What Are Your Thoughts on Referendums. Are Voters Given Enough Say in The Countries Decisions? E.g. Refugee Intake

[Deactivated] on 30/06/2016 - 10:06
Last edited 30/06/2016 - 10:20 by 1 other user

I was really surprised recently when someone disagreed with me on referendums. I had pretty much assumed that nearly everyone would feel that the voting proletariate are not being listened to enough by our politicians on issues such as refugee intake and the like. Wouldn't you like to be asked (via a referendum) about some/certain issues? With a referendum on refugees for example perhaps a range from no refugees to allowing some and another option to allow all. I feel we the voters are often not listened to at all but rather being told what will be by political parties.

Someone argued that this is why we vote for a political party and so we should leave the… burden of decision making entirely to the party. I do believe that the overall running of the/a countries should be done by the political party (infrastructure and the like) BUT that on certain contentious issues - people should be encouraged via referendums to have their say. I suggested that around 10 referendums should be allowed each year. What could be more fair???

Are my feelings on the matter so at odds with most people?
Shouldn't the government be somewhat bound by the feelings of the majority via official voter referendums?

*My 1st poll folks - no nastiness please, I'm just reviewing my thoughts on such things.
Will appreciate sensible comments that will either sway or support my thoughts.

Poll Options

  • 156
    Yes - we should have more referendums. The people should have an official say.
  • 180
    No - we should not have more referendums. The government should make these decisions entirely.
General Discussion

Comments

    • gromit on 02/07/2016 - 09:18
      +1

      I have no desire to defend pollies as more than 90% are an utter disgrace. BUT, people generally don't know what they want or more importantly what they need, people are at the basic greedy, they want more services but less taxes (or at least less taxes paid by them individually). The reality is a government is there to make the hard decisions for everyone that many individuals would NEVER make for themselves (sadly in recent years pollies aren't willing to make them either). A couple of churchil quotes are highly appropriate. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others", “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”. People are sheep, they listen and believe scare mongering and are easily swayed by those with the loudest or most charismatic voice, more referendums and plebiscites would be an utter disaster.

    • swimblue8 on 03/07/2016 - 14:25

      Yes. BREXIT is the example you are looking for. What a (profanity) that was! People were googling "What is the EU?" the night after they voted. They had no idea what it was even about or the repercussions of their votes. One lady was quoted as saying "I didn't think my vote would count so I voted LEAVE. But now that LEAVE won I wish I had voted STAY". WTF kind of logic is that?

      • ozhunter on 03/07/2016 - 17:24
        +1

        Well she did have the right not to vote. Why would she vote if she thought it would count or why didn't she just fill it out incorrectly.

        Few youtube videos showing people are only voting for Clinton because she's a woman.

    • Speckled Jim on 03/07/2016 - 15:10

      When there are certain regulation that involves money and industries, lobby groups will work even harder on a scare campaign.
      I cannot think of any example at the moment.

      I can, and it was quite recent too — the Mining Resources and Rent Tax (MRRT).

      The big end of town poured many millions into an advertising campaign, based entirely on fear-mongering. Prices will rise and you're gonna pay!, Our Jobs!, Overseas Investors!, We'll Abandon Australia For Browner Pastures!
      etc

      It cost Kevin Rudd his job.

  • getcarter on 30/06/2016 - 11:39
    +1

    Less control and interference from the government and more referendums please!

  • Aniseed Steed on 30/06/2016 - 12:19
    +6

    Democracy and the rule by the majority is flawed because of the flawed human condition - self-interest. A referendum is a dangerous tool in the hands of those who seek to further their uninformed or selfish purposes.

    • BuyoTheCat on 30/06/2016 - 22:06
      +2

      I dont know what you are neged for a valid point

    • [Deactivated] on 01/07/2016 - 11:47
      +2

      upvoted the two of you because human nature is the flaw. Same could be said of any government with humans in power though. Always placing self-interest first.

