to elect governments that Australia’s ‘choose the least unpopular’ version of Survivor?
I was thinking perhaps voters should be forced to choose/preference policies on the ballot paper rather than simply choosing people?
That way at the very least you might learn something by reading the ballot paper :)
What say ye?
bourke said:
to elect governments that Australia’s ‘choose the least unpopular’ version of Survivor?I was thinking perhaps voters should be forced to choose/preference policies on the ballot paper rather than simply choosing people?
That way at the very least you might learn something by reading the ballot paper :)
What say ye?
I’d rather record the policies I appreciate than tick which clown is better.
what if the population filed a class action against politicians for emotional abuse?
I’d rather if the two party system was eliminated. The “opposition” serves no purpose, any opposition to government bills could be handled by the media, the public, and the senate.
Also, you can’t change the truth by debating it. So let’s get rid of parliamentary debate entirely.
Also, let’s cut campaign funds and political advertising. Currently, during campaign time practically no government work can get done – which is a huge problem in the USA.
Let’s take politics off the News. “Politician opens mouth” is not a news story.
What if politicians were forced to take an IQ test?
The first question that politicians should be asked is “why do you want to be a politician / political leader?” Those who get off on power, just like to hear themselves talk, or treat it like winning a chess tournament, or just want a high salary need to be eliminated.
etc.
There’s a small party in Australia – I can’t remember their title but it’s something like 21st Century Australia – that has the policy of the public voting from a selection of polices rather than just the one that the party puts forward.
I quite liked that as no single party has all the policies that I think are right so it would let me put my 2c in to do what I thought was really right.
For example none of the major parties are looking at nuclear power, and that’s just crazy that they’re not considering it.
Here’s one that SSSF’ers might like.
http://youtu.be/mDxy8mmwO6E
What I’d like to see is a system where there is one large group nominally in power, but they need the support of a smaller group plus some independents to actually get things done.
you know in highschool testing they always tell you ‘when in doubt, choose C’
we should have that system.
Senator Online
Also I’d like to make the point that politicians are nowhere near as bad as nearly everyone makes them out to be.
The system requires that each of the two major groups portrays themselves as better than the other major group, which inevitably results in negativity from both sides.
Also the news media are constantly looking for failings from the group in power, because revealing these things is good news, and makes them (the news media) look good, whereas revealing a job well done makes them look like stooges of the Government, which they don’t see as a good look, especially when they see the interests of their owners as being better served by the group not in power.
All this isn’t a huge problem, although overall contentment would probably be higher if there was less negativity about politicians.
To improve the situation I recommend:
1. Decide your vote on the actions that you think each political group is most likely to carry out if elected, totally ignoring all their comments about opposing groups, which are likely to be misleading, at best.
2. Don’t transfer any money to a business interest owned by Rupert Murdoch.
3. That is all.
The other thing is that I think the system is, at least, centrist. With some exceptions it does keep both parties within cooee of the public will (for better or worse).
So what die the notional government do we the receive the results the the policy election find the winning policies are
Dual channel NBN to every home
High speed rail to every capital city
Waiting list inhospital to be reduce by 90%
Gonski Plus,smaller class sizes and elite private school facilities at every school
Huge defence renewal of all asserts
No carbon tax
No mining tax
Tax cuts for all
Paid parental leave for 12 months
Stealth said:
So what die the notional government do we the receive the results the the policy election find the winning policies are
Dual channel NBN to every home
High speed rail to every capital city
Waiting list inhospital to be reduce by 90%
Gonski Plus,smaller class sizes and elite private school facilities at every school
Huge defence renewal of all asserts
No carbon tax
No mining tax
Tax cuts for all
Paid parental leave for 12 months
This is indeed a difficult question.
Which is another reason why people are mostly dissatisfied with the performance of politicians. They are rarely very effective in performing impossible tasks.
dv said:
The other thing is that I think the system is, at least, centrist. With some exceptions it does keep both parties within cooee of the public will (for better or worse).
Yes, Ian Stewarts Ice Cream Vendor parable sums it up pretty well.
