Hilary or Donald

[Ducatiboy stu]

Does God hate Trump both the East and west coast of the US could be hit by massive tsunami or Yellowstone could erupt .

Only on days that end in the letter y

 

[Mattress]

http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/

I've been reading a bit about this mob recently.

Some very high profile, highly educated and qualified Australians looking at other options than our current version of democracy.

Could be interesting if they get a bit of momentum behind them.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/

I've been reading a bit about this mob recently.

Some very high profile, highly educated and qualified Australians looking at other options than our current version of democracy.

Could be interesting if they get a bit of momentum behind them.

An interesting concept which has some merit. However I'm not too sure about the "random selection" of members, there would at least need to be some vetting of suitability (e.g. a working ability to understand and interpret the law, constitution etc.) and associated training.

Ultimately a country operates (is guided) by it's constitution. This guy: http://richardpricesociety.org.uk/ was onto it some 240 years ago:

“First, That by our country is meant, in this case, not the soil, or the spot of earth on which we happen to have been born; not the forests and fields, but that community of which we are members; or that body of companions and friends and kindred who are associated with us under the same constitution of government, protected by the same laws, and bound together by the same civil polity.”
‘A discourse on the love of our country’ (1789)

 

[Brewnicorn]

Lotteries over elections. I wonder how that'd go.
That said, you'd avoid the entrenched squalid behaviour of these bought out pollies we have now. Career politicians with no interest over there own.

 

[damoninja]

An interesting concept which has some merit. However I'm not too sure about the "random selection" of members, there would at least need to be some vetting of suitability (e.g. a working ability to understand and interpret the law, constitution etc.) and associated training.

Like we do (not) for jury selection?

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Lotteries over elections. I wonder how that'd go.

Isnt an election just a fancy lottery ?

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Like we do (not) for jury selection?

I've never been asked to serve Jury duty .. so perhaps I have been vetted already?

Yes I suppose it could (may) work on a similar basis with the exception that Jury members (I assume?) are vetted on specific cases, whereas this would be much more generic. I.e. a capacity (rather than existing ability) to understand constitution and law.

 

[Dave70]

The founder seem to have a somewhat of a hard on for the original Greek democracy. Does this mean dissenters will be forced to drink hemlock?

 

[RobW]

An interesting concept which has some merit. However I'm not too sure about the "random selection" of members, there would at least need to be some vetting of suitability (e.g. a working ability to understand and interpret the law, constitution etc.) and associated training.

Isn't that what all those bureaucrats are supposed to be for?
The members could be responsible for the "big picture" and the public service develops policies and takes care of the details.

I'm pretty sure that's how it used to work before the public servants became too scared to give frank and fearless advice, or were sacked if they did.

Elected members like Hanson & Lambie etc aren't exactly renowned for their legal/technical expertise.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Hanson and Lambie are examples (and who was that car club guy?) of 'normal' people represented in the Senate. It is not necessarily a bad thing.

However even they must have a capacity (rudimentary) ability to understand the constitution and law. If they don't form an understanding, then the wool can be very easily pulled over their eyes very quickly ("yes minister style") and they can propose things that are simply illegal.

D. Trump (on a similar theme) will learn that he must work within the American constitution (and it's values such as civil liberties), a concept which I'm not sure he has fully comprehended yet.


Edit; Or more simply, If you are in Parliament and you don't have a capacity to interpret the constitution and law, you run the risk of the Tail wagging the Dog (i.e. the Bureaucrats can tell you what you can and can't do - without you being able to reasonably question them).

 

[RobW]

Ricky Muir.

Not saying they are dumb, only that they don't have the usual politician background (they all seem to be lawyers or union apparatchiks these days).

I think people with "real life" experience are greatly preferable to the ones who are raised in the bubble and don't relate to the real world.
eg: any of Joe Hockey's or Tony Abbotts dumb comments and the whole parliamentary entitlements saga. They are intelligent , tertiaty qualified and all the rest but they just don't (or won't) get it.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Agreed. But even so, those taking on positions in parliament must have a basic capacity to understand and work within the law.

Trump will find this out soon enough. I imagine he will simply try and "change the laws' and Judges to suit himself .. . this is very dangerous.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Isn't that what all those bureaucrats are supposed to be for?
The members could be responsible for the "big picture" and the public service develops policies and takes care of the details.

I'm pretty sure that's how it used to work before the public servants became too scared to give frank and fearless advice, or were sacked if they did.

Elected members like Hanson & Lambie etc aren't exactly renowned for their legal/technical expertise.

That is why Hanson is looking forward to more popularity she is not afraid to air her views, and will continue to gain popularity when the 2 major parties can't show any credible leadership, Labor might have a chance if they get rid of Shorten and give someone else a run. Coalition hasn't got anyone with any leadership qualities.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

I've never been asked to serve Jury duty .. so perhaps I have been vetted already?

Yes I suppose it could (may) work on a similar basis with the exception that Jury members (I assume?) are vetted on specific cases, whereas this would be much more generic. I.e. a capacity (rather than existing ability) to understand constitution and law.

No, they are not vetted, taken straight off the election roll and assigned randomly to cases

But

Each sides legal team can ask you to stand down without reason during selection. I know cause I have been there and got picked ( case was dismissed in the end anyway )

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Yes that's what I mean't . People can be 'vetted' (asked to stand down) during selection, based on the particulars of the case in hand.

This couldn't really happen in a 'citizen senate" .. i.e. once they are 'in" ..they are in for every case during their term. So therefore there would need to be initial vetting rather than inviting people from the entire pool.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

As for public servants, that is exactly what they are, servants to the public

They are not to be political, but are to run the state in the best interest of the people and to the governments instructions

Have know a few high up public servants over the years who have seen many changes in government. ( funny how they all have told be basically that the" best interests of the people " and " government instructions' most always seem to clash )


When I was a public servant on the Railways, we used to joke that with every change of Minister, we got a new letterhead. And the end of the day we just went about our daily work without really giving a **** about who was in power.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Ditto, but in my field (Science) whoever gets in charge sets the agenda.

For example if the new science minister does not give a crap about the field I'm currently working in - it gets axed.

Therefore I take an interest.

 

[klangers]

The aussie pollie system would benefit immeasurably by banning all political donations.

Then all of a sudden all the money used to fund shouty, dirt-flinging, alarmist adverts won't be there and we'll actually have to elect on policy. Plus remove the institutionalized corruption.

 

[manticle]

OR.......

We just get my cat to do it.

Cheap, much more pleasant and at least as competent.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Sort of Klangers .. except if that happens it will be only rich self funded people would get a crack at it. I'm not sure that's the answer.

Edit: Ironically I'm aware that this is already the case .. i.e. rich people are mostly in Parliament, not too many normals.