Australian Politics Forum - Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47480
At my desk.

Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic
Reply #30 - May 28^th, 2017 at 9:28pm

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 5:40pm:

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 7:58am:

We should adopt voting by delegable proxy in the Senate. This would allow you to increase the lower house terms also. We could trial it by reintroducing the QLD state Senate.

That's what they do in Germany - or at least a version in it. The delegates in the Bundesrat are made up of members of the State Governments, and the members must vote as one bloc.

In effect it is the opposite. It adds a layer of separation between voters and the house of parliament. My proposal is to remove a layer of separation. If there are 20 million people in the country, there are twenty million votes on each proposal before parliament.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic
Reply #31 - May 28^th, 2017 at 9:30pm

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 9:28pm:

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 5:40pm:

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 7:58am:

We should adopt voting by delegable proxy in the Senate. This would allow you to increase the lower house terms also. We could trial it by reintroducing the QLD state Senate.

That's what they do in Germany - or at least a version in it. The delegates in the Bundesrat are made up of members of the State Governments, and the members must vote as one bloc.

In effect it is the opposite. It adds a layer of separation between voters and the house of parliament. My proposal is to remove a layer of separation. If there are 20 million people in the country, there are twenty million votes on each proposal before parliament.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you talking about citizen-initiated referenda?

Also, the point of such a House is to represent the States, not the people. The people are represented in the lower House.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Setanta Gold Member Offline \/ Peace man! Posts: 15928 Northern NSW Gender:	Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic Reply #32 - May 28^th, 2017 at 10:12pm Poor Caesar Augustus, he wants the dictatorship and defacto dissolution of the senate that his uncle achieved by coup d'etat by crossing the Rubicon in 49bc, he just can't see it, or can he? Are you seeking a principate?
Back to top	IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic
Reply #33 - May 28^th, 2017 at 10:25pm

Setanta wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:12pm:

Poor Caesar Augustus, he wants the dictatorship and defacto dissolution of the senate that his uncle achieved by coup d'etat by crossing the Rubicon in 49bc, he just can't see it, or can he? Are you seeking a principate?

Setanta, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47480
At my desk.

Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic
Reply #34 - May 28^th, 2017 at 10:28pm

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 9:30pm:

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 9:28pm:

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 5:40pm:

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 7:58am:

We should adopt voting by delegable proxy in the Senate. This would allow you to increase the lower house terms also. We could trial it by reintroducing the QLD state Senate.

That's what they do in Germany - or at least a version in it. The delegates in the Bundesrat are made up of members of the State Governments, and the members must vote as one bloc.

In effect it is the opposite. It adds a layer of separation between voters and the house of parliament. My proposal is to remove a layer of separation. If there are 20 million people in the country, there are twenty million votes on each proposal before parliament.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you talking about citizen-initiated referenda?

Also, the point of such a House is to represent the States, not the people. The people are represented in the lower House.

Aussie kindly posted a link earlier:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/voting-by-delegable-proxy.html

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic
Reply #35 - May 28^th, 2017 at 10:30pm

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:28pm:

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 9:30pm:

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 9:28pm:

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 5:40pm:

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 7:58am:

We should adopt voting by delegable proxy in the Senate. This would allow you to increase the lower house terms also. We could trial it by reintroducing the QLD state Senate.

That's what they do in Germany - or at least a version in it. The delegates in the Bundesrat are made up of members of the State Governments, and the members must vote as one bloc.

In effect it is the opposite. It adds a layer of separation between voters and the house of parliament. My proposal is to remove a layer of separation. If there are 20 million people in the country, there are twenty million votes on each proposal before parliament.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you talking about citizen-initiated referenda?

Also, the point of such a House is to represent the States, not the people. The people are represented in the lower House.

Aussie kindly posted a link earlier:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/voting-by-delegable-proxy.html

So, the delegate votes on behalf of the electorate? How does the delegate know what the electorate wants?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 15928
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic
Reply #36 - May 28^th, 2017 at 10:32pm

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:25pm:

Setanta wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:12pm:

Poor Caesar Augustus, he wants the dictatorship and defacto dissolution of the senate that his uncle achieved by coup d'etat by crossing the Rubicon in 49bc, he just can't see it, or can he? Are you seeking a principate?

Setanta, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ah, but that doesn't stop me from talking about it... A bit like you.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47480
At my desk.

Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic
Reply #37 - May 28^th, 2017 at 10:38pm

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:30pm:

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:28pm:

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 9:30pm:

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 9:28pm:

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 5:40pm:

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 7:58am:

We should adopt voting by delegable proxy in the Senate. This would allow you to increase the lower house terms also. We could trial it by reintroducing the QLD state Senate.

That's what they do in Germany - or at least a version in it. The delegates in the Bundesrat are made up of members of the State Governments, and the members must vote as one bloc.

In effect it is the opposite. It adds a layer of separation between voters and the house of parliament. My proposal is to remove a layer of separation. If there are 20 million people in the country, there are twenty million votes on each proposal before parliament.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you talking about citizen-initiated referenda?

Also, the point of such a House is to represent the States, not the people. The people are represented in the lower House.

Aussie kindly posted a link earlier:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/voting-by-delegable-proxy.html

So, the delegate votes on behalf of the electorate? How does the delegate know what the electorate wants?

He doesn't vote on behalf of an electorate. He votes on behalf of individual people who delegate their vote to him. He doesn't know what they all want. There could be a million of them. But if they don't like how he votes in parliament, they delegate their vote to someone else.

That's why it's called voting by delegable proxy.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic
Reply #38 - May 28^th, 2017 at 10:44pm

Setanta wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:32pm:

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:25pm:

Setanta wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:12pm:

Poor Caesar Augustus, he wants the dictatorship and defacto dissolution of the senate that his uncle achieved by coup d'etat by crossing the Rubicon in 49bc, he just can't see it, or can he? Are you seeking a principate?

