If the true level of democracy in a system could be expressed as a percentage. What would Australia be?

Given a dictatorship is close to 0% (assuming you aren't the dictator)

3%

42

30%.   Around 70% of government is carried on by unelected bodies - that has increased  in recent years due to the 'privatisation' of essentially government utilities etc, by the imposition of a contracted senior public service, and by the appointment of 'commissions' and 'corporations' that ostensibly operate outside of government but are on the government payroll.

You may add to that contracted work sent outside under the myth of 'efficiency'.

I say 70% because to some extent all of those newly created to serve the old mates club bodies are still bound to a very minor extent by the ultimate will of the people at the ballot box, though separated from that ballot box by a planned 'cut-out' and thus not subject to criticism of the voting public, and theoretically are still bound by the Rule of Law which lays down the values and standards by which they must function.

That last is, of course, theory and not practice in this nation (and many others) and those appointed bodies etc operate according to their own idea of 'right'.

As an example, the Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission, while theoretically bound by the Rule of Law, which lays down equal treatment under law and clear rights, actually operates as a matter of policy to ONLY uphold equal rights for specified groups, and by its own standards and not those of Law.

In older times, these were called Star Chambers or Kangaroo Courts.

As for appointed old mate/party faithful seat on the board 'corporations', they function outside of the laws and regulations of the Public Service, while essentially duplicating the activities and duties of the Public Service, and escape all criticism by theoretically acting as a business, which they emphatically are not.  On top of that, their actions bring no criticism of the relevant Minister responsible for the area these 'corporations' cover, of his/her Party, since they are theoretically a corporation and not part of government (while being paid by government).

This is the kind of hoodwinking that has been steadily undermining this nation and its democracy for forty years now......... and is the kind of behaviour that will result in riots in the streets one day and the forceful overthrow of our current style of government.

On that last - far better for all parties to get on board, get together, and work out a viable democracy for this nation that actually serves the people.... and gets rid of all the lies and false corporations etc that are nothing more than refuges for failed politicians and old mates to continue to suck deeply of the public tit.  All money better spent in providing to this nation what it deserves.

Look at the 'privatised' gas supply these days... a once public utility - the average household on gas under the ridiculous and totally false 'global economy of privatisation' (two lies for the price of one) is about to cop an extra cost of $430 a year..... a rate of cost rise far outside CPI and earnings increases, and a perfect example of what happens to a nation that has no real democracy of government working for the people and the nation first and foremost.

ADDS:-  I think my 30% is generous and perhaps is based on fanciful thinking....... when we see the effects of policy thrusts such as 'globalisation' and 'privatisation' - and the utter lack of response by the body politic to the sufferings and outcry of the voting public - one could be forgiven for thinking we live in a Third World Banana Republic Dictatorship of El Jefe Of The Two Parties.

Quote:

30%.   Around 70% of government is carried on by unelected bodies

And what if this reflects the will of the people?

freediver wrote on Feb 5^th, 2018 at 10:08pm:

Quote: 30%.   Around 70% of government is carried on by unelected bodies And what if this reflects the will of the people?

How can it be proven that it does, and is not simply an imposition?  Given a choice, nobody would pay through the nose to register their car.... nobody would seriously consider it right to have to pay a court to rectify a wrong, at massive expense......

I think 3% is too generous

I get 0.000000633%

number of senators/approx. government bills passed in term/Australian population*100

Assuming senators and parties don't coalesce (yeah right) and of the 500 bills 80% were packaged, so that figure is optimistic

What would a country with a 'hundred percent' democracy look like? Just as it is in America, everyone would be armed to the teeth. Just as it is in Germany, there would be tolerance shown to Sharia Law and all the victimisation of women that that entails. Sex slavery and the drug trade of Brazil and other South American countries? A hundred percent democracy would be anarchy.

Gordon wrote on Feb 5^th, 2018 at 9:57pm:

42

Ah Douglas Adam's reference ..... what do you get when you multiply 6x9 ?

I always thought there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe :-)

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 5^th, 2018 at 10:18pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2018 at 10:08pm: Quote: 30%.   Around 70% of government is carried on by unelected bodies And what if this reflects the will of the people? How can it be proven that it does, and is not simply an imposition?  Given a choice, nobody would pay through the nose to register their car.... nobody would seriously consider it right to have to pay a court to rectify a wrong, at massive expense......

It's a tax. Roughly 50% of the population wants to increase taxes. Roughly 50% wants to decrease them. And justice is expensive, but worth the price.

