagreements persist, the factions will persist. I would suggest that political parties coalesce around persisting or ingrained differences of opinion (profound, huh?). I don't see that as a problem.

I'm sorry to be the one telling you this, sprintcyclist, but it's not actually an original idea of yours.  ;)

This political style was actually already around in the 1800's in Australia, where political parties did not exist, and 'nobles' were the ones who were in parliament. But the difference was, they were not paid to do this, which is why only rich people ran for office back then. It was only when politicians started being paid that working class people started trying to get elected and started being politicians.

There was good points and bad points about this system of Government:

Good Points:

1) Politicians could make moral judgements for themselves and were not confined to follow party lines of thought.
2) Were not that corrupt.

Bad Points

1) Hardly anything was achieved, as people would disagree on almost every issue and a conclusion was never reached by a majority.


Political parties were basically just an evolutionary step. It's basically just a bunch of people with similar interests and beliefs who decided to bond to win power.
Ever watched 'survivor' the TV show? There's a good example.

Hi Donald,  yes, was an idea I heard, not mine.
Though I have started to "reinvent the wheel" a few times before !!
Once for a self cooling esky,  that was currently on sale at Kmart !!!!   ;D

Getting an unanimous decision would be the .. sticking point.
It is a way of ensuring an idea is considered using logics/ethics ??
Heard of the study of fallacies ? Would be nice if that was used moreso in govt.

survivor was a great show, the first few times.

Quote:

Hi Donald,  yes, was an idea I heard, not mine.   Though I have started to "reinvent the wheel" a few times before !!   Once for a self cooling esky,  that was currently on sale at Kmart !!!!

No probs mate. I think old ideas can be reinvented somewhat. So you're right there in my book.



Quote:

Getting an unanimous decision would be the .. sticking point.   It is a way of ensuring an idea is considered using logics/ethics ??   Heard of the study of fallacies ? Would be nice if that was used moreso in govt.

Indeed. this form of Government has its good points. Probably even more good points than the party model.



Quote:

survivor was a great show, the first few times.

Kinda lost its magic after the first few seasons, hey? Apart from the Carribean islands one... that was great.

Something which really ruined the show is the fact that they decided to do the final tribal council in front of a live studio audience. That really ruined the intense atmosphere. Especially when the contestants had all their makeup on and had time to consider whether they would lose or not.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Democracy-a-donkey-treatment-Gaddafi/2007/10/08/1191695814378.html

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said multiparty democracy was a sham promoted by governments that treat their people "like donkeys" and deny them real power, the official Libyan news agency Jana reported.

Gaddafi added in a speech last week that his north African country would never abandon its "state of the masses" system of rule by town hall meetings, which he has long predicted will be eventually embraced by governments around the world, Jana said.

"They talk about the alternation of power (from one party to another), Jana quoted Gaddafi, Libya's ruler for 37 years, as saying. "What does that mean? It means that people are being ridden like donkeys."

"The world is fed up with parties and elections. Even the Western intelligentsia feels disgusted with the party system and the farce of elections. They acknowledge the fact that what is going on is not democracy but falsification.

"The world is going to eventually embrace the peoples' authority, sweeping away all those old systems."

Gaddafi seized power in a coup in 1969 and in 1977 he proclaimed Jamahiriyah popular rule to try to create the perfect society in line with the teachings of his Green Book, which combines aspects of socialism, Islam and pan-Arabism.

Local community meetings known as Basic People's Congresses, surveyed by revolutionary committees composed of Green Book enthusiasts, send up their decisions to a national tier of officials via a pyramid of committees and congresses.

Gaddafi has said his country of six million people will persist with its no-party system because, he says, it gives more say to the people than Western elections.

Critics say the Jamahiriyah system, the only government most Libyans have known, is a fig leaf for authoritarian rule and has kept the country poor.

"We have seen the world shaken by the multiparty systems," Gaddafi said.

"What on earth do we need with the alternation of power when power is in the hands of the masses?

"There will be no going back on the peoples authority."