      That is why most people vote politicians who seem to have the most self-interest in common with them. Money is more flexible than any "group" factor and can always fall within self-interest. So a democracy will always favor the rich and/or the majority. There is no way to hold the politicians accountable as well. They do not need any solid principles or strong beliefs. Just whatever from the majority and/or the rich that will carry them into office the next term. Live to lie another day.

      In any other form of government, the ruling party and those with common interest will benefit.

      Humans have evolved to survive and compete. As a single race we're pretty self destructive and it seems that a democracy and rule by majority is the "least harm" way to go.

  • cameldownunder on 30/06/2016 - 12:21
    +4

    Welcome to Switzerland! Or direct democracy. Initiatives and referendums require 100'000 signatures.
    So you want to introduce a new law, get 100'000 to sign your petition, and send it to Camberra.
    But be prepared to go to vote every 3 month !

    Unfortunately there are some people that think that some issues are too complex for the plebiscite to understand, and direct democracy work only in countries with "smart" people. This is debatable.

    Is this what just happened in UK.

    I don't think so. I think UK has the small people winning. Forget about the Companies, CEOs, CFOs, people with hands in the shares.
    It was about the survival of the working class.

    • callum9999 on 01/07/2016 - 11:41
      -1

      You're the worst type of voter, someone who thinks they know what they're talking about but doesn't have a clue…

      Large swathes of the "working class" are now angry to hear that they've voted based on overt lies - and HUGE lies at that. In fact the main reason people voted to leave has now emerged to be a lie. Which brings me back to my previous point. It was blindingly obvious to millions of people that they were lies, but the ignorant and ill-informed didn't realise - do we really want these people having a direct say on important policy?

  • inherentchoice on 30/06/2016 - 12:23

    There are so many controversial political issues. You can't please everyone. Often times there are 49% of people who won't be pleased in a referendum.

    But look at the hysteria following the Brexit poll. Do you really want to encourage that type of hysteria, as opposed to a boring, competent government?

    • cameldownunder on 30/06/2016 - 12:32
      +7

      "competent government?"
      You 'kidding right !?

      • sparkles on 30/06/2016 - 13:06
        +2

        When the reality could be major countries run by Boris Johnson and Donald Trump it's genuinely frightening. Politics doesn't seem to be attracting the creme de la creme of anything, just the power hungry weirdos.

        • rump parliament on 01/07/2016 - 12:55
          -1

          Let us not forget the time our former PM threatened to 'shirtfront' the leader of a nuclear-armed power. That creepy wink he did while doing a radio audience talking to that phone sex lady. The knighthood for Prince Phillip. Budgie smugglers and 'Team Australia'.

          We've had our Boris Johnson and he ate a raw onion on TV.

      • getcarter on 30/06/2016 - 13:17

        Competent at being incompetent…

      • inherentchoice on 30/06/2016 - 13:51

        We gotta try. We want conditions to promote having a boring, competent government in power. Constant referendums and voting will have the opposite effect.

        Often when there is a competent government in power, masses of people kick up a stink that that the government is ignoring important problems, but in reality those things are not problems at all. And if the citizens were really concerned about those problems, they should be using their own money to take the action they want, not other people's tax money.

        • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2016 - 17:47

          Corruption has been a major issue for quite some time, so much so it now has a legal branch known as lobbying ;) . Too often governments govern via ideology, what they believe in is best, regardless of what may actually be best. They spend money on research/experts/analysts that they already know will support their view. The dichotomous nature of modern day politics is problematic - just personally - I don't think it will be improved/changed by everyone keeping calm. The system is partly fecked because those citizens who are wealthy have been allowed to use their money to influence government (take the action they want), and those who are not wealthy, are not able to. That is not democracy.

    • scupper on 30/06/2016 - 14:23
      +2

      "Boring, competent government". That's sitting on your laurels. I want better education, renewable energy, more innovation in tech and science. I want a country that leads, not one that trails behind even the mediocre. Go beyond the status quo. As Kennedy once said about the moon mission, "We're not doing it because it's easy, we're doing it because it's hard." A boring government is getting ready to die, not one that is pushing itself to live!

      If you're concerned about competition from our Asian neighbours, then the boring government will put you behind.