How do you measure democracy?
I was thinking about 30% before I read Graps post...then I thought to myself that it would even be less than that.

I don't think you should fall into the trap of equating various freedoms with democracy.  That would be wrong.

I don't think you can equate mandatory attendance on election days as democratic.  Where is the choice in that?

So how do you measure Democracy?  Can it be measured?

So many people assume it is undemocratic merely if they don't get things their way - like how could other people possibly disagree with me???

Grendel wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 8:16pm:

How do you measure democracy? I was thinking about 30% before I read Graps post...then I thought to myself that it would even be less than that. I don't think you should fall into the trap of equating various freedoms with democracy.  That would be wrong. I don't think you can equate mandatory attendance on election days as democratic.  Where is the choice in that? So how do you measure Democracy?  Can it be measured?

You can avoid turning up on voting day by paying a fairly small fine. You don't cop a visit from the secret police.

Grendel wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 8:16pm:

How do you measure democracy? I was thinking about 30% before I read Graps post...then I thought to myself that it would even be less than that. I don't think you should fall into the trap of equating various freedoms with democracy.  That would be wrong. I don't think you can equate mandatory attendance on election days as democratic.  Where is the choice in that? So how do you measure Democracy?  Can it be measured?

The whole thread is pointless democracy is a binary thing you either select who governs via public consensus using various different types of government/voting processes or you don't.

Its very trivial complaining about going for a 5-10 minute walk and getting your named ticked off if that annoys you you might be happier with a totalitarian dictatorship where you don't have to even think about anything where speaking out can see you removed from the gene pool !

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 10:55pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 8:16pm: How do you measure democracy? I was thinking about 30% before I read Graps post...then I thought to myself that it would even be less than that. I don't think you should fall into the trap of equating various freedoms with democracy.  That would be wrong. I don't think you can equate mandatory attendance on election days as democratic.  Where is the choice in that? So how do you measure Democracy?  Can it be measured? You can avoid turning up on voting day by paying a fairly small fine. You don't cop a visit from the secret police.

Being an ex-rugby player ( I am not a small person) I quite enjoy walking over the top of the ALP and Greenie fan people rudely trying to give me a useless piece of paper they say we should be using less of.

The other piece of comedy I saw one year walking back after voting I saw this old Magna driving past with the standard blue smoke blowing out the back, there we two teenage girls in the back yelling out vote greens ....... and I am the one walking to the polling booth ? I guess they are not as bad as Al Goore with his 7 mansions that all have wood burning fireplaces zipping around the world on a private jet ...... but they hypocrisy is all there to see.

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 7^th, 2018 at 7:39am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 8:16pm: How do you measure democracy? I was thinking about 30% before I read Graps post...then I thought to myself that it would even be less than that. I don't think you should fall into the trap of equating various freedoms with democracy.  That would be wrong. I don't think you can equate mandatory attendance on election days as democratic.  Where is the choice in that? So how do you measure Democracy?  Can it be measured? The whole thread is pointless democracy is a binary thing you either select who governs via public consensus using various different types of government/voting processes or you don't. Its very trivial complaining about going for a 5-10 minute walk and getting your named ticked off if that annoys you you might be happier with a totalitarian dictatorship where you don't have to even think about anything where speaking out can see you removed from the gene pool !

Not sure if that's a general comment or aimed at me RSF.

But happy to vote, not sure that mandatory attendance or voting is democratic, when true democracy would give you the right not to vote.  When true democracy would be Optional preferential voting where your vote does not go to someone you don't want it to go to.

But democracy is a system whereby decisions are made by the result of a popular vote.  Not just a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

If the latter, then you'd have to say our representatives these days are thoroughly unrepresentative and therefore undemocratic because they vote for their party or themselves not the people they represent.

100%

https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Elizabeth-Nazi-queen-400x300.jpg

Australian "democratically elected" head of state salutes to democracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbNNsMhKwHg&feature=youtu.be

Grendel wrote on Feb 7^th, 2018 at 7:54am:

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 7th, 2018 at 7:39am: Grendel wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 8:16pm: How do you measure democracy? I was thinking about 30% before I read Graps post...then I thought to myself that it would even be less than that. I don't think you should fall into the trap of equating various freedoms with democracy.  That would be wrong. I don't think you can equate mandatory attendance on election days as democratic.  Where is the choice in that? So how do you measure Democracy?  Can it be measured? The whole thread is pointless democracy is a binary thing you either select who governs via public consensus using various different types of government/voting processes or you don't. Its very trivial complaining about going for a 5-10 minute walk and getting your named ticked off if that annoys you you might be happier with a totalitarian dictatorship where you don't have to even think about anything where speaking out can see you removed from the gene pool ! Not sure if that's a general comment or aimed at me RSF. But happy to vote, not sure that mandatory attendance or voting is democratic, when true democracy would give you the right not to vote.  When true democracy would be Optional preferential voting where your vote does not go to someone you don't want it to go to. But democracy is a system whereby decisions are made by the result of a popular vote.  Not just a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. If the latter, then you'd have to say our representatives these days are thoroughly unrepresentative and therefore undemocratic because they vote for their party or themselves not the people they represent.

