The payment to Porter

[octave]

1 minute ago, Dax said:

But your primary vote is also wasted,

How is it wasted?  If I cant have my first choice then  the next best thing is my second choice.   I can vote green knowing that there is not much chance of them winning in my electorate but ensure that my votes flow through to the next most acceptable candidate.    If my first choice cant win then I certainly don't want my 3rd choice to win.  For example if there were in my electorate a green a liberal and a one nation candidate I would want the green to win but almost as important to me would be that the one nation candidate does not win.  My second preference can help defeat the party that I feel would be the most damaging and  the vote count for my unsuccessful candidate does mean something in terms of growing numbers  from election to election. 

 

 

 

   To say that this is not direct election is not correct.  As OME pointed out an example of an election that is not direct is the US presidential election where by the people vote for an electoral collage which then votes for a president.  

 

So you would prefer first past the post or run off elections?

 

 

6 minutes ago, Dax said:

 

It's irrelevant as to how many excuses are made for preferential voting, the facts are it's unconstitutional

 

This is a big call which needs some evidence.   

 

I am halfway through reading the constitution and I can find nothing that supports that assertion.  The constitution says little about electoral systems or counting methods.

[Dax]

"PART II. – THE SENATE .
7. The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State,
directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the
Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate."

 

"PART III – THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
24. The House of Representatives shall be composed of
members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth,"

 

28 minutes ago, octave said:

So you would prefer first past the post or run off elections?

First past the post, with modifications so the people don't get ripped off and know exactly who they are voting for and what their job in parliament would be. The people could judge whether they were qualified and experienced enough to do their particular job.

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2021 by Dax

[octave]

4 minutes ago, Dax said:

"PART II. – THE SENATE .
7. The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State,
directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the
Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate."

 

"PART III – THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
24. The House of Representatives shall be composed of
members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth,"
 

 

 

How is it not direct?

[Dax]

1 minute ago, octave said:

How is it not direct?

Because preferential voting is indirect, as it is not the chosen candidate of the voter and ends up being passed around until it ends up with a party hack on most occasions. That's not a direct vote which goes directly to a candidate, but an indirect vote for the one who gets all the preferences in the end. The vote was not directed at the preference receiver, but to someone else and the elected candidate gets the vote indirectly and on most occasions it gets counted a number of rimes. Nothing direct about that at all.

[octave]

1 minute ago, Dax said:

Because preferential voting is indirect, as it is not the chosen candidate of the voter and ends up being passed around until it ends up with a party hack on most occasions. That's not a direct vote which goes directly to a candidate, but an indirect vote for the one who gets all the preferences in the end. The vote was not directed at the preference receiver, but to someone else and the elected candidate gets the vote indirectly and on most occasions it gets counted a number of rimes. Nothing direct about that at all.

No that is not how it works.  The preferences our shared as per YOUR numbering of your ballet paper in the Reps and the same in the senate unless you do not number each candidate,

 

 

Preferential voting

There are many different types of preferential voting systems in use across Australia and the world.

Some preferential voting systems make it compulsory for voters to mark a preference for every single candidate on the ballot paper, some require a certain number of preferences to be indicated and others are optional preferential.

Australian federal elections use a preferential voting system where voters are required to:

• mark a preference for every candidate on the green ballot paper (House of Representatives)
• mark a preference for a designated number of preferences on the white ballot paper (Senate)

https://www.aec.gov.au/learn/preferential-voting.htm

Related: How to complete my ballot paper

House of Representatives

Each House of Representatives contest will elect a single representative.

The preferential voting system used for the House of Representatives provides for multiple counts of ballot papers to occur to determine who has acquired an absolute majority of the total votes (more than 50% of formal votes).

During the counting process, votes are transferred between candidates according to the preferences marked by voters.

Information sheet: Preferential voting in the House of Representatives

Senate

Each Senate contest will elect multiple representatives.

The preferential voting system used for the Senate provides for multiple counts of ballot papers to occur to determine which candidates have achieved the required quota of formal votes to be elected.

During the counting process, votes are transferred between candidates according to the preferences marked by voters.

Information sheet: Preferential voting in the Senate

[facthunter]

The Party for the Senate determines the order of precedence for each states candidates in the current set up so THAT is not a direct vote. Independents don't team up either so they need to get  enough votes in their own right. Minor parties ... Jacqui Lambie got dudded by one of HeR party's candidates an election ago, when HE claimed the seat in his own right.

