Quote: it seeks to remove elections
It removes the need for elections
, but you could still have them if you enjoy wasting the Saturday morning of every Australian adult.
Quote:and require MPs to be nothing more than vote casters
They still need to come up with the bills to vote on, but when it comes to voting you are right - they do not represent their own views or the views of a party, but the views of the voters.
Quote:you STILL havent told me how you expect execuitve govt to be formed when there are no elections
The same way they are in every other system. You just need to get a group that represents over 50% of the population. The only difference between this and other systems is that it does not require 50% of sitting members to be in that group.
Quote:When a system allows one party to govern when it receives fewer votes than another party that system is rotten and needs to be changed.
Can you be more specific? Are you talking about first preference votes, or the 2PP votes under a preferential system? Or is this a mangled way of criticising coalition governments?
Quote:It's not a perfect system, but it works and is much fairer that FPP or preferences.
The problem I have with what you described is that local members are elected on a FPP basis. Perhaps that is necessary in order to get MMP without adding a huge number of extra seats. Some people think their local rep is important. If the majority of your electorate thinks another candidate should have gotten in instead, the majority should have their way.
Quote:Most PR systems tend to end up with nobody getting an absolute majority which I find unacceptable to good government.
Why is it unacceptable? It is an artificial concentration of power in the hands of a minority. It happens regularly in Australia under our current system. The Liberal party rarely gets an absolute majority without the Nats. Combining these two parties like they did in QLD is a bad thing for democracy, because it reduces voter choice - it is probably the main cause of Katter's success.
Quote:Just as we have seen in our current minorty govt, Gillard has been forced into a variety of daft polcies (plus the carbon tax) all to appease minorities.
She was not forced. There is always a choice. People who complain about this seem to forget that the major party has a lot to loose in making such deals and there is a clear path for the public to punish them.
the single highlighted phrase is all anyone needs to dispense with your proposal. 'eliminates elections'. it really doesnt get any less democratic than that.