Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Occams Barber]

I wholeheartedly agree, every religion should have its 'words of wisdom', its 'golden rule', and its 'love thy neighbor'. In fact I have no problem with borrowing a few sage passages from a religious text or two. It's not like we've suddenly invented the concept. The goal isn't to lessen the importance of other religions, but rather to emphasize the universality of them. In fact I wouldn't even mind a few 'thou shalt nots' thrown in for good measure. Teach them in school if you like. Post them in the town hall square. Let it be known that me and my house fulfill the commandment to 'love thy God' by loving and serving others. Not because we have to, but because we choose to.

This new religion isn't about divine edicts, it's about a social conscience. It's about recognizing the inherent and immeasurable value of 'we the people". Which we choose to embrace, not because we'll suffer unspeakable horror if we don't, but because we... in what little divinity we possess... recognize that the commandment to love thy neighbor isn't something that will some day be rewarded... it is the reward.

You'd make a good preacher.

A religion where people care about people without being coerced by the threat of hellfire??

What a novel idea!

Sign me up.

OB

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

So we can add a theocracy to the list of proposed systems. Run by the approximately 200,000 members in the US.

What do you mean by adding a theocracy to the list? We're already living in a theocracy - of climate change! It is undeniable that there has been many extreme weather conditions in recent years, that is real science; but attributing those to human activities, and demanding for elimination of fossil fuel and red meat in the name of protecting the planet, that's a religion, religion of Gaia worship.

 

[Whyayeman]

So we can add a theocracy to the list of proposed systems. Run by the approximately 200,000 members in the US.

A theocracy cannot be a democracy. It is by definition authoritarian. In case there is doubt, look at current theocracies in the world today. The obvious one, Iran has an apparently democratic framework. Elections take place, governments are formed. But the real power resides in the Supreme Leader, an unelected cleric who has the final say on everything. It is not going well.

There is nothing to be learned about democracy there.

 

[Bradskii]

A theocracy cannot be a democracy. It is by definition authoritarian. In case there is doubt, look at current theocracies in the world today. The obvious one, Iran has an apparently democratic framework. Elections take place, governments are formed. But the real power resides in the Supreme Leader, an unelected cleric who has the final say on everything. It is not going well.

There is nothing to be learned about democracy there.

I cannot but agree. But if someone suggests it's a valid option then on the list it must go. If it comes to a vote then it won't get mine. But anyone is free to offer any system they think is a better one than most of us have at the moment.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I cannot but agree. But if someone suggests it's a valid option then on the list it must go. If it comes to a vote then it won't get mine. But anyone is free to offer any system they think is a better one than most of us have at the moment.

Theocracy is not a valid option, and for the record I've never suggested one, but the harsh reality is, the supposed democracy is turned into a theocracy. You want a better system, kick the false prophets of environmentalism, genderism, socialism and other cults out of the government. As long as such theocrats are running the system, you have a de facto theocracy. So restore democracy first, then we can talk about how to improve it.

 

[Whyayeman]

A government and society working for the public good will, hopefully, emphasise a balance between individual rights and collective responsibilities.

Yes, that would be good. How are such responsibilities to be emphasised - and what should they be?

Some responsibilities are enshrined in law. There is often resistance to making unlawful behaviours which have been taken for granted as freedoms. Examples are the curtailment of smoking; the use of seat-belts in cars; drink-drive limits. These were resisted as limits on traditional freedoms. We now more or less take them for granted.

What responsibilities might improve democracy? What about the duty to vote? Australians (and New Zealanders?) are required by law to attend a polling place, but not to cast a vote. Perhaps the law should go further?

 

[Robban]

Yes, that would be good. How are such responsibilities to be emphasised - and what should they be?

Some responsibilities are enshrined in law. There is often resistance to making unlawful behaviours which have been taken for granted as freedoms. Examples are the curtailment of smoking; the use of seat-belts in cars; drink-drive limits. These were resisted as limits on traditional freedoms. We now more or less take them for granted.

What responsibilities might improve democracy? What about the duty to vote? Australians (and New Zealanders?) are required by law to attend a polling place, but not to cast a vote. Perhaps the law should go further?

I have never voted for anyone, ever.

The only power a voter has is their vote, once given away it has gone.

 

[Whyayeman]

I have never voted for anyone, ever.

The only power a voter has is their vote, once given away it has gone.

Until the next time. A vote is not a vote until it is made.

(A vote is an act, not a possession.)

 

[Robban]

Until the next time. A vote is not a vote until it is made.

(A vote is an act, not a possession.)