      As for believing the "competent" mantra, saying you are one while evidence shows otherwise, reminds me of Bush's words: "Fool me once…"

      • inherentchoice on 30/06/2016 - 14:28

        IMO those things are jobs for the citizens. We need industry and academic leaders to take us to those places. Like Elon Musk.

        Things don't just happen by throwing government money at them. Things happen because good leaders stand up and rally and inspire people to work toward a common vision.

        • scupper on 30/06/2016 - 14:40
          +3

          No, our renewable energy industry crashed after the carbon tax was removed, our entrepreneurs move to the US to get any funding, CSIRO is defunded, NBN Frankenstein, etc. All directly caused by government.

        • inherentchoice on 30/06/2016 - 14:41

          @scupper: Crashed? There are oodles of renewable energy projects on the go.

          What crashed was the clunky government bodies like the climate commission.

        • scupper on 30/06/2016 - 17:24

          @inherentchoice: That sounds like you've taken to believing too much of the propaganda. The climate commission was a thorn in further investments in coal, hence it had to go. Same with Arena, which barely held on, and which was making money as it was designed to do. Not to mention the NBN, which was also designed to make money, until they crippled it, I.e. the premium tier that people would have paid for, is not possible, along with the general increase in productivity by the population.

          Our economic managers are penny wise but pound foolish. Something that us, Ozbargainers, should be very familiar with.

  • robertbruce on 30/06/2016 - 12:36

    I voted NO!
    I prefer to mistrust, argue and procrastinate about it first!

  • BigTed on 30/06/2016 - 12:41
    +1

    I heard a new small political party on the radio the other day pushing for a form of more direct democracy by using online votes/polls or something.
    Didn't really catch the details. I think these are the crew: https://voteflux.org/

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 30/06/2016 - 12:42
    +8

    I understand where you're coming from and it's a very difficult topic as we've just seen. The string theory guy had a debate about this (e.g. "internet democracy") with RT (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkswENOAk6A). Frankly, he thinks the majority are dumb asses.

    When people are anonymous they can be horrible, horrible people. Honest, yes. But horrible. Just look at Youtube (or OzBargain) or any comment thread in the world. Assuming you could hold a referendum on anything, an average population could even vote in favour of genocide or killing people with perceived disabilities. Imagine how horrible we could be if we weren't influenced by mainstream media or governmental policy, let alone when we are. Genetically, we're basically the same animals from a hundred years ago. Mass hysteria can do a lot of harm on it's own. Just read up the details on the Salem Witch Trials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials). There's probably a sound political reason why we were made to read "The Crucible" in school.

    Imagine a group of 100 people who need to cross a bridge to play in a football tournament. 49 are "bridge engineers" and 51 are avid "bridge-crossers". The bridge-crossers want to cross the bridge right now but the engineers have assessed the situation and believe they will all die. They have a vote and sure enough the vote is split in favour of bridge-crossers 51 to 49. Is it ethically right that the majority should rule? On the other hand, what if they had a governing body that was historically bad at making decisions? And how do you deal with a group of people that can't be swayed by physical proof?

    So basically, I have no idea. If Australia held a referendum in the 60s would the White Australia Policy have been abolished? Could a referendum reintroduce a policy along those lines? Should over 18s decide in a referendum if under 18s should be allowed to vote?

    • ThadtheChad on 01/07/2016 - 11:04

      Imagine a group of 100 people who need to cross a bridge to play in a football tournament. 49 are "bridge engineers" and 51 are avid "bridge-crossers". The bridge-crossers want to cross the bridge right now but the engineers have assessed the situation and believe they will all die. They have a vote and sure enough the vote is split in favour of bridge-crossers 51 to 49. Is it ethically right that the majority should rule? On the other hand, what if they had a governing body that was historically bad at making decisions? And how do you deal with a group of people that can't be swayed by physical proof?

      Sounds like what happened with Brexit. When the differences between the two opposing views are negligible, does it really make sense to go with the camp that has "marginally" higher votes?

