The Revolution of Political Evolution in Australia
By Philip Ayton
From the deep recesses of Australian Politics, there is a storm brewing.
This great nation, since before federation, has swung back and forth on the concept of the 2 party preferred system. As we enter a new era of technology and online capabilities, a new player is emerging from the wings, that may be a small, but very dark horse in two-party political town.
Many Australians have become disillusioned with the current system of government in the country, and if one looks at the headlines it doesn’t take much to see why.
Corporate manipulation is at an all time high. It seems corporate interests in parliament have become the foundation for Australian policy. Long lost are the people. Until now.
Nine or more years ago an idea was born. It was a fledgling concept for a system of democracy that would give the voice back to the people. Rather than decisions being based on the needs and desires of the wealthy, small vocal minorities or corporate interests. With other countries around the world trialing new methods and systems of governance, something old, was being reborn into the technological age. Direct Democracy.
The idea slowly grew into a registered political party. The first iteration “Senator on-line” (SOL) was born. The name didn’t give much away and people at first appeared slow to embrace the concept which was simple.
Instead of handing your rights on all decisions to parliamentary representatives, the Senator online concept, was a direct representation of the peoples decisions. Your SOL representative would only vote in accordance with the “polled” majority 70% decision, if the result was indecisive, the SOL representative would abstain from the vote.
Essentially, a direct democracy concept, now with a few successes and some changes in direction over the past few years, Senator Online has evolved into the “Online Direct Democracy Party”.
The name now gives it all away.
You vote for an ODD representative and then, when a bill that you have an interest in or view on is put before parliament, you cast your vote. Whether you are a member of the party or not, the results are tallied by a secure software system that is tailored for the job. The representative then takes the “polled decision” back to parliament and votes accordingly.
Is this the era of a true democratic voice for the Australian People?
Will the people of Australia finally have a means to end the corporate entanglement within the walls of policy decisions in parliament?
That would be a resounding YES!
Online Direct Democracy is already gaining momentum around the world and could be the logical evolution of Government in Australia.
Check them out!
Online Direct Democracy Party.
We are you, empowering the people.
Philip J Ayton
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
40 comments
Login here Register here-
Sen Nearly Ile -
Jaquix -
Michael Taylor -
François -
Paul Murchie -
June M Bullivant OAM -
5ime0n -
Rafe Falkiner -
Kris -
Philip J Ayton -
totaram -
JeffJL -
Kris -
Kris -
Katrina Logan -
Francois Crespel -
John Maycock -
Kris -
Johhn Maycock -
corvus boreus -
Paul Murchie -
Paul Murchie -
corvus boreus -
Paul Murchie -
Francois Crespel -
Paul Murchie -
corvus boreus -
Paul Murchie -
John Maycock -
Paul Murchie -
corvus boreus -
corvus boreus -
John Maycock -
corvus boreus -
corvus boreus -
John Maycock -
corvus boreus -
totaram -
Paul Murchie -
JeffJL
Return to home pageHAHAH what a delicious image
I suppose the people selected will change at each election, so no super?
Over Developed Download Putz.
Open Drag Dithering Parameters
Nuremberg defence?
An idea for the future – could save 180 million dollars for this ridiculous unnecessary (delaying tactic of Abbotts) plebescite for starters.
Somebody wants to give it a go so they got off their arse and are doing something about it. Don’t knock them.
Only party that can keep its only promise, that of giving the man a voice.
so … there’s no requirement for the political caste, then ? just public servants armed with the best information and non-partisan
legislators basing legislative “decisions” on 70% + voter input ?
hmm … each parliamentary parasite in cabinet expends $2.2 Million a year in tax-payer-funded “expenses” PLUS Salary, Super, Pension, Percs and Total WASTE (e.g. Pyne spending $68 Million on market research and promotion of “innovation” in 2016) …
well, if the Halliburtons can’t hack or bypass the system, “when” it becomes a reality … heheheaaaah ! : )
Yeah one for the people.
In theory the idea of Online Direct Democracy has some merit, but I hear it can come with complications.
Wouldn’t a system which relies on the voting majority risk leaving minority groups unrepresented? Majority groups have not always made the best decisions; if Australia implemented Online Direct Democracy, we would need to increase education standards to ensure accurate and informed engagement with the issues.
Could issues become even more divisive, as one group after another sponsors attack ads and misinformation campaigns in public space and media? How do we prevent these groups from employing dishonest tactics on the public; paying for votes, withholding services to ensure compliance, etc.
What would be the consequences of a conflict between a national policy and a international initiative?