We should have an electoral commission that enforces all parties to reveal all their costings and polices at the start of the election
also we should have a constitution that has a bill of rights at the start of it, what are all your rights? why are they fragmented and spread all over the place, with a bill of rights everything is is one place for everyone to see, not hidden away
Get rid of Media Bias
require people who want to enter parliament to understand human rights, all people must do a university course which would be free to understand how the whole system works, understanding things such as global trade, diplomacy, economics, the importance of education and health, ethics and logic, and how to make good laws, how the federal reverse bank and the banking system works, how to be an efficient worker etc
more focus on having referendums at election times
more focus on voting about polices at election times
be able to lodge your own comments about matters at election times
making councils, state and federal parliament more transparent
should be
require people who want to enter parliament to understand human rights, “all people entering parliament” must do a university course (a free course) that teaches an understanding of how the whole system works, understanding things such as global trade, diplomacy, economics, the importance of education and health, ethics and logic, and how to make good laws, how the federal reverse bank and the banking system works, how to be an efficient worker etc
CrazyNeutrino said:
should be
require people who want to enter parliament to understand human rights, “all people entering parliament” must do a university course (a free course) that teaches an understanding of how the whole system works, understanding things such as global trade, diplomacy, economics, the importance of education and health, ethics and logic, and how to make good laws, how the federal reverse bank and the banking system works, how to be an efficient worker etc
who;s going to pay for this free course? who is going to teach it? where will it be held? how long is the free course? what will the final results determine? can you do it all over again if you really want to enter politics but can’t quite make the grade?
Arts said:
who;s going to pay for this free course?
The same people who pay for all free and subsidised government services.
I’m concerned that the structure of our political system is entirely due to our economic structure and will not see meaningful change until a new economic model is conceived.
Arts said:
who;s going to pay for this free course? who is going to teach it? where will it be held? how long is the free course? what will the final results determine? can you do it all over again if you really want to enter politics but can’t quite make the grade?
Clive Palmer, Clive Palmer, Coolum Resort, this weekend, whether you’re sexy and amusing enough to take office, yes.
>>>who;s going to pay for this free course? who is going to teach it? where will it be held? how long is the free course? what will the final results determine? can you do it all over again if you really want to enter politics but can’t quite make the grade?
do you want dumb politicians like Pauline Hanson who didn’t have a clue what she was doing?
“who;s going to pay for this free course?” tax payers
“who is going to teach it?” universities
“where will it be held?” universities
“how long is the free course?” 3 months seems a reasonable figure but it could a six
“what will the final results determine?” a better informed person who can know how to make law, by researching information to gaining knowledge out of it
“can you do it all over again if you really want to enter politics but can’t quite make the grade?” yes, must require a basic competency pass to have a basic understanding
Scrapping compulsory voting might make the parties less obsessed with pandering to the worst kind of swinging voters.
Bubblecar said:
Scrapping compulsory voting might make the parties less obsessed with pandering to the worst kind of swinging voters.
Swingers are whingers and that will only provoke them ;)
Bubblecar said:
Scrapping compulsory voting might make the parties less obsessed with pandering to the worst kind of swinging voters.
It would have the opposite effect, in trying to make their policies attractive to people who couldn’t be bothered to vote unless their was something in it for them.
And what is “the worst kind of swinging voter”.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
I’m concerned that the structure of our political system is entirely due to our economic structure and will not see meaningful change until a new economic model is conceived.
I’m concerned that the structure of our political system has insufficient protection against powerful individuals taking personal advantage of our economic structure and we may see meaningful adverse change unless better protection is introduced.
CrazyNeutrino said:
do you want dumb politicians like Pauline Hanson who didn’t have a clue what she was doing?
I like the fact that any citizen can get up and give it a go. Almost everyone seems to be an expert at it..
>And what is “the worst kind of swinging voter”.
The ignorant, antisocial types who are convinced that asylum seekers are given free cars and houses and are taking their jobs etc etc.
The single most common complaint amongst informed voters is that the major parties are competing to see who can take the nastiest position on refugees. They are doing this because their research tells them this issue is a vote-changer amongst the least informed swinging voters in the marginal seats.
Arts said:
CrazyNeutrino said:do you want dumb politicians like Pauline Hanson who didn’t have a clue what she was doing?
I like the fact that any citizen can get up and give it a go. Almost everyone seems to be an expert at it..
ha
CrazyNeutrino said:
>>>who;s going to pay for this free course? who is going to teach it? where will it be held? how long is the free course? what will the final results determine? can you do it all over again if you really want to enter politics but can’t quite make the grade?
do you want dumb politicians like Pauline Hanson who didn’t have a clue what she was doing?