  • sparkles on 30/06/2016 - 12:46
    +6

    The Brexit outcome is an example of what happens when you put a yes/no vote in the hands of racist/uneducated/bitter/struggling people (take your pick) who have been subjected to scaremongering by men with ulterior (selfish) motives. I actually think you'd get a similar outcome here, people don't like what they are increasingly seeing around them. Politicians aren't living with the outcomes of their decisions, they lead sheltered lives well away from the chaos they are creating.

    I have no idea how to vote tomorrow, it's like choosing between dumb and dumber. I haven't received one bit of literature outlining the policies of either major party. Our local member just assumes he'll win in a landslide as usual. No new blood, no new ideas, just the same old self serving pollie. I actually wish voting was voluntary and they should have to "win" our vote.

    • tassieeagle on 30/06/2016 - 12:57
      +1

      I'm voting giant douche. I voted turd sandwich last time and was sorely disappointed, didn't deliver at all. He promised so much - the lettuce, tomato, pickle, the little olive on a stick, yet in the end all I got was a turd, in a sandwich.

    • cDNA on 30/06/2016 - 13:56
      +6

      (profanity) the EU. It's an expensive, inefficient, and bureaucratic mess.
      The UK should pull its weight and learn to live without that silly system.

      • Devils Advocate on 30/06/2016 - 14:33

        For the UK it will be well and good living without the system. It's the open market that they are going to struggle without.

        • MITM on 30/06/2016 - 15:30
          +1

          Australia struggles in the open market, and so sign trade treaties.
          Plus we have to transport our stuff long distances to market too.

          Good job we have visionaries who build huge systems to do so. Ziggy Forester and Gina Rinehart for example.

        • Devils Advocate on 30/06/2016 - 17:26

          @MITM:
          For how much our economy gets ragged on, it is incredibly strong. We are 1 of 11 countries in the world with a AAA credit rating. Second highest reserve bank interest rate in the developed world (0.25% below New Zealand). We're also the only country in the world classified as having low political risk, positive interest rates and low currency risk.

        • Devils Advocate on 30/06/2016 - 17:34

          @MITM:
          Oops, misread your comment. Yeah, I agree.

        • ThadtheChad on 01/07/2016 - 11:11

          @Devils Advocate:

          Welllll… situations like this can change very fast when there is instability (or a sinkhole-like situation is discovered). Our economy is also very highly coupled with China's, which may not be very good for us as they're experiencing challenges of their own.

          Re the AAA status:
          http://business.nab.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/AMW-11…

    • cameldownunder on 30/06/2016 - 14:08
      +6

      Wow you just called millions of people what again? Racist, uneducated, bitter and struggling. What do you knwo about living under the ruling of the EU?
      Have been in Europe lately? Have you engaged in conversation that exceed the weather and ordering a beer? Are you informed about youth unemployment in Spain, France, Italy, Greece?
      Do you hold a PHD, a Master, a Bachelor, did you even finish school? Or do you consider yourself uneducated too?

      • cDNA on 30/06/2016 - 23:43
        +2

        Do you hold a PHD, a Master, a Bachelor, did you even finish school? Or do you consider yourself uneducated too?

        Yes, to all of those except the Master degree and the bit about being uneducated. My field is somewhat different to economics, though. I'm sorry that I do not hold a PHD in economics and understand political science like you do. I work with what I have in my noggin.
        Apologies, I do not subscribe to a leftist view of big governments controlling large populations.

        Immigration was a major political issue and the majority of the nation has decided that it does not want backpackers, students and peasants from Europe having express Visas to the UK.

    • c0balt on 30/06/2016 - 16:17
      +5

      It's worrying you are making that generalisation, because it can be dispelled by finding just one rational, educated person who did vote for leave.

      Plenty did, and now the vitriol coming from some people against 52% of the British voting public can be considered scarier than the prospect of actually leaving the EU.

      I would have voted remain, but seeing these comments come from the remain camp that are the same as seeing the overt vitriolic racist claims from the leave party makes me reconsider how I would have voted. That is, I may have wanted to cut my nose to spite my face if the face was calling me an uneducated bigot for wanting to leave the EU.