Of course it is that is why poliical representative are so friendly around election time.

You give them your vote, you cannot give what you do not have.

 

[Whyayeman]

Of course it is that is why poliical representative are so friendly around election time.

You give them your vote, you cannot give what you do not have.

Have you a suggestion? Something to cheer up Bradskii?

 

[Robban]

Have you a suggestion? Something to cheer up Bradskii?

Haha, O Boy,

No not really, unless he is sipping on a gin and tonic, then,
Skål! Bradskii.

 

[Bradskii]

Haha, O Boy,

No not really, unless he is sipping on a gin and tonic, then,
Skål! Bradskii.

The sun's nowhere near over the yardarm yet down here (and what are you doing up in the early morning hours anyway?). But a G and T with ice and a slice is definitely on the cards for this evening. And when 'this evening' starts is open to some interpretation.

But not voting? I couldn't vote here until I became an Australian citizen. And I had to wait around three years because to do so back then I had to pledge allegiance to the Queen and swear under God. Well, two requirements that I wasn't prepared to entertain in any way. But then we had a Labor leader who decided to change that. The Queen was omitted and the god of your choice became optional. So I signed up the day after that was enacted. But until I could vote I always felt obliged to step out of any political discussions because I had no dog in the fight so to speak. I couldn't argue one position over another because my lack of a vote excluded me.

I would have thought that intentionally not voting would put you in the same position. You can't complain about a government action if you had decided to take no part in the process of electing a government.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, that would be good. How are such responsibilities to be emphasised - and what should they be?

Some responsibilities are enshrined in law. There is often resistance to making unlawful behaviours which have been taken for granted as freedoms. Examples are the curtailment of smoking; the use of seat-belts in cars; drink-drive limits. These were resisted as limits on traditional freedoms. We now more or less take them for granted.

What responsibilities might improve democracy? What about the duty to vote? Australians (and New Zealanders?) are required by law to attend a polling place, but not to cast a vote. Perhaps the law should go further?

I'm open to arguments for and against compulsory voting (or, as you say, compulsory attendance at a polling booth). I tend to agree with it - and I've voted under both UK and Australian systems. But I'm not sure how you could take that further. You can't force someone to vote.

 

[Occams Barber]

Yes, that would be good. How are such responsibilities to be emphasised - and what should they be?

The emphasis on responsibilities should match and balance any statement about rights. So, if rights are mentioned in a constitution, then the concept of responsibilities should also be mentioned. At the constitutional level mention of specific rights and responsibilities should be avoided to avoid the danger of them being permanently locked in. At the next level - if there is a Bill of Rights there should also be a Bill of Responsibilities. My personal preference is to have neither unless there is a pre-existing Bill of Rights. Rather than locking specific Rights/Responsibilities in at the Constitutional level they should be covered by legislation/common law. This means that Rights/Responsibilities can be changed by Parliamentary vote as society changes.

I'm reluctant to specify particular Responsibilities since cultural differences are important but it could include things like;

• providing all citizens with access to a high standard of healthcare
• Actively supporting disadvantaged minorities
• providing all citizens with a high standard of education
• ensuring that all citizens receive a wage consistent with a reasonable standard of living
• ensuring that all citizens have access to a good standard of housing
• Ensuring that the criminal justice system has a genuine focus on rehabilitation
• etc., etc

Notice I have avoided the use of minimum standards. This is intentional. I would also include language implying a responsibility to actively pursue fulfilling these responsibilities,

What about the duty to vote? Australians (and New Zealanders?) are required by law to attend a polling place, but not to cast a vote. Perhaps the law should go further?

Effectively its a legal requirement to vote. You must lodge your ballot paper but no-one looks over your shoulder to see what you put on the ballot paper. (NZ doesn't have compulsory voting),

My preference is for compulsory voting for a range of reasons, but I accept that this may be culturally unacceptable in some places.

OB

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, cue the norotrious revolving door of Washington, from corporation executives to government official to K street lobbyist.

I think any system of governing will be subject to corruption through money. Money is the root of all evil as they say. So take the power of money out of the situation. I can't imagine any system that did not have a degree of democracy about it where different people with different views live under the same roof. You get 10 people in the room and have 3 different views on how to achieve something. Surely voting for the most popular choice has to come into it.

The more people invested the better as then you can get a larger amount of peoples deciding the most popular position which should normally reflect what they want and want for others. Which usually is about fairness, justice, human wellbeing. But when money comes in suddenly theres vested interests. Is the person advocating for the change because they have some interest in it or just because its the right thing for all. I think universialism is important. if the change or idea can be applied universailly and wont harm then its usually good.

