No parties on ballot papers = how to get MPs on their own as independents.
by ballotsmith 2:33am, 25 November 2007
You will need to login
or sign up to do that
The way to break the stranglehold of parties (and their leaders) is to make all MPs fully independent in parliament - to freely debate and vote according to electorate interests (only) - by requiring all decisions in parliament to be by ballot. (This would probably reqire a constitutional change, to be fully effective.)
MPs thus set free to vote in parliament as independents would be divorced from those minority and wider interests which create parties - and powerful leaders.
Therefore, without any party connection or support, their status at election as independents would mean that claiming a party affiliation would be meaningless and worthless. Party names on ballot papers would be worthless and be made illegal.
What then?
In the electorate the MPs future would depend entirely on his good relations with constituents. How? By regular public meetings and formulating electorate policy on all matters by genuine collaboration with the constituents who were interested and able to attend. Media would be in attendance and when controversy arose many more would join the debates.
What then? In electorate and in parliament MPs would have to show due diligence on behalf of their constituents - being safe with the constituents while being thus seen, but in deep trouble if not.
Thus we would achieve increasing electorate participation, friendly and constructive collaboration, and political understanding, and also power to the people - instead of dictatorial executives ruling the country with insufficient reference to the people.
Parliament would desert adversarial politics in favour of constructive cooperation - with issue based debate replacing personality politics and bad behaviour
The parliament of independents would deal quickly with sensible policies put forward from anywhere, bad policies would be quickly rejected and controversial matters would be referred back for electorate consideration.
All ministers would be elected by the MPs from their own colleagues and they would have to fulfil the parliament's requirements or face removal.
All this requires more consideration and analysis but perhaps this can start the ball rolling.
This discussion topic is closed. You can still review the discussion but it will no longer accept comments or votes.
Relates to website: http://www.ballotsinparliament.org
monty123
Nov 25, 2007 05:21pm
0
0 
On the face of it a good idea but I am a little worried that it would make causes difficult to champion. Take the old growth forest issue. MPs could say one thing and vote for another. They would not be accountable. Also how could you effectively make representations to individual MPs in the way you can to a party?
ballotsmith
Nov 26, 2007 08:45pm
2
0
1. For real people involvement, causes must originate in local electorates and pursued in parliament by representatives. Theoretically an important issue could originate in a single electorate and then really take off in parliament by virtue of its outstanding merit. All electorates would then become involved. Our present problem is that causes are raised by single issue parties etc which have no widespread grassroots origin. This is what divorces the people as party politicians decide these things and the people never become involved at all.
2. Accountability. With secret ballot voting in parliament both public and media will be very sharp indeed. If anyone thinks to act one way and vote another they would sabotage their own point of view - and their career - without question. This is an old furphy. A real representative accountability will far exceed the present situation. It will be both immediate and continuing throughout the parliamentary term, for each representative.
3. Secret voting MPs will hold regular meetings to consult with their constituents a spectrum of whom will represent the whole (with the aid of local media) in the absence of significant controversy, which would quickly gather greater numbers. Accountability of local MPs to constituents will increase out of sight - most definitely.
4. The 'party' is most definitely over. In terms of democratic principle party politics is criminal.
monty123
Nov 28, 2007 08:42am
0
2
In general I agree with this system but I a concerned that we would end up, in effect with a series of single issue MPs who would have a fiercely parochial outlook. It would be difficult for the average voter to fully comprehend what each candidate stood for and would encourage candidates to try to be all things to all people
ballotsmith
Jan 07, 2008 06:50pm
1
0
Hi monty123.Please forgive my tardy reply. A single issue MP would soon have his pants on fire, his seat would be so hot!
Would the people tolerate such an individual who placed one issue ahead of all their concerns? No way.
Each representative would be most assiduous to be a listener and determine those issues which concern the people at large, assisted by the media. I think that, rather than the average person being bemused, most would be soon be astute at judging the veracity and effectiveness of the representative, due to the repetitive contact in regular meetings together.
Effective critics would also damage a representative's local reputation,being seen as potential rivals for the seat.
Far from being all things to all people a representative would see that as being pathetic and would prefer to be seen as a person of serious judgment, firmly devoted to the most serious issues, while still listening to the woes of all.
Stuart
Feb 04, 2008 06:03pm
0
0
As for one I am not suprised about this staement.
The parties dont like giving information to the people but one should consider the australian constitution.
There is much to find and you would also find out what the people who created the constitution had planned and in mind for representation for the people in government.