freediver wrote on May 29
th, 2017 at 7:16pm:
They can have a nervous breakdown over it for all I care.
Well, that's not really what we want. We want MPs to be able to do their jobs properly, otherwise no one will want to be an MP.
freediver wrote on May 29
th, 2017 at 7:16pm:
There are ways to handle it so it doesn't get rediculous - what I would call hysteresis - to prevent regular swapping out of MPs. Also, you could either rank preferences, or let your delegate pass on your vote on the way out, in the situation where your first preference is at risk of losing his seat.
Overall, it would be fairly stable. Something equivalent to the 80:20 rule will still apply. I would expect the most popular politicians to hold 10 to 20% of the vote each, and the 'weakest' half of the MPs to be squabbling over 5% of the vote between them. Coalitions would still form to get legislation through. The political parties would survive, but in a weakened state. People would still back the parties to the extent they provided stability, and a lazy option. My initial proposal is only for a Senate, so we would not have to worry about executive government (the adults in charge). What it would mean is that there is effectively a 'cheap' referendum on every single piece of legislation.
After thinking about this, I think you're on to something, and I'm willing to support it. If I may offer my own two-cents, I think the system could be beneficial in the following fashion:
1) the country would need to be divided into small electorates, thereby allowing for closeness to the elector. Say the Senate has 76 seats, then there would need to be 76 constituencies (of equal population - say, 100,000 approx.): this would ensure that each delegate's vote is equal. The number of senators could potentially be more in order to ensure 'closeness' to the electorate.
2) delegates would be in their position for a minimum time of six months; this would ensure at least some degree of stability for the delegate (one could increase to a year, possibly).
3) the delegate would his/her office so long as they are recalled - after the first six-month period. This is a kind of 'negative' power. Instead of having people go to polls every six months, it would be assumed that the delegate has the support of the electorate until there is a recall by the electors in that electorate - a process would have to be developed to facilitate this.
4) prescribe term limits as a stop-gap measure in case of abuse: no person can be a delegate for more than 6 years in his/her lifetime; or they can't serve more than 3 terms in a row (or a combination of either). This would ensure frequent rotation in office; although depending on the rules, existing delegates may be able to re-serve.
--
The questions that remain in my mind are the following:
1) can the Senate (consisting of such delegates) propose laws to the Parliament; or do they only debate and vote on proposals by the Government? If the latter, then we should consider instituting MMP proportional representation in the House of Reps (as they do in NZ currently) to ensure that a diversity of ideas are considered in policy (due to a greater likelihood of coalition governments - not the Coalition).
2) does the electorate vote on the budget every year? In theory this is good, but the issue with this is that what the people want may not be what is fiscally responsible. Sometimes though choices have to made and people may not be willing to vote on those choices - this is one of the benefits of representative democracy: sometimes the Government has to think about running the country.
3) can the Senate (consisting of such delegates) amend the budget? Or do we retain the current rules where the Senate cannot amend appropriation and supply?
4) what about the State Governments? Do they get an input into Federal legislation, or do you advocate abolishing the States?