  In almost any group the right to elect a representative is not a bad idea since a motion to disagree with a chairmans ruling can be voted on. That only affects that particular ruling but a vote of NO confidence when carried does prevent him   carrying on in that capacity.. Under certain deadlocked situations the chairman may declare a spill of ALL positions.   Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, Dax said:

So what, that's a typical semantic cop out, who cares about the definition of preferential voting.

Sorry, @Dax - that is totally illogical - and I would say at best an attempted deflection - but probably a cop out in itself? If you are going to assert that something is against the constitution, surely, you need to understand what it is you are referring to. Otherwise how you you determine it is against the constitution?

8 hours ago, Dax said:

What counts is our constitution states categorically, representatives are to be elected by direct vote.

Yes. it does... and in order to determine if preferential voting is a direct vote, we need to understand what preferential voting is (its definition) and what "direct vote" is (i.e. it's definition, too).

 

8 hours ago, Dax said:

There's no way you can define an indirect vote, as direct

 

Really.. Let's look at your definition of direct vote:

12 hours ago, Dax said:

The definition of directly, is straight to, without interference.

So, with that, in terms of voting, we can take it as directly elected by electors (constituents), without interference (manipulation, transfer of votes, proxy voting, weighted voting, or similar such things). I think we would all accept that counting the votes is not an interference for the purposes of voting - because they have to be counted to determine who won. Or, as OME puts it more succinctly:

7 hours ago, old man emu said:

Direct election is a system of choosing political officeholders in which the voters directly cast ballots for the persons or political party that they desire to see elected. The method by which the winner or winners of a direct election are chosen depends upon the electoral system used. By contrast, in an indirect election, the voters elect a body which in turn elects the officeholder in question.

Now. by your definition of Direct (Election) and the definition, or if you prefer, the operation of preferential voting, how is preferential voting indirect, and therefore against the constitution?

8 hours ago, Dax said:

There's no way you can define an indirect vote, as direct, It's just another example of the manipulation of the population, by over educated brain elitists.

Sorry, making a cavalier statement without backing it up doesn't hold water with us "over-educate brain elitists".. Mind you it is the first time I or anything I have been written has been implicated in such a way, so I will take it.. as a compliment. Except that I am unsure what it means, as education is just learning, and life is (or should be) a continual learning experience - you know - if we don't understand something - let's seek to understand it, etc.  So, how can someone be over-educated?

 

8 hours ago, Dax said:

Who seem to think it is only their interpretation of language, laws, legislation and even our constitution, that counts. But it's the people interpretation that should count and that's why world societies are stuffed, the over educated brain dead elitist think because they have been heavily programmed into ignorant stupidity that's what counts and what the people see as a norm;la in life, doesn't.

If I understand what you're saying it is that not the accepted and authoritative definitions that should be accepted, but individual - normal people. Problem with that argument is that, well, in this case, your interpretation and my interpretation collide.. Are you normal and I abnormal? What is normal? So, without referring to authoritative definitions, who is right? I don't think society could function properly if this was the case. Just look at the proliferation of poop on social media because people interpret things their way and ignore what is right. Contracts would be meaningless and maybe the shiesters who tried to argue you had to to mods without charge just interpreted the contract that way... Or maybe they would take the term progress payments as something other than time/delivery milestones.. 

 

I am going to ignore the rest of that diatribe only because it has nothing to do with preferential voting being constitutional and attacks people who have a different view on life, while proclaiming some moral (or ethical) high ground.

Except to finish with this:

4 hours ago, Dax said:

It's irrelevant as to how many excuses are made for preferential voting, the facts are it's unconstitutional

Can you please provide the facts as to why preferential voting is not constitutional? In other words, what is it about the operation of preferential voting that makes it not directly elected, and therefore unconstitutional. Just repeating a mantra, or the cavalier statement again doesn't wash it - it just becomes another form of evangelical overzealous BS to try and justify your opinion of it and dare I say, copping out of explaining why you asserted it is not constitutional.

 

 

[Edit] BTW, I am not attacking what looks like your obvious disdain for preferential voting - that is your opinion and I don't have to agree with it.. I am simply saying that one of your justifications for it is invalid because, at least on the evidence provided/looked it, it is constitutional as it is a form of direct election. But again, I am happy to be swayed if the facts are there is interference or some for of substition for the voters' directly expressing their wishes, and them being counted.

 

Edited September 18, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, Dax said:

Because preferential voting is indirect, as it is not the chosen candidate of the voter and ends up being passed around until it ends up with a party hack on most occasions.

Sorry - just saw this - how does my 1, 2, 3 end up going to some party hack without that party hack attracting a decent share of the primary vote. Again, how does it interfere with a voters expression of who they would prefer to be in?

[Old Koreelah]

4 hours ago, Dax said:

…First past the post, with modifications so the people don't get ripped off and know exactly who they are voting for and what their job in parliament would be. The people could judge whether they were qualified and experienced enough to do their particular job.

That looks good on paper Dax, but doesn’t work too well in real life. Do you know who’s doing a good job on the RAA board? Even in local government, where the vote should have a fair idea of the capabilities of candidates, this doesn’t work. Show ponies with high profiles get chosen over quiet, hard-working, well-qualified reps.

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

The Party for the Senate determines the order of precedence for each states candidates in the current set up so THAT is not a direct vote.

I understand the sentiment and get the practicality of what you're saying, but it is still a direct vote. The paper is organised so it is easy to cast a valid vote on the senate ballot paper and vote for your favoured party, who put up candidates. The reality is that most people want to vote for a party - they never change and apart from high profiled candidates, rarely care who the candidate is, so this makes it easy for most people. [Edit] Also, it makes it wasy if you want to align and vote for a fringe party - I noticed there was a "Stop the Population Growth" party on a SA legislative council ballot paper.. If that is something you want to support, it is easy to just mark the top and know your preference of where you want them will be counted for all of them (sort of).

 

This was, if I remember correctly, the result of increasingly large numbers of spoiled/invalid senate ballot tickets where the intention was clear, but filling out the numbers across a paper wasn't. People will still decide to vote Labor or Liberal/Nats (in the main)..They rarely care who is on the ticket.

 

On the senate paper, I can still choose to send my preferences where I want, or I can stick my preferences along the top.. In that way it is direct. Otherwise, it is a similar think to getting candidates with surnames higher up the alphabetical order to try and attract the donkey vote - still the voter's decision to cast the donkey.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[Marty_d]

Aren't we talking about 2 different things with preferential voting?

 

Where you number every box, you're choosing your own preferences.  This is certainly wise as your vote is being used exactly the way you want it to be.

If you don't number every box, then the parties get to choose who they direct preferences to.  Hence you get the ridiculous situation of some fascist bastard getting into the senate with 19 votes.  

 

So I'm all for preferential voting if it's numbering every box.  I'm not at all for preferential voting if it's left up to the dodgy back-room deals.   Scrap "above the line" and get everyone to number every box, that's my opinion.

[octave]

2 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Aren't we talking about 2 different things with preferential voting?

 

Where you number every box, you're choosing your own preferences.  This is certainly wise as your vote is being used exactly the way you want it to be.

If you don't number every box, then the parties get to choose who they direct preferences to.  Hence you get the ridiculous situation of some fascist bastard getting into the senate with 19 votes.  

 

So I'm all for preferential voting if it's numbering every box.  I'm not at all for preferential voting if it's left up to the dodgy back-room deals.   Scrap "above the line" and get everyone to number every box, that's my opinion.

In the reps you have to number every candidate for the vote to be valid. The senate is more complicated but you can (and I always do) number each candidate in which case your votes are allocated by your preferences.

[Old Koreelah]

6 hours ago, Dax said:

"PART II. – THE SENATE .
7. The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State,
directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the
Parliament otherwise provides…

Dax I suspect one of the great strengths of Australia’s Constitution is its lack if detail. How could a bunch of fallible politicians in a different era possibly anticipate future issues? Luckily, we have a fairly robust tradition of adapting our government to changing curcumstances. 

I’m intrigued with your pre-occupation with exactly following The Constition, as if it was handed down from Mount Sinai…

This is totally at odds with your rejection of written guidelines passed down thru the ages by religious groups.

[Marty_d]

Yes, the problem with exactly following a constitution means that militia groups in the US think the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to bear whatever arms are available today, including machine guns and rocket launchers.  Whereas the founding fathers with their single-shot muskets could not have possibly imagined the danger a literal interpretation of their words would mean in the 21st century.

[pmccarthy]

And all those women in sleeveless outfits demanding their right to bare arms.