All that being said, a quick glance at the experience of Direct Democracy in Switzerland is very inspiring.
“The rise & rise of Michael Rimmer”
5ime0n – I believe that you have just described the present political environment, not the potential future one? 🙂
I think ODD provides a platform for change. An evolution of politics.
The possibility to shake up the current system and really get people to look at the future of politics.
If you’ve ever wanted to be part of something, carrying your own beliefs, yet being able to look at the bigger picture and understand that Direct “Pure” Democracy, is the hardest to corrupt, and the only method of government which allows people to cast and choose the direction of the party for and on behalf of the majority.
NOT dictated by outdated policies, or corporate/wealthy interests. Policies and initiatives, power for and on behalf of the people voting.
If elected, anyone can vote through ODD on any issue they wish to be heard on……. No one else even comes close to that type of transparency in government.
Education is the key to understanding the future of Politics. We have been ruled by the same system now for so long…. we just expect more of the same…. We need to break this view, if we are to have any chance 🙂
1. I would need to study how it is different from the system in Switzerland (I don’t know enough at the moment).
2. My biggest fear is that as the world and the issues get more complex, it will be easier and easier for vested interests to sow FUD in the minds of voters, even as they do now. No one has the time or the brainpower to be across all the technical issues, so FUD works. A perfect example is how Turnbull nobbled the NBN.
3. Someone has reported that 60% of Union members vote Liberal. That is surely evidence that propaganda works. Imagine further, people being upset about a “carbon price” and now ready to countenance an increase in the GST by 50%, just to “repair the budget” (whatever that means). 10 years ago, I myself would have been taken in by this mumbo-jumbo. I was able to learn more on this issue only after I retired. The propaganda around neo-liberal macro-economics is huge and intense. How do you get around these problems?
4. You can’t even suggest that we listen to advice from “experts” Such experts can be produced by vested interests for relatively small sums of money. Think about Tobacco and Climate Change, without mentioning macro-economics which is in a league of its own.
ODD addresses the issue of elected representatives not behaving according to the wishes of their electorate. However, the above issues impinge directly on the electorate, so, some additional defences will need to be built in. What will those be?
Too easy to be owned by the big money or religious groups.
JeffJL…are you talking about our current government who we know ARE owned by big money and religious groups or are you talking about a theory that there may be some way to control 70% of the Australian population using money and religion (as would be required in the Direct Democracy system that is proposed here)?
Totaram, if the world is how you put it. Who better to trust to make decisions then, than ourselves? Ourselves when we are empowered to make decisions and empowered to ensure that research and reporting are impartial. If we control the purse strings and the Federal investments are put towards progressive means, progressive is the ends. Our current situation is an illusion of democracy created by those who control the democracy. We can end that. Right now.
Senator on Line would be bored and not voting on much if SOL had to wait for 70% approval .
Surely if SOL supported Democracy it would be 50% plus 1 vote
When was the last poll where 70 % of voters agreed on anything ?
That we be the “turn back the boats when it is safe to do so” poll wouldn’t it?
Hi Katrina, the 70%is too avoid the risk of hacking by particular groups. Meaning that a group wouldn’t be able to ask all their members to vote in one way. We would rather have a decision made by a clear majority. However we have no much experience in this so we have put some safe guidelines. Everything is organic and if we all believe that things can be changed to adapt to a particular situation, we are at least in the right direction.
François
Francois Crespel
So right now Malcolm Turnbull is polling around 80% as preferred PM ,
Does that mean we keep him for a decade of two or until the glitter wears off ?
Would it also be very dependent on how a question was framed ?
an example, the death penalty in Australia
A special snap SMS Morgan Poll today shows a small majority of Australians (52.5%) favour the death penalty for deadly terrorist acts in Australia
2015
New Lowy Institute poll: 62% Australians oppose execution of Chan and Sukumaran
16 February 2015 2:42PM
and as to the question above .
Lowey polls had 71% willing to “turn back the boats when it is safe to do so”
Would that then be the good S.O.L s voting position and policy ?
or can they pick and chose
John Maycock
I’m not sure that using a poll on preferred PM is a good example as that is not a question that we would ask as it isn’t a bill that is put to parliament.
Correct, framing the question correctly is vital and there is a science to it that is studied within university.
Snap polls are different from Online Direct Democracy Party polls as with an ODDP poll, information for and against the idea is also provided for people to consider when making their decision and there is also time to review the answer before the bill is passed. Unlike when you are answering a rapid fire question to a random person over the phone that is more likely to draw an emotive response as opposed to an objective response. Also consider that the response to the phone poll bares very little weight whereas if you are sending someone on your behalf to carry your decision to the table, you will be more likely to think long and hard about the consequences of your decision.