Mostly a general comment, the whole concept of mandatory attendance at a polling both is such a nuff nuff issue.
Does not matter in the context the public gets to choose who governs.

Actually most democracies the decisions are made by an elected government on that you are about 99.9% incorrect. Occasionally governments will either publicly or secretly poll the electorate which may influence a government decision or at least gauge how much a decision will impact their popularity so at best for some decisions the public might indirectly influence a decision, the vast majority of decisions is more about trusting who we elected.

If they get it wrong enough the polls will show it and certainly the electorate will act st the next election.

Look at border security the biggest misread by a government I can recall, the ALP did not see that tidal wave coming the ALP were looking like losing 20 seats in Sydney's west alone traditional ALP heart land.

I prefer we trust the elected government as hard decisions like the GST can be unpopular.

Oh I'm sure the ALP understood where they stood with the public.
But the ALP think the majority are always wrong unless they agree with them and therefore need re-education.
They think Leadership  has nothing to do with listening to the people its all about leading them about by the nose.

Liberal factions baulk at democracy
Peta Credlin
The Australian
12:00AM February 7, 2018

The problem for all established political parties around the Western world is the growing disconnect between insiders and outsiders. A party that merely pays lip service to its own members is hardly likely to take voters’ concerns seriously. Seeking a third term and defending a one-seat majority, the only way for the Liberals to win is to enthuse people, starting with their own members, because the Coalition is up against Labor, the Greens, the deep pockets of the union movement and activists such as GetUp!

Last July, Malcolm Turnbull told the NSW Liberal Party’s reform convention that he supported full democratisation: “We must ensure,” the Prime Minister said, “that every member of our party has a say in preselections in every measure, every step of our party’s processes.” The members duly took heed, passing by more than 700 votes to 400 a resolution demanding one member, one vote ballots for all party positions: for lower house candidates, for upper house candidates and for members of the state executive.

But now the factional fightback is on. You would think with such a resounding vote from the rank and file, this Saturday’s NSW Liberal state council would just endorse the people’s vote; after all, wasn’t that what we were told needed to happen, and did, following the same-sex marriage plebiscite? Not so, it seems, when it comes to wresting power away from factional players and back into the hands of the ordinary party member. This weekend there will also be a rival position, the so-called “Bennelong motion”, put to the state council that protects the factions by bringing in only a little bit of democracy, and then only in five years. The waters are being further muddied by a so-called “unity ticket” for positions on the state executive which includes opponents of reform such as former immigration minister Philip Ruddock as well as supporters such as former NSW attorney-general Greg Smith.

For years the NSW Liberal Party has been controlled by a left-leaning faction associated with former NSW minister Michael Photios, who’s now a well-connected lobbyist. And for years, in response, Liberal Party members have been trying to reclaim their party by arguing for candidate selection by the ordinary rank and file rather than preselections by small groups of easily manipulated insiders. For instance, in 1994, Tony Abbott was preselected by almost 200 mostly local delegates from a field of 14 contenders including two future MPs, a future Supreme Court judge, and a future chairman of Macquarie Bank. Back then the Liberals were so unlike an insiders’ club that a former party president and a former party vice-president were among the defeated candidates. By the time Joe Hockey retired two decades on, it had become a virtual closed shop. Just 100 delegates, only 50 of them locals, picked a former party president (and Hockey’s long-term staffer) over just two other candidates. Talented outsiders knew not to run because of the factional fix.

It was the same in the Senate, where a small group of party insiders picked another insider ahead of retired army general Jim Molan AO, DSC ,who’s only now fluked his way into parliament because others were knocked out on constitutional grounds.

In 2012, a legal challenge had to be mounted to try to force the NSW state council to even consider democratising the party, but that bid failed. Then, in late 2013, both then-PM Abbott and then-premier Barry O’Farrell personally fronted the state executive to demand reform. You know things are crook when the factions even tried rolling a sitting PM and premier but fortunately, with the president’s casting vote, the two leaders prevailed and the reform process was underway with the establishment of a committee chaired by former PM John Howard. The Howard committee recommended rank-and-file preselections for lower house seats only, but even this modest reform was subject to stalling tactics.