Setanta, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ah, but that doesn't stop me from talking about it... A bit like you.

My goal isn't to implement a dictatorship; it's to improve our political system. I believe in Federalism, and because I believe in Federalism, I believe that the States should have input into the Commonwealth.

If you don't believe in Federalism, then you won't support this measure.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male

Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic
Reply #39 - May 28^th, 2017 at 10:48pm

Quote:

He doesn't vote on behalf of an electorate. He votes on behalf of individual people who delegate their vote to him. He doesn't know what they all want. There could be a million of them. But if they don't like how he votes in parliament, they delegate their vote to someone else.

That's why it's called voting by delegable proxy.

Who is 'he' and how did he become 'he?'

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 80329
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic
Reply #40 - May 28^th, 2017 at 10:48pm

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:08pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:05pm:

Thing is - based on past history - the public don't want them to do anything more substantial than they already do.

Hold on? That's not correct. The public is always calling for more government: Medicare, Centrelink, now the NDIS. IMO, much of the electorate expect government to improve their living standards.

You are suggesting that providing essential services is not the role of government? (rather than its prmoting ideologies and cronies etc)...

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic
Reply #41 - May 28^th, 2017 at 10:48pm

Quote:

He doesn't vote on behalf of an electorate. He votes on behalf of individual people who delegate their vote to him. He doesn't know what they all want. There could be a million of them. But if they don't like how he votes in parliament, they delegate their vote to someone else.

That's why it's called voting by delegable proxy.

The issue I have so far with this idea is that in any democracy, most voters are apathetic and don't have the time to commit to politics 24/7.

Those who do have the time and knowledge will ultimately be the ones to communicate with the proxy or elect the proxy, which results in a kind of oligarchy - similar to what we have now.

For e.g. if you had an electorate of 1 million people, what percentage of those people would actually be involved in the delegate? And whose to say that their say is considered? The delegate can't communicate with every person, so ultimately they're going to vote based on the information they're given, which is determined by a smaller group of people.

I think in theory it's good, but in practice it will produce the same result, if not worse. Having defined terms means that the member in question can act with a degree of independence and security without having the anxiety of losing her seat.

My view is that representative democracy is effective because we elect one person who is dedicated full-time to representing the electorate. Let's fact it, they need to do constituency work otherwise, they're not going to get elected in that electorate.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic
Reply #42 - May 28^th, 2017 at 10:50pm

Quote:

You are suggesting that providing essential services is not the role of government? (rather than its prmoting ideologies and cronies etc)...

It is the role of government to provide necessities for people. I also think that people need to have the tools to thrive in society, and that the government has intervened too much to prevent this.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic
Reply #43 - May 28^th, 2017 at 10:52pm

Aussie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

Quote:

He doesn't vote on behalf of an electorate. He votes on behalf of individual people who delegate their vote to him. He doesn't know what they all want. There could be a million of them. But if they don't like how he votes in parliament, they delegate their vote to someone else.

That's why it's called voting by delegable proxy.

Who is 'he' and how did he become 'he?'

I apologize for my gender bias when using the third-person pronoun. You know, in many European languages they use the 'he' pronoun when describing a group of people, even if there are women in the group. In fact, if there's one man in a group of 100 women, it is correct to use the masculine pronoun.

I know it's sexist.... and I apologize.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 80329
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic
Reply #44 - May 28^th, 2017 at 10:52pm

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:34pm:

Quote:

No. In your thought bubble World....we could have a system without government......and yet still deliver social services.

I'm sorry if I ever presented my beliefs in that way. I'm a Libertarian, not an Anarchist. I believe government is necessary to a certain point.

I think what you're referring to is my previous posts about having private entities provide social services to people. Allow me to elaborate here, if you will.

Some libertarians argue that all public social services should be abolished in favour of charities. For e.g. if a person is poor then they can go to Salvation Army or their local church and seek help. I don't necessarily support this manner of providing social services.

Second, the point I made specifically about my proposal was that private entities would provide social services on behalf of the Government and in compliance with the Government. I made this proposal because I was attempting to transplant a Swiss-style healthcare system to social services, which I conceded (later) probably wouldn't work for Social Services.

Basically, the Swiss healthcare system works by forcing people to buy insurance from private insurers, but those insurers must offer a specific package known as a 'universal healthcare package' at a fixed rate that offers government-defined benefits. All insurers have to offer this package and cannot discriminate against people. People could then purchase additional 'units' of healthcare according to their needs.

I was attempting to transplant this kind of system to a social services system whereby private entities such as Salvation Army, or Anglicare would offer unemployment insurance (or other type of insurances); but would need to offer a standard 'universal' package in which an adult would pay a monthly insurance rate. If the person lost his job, then he could apply for the benefit under the universal package - again, the rules for application would be the same. No private provider would be able to discriminate against a person for the 'universal' package, and everyone would have to charge the same. The consumer could purchase additional units of insurance to receive a bigger benefit, etc.

The reason why I would advocate this kind of private provision is because it would be more efficient. Companies would have room to compete with other companies, without at the same time being able to deny any person the right to receive a benefit. It would also save the government money, because people are personally responsible for their own insurance.

I hope this makes sense.

There you go with the old 'privatisation' concept - privatisation has been proven time and again NOT to deliver the services it is supposed to replace when run by government.

Your agenda is clear.... more 'privatisation' of everything, regardless of cost to the end user, who always pays for the extra layers of administration etc.

You've been around her long enough to realise and understand that privatisation is a failed policy that has rendered no real benefit to society as a whole - but only to the insiders who get in on it. Everybody else pays more for the same service.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged