Funding of elections.
Under the FNR Constitution no funding is necessary in the election of a representative from each Regional Assembly to the National parliament.
The Assembly just votes for their most experienced and articulate member and sends him off to Canberra.
Advertising etc. can be used in the elections for Regional Assemblies but remember, the voters are going to elect one of their neighbours in the 5000 member electorate. Door knocking and talking to their constituents will be possible and far more effective than any advertising campaign. This means money is much less important.
Recall & Accountability.
All votes in the National & Regional parliaments are published daily so the constituents know exactly what their rep is doing in their name.
I agree with much of what the Demarchy advocates say. If there is no interest, there is no accountability. Currently, it is impossible for an 80,000 electorate to hold their rep in the Federal parl't accountable. But the 30 man Regional Assembly is vitally interested in what is happening in Canberra and will recall their rep if he does not perform satisfactorily.
Similarly at the Regional level; it is far more practical for a person or group in a 5000 member electorate to call a meeting to discuss the performance of their rep and recall him if necessary.
The mere possibility of recall will ensure reps stay in touch and stick to what their constituents want.
We the People can put in a new Constitution anything we like. If we want to make political advertising illegal we can. However, under the FNR Draft Constitution, there is no need for political advertising. Hence, political parties will wither on the vine.

Charles

My mate replies...

*****


* Ordinary people are not interested in politics.
* Ordinary people should not have to be interested in politics.
* Ordinary people do not like elections and voting.
* Ordinary people can be easily led by marketing and advertising into
making the wrong electoral decision rather than basing it upon careful
analysis.
* Marketing and advertising funds come from established elites and
companies that support the individual or the party they belong to.
* Whatever laws are put into place to prevent political advertising can
be deemed unconstitutional or else can be easily circumvented (eg the
"Swift Boating" of John Kerry was not carried out by Republican Party
people)
* Accountability which results in recall elections can be politically
motivated and be a result of false advertising. California has a recall
system for its governors and the Republicans took advantage of poll
numbers to recall Gray Davis.
* Huge amounts of time and money are spent in "politicking" within a
party - who is worthy of promotion?; who is loyal/disloyal?; who looks
and sounds good enough for the voters to like?; how are we going to get
banking laws changed so that the banks will donate more money to our
party and keep us in power?; which member of the opposite party is
having an extramarital affair for us to expose?

The advantages of Demarchy:

* No one has to vote or really care about politics.
* No political advertising is needed at all.
* The only way for oligopolies and elites to influence politicians
occurs only AFTER they have been selected to serve (and their position
in parliament is not threatened by these elites)
* The randomly selected individuals will be able to represent a
cross-section of society, ensuring that decisions are made are more
likely to result from public opinion.
* Randomly selected politicians can be selected on a geographical basis.
This means that one person in the 5000 suggested could end up serving.
* Every first year politician is inexperienced, either in Demarchy or in
a voting Democracy. The longer they stay in, the more experienced they
get (Rudd has only been in Parliament since 1996).
* No time is spent in useless politicking, but rather in trying to
determine what should be done for the best of the country.

Thanks for that Charles. I hope you don't find me oppositional for asking a last round of questions, but I'm just imagining what the Demarchy proponents might ask.

Each Regional Assembly elects one of their Members to represent the Region in the National Parliament. So yes, there are just 96 Members of the National Parliament. (And no Senate)

OK, so how are these elections funded? That seems to be the main concern of the Demarchy groups.

An essential element of this system is accountability. The voters in the electorates and the voters in the Assemblies can both recall their representative and hold a new election at any time if they are not satisfied.

Sounds great.

And of course, the Regional Assemblies will elect their most competent advocate to represent their region in the National parliament.

But again, the Demarchy people are concerned about funding and think that it will somehow corrupt the voting process and we'll end up with politicians in the pay of the 'usual suspects'.

Coupled with this, the National Parliament Members sit in their Regional Assembly for four days every month to brief and be briefed.

I like that, nice touch.

Under the FNR Draft Constitution there will be a National Parliament and 96 Regional Assemblies instead of State Governments and Local Gov'ts.

The Regions will vary in size from 60,000 to 250,000 and will have the appropriate number of 5000 voter electorates. So, the number of Representatives in the Regional Assemblies will vary from 12 to 50.

Each Regional Assembly elects one of their Members to represent the Region in the National Parliament. So yes, there are just 96 Members of the National Parliament. (And no Senate)

An essential element of this system is accountability. The voters in the electorates and the voters in the Assemblies can both recall their representative and hold a new election at any time if they are not satisfied.

