Whiccle Johnnie

[echnidna]

Maybe the second house needs to be appointed by a simple lottery.
We could call it Auslotto.
Second terms possible but unlikely because all apppointments are via Auslotto
That way the system can corrupt people from all walks of life instead of from the ranks of the priveldged few.

[silentC]

You could just use the jury system that's there now. Whenever there's some legislation to be introduced, you call up a jury. The minister and shadow minister involved gets to ask questions and eliminate jury members like they do now and then the jury has to discuss it and make a decision. Then they p!ss off back to normal life with a handshake and a pat on the back.

[simon c]

However, which religions do you represent? If you put one in there, you'd have to put them all or there'd be an outcry. Then imagine the bedlam that would follow. They'd all be pushing their own barrows. If anything, I reckon the people in there should be areligious. Seperation of powers. It's there for a reason.

I can certainly see your argument, but from on the basis of what I'm suggesting there would be no option but to include religious people as they have a significant representation of society.

[simon c]

Same as it is between the Reps and the Senate. The reps make the laws and provide the PM, the senate reviews the legislation and accepts or rejects it.

Sorry, bad terminology on my part. I understand the roles are different but the people are the same - politicians who represent political parties.

And as has been mentioned, who is going to appoint the members in your model?

Presumably, it'd be the party that has the majority in the lower house.
How would those appointments NOT be political?

Yes, it would have to be done differently and if possible be made separate from the current majority party. The sort of idea I had was to agree the roles rather than the people. Ie we agree up front what would get you qualified and then once you qualify you automatically become a member of that house.
eg 10 years as leader/significant role of a specific group (could be police, defence, law, industry, unions, religious groups, charities, federal/state government).

This is something that has been at the back of my mind for a few years and this is the first time I've tried to verbalise it. It is based on having an arm of government that:
a) is not elected
b) is not based on politcal parties
c) is representative of society
d) is made up of people who have experience in the area that they represent
e) allows the members to make decisions based on what they think is in the best for the country and the groups/experience they represent rather than what will win votes

[silentC]

there would be no option but to include religious people

As long as they were there on the basis of something other than their religion. I've got nothing against an ex-cop who happens to be a Bhuddist but I would object to a Mufti or a Cardinal. It's bad enough that they have as much say as they do, I would not want them actually having any kind of administrative power. I just don't think it's approriate to have decisions made by people who think they know what some unknown creator may or may not want, and having them arguing amongst themselves about which form of this delusional state of mind is right or wrong.

Yes a large proportion of our society is religious and yes a lot of them are guided by religion in their daily lives. That's one reason why the world is such a mess. We don't need it being legitimised by making it a part of the makeup of the government. We left that behind a long time ago.

Hey look, religion AND politics in one thread. I'd better stop now.

[Iain]

The Peoples Front of Judea

[jshaw]

The Peoples Front of Judea

Splitters!

[Sturdee]

It is based on having an arm of government that:
a) is not elected
b) is not based on politcal parties
c) is representative of society
d) is made up of people who have experience in the area that they represent
e) allows the members to make decisions based on what they think is in the best for the country and the groups/experience they represent rather than what will win votes

I thought that was already there. Known as the Public Service.


Peter.

[Christopha]

I thought that was already there. Known as the Public Service.


Peter.

Now thereis an oxymoron for you!

[jow104]

How about?


The computer age means every one could vote on a particular motion put up in a house of representatives, senate , parliment or what have you.

[ozwinner]

How about we put a computer in charge??


Al

[Daddles]

How about we put a computer in charge??


Al

They tried that but haven't been able to program it for the lack of logic in either the legal or the political systems. And that's before they even considered foilies

Richard

[beejay1]

I think between you all so far youve sorta defined the perfect solution to be a pseudo communist proletariat dictatorship

Revolution next!! Sturdee get that blade sharpened,,, heads to be chopped!!

beejay1

http://community.webshots.com/user/eunos9

[jow104]

Bejay

Still bl.....dy cold down here, needed a shovel to clear after a snow storm when the car stuck on hill and bend.

At least politics warms things up.

[beejay1]

Bejay

Still bl.....dy cold down here, needed a shovel to clear after a snow storm when the car stuck on hill and bend.

At least politics warms things up.

Weve got cold and very wet weather here today JJ same yesterday. Dont care though as im off to portugal tomorrow to play golf for the rest of the week. Sunshine at last
beejay1

http://community.webshots.com/user/eunos9