“who;s going to pay for this free course?” tax payers
“who is going to teach it?” universities
“where will it be held?” universities
“how long is the free course?” 3 months seems a reasonable figure but it could a six
“what will the final results determine?” a better informed person who can know how to make law, by researching information to gaining knowledge out of it
“can you do it all over again if you really want to enter politics but can’t quite make the grade?” yes, must require a basic competency pass to have a basic understanding
you know, we do elect people into parliament to make laws
if we elect people into parliament to make laws, they should have some basic law training shouldn’t they?
or just send in any riff raff?
cause how I see it at the moment is a hierarchical structure, those in the know seem to make it into Cabinet
How good would you think Clive Palmer is at making law, he is a capitalist nutcase
The Rev Dodgson said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
I’m concerned that the structure of our political system is entirely due to our economic structure and will not see meaningful change until a new economic model is conceived.
I’m concerned that the structure of our political system has insufficient protection against powerful individuals taking personal advantage of our economic structure and we may see meaningful adverse change unless better protection is introduced.
so campaign slogans might be something like ‘expect the worst but hope for the best’?
CrazyNeutrino said:
or just send in any riff raff?
I would prefer you didn’t associate me with these folk!
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
I’m concerned that the structure of our political system is entirely due to our economic structure and will not see meaningful change until a new economic model is conceived.
I’m concerned that the structure of our political system has insufficient protection against powerful individuals taking personal advantage of our economic structure and we may see meaningful adverse change unless better protection is introduced.
so campaign slogans might be something like ‘expect the worst but hope for the best’?
lol, Isn’t that how it is at the moment?
CrazyNeutrino said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I’m concerned that the structure of our political system has insufficient protection against powerful individuals taking personal advantage of our economic structure and we may see meaningful adverse change unless better protection is introduced.
so campaign slogans might be something like ‘expect the worst but hope for the best’?
lol, Isn’t that how it is at the moment?
they could start being honest about it ;)
Riff-in-Thyme said:
CrazyNeutrino said:or just send in any riff raff?
I would prefer you didn’t associate me with these folk!
ok, you can stand over there
>>>I’m concerned that the structure of our political system is entirely due to our economic structure and will not see meaningful change until a new economic model is conceived.
==
yes I would like to see reform on that
Arts said:
CrazyNeutrino said:do you want dumb politicians like Pauline Hanson who didn’t have a clue what she was doing?
I like the fact that any citizen can get up and give it a go. Almost everyone seems to be an expert at it..
That’s what I like as well. Bugger off having it restricted to an elite who can pass a course, cos what will follow after, and we see hints of it here, it will be rolled out so only certain people who pass certain tests are entitled to vote, then you can add to that media that is not allowed to criticise govt then we will be in paradise…surely.
Nothing when it comes to politics, with people having different opinions will be perfect and you need to be vigilant against those who would deny others opinions under a smokescreen that only they know better.
CrazyNeutrino said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
CrazyNeutrino said:or just send in any riff raff?
I would prefer you didn’t associate me with these folk!
ok, you can stand over there
what if i have things to do?
Skunkworks said:
Arts said:
CrazyNeutrino said:do you want dumb politicians like Pauline Hanson who didn’t have a clue what she was doing?
I like the fact that any citizen can get up and give it a go. Almost everyone seems to be an expert at it..
That’s what I like as well. Bugger off having it restricted to an elite who can pass a course, cos what will follow after, and we see hints of it here, it will be rolled out so only certain people who pass certain tests are entitled to vote, then you can add to that media that is not allowed to criticise govt then we will be in paradise…surely.
Nothing when it comes to politics, with people having different opinions will be perfect and you need to be vigilant against those who would deny others opinions under a smokescreen that only they know better.
It is so much easier to prove others wrong than yourself right. How do you change that?
Riff-in-Thyme said:
It is so much easier to prove others wrong than yourself right. How do you change that?
the term ‘prove’ being applied very loosely
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: democracy simply doesn’t work.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
It is so much easier to prove others wrong than yourself right. How do you change that?
There go the people, I am there leader so I must follow.
Yes you are right, it is easier hence politics the art of negotiation and building your case, not by getting you way by erecting barriers and rules to keep others out.
That’s what I like as well. Bugger off having it restricted to an elite who can pass a course, cos what will follow after, and we see hints of it here, it will be rolled out so only certain people who pass certain tests are entitled to vote, then you can add to that media that is not allowed to criticise govt then we will be in paradise…surely.
If we send in people to make laws, shouldn’t they have some understanding of how to make law?
if we send in people to Parliament, should they have some basic understanding of it?
I dont mean a complete understanding, that is impossible, but at least a basic understanding of it
“I like the fact that any citizen can get up and give it a go.” I like that idea too
“restricted to an elite?” Isn’t Cabinet like that?