In late 2016, with state and federal elections out of the way, a new reform push by members forced the Liberal establishment to convene a “futures convention” where every member across NSW would be able to attend, speak and vote on the best way forward. Last July, despite being charged $150 each, more than 1200 members turned up at Rosehill Racecourse and voted by almost two to one for the principle of one member, one vote. But the factional insiders are refusing to respect its outcome.

Ideally, the state council this weekend would consider only the Rosehill resolution, but those opposed to reform have finally put up the old Howard recommendations they ignored three years ago, only they’ve proposed delaying rank-and-file preselections — which are just for the lower houses anyway — until 2022 for federal and until 2023 for state parliament. These changes have long been overtaken by the Rosehill proposal for open upper and lower house preselections.

Without reform to the upper house where the factional operatives are mostly parked, and leaving the factions running state executive, there’s no real change. In other words, it hardly disturbs the factional stranglehold, the sinecures and the influence peddling: it’s the reform you concede when you are determined to stop real reform.

Now factionalism is rife in both major parties particularly Labor...  that is hardly democratic.

Grendel wrote on Feb 7^th, 2018 at 10:47am:

Oh I'm sure the ALP understood where they stood with the public. But the ALP think the majority are always wrong unless they agree with them and therefore need re-education. They think Leadership  has nothing to do with listening to the people its all about leading them about by the nose.

Not sure on that they seem pretty clueless about Sydney's west, its an area that can easily kick out a government and it pretty much did in 2013.
If you look at their policy shift on border security it kind of suggest they did not understand most Australians support strong border security (even most ALP voters) policies as they shifted back go the MeToo approach on border security which most voters did not believe !

I think the issue with the current ALP they are lead by an idiot from Melbourne out of the union movement that is so unrepresentative at least Rudd was from a LNP dominated area. I think Rudd might of understood what is going on but the ALP looked very clueless on many things !

Grendel wrote on Feb 7^th, 2018 at 10:59am:

Now factionalism is rife in both major parties particularly Labor...  that is hardly democratic.

More or less agree, my view on politics it seems to attract a very shallow pool of talent that I prefer to analyse them in terms of how much damage they might do.
I thought Fraser was an idiot and Hawke did well to lead the ALP. Senator Button had some great ideas but these days the ALP are as visionary as a mole rooting around for grubs ! What is keeping them in the race is the LNP is not much better !

Totally agree...

Grendel wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 8:16pm:

How do you measure democracy? I was thinking about 30% before I read Graps post...then I thought to myself that it would even be less than that. I don't think you should fall into the trap of equating various freedoms with democracy.  That would be wrong. I don't think you can equate mandatory attendance on election days as democratic.  Where is the choice in that? So how do you measure Democracy?  Can it be measured?

Where is the choice in Prime Minister?

Democracy is just an idea that exists in your head: systems exist in the real world and all disintegrate according with the arrow of time...

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 7^th, 2018 at 7:45am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 10:55pm: Grendel wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 8:16pm: How do you measure democracy? I was thinking about 30% before I read Graps post...then I thought to myself that it would even be less than that. I don't think you should fall into the trap of equating various freedoms with democracy.  That would be wrong. I don't think you can equate mandatory attendance on election days as democratic.  Where is the choice in that? So how do you measure Democracy?  Can it be measured? You can avoid turning up on voting day by paying a fairly small fine. You don't cop a visit from the secret police. Being an ex-rugby player ( I am not a small person) I quite enjoy walking over the top of the ALP and Greenie fan people rudely trying to give me a useless piece of paper they say we should be using less of. The other piece of comedy I saw one year walking back after voting I saw this old Magna driving past with the standard blue smoke blowing out the back, there we two teenage girls in the back yelling out vote greens ....... and I am the one walking to the polling booth ? I guess they are not as bad as Al Goore with his 7 mansions that all have wood burning fireplaces zipping around the world on a private jet ...... but they hypocrisy is all there to see.

Do you even know what the word 'hypocrisy' means?