The proposed electoral system precludes any organisation with membership outside the tiny electorate from supporting candidates for election. This provision, coupled with the small electorate means that the voters will know the candidates and will vote for the one best suited.

And of course, the Regional Assemblies will elect their most competent advocate to represent their region in the National parliament.

Coupled with this, the National Parliament Members sit in their Regional Assembly for four days every month to brief and be briefed.

These are some of the measures that will ensure that oligarchies and political parties will have no influence.

Charles

Interesting... 3 revision questions just quickly for newcomers and browsers of this site:-

1. how many Representatives in each Electoral & local government Region

2. how many Regions in Australia, and does this also equal the number of Representatives off to National Parliament

3. so we don't actually vote for who goes to National parliament? I had never taken that part in on the FNR constitution. Will Aussies like that? (For some reason I do, but I'm too authoritarian after my short Army time!!  )

(and getting back on topic)

4. how does this prevent oligarchy's having too much influence?

Oh Dear! Oh Dear!

There is a so much better way to overcome voter apathy and the scourge of Political Parties.

It is all in the Draft Constitution published by the Foundation for National Renewal. It envisages representatives being elected to Regional Assemblies from tiny, 5000 voter electorates.

The Regional Assemblies elect one of their Members to represent the Region in the National Parliament.

Check out the detail on www.national-renewal.org.au

If anyone can see how Party politics would not die-on-the-vine under such a scheme; let him speak now or forever hold his peace.

Charles S Mollison

Read this immensely important article by the IMF. I would normally put this article along side such online conspiracy theories as "Area 51 Aliens at Roswell" or some of the nuttier stuff on the edge of the sustainability movement, but it is written by the IMF! It brings into question some of the core beliefs of our democratic way of life.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200905/imf-advice

After reading it, ask yourself the following question that a friend put to me:

Elites and oligopolies run most major economies through political influence, ensuring that political parties of either persuasion keep them enriched. Surely this means that any form of electoral system will only keep these powers entrenched?

Unless, of course, those who are granted political power are not influenced before taking office?

And that is the advantage of Demarchy - "clean" people would end up being granted political power rather than the "dirty" ones who serve and are supported by the elites and oligopolies.

See...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy

Especially...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy#Institutional_corruption_in_political_parties

Institutional corruption in political parties

Demarchy could also replace traditional political parties. Since people are randomly selected to act as representatives, there is very little chance that the person involved is part of a "party political machine." While random selection will not remove political bias, what it will do is select a person as a representative who has not had to compromise their own beliefs in order to gain political alliances and support. Institutional corruption (such as a person being supported by businesses in order for both to mutually benefit from the situation) is also unlikely—any corruption would occur after the person is selected and is more likely to be reported (since the person selected would probably not be used to corruption at that scale).

Making decisions based upon political expediency

Many politicians make decisions based not necessarily upon what is the best thing to do, nor upon their own ethics and morals, but upon what is best for their own political gain. A politician is dependent upon his or her good standing with voters, as well as an ability to "fit in" with the party political structure. Since a person's time in politics sometimes is short, it is only natural that they do everything possible to continue their career. Demarchy, because it is based upon random selection, does not make a person's career dependent upon popularity, and, because a demarchy is likely to remove the direct influence of political parties, there is no "party line" that the individual must adhere to. This is not to say that political alliances will not be formed after a person's selection—but that the structure of demarchy is less suited to decision making based upon politics.

I'm wondering if our groups have, say, a "top 3 models" that define the balance of powers between National and Local governments?

I should add the URL of the issue paper:

http://www.cis.org.au/issue_analysis/IA104/IA104.pdf

Hi all,
I want to draw your attention to an article in today's SMH entitled Local government - "Defining the national role of Councils". The article by Harvey Grennan <hggrenna@smh.com.au> is essentially an extract/summary of an issues paper by
Dr. Oiver Hartwich of the Centre of Independent Studies. The Centre is a well-known conservative think tank which is pro-federation as the reference list of this issues paper makes very clear. Nevertheless, the issues paper makes a serious effort to consider the proposals to include local government in the federal constitution and define its functions, which are mostly quite ill-defined in the state constitutions. It does more, as it considers new functions for local government, e.g.
primary and secondary education.

I am no fan of this Centre at all, as you know,  but if we were to move to a two-tier structure with local government being the second tier the question of defining functions of that tier comes to the fore. In that context the paper makes some contributions worthy of discussion.  It is however quite amazing that the author does not consider that the functions of the states would actually be further undermined to the point where their continued constitutional existence becomes quite untenable. The issues paper can be traced from the Centre's website (12 pp.)


Klaas Woldring.