Thread: I want to create a non-democratic party!

The core of all issues is the much abused word "democracy". What is democracy, anyway? All the major parties are one over the other to tell me how democratic they are. So what makes them different each from other then? I DO NOT want a democracy! Not that I am into monarchy or some crazy dictatorship. Simply the way it works now is crooked. Why?

I started a topic a few days ago here: Is there such doctrine already existing?

For some reason only Americans responded there and for some other (known to me) reason, they are all considering the issues through money and applying them to the US only thus twisting the whole subject. But the US is a dead end in the social progress and I don't want Australia to follow. I want to raise my kids here in a fair and moral society!
Is that too much to ask for?

That's why I want to create (or join) a party that will promote and work for the cause of the fair society - everyone gets from it as much as they have given to. Read my topic above with my detailed thoughts about all that.
Thanks!

Aussie Commies?

No!!! Nothing even remotely close. In fact completely the opposite. The way how we do it now is based on the Marxist rule "one person = one vote". Wrong!
I am personally much more to the right than to the left. Against gay (*)(*)(*)(*)s, against green extremism...
Simply I think a little change in the way we elect governments and create laws would have a great impact on the way we all live

Interesting subject.

I’m not completely sure how other countries politicians are elected by their people (excluding the USA), but here in Australia, I believe we don’t have democratically represented candidates to be elected nor do we have a democratic Government, based on the true and accurate terms of what democracy means and represents.

For example: if we had true democracy in Australia, the Gillard Government would not be in power. The Gillard (ALP) Government only formed power, because two elected Independent candidates Rob Oakeshott and Tony Winsor sold their constituents votes to the Gillard Government. These “so-called” two Independent elected candidates went against their electorates (the peoples) wishes and sold their votes to Gillard (ALP) to form a Government.

These two elected Independents KNEW they were doing the wrong thing by ignoring and devaluing their constituents votes and wishes, and therefore instead of being greedy self-serving grubs that they are, they should have given the people the democratic right and called for another election regardless of the controversy and cost.

I have to disagree that the weight of a democratic vote should be determined by the characterisation of an individuals preconceived skill.

There are many highly qualified professional individuals who are related to politicians or make a financial living from politicians and political parties. They would therefore be either totally biased based on their family connections or their financial rewards.

Why should a vote from individual classified in the above category have more weight than a lesser educated individual who is a “swinging voter” and works in a factory who doesn’t have any family or financial connections to any political party?

We have individuals from all educational standards in Australia who still accept Prime Ministers and their political parties giving uneducated, unqualified and unexperienced people senior Ministerial cabinet positions.

99% of these clowns are indoctrinated straight into political parties at University, then upon graduation they get jobs in their political party sectors without having any real life experience, and then put up as political candidates.

Its not just the uneducated people who know this is happening, but refuse to do anything about it like its not their problem; its also the educated professionals. Then they whinge and whine about the politicians and Government they elect for doing the wrong things and making the wrong decisions. Well, if you keep accepting the appointment of uneducated, unqualified, and inexperienced people into Senior Ministerial position without question or complaint, then what the hell do you expect?

The people allowing and accepting politicians to do this is no different to a private business hiring a Nurse to be the company accountant and expecting the Nurse to be competent. LOL

Originally Posted by knivd

The core of all issues is the much abused word "democracy". What is democracy, anyway? All the major parties are one over the other to tell me how democratic they are. So what makes them different each from other then? I DO NOT want a democracy! Not that I am into monarchy or some crazy dictatorship. Simply the way it works now is crooked. Why?

I started a topic a few days ago here: Is there such doctrine already existing?

For some reason only Americans responded there and for some other (known to me) reason, they are all considering the issues through money and applying them to the US only thus twisting the whole subject. But the US is a dead end in the social progress and I don't want Australia to follow. I want to raise my kids here in a fair and moral society!
Is that too much to ask for?