** Hey, i know.... lets all vote for copper internet and pretend we've got superior business acumen  :D

Grendel wrote on Feb 7^th, 2018 at 7:54am:

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 7th, 2018 at 7:39am: Grendel wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 8:16pm: How do you measure democracy? I was thinking about 30% before I read Graps post...then I thought to myself that it would even be less than that. I don't think you should fall into the trap of equating various freedoms with democracy.  That would be wrong. I don't think you can equate mandatory attendance on election days as democratic.  Where is the choice in that? So how do you measure Democracy?  Can it be measured? The whole thread is pointless democracy is a binary thing you either select who governs via public consensus using various different types of government/voting processes or you don't. Its very trivial complaining about going for a 5-10 minute walk and getting your named ticked off if that annoys you you might be happier with a totalitarian dictatorship where you don't have to even think about anything where speaking out can see you removed from the gene pool ! Not sure if that's a general comment or aimed at me RSF. But happy to vote, not sure that mandatory attendance or voting is democratic, when true democracy would give you the right not to vote.  When true democracy would be Optional preferential voting where your vote does not go to someone you don't want it to go to. But democracy is a system whereby decisions are made by the result of a popular vote.  Not just a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. If the latter, then you'd have to say our representatives these days are thoroughly unrepresentative and therefore undemocratic because they vote for their party or themselves not the people they represent.

There is no true democracy: you're just tripping balls buddy like all you lib voters!

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 7^th, 2018 at 5:24pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 8:16pm: How do you measure democracy? I was thinking about 30% before I read Graps post...then I thought to myself that it would even be less than that. I don't think you should fall into the trap of equating various freedoms with democracy.  That would be wrong. I don't think you can equate mandatory attendance on election days as democratic.  Where is the choice in that? So how do you measure Democracy?  Can it be measured? Where is the choice in Prime Minister? Democracy is just an idea that exists in your head: systems exist in the real world and all disintegrate according with the arrow of time...

Every democracy is different in many ways our system the only ones who vote on the party's intended PM are the ones in their electorates.
Given how a leader can effect polling maybe we need to directly elect the PM ..... maybe we need every party to throw up a few options.

TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 7^th, 2018 at 5:27pm:

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 7th, 2018 at 7:45am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 10:55pm: Grendel wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 8:16pm: How do you measure democracy? I was thinking about 30% before I read Graps post...then I thought to myself that it would even be less than that. I don't think you should fall into the trap of equating various freedoms with democracy.  That would be wrong. I don't think you can equate mandatory attendance on election days as democratic.  Where is the choice in that? So how do you measure Democracy?  Can it be measured? You can avoid turning up on voting day by paying a fairly small fine. You don't cop a visit from the secret police. Being an ex-rugby player ( I am not a small person) I quite enjoy walking over the top of the ALP and Greenie fan people rudely trying to give me a useless piece of paper they say we should be using less of. The other piece of comedy I saw one year walking back after voting I saw this old Magna driving past with the standard blue smoke blowing out the back, there we two teenage girls in the back yelling out vote greens ....... and I am the one walking to the polling booth ? I guess they are not as bad as Al Goore with his 7 mansions that all have wood burning fireplaces zipping around the world on a private jet ...... but they hypocrisy is all there to see. Do you even know what the word 'hypocrisy' means? ** Hey, i know.... lets all vote for copper internet and pretend we've got superior business acumen  :D

Sure hypocrisy would be you claiming you add value to forum so please continue !
I guess you must drive a clapped out magna polluting the environment and vote greens ? Did I hit a raw nerve ?

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 7^th, 2018 at 7:39am:

Grendel wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 8:16pm: How do you measure democracy? I was thinking about 30% before I read Graps post...then I thought to myself that it would even be less than that. I don't think you should fall into the trap of equating various freedoms with democracy.  That would be wrong. I don't think you can equate mandatory attendance on election days as democratic.  Where is the choice in that? So how do you measure Democracy?  Can it be measured? The whole thread is pointless democracy is a binary thing you either select who governs via public consensus using various different types of government/voting processes or you don't. Its very trivial complaining about going for a 5-10 minute walk and getting your named ticked off if that annoys you you might be happier with a totalitarian dictatorship where you don't have to even think about anything where speaking out can see you removed from the gene pool !

It is a spectrum, albeit a naturally polarising one.


Quote:

But happy to vote, not sure that mandatory attendance or voting is democratic, when true democracy would give you the right not to vote.  When true democracy would be Optional preferential voting where your vote does not go to someone you don't want it to go to

Optional preferential voting, as it was practices here, was still compulsory. It was an absurdly irrational combination, born of lack of understanding of how our voting system works. If there were seven candidates, none of which you liked, you were still compelled to vote for one, but in the next election when there were only 6 of them, voting was either compulsory or optional, depending on who your first preference was. The result being that compulsory votes were up against optional votes.