[Dax]

It also states in the constitution on and number of occasions one vote one value, preferential voting is not one value but many values.

7 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

I’m intrigued with your pre-occupation with exactly following The Constition, as if it was handed down from Mount Sinai…

This is totally at odds with your rejection of written guidelines passed down thru the ages by religious groups.

The constitution is a document that guides us in running the country in a civilised manner and supposedly run by the people, it doesn't relate to ideological fairy tales except in giving freedom of religion.

 

Religious guide lines are designed to put power in the hands of the violently depraved psychopathic few, as history and the events of today prove.

 

A vote of the people can change the constitution, that can't be said of the guidelines of religion which are determined by deranged elitists, who use psychological and physical abuse to maintain their control. Which you find in any ideologically driven society. 

 

Our constitution should be rewritten by the people, not a bunch of drop kick lawyers and incompetent bureaucrats, so it represents today and not a couple of centuries ago. Look at our national anthem, you can't get much more depressing than that load of past it's use by date garbage, I turn of the volume every time I hear that awful crap that doesn't represent the country in any way and the people didn't get a say in it at all.

 

Our constitution also states we must have a separation of religion and the state and governments can't make decisions regarding establishing religion, yet we have our governments deciding to push religion into schools and they invoke religion at every sitting of parliament. Why have a constitution if the powers that be refuse to adhere to it and interpret it in ways that suit them and never the people or the requirements of the constitution.

 

The facts are, the people who should be deciding policy and direction, yet never get a say, they supposedly elect people to represent them, but they get ideological clones who represent politic parties ideology and direction, not the people.

 

I understand the desperation to protect and cling to the failed past, which is destroying our societies world wide, but that's the way of ideological humans. They live deep within fantasy and don't know it until it's to late, again history proves this as fact and ideologues never learn. That's why the legal system and governments, which consist of the same people, mostly lawyers and university programmed, use the constitution to their advantage and call upon it when they need to. But they ignore it when it doesn't suit their agenda.

 

The over educated are the university trained who think because they are highly programmed, they know more than the average person, are privileged and entitled to be in charge of everything. When the facts of life and society show the opposite, they cant run anything of worth without wrecking it or turning it into a basket case of semantic long winded irrelevant drivel.

 

Yet they are in control of our society and the facts show the results of university educated being in charge, rather than people really experienced with hands on knowledgeable in life. If that were not the case, our societies would be functioning very well and harmoniously. After all they've had over 100 years to get it right and the results of that are for all to see.

[nomadpete]

Dax, thanks for sharing your views. I share a lot of your cynicism of politics and religion. Although your ideology doesn't totally align with mine, the debate is causing us to analyse things more deeply and that's a good thing.

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Dax said:

Our constitution should be rewritten by the people

Have you ever tried to write any type of constitution for an organisation? Back in the day, I wrote one for a cricket club. I can tell you that you have to think hard about every work so that the aim of any section is met. Which people would you have write a new constitution? Which countries' constitutions would they study in order to get the best collection of ways and means to include in a constitution?

 

Dax, 

I'm beginning to doubt the veracity of your curriculum vitae. You have made statements elsewhere (if I recall correctly) that you did not have much in the way of a formal education before you began your working life. However, everything you have written here and elsewhere that carries your point of view on the topic at hand shows a high level of literacy and debating ability. Compare this to Spacey, whose posts reveal a lesser degree of literacy (with no disrespect to my friend, Spacey).

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

51 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Compare this to Spacey, whose posts reveal a lesser degree of literacy (with no disrespect to my friend, Spacey).

But often very insightful if not perfectly constructed according to the strict laws of grammar.

 

[Dax]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

Have you ever tried to write any type of constitution for an organisation?

Yes I wrote a constitution for the biggest diving club in the sth hemisphere back in the early late 1970's, which is still in use today I believe. Also wrote our local gun club constitution and my company constitution. Also had to learn how to deal with the legal system and after a couple of disastrous outcomes, ditched lawyers and took control myself of all my legal matters which attained much better outcomes and cost bugger all. It's also helped others who have been at the mercy of the greedy waste of space legal practitioners and got much better outcomes.

 

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

I'm beginning to doubt the veracity of your curriculum vitae. You have made statements elsewhere (if I recall correctly) that you did not have much in the way of a formal education before you began your working life. However, everything you have written here and elsewhere that carries your point of view on the topic at hand shows a high level of literacy and debating ability.

You're welcome to your views, which shows me you believe only those with a tertiary education are capable of informed debate. Looks like you are saying you can't have good communication skills unless you have an education, rather elitist of you isn't it.

 

It's actually the other way round, university educated think they are good at communication, but their lack of worldly knowledge and experience, reveals they can only communicate at one level and only within the subjects they are programmed in. Take the outside that small bubble and they are lost.

 

Still have my dictionary given to me by staff of a library I spent a lot of time in when trying to read and work out money matters. Still have to look up words to be able to use them in context and some words I want to use, have no idea of their proper meaning, so look them up before including them. Some times the words I choose turn out to be nothing like what I am trying to get across, which gives me a good laugh and keeps my head on my shoulders.

 

Because have virtually only worked for myself from a very young age and became very successful in my 20's, for a few years walked in the upper echelons of business society and worked closely with government and council hierarchy. Which meant for me to communicate with those self centered drop kicks so my business could flourish, had to learn how to communicate on their level. Which meant understanding how semantics are used, how elitists try to bamboozle you with their ego driven drivel and how to become a non participant in their idiocy, whilst giving them the impression I respected their position, which was extremely corrupt  and biased in application.

 

Have no formal education after the age or 8, cheated to pass the exam to get into the Navy and bluffed my way through many situations requiring a reasonable level of education, until became familiar with the situation. Have done a few courses to get certificates in building, hospitality and business management, cheated my way through them as well until I grasped the concept and could work with it properly. You may note I edit most of my posts, because my spelling and grammar leave a lot to be desired and after posting always find lots of spelling mistakes and badly worded sentences, which require rephrasing and correcting. The net and dictionaries help me with all that.

 

My philosophy is, if you want to beat the system you have to beat it using it against itself and that's how I approach life, use the system for my advantage against itself and it works just about every time.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Dax

[Dax]

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

Although your ideology doesn't totally align with mine, the debate is causing us to analyse things more deeply and that's a good thing.

Thank you, but do you know what my ideology is, I most certainly don't as I see ideology as the belief in fantasy and that is also a religion. I try very hard to not get sucked into the ideology that rules human life, but understand unless I'm part of it, then life would be unbearable and a waste of time.

 

It's very hard to come across a non ideologue, they are few and far between and those I have met, are a bit like me, just normal people who have had an NDE and for some reason it's like waking from a dream and seeing the world as it really is for the first time, rather then as it is projected to be, against the reality. It's eye opening and frightening at the same time, because you are apart from others, yet a part of the same system.

 

I non participate in society, live within it's rules, yet live outside its ideological dictates.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Dax said:

I'm beginning to doubt the veracity of your curriculum vitae. You have made statements elsewhere (if I recall correctly) that you did not have much in the way of a formal education before you began your working life. However, everything you have written here and elsewhere that carries your point of view on the topic at hand shows a high level of literacy and debating ability.

 

1 hour ago, Dax said:

You're welcome to your views, which shows me you believe only those with a tertiary education are capable of informed debate. Looks like you are saying you can't have good communication skills unless you have an education, rather elitist of you isn't it.

All I was commenting on was that the way that you express yourself in writing does not gel with your statements of lack of formal education. Simple as that. I was not even considering the content of what you wrote. That's for other posts. I see from your explanation that you do have a good education, from the University of Hard Knocks, again a Bach PYB (Pulling Yourself up by the Bootstraps).  Your experience can be likened to a dyslexic who finds the ways and means to survive and prosper in a world of written communication. I applaud you. Your achievement is better than mine because I didn't have to battle to gain qualifications.

 

And there is no shame in proofreading your written work. I do it all the time, but then, I'm the Commissioner of the Grammar Police 👮‍♀️.

 

Getting back to writing constitutions, would you set the voting system in stone in your constitution, or would you simply state "one voter, one vote" and leave it to an Act of Parliament to define the ways and means of holding elections?

 

 

 

 

[Dax]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

Getting back to writing constitutions, would you set the voting system in stone in your constitution, or would you simply state "one voter, one vote" and leave it to an Act of Parliament to define the ways and means of holding elections?

I'd get rid of politicians and put all decisions of governance in the direct hands of the people, so voting and policy would be by the people and that would be in the constitution, so no one can take control of the country out of the peoples hands.

 

In this day and age, there is no need for politicians and all governance should be online. The people would elect those they want to run each portfolio and could sack them instantly via majority vote if they didn't implement the peoples wishes in the manner and time frame they decide upon.

 

Same with senior bureaucrats, sacked on the spot if the peoples wishes were not implemented as they want and in the designated time frame. One vote one value would also be included for those applying to get the jobs of running government enterprises, services and acting for the people.

 

There may be a need for a couple of people to be elected to represent and present the people viewpoint and decisions to other countries, but other than that, no need for hangers on, advisers, lobbyists, or government boards, most consisting of ex political hacks and associates of the party in power and we'd save billions a year.

 

That would include the RBA board, which is the only to make sure the boom and bust regime which hands more power to banks and the rich, home and legislating interest rates at set levels and making all home and small business rates, fixed at a maximum of 5% and no bank charges for people using their money via cash or cards and 10% maximum for all other credit.

 

That way we would establish a sustainable economy, not a profit growth one and people would know what their  mortgage payments would be for the life of their loan. This would give people real security in their lives and we would have a much happier and better functioning society   

 

Nationalise all essential services, establish a peoples bank and insurance company. So the people have full control over their lives and country, would wind back the privatisation of job searching and inspections in building, manufacturing and food standards, back into the hands of the people and make them extremely strict.

 

Put the justice system on line and rewrite all laws and legislation in plain Australian, no technicalities they would mean what they say and the people would decide their content and implementation.

 

Online juries would determine outcomes and punishments and that would go for civil matters also. Voting for representatives would be compulsorily, but voting for policy would not and with the right approach, we could limit lots of decisions to only those directly impacted by ventures put forward by business and others. We'd save billions a year which is now going to the legal profession for nothing but more and more expense and people never getting justice, just loads of debt and sorrow.

 

Takes me so long to edit my posts, get logged out of this site and have to log in again.🙄

[Yenn]

A friend of mine tells everyone that his education was very poor and I believe him, but he can out together what he wants to say and also what he says often displays a much greater understanding of what goes on than most people have.

He is a prime example of the difference between education and intelligence.

[old man emu]

My opinion is that your idea is Utopian, but, in fairness to you, I'm willing to discuss - not debate - some of your points.

 

35 minutes ago, Dax said:

I'd get rid of politicians and put all decisions of governance in the direct hands of the people

Let me ask you how many members of "the biggest diving club in the sth hemisphere back in the early late 1970's" were actively involved in the governance of the club. People join clubs for the benefits the club provides, not to get involved in the extra and difficult work of running the organisation. That thought can be extrapolated to running a country. 

 

40 minutes ago, Dax said:

The people would elect those they want to run each portfolio

 While it's true that the electorate does not appoint Ministers, it does provide the pool of candidates for Ministerial positions.

 

42 minutes ago, Dax said:

could sack them instantly via majority vote if they didn't implement the peoples wishes in the manner and time frame they decide upon

That's a good idea, but where does the replacement come from?

 

43 minutes ago, Dax said:

no need for hangers on, advisers, lobbyists, or government boards, most consisting of ex political hacks and associates of the party in power and we'd save billions a year.

I stand shoulder to shoulder with you on that one.

 

44 minutes ago, Dax said:

 

Nationalise all essential services, establish a peoples bank and insurance company.

Yes to the People's Bank. Who sold off the Commonwealth Bank? Founded in 1911 by the Australian Government and fully privatised in 1996, by the Conservatives.

But what insurance do you mean - Life, Property or Superannuation? The only problem with getting into the finance sector is that running it in any way involves a great deal of experience in financial management. Who is going to be engaged to run things?

49 minutes ago, Dax said:

rewrite all laws and legislation in plain Australian, no technicalities

CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 20AB

Flying aircraft without licence etc.

             (1)  A person must not perform any duty that is essential to the operation of an Australian aircraft during flight time unless:

                     (a)  the person holds a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform that duty; or

                     (b)  the person is authorised by or under the regulations to perform that duty without the civil aviation authorisation concerned.

 

What's not plain (no pun intended) Australian English in that? 

51 minutes ago, Dax said:

Online juries would determine outcomes and punishments and that would go for civil matters also.

One of the vital factors in trial by jury is that the jurors can meet together to discuss the evidence, and argue points of contention members might raise. And it is done in private with no interference. The Barristers can carry on with their theatrics in the courtroom, but it is what happens in the jury room that counts.