That's why I want to create (or join) a party that will promote and work for the cause of the fair society - everyone gets from it as much as they have given to. Read my topic above with my detailed thoughts about all that.
Thanks!

You wont find one in Australia - there either corporatists or communists.

Your system is moronic, that's really all there is to say about it. That is not "social progress" that is social regression and would simply never be accepted. You want to raise your kids in a "fair and moral society" that gives different value to their vote based on some ridiculous arbitrary test? Good one!

We have a representative democracy, and it works just fine. Most of our pollies are fairly well qualified on both sides. Of course there are obviously more qualified people, but they don't necessarily have the inclination to be involved in politics, but do often advise governments. There is a lot of experience and expertise surrounding and supporting ministers, people often forget this.

Sure, pre-selection is a bit cliquey and could be improved, but that's about all that needs fixing. But then there's that Coalition kid who got voted into parliament at the age of 20, who won pre-selection via a vote of coalition membership of his electorate. So what can you say to that?

You don’t have compulsory voting, but here in Australia we still have compulsory voting.

However, after you get your name crossed off the list you can do what you like with the paper they give you; some chuck it away - its called the informal vote here.

I believe the last US election only 53% of the population voted, and if compulsory voting was not mandatory here in Australia we would have a similar outcome due to the erosion and belief in our politicians and political system.

I don’t think it’s the people that need to be changed per say in voting, but its more the standards and laws that Govern the politicians themselves that need to be changed. We just need to start holding them to the same accountability and standards as we would anyone else, and the beginning would be to take away their Parliamentary privileges which gives them a “God” like status over us all the time. They lie to us, deceive us, and never answer our questions, and are completely dishonest, and they just shrug their shoulders, laugh and walk away knowing there isn't a bloody thing the people can about it until election time. By election time, they chuck the people (seals) a few dollars (fish) and all is forgiven. LOL Stupid people get what they vote in!!!

They have forgotten and we have forgotten they were originally employed by us “the people” to work for us “the people” not for themselves or their own self interests or the interests of minorities, but over time they have given themselves these incredible “God like” powers that they now consider themselves untouchable & unimpeachable by the common man and woman.

How do we expect or even begin to comprehend how these politicians are suppose to be connected with or “in-touch” with what effects the lives of average everyday citizens, when politicians consider themselves as “God like” and are above the law in ever respect.

Here in Australia we currently have about 30% of the population who still think this asinine PM is still doing a good job, and the individuals with this mentality are “not” just from low socioeconomic backgrounds or areas.

A factory worker without a high school Certificate knows our PM is a liar, and her Government are a bunch of incompetent morons, but the Minister for Education (University graduate holding a few degrees) claims she is doing a wonderful job and has told NO lies.

Given the above scenario; under your plan, the vote of the Minister (just because he is educated- more adequate) being not truthful and honest should have more weight than the factory (not educated - less adequate) worker who is telling the truth and knows the truth…

I don’t think your plan would have made a difference in our 2010 election.

The day politicians stop "lying" is the day that the media stops gunning for the "gotchya" moments. Most of these "lies" come out of very well constructed and planned interviews that are designed to trap politicians. It's no surprise that Tony Abbott came out with his, nothing I say should be taken seriously unless it's a written prepared statement, core promise/non core promise stuff.

I watched Hockey at the National Press Club the other day, and he very wisely refused to make any "promises" about pretty much anything. Other than the obligatory, we'll have a surplus too. He would not even commit to releasing detailed spending announcements earlier than 1 day before the next election. That's despite the fact that Abbott has been calling for an election every day since ALP took office, and that they are still calling for an election and for ALP to disregard Thompson's vote. He was also asked, if Craig Thompson supported the coalition in a no confidence vote against the PM would they accept it? And he sort of jokingly said that they would accept it. That's a pretty warped kind of "honesty".