In saying this I noticed when the US founding fathers were developing the Consitution and were advocating for Freedoms, freedom of speach and religion. They often mentioned God the Christian God behind a lot of what they were saying. In fact from memory some wanted there to be only one religion Christianity as they believed that all others were not able to maintain the stability of society.

So maybe democracy is a bit of a self defeating idea in that it allows competing beliefs to exist together all being tolerated when if there is a God then this is actually undermining the Truth, the best way according to Christianity for structuring society.

 

[Bradskii]

I think any system of governing will be subject to corruption through money. Money is the root of all evil as they say. So take the power of money out of the situation.

I'd certainly like to see a limit on party election spending. It's being considered by the current government here:

'Political parties would face a cap on how much they can spend during an election campaign under a suite of measures being considered by the Albanese government to overhaul the nation’s electoral funding laws.' ‘We intend to legislate’: Labor considering caps on election spending and public funding

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I think any system of governing will be subject to corruption through money. Money is the root of all evil as they say.

Money is not. The LOVE of Money is.

 

[Robban]

The sun's nowhere near over the yardarm yet down here (and what are you doing up in the early morning hours anyway?). But a G and T with ice and a slice is definitely on the cards for this evening. And when 'this evening' starts is open to some interpretation.

But not voting? I couldn't vote here until I became an Australian citizen. And I had to wait around three years because to do so back then I had to pledge allegiance to the Queen and swear under God. Well, two requirements that I wasn't prepared to entertain in any way. But then we had a Labor leader who decided to change that. The Queen was omitted and the god of your choice became optional. So I signed up the day after that was enacted. But until I could vote I always felt obliged to step out of any political discussions because I had no dog in the fight so to speak. I couldn't argue one position over another because my lack of a vote excluded me.

I would have thought that intentionally not voting would put you in the same position. You can't complain about a government action if you had decided to take no part in the process of electing a government.

Well, I have heard people say if you don't vote you cannot complain.

But I have no wish to join a moaners club.

I pay taxes and am glad I have money to pay with, you know,

give the civil servants so they too can put bread on their table

and serve us.

What more is to desire.

 

[Occams Barber]

I'd certainly like to see a limit on party election spending. It's being considered by the current government here:

'Political parties would face a cap on how much they can spend during an election campaign under a suite of measures being considered by the Albanese government to overhaul the nation’s electoral funding laws.' ‘We intend to legislate’: Labor considering caps on election spending and public funding

Another possibility is term limits for all politicians. If they are restricted to, say, no more than two 5 year terms, this allows for the development of expertise in governing without them becoming too entrenched. It also reduces the opportunities for politicians to get too cosy with lobbyists, commercial interests and other potential sources of corruption. It's also a way to minimise the dominance of old white males by ensuring that there is a regular turnover of politicians.

The main disadvantage is loss of expertise and potential risk to continuity.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

Another possibility is term limits for all politicians. If they are restricted to, say, no more than two 5 year terms, this allows for the development of expertise in governing without them becoming too entrenched. It also reduces the opportunities for politicians to get too cosy with lobbyists, commercial interests and other potential sources of corruption. It's also a way to minimise the dominance of old white males by ensuring that there is a regular turnover of politicians.

The main disadvantage is loss of expertise and potential risk to continuity.

OB

Some interesting stats from here, albeit 10 years ago, including length of terms: The 43rd Parliament: traits and trends

the percentage of women in Parliament in Australia (30 per cent) is substantially higher than either the United Kingdom (22 per cent) or the United States (18 per cent), but far less than countries such as Rwanda (52 per cent), Cuba (49 per cent) and Sweden (45 per cent).

the United States, Canada and Ireland, like Australia, have a higher proportion of women in the upper house, but this is by no means a global trend

the average age of Australian MPs (51) is comparable with that of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom (50) and Canada (52), but considerably younger than the average age of Members of the United States Congress (57 in the House, 62 in the Senate).

average length of completed parliamentary terms in Australia between 2000 and 2013 was double that of the Canadian Parliament—12.6 years in the House of Representatives compared with six years in Canadian House of Commons; 14 years in the Senate compared with 7.6 years in the Senate of Canada.

the percentage of post-secondary educated MPs in Australia (81 per cent) is not as high as that of the UK House of Commons (90 per cent) or the US Congress (94 per cent) and trends in occupational background are familiar: in Congress, law, public service/politics and business are the dominant professions. In the UK House of Commons, there has been a significant rise in the number of MPs previously engaged in politics-related occupations.