Quote:

Now factionalism is rife in both major parties particularly Labor...  that is hardly democratic.

It is completely irrelevant to whether we have democracy.

freediver wrote on Feb 7^th, 2018 at 9:28pm:

Quote: But happy to vote, not sure that mandatory attendance or voting is democratic, when true democracy would give you the right not to vote.  When true democracy would be Optional preferential voting where your vote does not go to someone you don't want it to go to Optional preferential voting, as it was practices here, was still compulsory. It was an absurdly irrational combination, born of lack of understanding of how our voting system works. If there were seven candidates, none of which you liked, you were still compelled to vote for one, but in the next election when there were only 6 of them, voting was either compulsory or optional, depending on who your first preference was. The result being that compulsory votes were up against optional votes. Nope and YOU'VE never understood Optional preferential voting anyway. 1.  You don't have to vote if you don't like anyone.  Just put the ballot paper unmarked in the box or pocket it. 2.  In optional preferential voting you only need to number the boxes of candidates you would like to vote for in the order you prefer them...  Hence your vote will never go to a person or party you do not wish it to. [quote]Now factionalism is rife in both major parties particularly Labor...  that is hardly democratic.

It is completely irrelevant to whether we have democracy.  Nope...  factionalism distorts democracy... voting is no longer an individual choice.[/quote]

freediver wrote on Feb 7^th, 2018 at 9:28pm:

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 7th, 2018 at 7:39am: Grendel wrote on Feb 6th, 2018 at 8:16pm: How do you measure democracy? I was thinking about 30% before I read Graps post...then I thought to myself that it would even be less than that. I don't think you should fall into the trap of equating various freedoms with democracy.  That would be wrong. I don't think you can equate mandatory attendance on election days as democratic.  Where is the choice in that? So how do you measure Democracy?  Can it be measured? The whole thread is pointless democracy is a binary thing you either select who governs via public consensus using various different types of government/voting processes or you don't. Its very trivial complaining about going for a 5-10 minute walk and getting your named ticked off if that annoys you you might be happier with a totalitarian dictatorship where you don't have to even think about anything where speaking out can see you removed from the gene pool ! It is a spectrum, albeit a naturally polarising one. Quote: But happy to vote, not sure that mandatory attendance or voting is democratic, when true democracy would give you the right not to vote.  When true democracy would be Optional preferential voting where your vote does not go to someone you don't want it to go to Optional preferential voting, as it was practices here, was still compulsory. It was an absurdly irrational combination, born of lack of understanding of how our voting system works. If there were seven candidates, none of which you liked, you were still compelled to vote for one, but in the next election when there were only 6 of them, voting was either compulsory or optional, depending on who your first preference was. The result being that compulsory votes were up against optional votes. [quote]Now factionalism is rife in both major parties particularly Labor...  that is hardly democratic.

It is completely irrelevant to whether we have democracy.[/quote]
100% disagree the critical point of a democracy is do you get to choose who is in power, after that you just have different styles of democracy.

Not a spectrum at all.

Elections give people the illusion of choice -

there is no choice.

Jump to 2:00

The illusion of choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY

Australia (or other western-style democracies) are flawed in regards to the preferential voting system but compared to living in North Korea...

Bobby. wrote on Feb 7^th, 2018 at 10:28pm:

Elections give people the illusion of choice - there is no choice.

Yes there is there are various parties you can choose.
What do you actually expect ?

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 7^th, 2018 at 10:40pm:

Australia (or other western-style democracies) are flawed in regards to the preferential voting system but compared to living in North Korea...

No preferential voting is also flawed as the minority could determine who governs

The problem is that Optional preferential is not the norm...

That means that your vote can end up with someone you would not want to vote for, it favours the 2 major parties.

Grendel wrote on Feb 8^th, 2018 at 6:58am:

The problem is that Optional preferential is not the norm... That means that your vote can end up with someone you would not want to vote for, it favours the 2 major parties.

In practice most seats are determined by first preferences, I have personally never lived in a marginal where second or 3rd preferences could determine who wins and they are the minority. From observation given the pork barrelling methods parties apply its seems there are political benefits of living in a marginal.

I don't see it as a major distortion of democracy the alternate first past the post could lead to a minority MP.
I think the flaws either way are minor.

Democracy is normally expressed as a percentage play to garner votes.... not usually much more than that......