ODDP representatives have no choice in the position that they take on any poll. They do what they are told and take that to the negotiation table.
I hope this helps.
Kris
I still think S.O.L s would never get to vote .
It will still be based on a “poll” model and unless a special interest group commandeered the phone lines
S.O.Ls would never vote .
A an example, can you tell me one poll, from ANY polling company or elsewhere where there has been a 70% approval .
Try from the 2013 Election till now
No, to try to get a result, from the 2010 Election till now
http://www.smh.com.au/polls/federal-politics/political-news/a-federal-icac-20140910-3f6vg.html
corvus boreus ( :
Do we need a federal ICAC?
98% – YES
1% – NO
[the] 1% carry the vote … who didn’t see that coming ?
John Maycock v’s Johhn Maycock
will the real doppelganger please use a different avatar ? ( :
I acknowledge the disclaimer at the bottom of the published poll results in the above link.
That said, it seems like the proposal of an Independent commission investigating allegation/incidence of corruption in/around federal politics is pretty popular with the public (>70%).
there seem to be a number of related but not identical matters being raised :
the ODD Party with an S.O.L. majoritarian democratic mandate
AND Democratic Re-Vitalisation
AND Electoral Reform
these are distinct and need to be isolated, developed and defined from the ODDP Point Of View
an aside : how to get the idea(s) to MSM suckers and those who would have nothing to do with Political Anything ; just because YOU are Online and Engaged doesn’t mean that everyone else is or wants to be …
Dear Johhn Maycock,
Thank you for your interest in ODD, I understand your concern with regards to the 70% approval. I would to have a constructive discussion with regards to this.
What do you think we should do?
As previously stated in my comments our goal with the 70% is to avoid the lobbying by special interest by particular groups.
Do you think we should modify that percentage and can you argument you point, Would you like to participate to a discussion on this subject via our Facebook Page?
Do you think that a system of Proxy votes would achieve more in avoiding lobbying?
Let me know your thoughts.
Regards.
François.
corvus boreus ( :
as demonstrated by the recent Sinodinos Farce, (State and Federal) ICACs are “toothless”; although resulting in some prosecutions, ICACs appear to be Show Trials rather than Criminal Investigations (which is what, in order to be really effective, they need to be).
i’m more inclined to having a Dictatorial Purge of the Political Caste, but that’s just me being serious about change ( :
Paul Murchie,
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s936
There has not been a vote.
Since the notion was first tabled there has been proposal and reiteration, some hours of discussion and filibuster, but the only vote that has occurred resulted in the defeat of a motion to vote without further discussion.
Much has been said about potential problems within the validity of the proposal, but no suggested amendments have been tabled.
The senate may discuss it again in the future.
http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?id=119&cat=1
corvus boreus ( :
“The senate may discuss it again in the future ”
isn’t that just DANDY ?
corvus boreus
my point being, I don’t trust polls {other than one called a Federal election
Polls cover from the sublime to the ridiculous with some startling results {to me anyway}
Like
ninemsm polling
The question was/is do you agree with the text of Kevin Rudds sorry apology?
As of 11.37pm WA time
Yes 56923
No 106759
Newspoll found support for a war against Iraq with UN support up from 56 per cent to 61 per cent.
CSIRO survey shows 53% of the Australian population don’t agree that “humans are causing climate change”.
Not near the 70% I admit , but do I want these poll responders making my policy for me.
Not bloody likely
I’d prefer a party to declare their position prior to an election , not some hit and miss poll somewhere down the track after we elect them
regarding the Barbarians [http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?id=119&cat=1], i’d say that they’re already here …
Regarding the failure of the NSW ICAC to gain recommendation for legal sanction or further investigation upon Sinodinos, much of that stemmed from legal problems regarding jurisdictional spheres and authority of investigation (a valid practical concern).
The subsequent recommendations that should stem from any such investigation are a large part of their value; corruption investigations resulting in prosecutions can galvanize reform.
John Maycock,
Good for you, polls can be dodgily doctored.
Regarding a federal ICAC: yeah, nah, or shrug?
corvus boreus
regarding Federal ICAC
I think the line was from Pride and Prejudice
“Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.”………….
But I don’t need a Senator of unknown political persuasion waiting for months on polling of online participants, to post a vote and then deciding, and then only if 70% of the survey participants went to plan as with S.O.L ,whether to support such motion
John Maycock,
Thank you for your positive response.
