[LINK] How many eyes / delegation of democracy

[stephen at melbpc.org.au]

At 10:19 AM 19/11/2006, Richard wrote:

> the delegation of democratic process should not be exclusive
> .. simplicity (doesn't) outweigh the need for an inclusive
> process   .. "you will trust us because there's no other choice"
> is inimical to democracy. 

At present, we are forced to delegate our wishes regarding government to
representatives who mightn't appear to be aware of or care what we think.

It's exclusive, and we apparently need to trust our reps to represent us.

One remembers an Amanda Vanstone interview whereby she noted that the
hundreds of pages of the (then) proposed AWA legislation landed on her
desk on a Friday afternoon, along with 17 other proposed bills, hence
she did not even have a chance to read it before she was required to vote.

I would have had far more time (and probably much more small business
real-world experience, having owned my own restaurant with 15+ staff) to
carefully read the proposed legislation.  I seriously doubt that our reps 
could effectively be across more than 10% (tops) of the legislation they
are required to vote on.

If in the future our parlimentary 'representatives' (haha) where elected
electronically, they might be far more amenable to seeking public opinion
in a similar electronic fashion.

Although I agree with the thrust of your concerns, Richard, in terms of
e-democracy, why not have a simple process whereby the public can review,
and make non-binding comment on, proposed bills prior to any parlimentary 
debate?

The bill proposers, and our 'reps', could then have a *much* clearer
picture of what we think. Of course full-on e-petition resources would be
better, but at the least our system could be far more representative of
public opinion. Or, do they really know best, without our opinions?

Cheers Linkers
Stephen Loosley
Victoria, Australia


Message sent using MelbPC WebMail Server