CrazyNeutrino said:
“restricted to an elite?” Isn’t Cabinet like that?
It is restricted to people who have managed to persuade other people to give them their vote, not restricted to people who can pass a test, a test no doubt that would be enacted by or at least fiddled with the govt of the day.
Skunkworks said:
CrazyNeutrino said:“restricted to an elite?” Isn’t Cabinet like that?
It is restricted to people who have managed to persuade other people to give them their vote, not restricted to people who can pass a test, a test no doubt that would be enacted by or at least fiddled with the govt of the day.
hmmm, isnt there always some solicitors and barristers that seem to be in the inner core?
>>>I’m concerned that the structure of our political system has insufficient protection against powerful individuals taking personal advantage of our economic structure and we may see meaningful adverse change unless better protection is introduced.
I agree with that Rev
CrazyNeutrino said:
Skunkworks said:
CrazyNeutrino said:“restricted to an elite?” Isn’t Cabinet like that?
It is restricted to people who have managed to persuade other people to give them their vote, not restricted to people who can pass a test, a test no doubt that would be enacted by or at least fiddled with the govt of the day.
hmmm, isnt there always some solicitors and barristers that seem to be in the inner core?
Aye there is. Maybe they should be banned to provide balance? Would that be better?
The justification for elitism is the fact that global events are complex and experience is necessary to handle matters. This is entirely true, but without enthusiasm for involvement in social debate within the community, the likelihood of clubs forming and playing unnecessary games is inevitable.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The justification for elitism is the fact that global events are complex and experience is necessary to handle matters. This is entirely true, but without enthusiasm for involvement in social debate within the community, clubs forming and playing unnecessary games is inevitable.
We need people to decide who to elect, not rupert murdoch who leaves in another country
end media bias
CrazyNeutrino said:
We need people to decide who to elect, not rupert murdoch who leaves in another country
end media bias
Conroy had a red hot go. I am sure he had no agenda. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
CrazyNeutrino said:
We need people to decide who to elect, not rupert murdoch who leaves in another country
end media bias
maybe the media is one thing that should be publicly owned
Riff-in-Thyme said:
CrazyNeutrino said:We need people to decide who to elect, not rupert murdoch who leaves in another country
end media bias
maybe the media is one thing that should be publicly owned
Yes yes, and just have one political party symbolised by a tractor tyre and a reaping hook.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
CrazyNeutrino said:We need people to decide who to elect, not rupert murdoch who leaves in another country
end media bias
maybe the media is one thing that should be publicly owned
let’s say the media were considered the public’c contribution to politics?
How many politicians who have had an elite education end up in the inner core of Cabinet?
Some just want everything to stay the same, with dumbed down backbenchers
Peak Warming Man said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
CrazyNeutrino said:We need people to decide who to elect, not rupert murdoch who leaves in another country
end media bias
maybe the media is one thing that should be publicly owned
Yes yes, and just have one political party symbolised by a tractor tyre and a reaping hook.
Not at all. You could probably leave things the way they are if their were only a trusted public interest involved
I would like to be the person who marks the final exam of the Political Entrance Unit run at many universities across the nation…
what sort of questions would you have? has to be some economics, ethics, history, planning, projection, management.. it’s going to be a long test.. there will be no pages left blank intentionally…
Do we really need religious politicians who ignore contradictory evidence, who cannot bother to research matters when their religious ideology conflict with human rights?
CrazyNeutrino said:
Do we really need religious politicians who ignore contradictory evidence, who cannot bother to research matters when their religious ideology conflict with human rights?
It is a demographic that has to be accouned for
this thread is asperger paradise
:)
>>>I was thinking perhaps voters should be forced to choose/preference policies on the ballot paper rather than simply choosing people?
I like idea, and have thought about it off and on
I’m off to do some artwork now
There can be only one course of action: Australia will unconditionally surrender to China.
Stealth said:
So what die the notional government do we the receive the results the the policy election find the winning policies are
Dual channel NBN to every home
High speed rail to every capital city
Waiting list inhospital to be reduce by 90%
Gonski Plus,smaller class sizes and elite private school facilities at every school
Huge defence renewal of all asserts
No carbon tax
No mining tax
Tax cuts for all
Paid parental leave for 12 months
I don’t propose any change to the way the government/parliament is run, or ho the budget is managed – I only propose listing the policies on the ballot paper like so:
Group A’s policies:
Buy back 1 million Indo fishing boats.