Your addendive negative opinion regarding the SOL/ODDP idea/proposal has also been duly noted.
P.s. to JM,
A 4 figure reiteration of enthusiasm deserves some practical encouragement rather than mere acknowledgement..
First up, here is the currently proposed model for body to investigate the possible incidence of corruption in federal politics;
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s936
I advocate broadly communicating both the central virtues within this proposal, and suggesting practical amendments to overcome any legitimate objections.
This advice particularly applies regarding people who aspire to obtain your vote.
For myself, I think provision 2 (fed-law watchdog) of the proposal could be arguably dropped, as that area is is already covered by an existing body of commission;
http://www.aclei.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx
P.p.s, the “yes, a thousand times” reference comes from Shakespeare’s ‘R&J’, not Austin’s ‘P&P’.
corvus boreus
I have always felt that every State, Territory and of course the Federal sphere should have a permanent ICAC.
I have one major concern though and that is the “Independent” as how, with Governments appointing their own, do you ever get a truly independent voice
I don’t know if it is possible, or even legal but I would like to see the Commission headed by and staffed by a team not from our shores .
For instance, why couldn’t a Federal ICAC be made up of am eminent legal bod from each of , say, as an example, Canada, New Zealand ,Britain ,Indonesia etc .
people may have a little more faith in outcomes, not like the NSW charade, where only a token number will be held up for some ridicule but probably not prosecution .
Just an idea .
I will read the links , and thanks for the correction,
Shakespeare eh?
John Maycock,
An immediate suggestion to allay your internal political concerns would be an oversight committee consisting of representation by well-pedigreed individuals from nations rating well on a credible international corruption index,
eg; http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015?gclid=CjwKEAiAuKy1BRCY5bTuvPeopXcSJAAq4OVsEuq_gsnGWR_oWl8HxTDeBB4BuEvwdHVlX1ABjIB0DhoCLqTw_wcB
The top judiciary of Greenland and Antarctica seem particularly ideal.
“The top judiciary of Greenland and Antarctica seem particularly ideal.”
I think you left out those most venerable individuals from the Republic of Ookabalaconga. This illustrates some of our problems as we struggle to rescue our democracy from the oligarchs and kleptocrats. However, if we keep at it, we may find some clarity and that is always useful.
corvus boreus ( :
” Regarding the failure of the NSW ICAC to gain recommendation for legal sanction or further investigation upon Sinodinos, much of that stemmed from legal problems regarding jurisdictional spheres and authority of investigation (a valid practical concern).”
yes, but that’s why Sinodinos et al. should be tried in the Criminal System and not some ICAC Show Trial : what is corrupt conduct ? FFS !
in the context of the EVIDENCE ACT 1995 – SECT 12 Competence and compellability
(a) every person is competent to give evidence; and
(b) a person who is competent to give evidence about a fact is compellable to give that evidence.
and in the context of the CRIMINAL CODE – SECT 26 Presumption of sanity and CRIMINAL CODE – SECT 27 Insanity
Sinodinos would have been deemed sane, competent and compellable, but ICAC allowed him scope for subterfuge and allowed him to get away with it. he “wasn’t sure what meant by”(sic.) :. the primary material that lay behind the AWH’s accounts ; responsibility, as chairman of the Liberal party’s finance committee, for accepting money from banned property developers contrary to the Electoral Funding, Expenditure and Disclosure Act ; didn’t know what was meant by the terms “property developer” or “illicit donor [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/26/sinodinos-and-icac-corruption-may-have-been-going-on-under-his-nose-but-ignorance-is-bliss]. so perhaps a translator would have helped; certainly being compelled to answer the f*cking questions or be held in Contempt of Court would have loosened his tongue – unless, of course, Turnbull knowingly appointed an incompetent and/or insane and/or corrupted person to the role of Cabinet Cecretary of the Parliament …
as you also say, “The subsequent recommendations that should stem from any such investigation are a large part of their value; corruption investigations resulting in prosecutions can galvanize reform ” but the possibility of ICAC resulting in a handful of prosecutions every few years means that the same corrupt political careerist pensioneers will have manoeuvred their Foreign-Corporate Dictatorship into position and Democracy in this Country will be no more by the time a few scape goat figures do a bit of time in some low security vegetable garden …
i am NOT a reformist ( :
Kris. All of them at the moment. It is just that at the moment it is visible. Put it behind a largely opaque internet voting system and you lose visibility.