In the movie 'W', it was hilarious to see how George Dubb-ye, after losing an election for Texas governor, said that next time he'd out-Texas his rival(s) and win... he did.  That's like the Queenslandophiles and their endless whine about getting the short end of the stick, or the Perthophiles whining about how much they contribute to the economy but get so little back etc....

Amazing but true - get onto the old Jingo Wagon and you're a red carpet ride into Parliament......

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 8^th, 2018 at 5:48am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 7th, 2018 at 10:40pm: Australia (or other western-style democracies) are flawed in regards to the preferential voting system but compared to living in North Korea... No preferential voting is also flawed as the minority could determine who governs

That's what I mean, RSF.

Grendel wrote on Feb 7^th, 2018 at 9:48pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 7th, 2018 at 9:28pm: Quote: But happy to vote, not sure that mandatory attendance or voting is democratic, when true democracy would give you the right not to vote.  When true democracy would be Optional preferential voting where your vote does not go to someone you don't want it to go to Optional preferential voting, as it was practices here, was still compulsory. It was an absurdly irrational combination, born of lack of understanding of how our voting system works. If there were seven candidates, none of which you liked, you were still compelled to vote for one, but in the next election when there were only 6 of them, voting was either compulsory or optional, depending on who your first preference was. The result being that compulsory votes were up against optional votes. Nope and YOU'VE never understood Optional preferential voting anyway. 1.  You don't have to vote if you don't like anyone.  Just put the ballot paper unmarked in the box or pocket it. 2.  In optional preferential voting you only need to number the boxes of candidates you would like to vote for in the order you prefer them...  Hence your vote will never go to a person or party you do not wish it to. [quote]Now factionalism is rife in both major parties particularly Labor...  that is hardly democratic. It is completely irrelevant to whether we have democracy.  Nope...  factionalism distorts democracy... voting is no longer an individual choice.

[/quote]

So your vision of "true democracy" involves people being compelled to turn up but not lodge a valid ballot paper?

Under CPV, your vote only ever ends up with your preferred candidate out of those who are in the running. Whether you 'like' or 'dislike' them is irrelevant. You can only ever choose from those who are in the running. You could like all of them. You could like none of them. It is irrelevant to your ability to choose which one you most prefer, which is in reality what you are doing when you rank candidates, if you understand how it works.

True democracy means the will of the majority. The majority is a faction. Democracy is by definition factional.

The internal workings of an institution such as a political party are irrelevant to whether we have a true democracy. At the end of the day, all they can do is endorse a candidate. That candidate still has to run against all the other candidates, who can be nominated as non-factionally as they like, so long as they have a faction of sufficient size endorsing their nomination.

How exactly does it cease being your individual choice who you vote for if you don't like how a party is run? It is still your choice whether to vote for their candidate.

Nope....
How about you stop making up crap about what I think....  YOU are no mindreader you have enough trouble with just ordinary reading.
How about you address what I actually say...?

BTW I know how it works and have for years YOU on the other hand failed years ago in understanding what OPV was and is.  Seems to me YOU are still having problems all round.

If you don't understand how factions control parties and distort the vote, then I cant help you there either.

Grendel wrote on Feb 8^th, 2018 at 3:09pm:

Nope.... How about you stop making up crap about what I think....  YOU are no mindreader you have enough trouble with just ordinary reading. How about you address what I actually say...? BTW I know how it works and have for years YOU on the other hand failed years ago in understanding what OPV was and is.  Seems to me YOU are still having problems all round. If you don't understand how factions control parties and distort the vote, then I cant help you there either.

OK yes factions can make a party very non-democratic as is the ALP totally and the LNP to some extent. Branch staking is the enemy of true party democracy but you don't have to vote for a particular party and how they select there MP candidates does not concern, I am more concerned to see if they are a complete moron or not.

They can throw up anyone in your electorate you don't have to vote for them !

But then rusted-ons vote for parties no matter who they put up, not individuals and not based on how intelligent or competent they may be.

Grendel wrote on Feb 8^th, 2018 at 3:09pm:

Nope.... How about you stop making up crap about what I think....  YOU are no mindreader you have enough trouble with just ordinary reading. How about you address what I actually say...? BTW I know how it works and have for years YOU on the other hand failed years ago in understanding what OPV was and is.  Seems to me YOU are still having problems all round. If you don't understand how factions control parties and distort the vote, then I cant help you there either.

I responded to exactly what you posted. I agree with you that factions control parties. I just don't see how you leap from their to undemocratic.