Spend $4 billion on roads.
Group B’s policies:
Spend $220 million on education.
Group C’s policies:
Legalize Cannabis.
And each group identifier (e.g. Group letter above) / ordering is randomized on each paper to help avoid ‘brainwash voting’ (stooges with simple how-to-vote cards outside) etc.
bourke said:
Stealth said:
So what die the notional government do we the receive the results the the policy election find the winning policies are
Dual channel NBN to every home
High speed rail to every capital city
Waiting list inhospital to be reduce by 90%
Gonski Plus,smaller class sizes and elite private school facilities at every school
Huge defence renewal of all asserts
No carbon tax
No mining tax
Tax cuts for all
Paid parental leave for 12 months
I don’t propose any change to the way the government/parliament is run, or ho the budget is managed – I only propose listing the policies on the ballot paper like so:
Group A’s policies:
Buy back 1 million Indo fishing boats.
Spend $4 billion on roads.Group B’s policies:
Spend $220 million on education.Group C’s policies:
Legalize Cannabis.And each group identifier (e.g. Group letter above) / ordering is randomized on each paper to help avoid ‘brainwash voting’ (stooges with simple how-to-vote cards outside) etc.
I.e. you are still voting identically to before – the only difference is you don’t see the candidates names nor party names. As you should never be voting based on names anyway; if you don’t know the policies of who you are voting for then you will be forced to learn them fro the ballot paper :-p
I think the fine detail of policy is often too complicated to properly evaluate without the necessary background understanding – the reason we elect a government is so that they can evaluate this detail on our behalf.
To be honest, I think Australia has one of the fairest and most representative political systems in the world.
The most important thing in a democracy is to ensure that no media outlet criticises another.
After that we need great people.
Lastly, a pacified flock of WGAFers.
Sorted.
diddly-squat said:
I think the fine detail of policy is often too complicated to properly evaluate without the necessary background understanding – the reason we elect a government is so that they can evaluate this detail on our behalf.
The idea is to have the full policy document there at the voting booths if you want to read further – however the point is that you should have already read up on the policies you want, and this change is simply to ensure you are voting based on policies – not simply on names/parties.
I.e. it is simply to ensure the 5% of voters that blindly vote without reading anything about policies to at least learn something on voting day in the booth – and to make ‘more’ informed voting decisions.
bourke said:
diddly-squat said:I think the fine detail of policy is often too complicated to properly evaluate without the necessary background understanding – the reason we elect a government is so that they can evaluate this detail on our behalf.
The idea is to have the full policy document there at the voting booths if you want to read further – however the point is that you should have already read up on the policies you want, and this change is simply to ensure you are voting based on policies – not simply on names/parties.
I.e. it is simply to ensure the 5% of voters that blindly vote without reading anything about policies to at least learn something on voting day in the booth – and to make ‘more’ informed voting decisions.
methinks
you want to make the queues longer.. this data should be provided way-pre-polling day.roughbarked said:
bourke said:
diddly-squat said:I think the fine detail of policy is often too complicated to properly evaluate without the necessary background understanding – the reason we elect a government is so that they can evaluate this detail on our behalf.
The idea is to have the full policy document there at the voting booths if you want to read further – however the point is that you should have already read up on the policies you want, and this change is simply to ensure you are voting based on policies – not simply on names/parties.
I.e. it is simply to ensure the 5% of voters that blindly vote without reading anything about policies to at least learn something on voting day in the booth – and to make ‘more’ informed voting decisions.
methinks
you want to make the queues longer.. this data should be provided way-pre-polling day.
Of course it would – but there’s always 5% who have no clue/need to be cornered like a rat in a trap :-p
And in this day and age – that 5% could by accident deliver the rest of us a mad monk as big boss for the next three years!
bourke said:
roughbarked said:
bourke said:The idea is to have the full policy document there at the voting booths if you want to read further – however the point is that you should have already read up on the policies you want, and this change is simply to ensure you are voting based on policies – not simply on names/parties.
I.e. it is simply to ensure the 5% of voters that blindly vote without reading anything about policies to at least learn something on voting day in the booth – and to make ‘more’ informed voting decisions.
methinks
you want to make the queues longer.. this data should be provided way-pre-polling day.Of course it would – but there’s always 5% who have no clue/need to be cornered like a rat in a trap :-p
And in this day and age – that 5% could by accident deliver the rest of us a mad monk as big boss for the next three years!
I.e. a change like this could easily be more influential than Gerrymandering.