A large part of governing is compromise and negotiation, we demand promises of politicians and then get all angry when they change their policies slightly. Case in point, Gillard said the election would be a mandate on carbon price and promised to implement that, but because it has an initial fixed period, she's a liar, even though it's technically not a tax. That kind of stuff is just absolutely ridiculous. I didn't see the Coalition saying that Howard's fixed price ETS was a great big tax that would ruin the economy, funny that.

And yes, you get what you vote for. Slipper was preselected for his seat 9 times, his one vote put Abbott in power and he's been a member of parliament for over 20 years, and he was deputy speaker. It's pretty ridiculous to say that it was a "mistake" for the PM to make him speaker, or that she should have known that he wasn't suitable for the job because it would later come out that he sexually harassed a male staffer. She's not a bloody psychic, and anyone who's in parliament should be expected to be suitable in... what, "moral fibre"? to be speaker, the only thing a PM should have to consider is their professional suitability which he undoubtedly had.

Of course his "plan" would have made a difference in the 2010 election, it's a fundamentally different election mechanic and whatever the result was, it would have been seriously undemocratic.

This is a fundamental flaw in the whole theory on the expected behaviour of politicians.

How successful would you be in your private & business life as an individual if you were so deceitful that you were forced to tell your friends, family and acquaintances “not” to believe anything you said unless it was written down on paper. I think you would be a very lonely disliked person with arse out of trousers.

No where prior to the 2010 election did the troll state the 2010 election would be a mandate for the carbon tax. In fact she stated the opposite; “there will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead”. That was a “bare-faced” lie, and is normally attributed to someone with strong pathological tendencies.

You might be willing to sacrifice your own morals and principal to justify the way politicians constantly arbitrarily lie and deceive the public, but I am holding them just as accountable for their verbal rhetoric just like I would anyone else. In fact, I’m now holding them to a higher standard of ethics and behaviour considering they have more authority and power than the run-of-the-mill person.

I would not allow a family member, a friend, nor an acquaintance to blatantly lie to my face without challenging the reason WHY. So, I’m certainly not going to allow some scummy politician to lie to my face, and when asked why they did it; they casually sneak away like a coward refusing to answer like I was some kind of unworthy dog.

If you want to believe in these untruthful clowns who come sucking up to the public embarrassing and humiliating themselves by kissing babies, patting dogs, and talking down to people by telling lies and spreading deceit ONLY during election; then that’s your prerogative, but I now have zero tolerance for that lowbrow condescending behaviour.

I want and expect more from the people I hire as my representatives; and this current bunch of rubbish floating around Parliament House certainly doesn’t fit the bill.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Your system is moronic, that's really all there is to say about it. That is not "social progress" that is social regression and would simply never be accepted. You want to raise your kids in a "fair and moral society" that gives different value to their vote based on some ridiculous arbitrary test? Good one!

We have a representative democracy, and it works just fine. Most of our pollies are fairly well qualified on both sides. Of course there are obviously more qualified people, but they don't necessarily have the inclination to be involved in politics, but do often advise governments. There is a lot of experience and expertise surrounding and supporting ministers, people often forget this.

Sure, pre-selection is a bit cliquey and could be improved, but that's about all that needs fixing. But then there's that Coalition kid who got voted into parliament at the age of 20, who won pre-selection via a vote of coalition membership of his electorate. So what can you say to that?

I say as long as you really believe that your vote is actually worth something, hold on to that. I want to take as much as I am giving away. No more than that. There is no way in my moral to justify the lazy idiot living (or maybe better way wasting) his whole life ripping off Centrelink while the honest teacher or plumber are working, paying taxes and actually doing something for the society. And they get the same voting power during elections? No way! Voting is something much more serious than people tend to assume. Your vote affects my life, my vote affects the life of my neighbours, someone else's vote affects your life, and so on. Well, I would prefer more adequate people to affect my life more than the drug addicts and alcoholics. That's why voting power should be weighed and more precisely according to what you have done, not who you are.