Try again.


freediver wrote on Feb 8^th, 2018 at 12:37pm:

Grendel wrote on Feb 7th, 2018 at 9:48pm: freediver wrote on Feb 7th, 2018 at 9:28pm: Quote: But happy to vote, not sure that mandatory attendance or voting is democratic, when true democracy would give you the right not to vote.  When true democracy would be Optional preferential voting where your vote does not go to someone you don't want it to go to Optional preferential voting, as it was practices here, was still compulsory. It was an absurdly irrational combination, born of lack of understanding of how our voting system works. If there were seven candidates, none of which you liked, you were still compelled to vote for one, but in the next election when there were only 6 of them, voting was either compulsory or optional, depending on who your first preference was. The result being that compulsory votes were up against optional votes. Nope and YOU'VE never understood Optional preferential voting anyway. 1.  You don't have to vote if you don't like anyone.  Just put the ballot paper unmarked in the box or pocket it. 2.  In optional preferential voting you only need to number the boxes of candidates you would like to vote for in the order you prefer them...  Hence your vote will never go to a person or party you do not wish it to. [quote]Now factionalism is rife in both major parties particularly Labor...  that is hardly democratic. It is completely irrelevant to whether we have democracy.  Nope...  factionalism distorts democracy... voting is no longer an individual choice.

So your vision of "true democracy" involves people being compelled to turn up but not lodge a valid ballot paper?

Under CPV, your vote only ever ends up with your preferred candidate out of those who are in the running. Whether you 'like' or 'dislike' them is irrelevant. You can only ever choose from those who are in the running. You could like all of them. You could like none of them. It is irrelevant to your ability to choose which one you most prefer, which is in reality what you are doing when you rank candidates, if you understand how it works.

True democracy means the will of the majority. The majority is a faction. Democracy is by definition factional.

The internal workings of an institution such as a political party are irrelevant to whether we have a true democracy. At the end of the day, all they can do is endorse a candidate. That candidate still has to run against all the other candidates, who can be nominated as non-factionally as they like, so long as they have a faction of sufficient size endorsing their nomination.

How exactly does it cease being your individual choice who you vote for if you don't like how a party is run? It is still your choice whether to vote for their candidate.[/quote]


Quote:

But then rusted-ons vote for parties no matter who they put up, not individuals and not based on how intelligent or competent they may be.

So it is undemocratic because you disagree with how they vote?

Nope....

Try using your big boy words Grendel.

Try being an adult fd.

If people want to vote on party lines, surely that is their choice, an entirely valid choice, and entirely democratic.

freediver wrote on Feb 5^th, 2018 at 10:08pm:

Quote: 30%.   Around 70% of government is carried on by unelected bodies And what if this reflects the will of the people?

Look at 'democratic' Turkey today.

Turks, through the ballot box, are empowering Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to the point where he is already, an unassailable 'strongman'/dictator.

With the blessing of the majority of the Turkish people!

QUESTION;
Can a nominal 'democracy' which has been compromised by [some] corrupt practices, and by some [some] corrupt individuals who are in positions with a high degree of authority [within the governing system],      still properly perform as a pristine type of democracy ?

This corrupting process does tend to occur [especially] within democratic governing systems. !!

Just look around the world.   ....especially in Africa, but to a more subtle degree even withing many 1st world nations.



What is the answer ?

How can true liberties and freedoms be protected, for all ?

Or perhaps they cannot be ?

Daron Acemoglu gave a very thorough answer in this book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail

Quote:

Acemoglu and Robinson's major thesis is that economic prosperity depends above all on the inclusiveness of economic and political institutions. Institutions are "inclusive" when many people have a say in political decision-making, as opposed to cases where a small group of people control political institutions and are unwilling to change. They argue that a functioning democratic and pluralistic state guarantees the rule of law. The authors also argue that inclusive institutions promote economic prosperity because they provide an incentive structure that allows talents and creative ideas to be rewarded......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail


'They argue that a functioning democratic and pluralistic state guarantees the rule of law.'

I would have rather expressed what they said, the other way around...

Where a functioning justice system and the rule of law in a nation, properly protects those who work [and invest their own resources] for reward,      i.e. protects them from those who would rob them, then in such a political environment, a prosperous and stable and pluralistic state may also emerge.

1/ Respect for open truth.
2/ Justice.
3/ Peace.
4/ Prosperity and political stability. [...which will both eventually fail, where #1 becomes 'absent']

Each subsequent condition [environment], relies upon the previous condition being present.

He says it both ways. He describes it as a naturally polarising spectrum. That is, freedom and democracy are self-reinforcing, as are their opposites.