      Shame on all.

  • Mumbles on 30/06/2016 - 13:00
    +2

    Historically, referendums and plebiscites in Australia have resulted in more than an 80% failure to change anything.

    Out of 47 referendums & plebiscites the results:
    - YES = 9 (19%)
    - NO = 38 (81%)

    Sure. Referendums sound great in "theory" but they still cost big dollars.

    How do you feel paying tax dollars to get a NO result? The only people to benefit are the indecisive politicians who get patted on the back for suggesting to waste tax dollars and couldn't make a decision. If that's the case then everybody can be a politician!

    • c0balt on 30/06/2016 - 16:21

      20% is a lot more than I would have thought actually.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/07/2016 - 16:25

      A referendum has to be held when parliament is considering changing the constitution. It is nothing to do with lazy politicians. The majority always vote for leaving "as is". Inertia is a natural human tendency, especially when all the facts are unclear.

    • swen83 on 03/07/2016 - 11:39

      the cost is no longer a prerequisite.

      we could easily modernize our voting system for efficient and near free elections or referendums. we already have the platform, myGov, we just need to get out of the stone age and use it.

  • robertbruce on 30/06/2016 - 13:21

    much like this upcoming federal election that has been forced upon us!

  • cDNA on 30/06/2016 - 13:54
    -8

    The whole reason we elect officials to parliament is so they could make the tough decisions for us. Referendums are expensive and should be used for major decisions that will affect each and every person (e.g. republic).

    Refugees can go get screwed. We should decrease our intake below 100. Japan took in 2 refugees in the past 2 years. They actually care about their culture and country.

    The gay marriage plebiscite is a waste of time and that piece of legislation should have been passed long ago. I don't particularly care about the rights of homosexuals, but the argument against it is absolutely silly and prehistoric.

    FYI: Vote Liberal/National in this election
    We don't need Labor to bankrupt this country and Shorten to knife people in the shadows. The Labor party is an absolute joke of a party and so are the Greens.

    • cameldownunder on 30/06/2016 - 14:03

      I thought they got elected to do the bulk of the work, and the use of Initiatives and referendums is to make them aware of something not on the agenda.

      It is refreshing to know that some people are willing to stick their head into a collar, and decide only every 3-4 years who will hold the leash.

      The rest of your comment is off-topic.

    • Rggmcl on 30/06/2016 - 14:57
      +3

      Yes folks remember how Julia and Kevin sent the country backward. Labor equals debt.

      • c0balt on 30/06/2016 - 15:25
        +2

        Labor had 6 years and didn't make a single change to any marriage equality laws. But that's OK because we got houses burning down and families burned alive from the insulation scheme, and the poorest state schools ended up with additional cafeterias or unneeded sporting facilities that are now in ruins, paid for by tax payers, rather than paying for additional teachers or putting the money directly into books/clothes/food for disadvantaged students.

        These things we need reminders on.

        Downvoting without rebutting the claims in my post? I guess I would be too if I was delusional enough to still have any confidence in Labor after the last 6 years they had in power.

    • robertbruce on 30/06/2016 - 18:50

      Vote Labor, we do need them to bankrupt the country so that the privileged, spoilt and half-arsed ATO jockeys realise just how good they have had it all-whilst blaming those with less choices!
      It does not matter which party they belong too!

  • ilikeradiohead on 30/06/2016 - 13:55
    +4

    I am pro-referendums/plebiscites, but would prefer if they were held concurrently with other elections. It is compulsory to vote in State and Federal elections, so I feel that at the same time we could have ballot initiatives, like they have in the USA.

    In the US, these are binding, and can have perverse outcomes that make it difficult for elected representatives to do their jobs. For example in California in the 1970s they voted to make property tax increases only go up incrementally until a property is sold. This has the perverse incentive of making a property more valuable to the seller (who pays less tax) than the buyer.

    They can also be hijacked by small motivated groups. EG in Austin, Texas recently they voted to force ridesharing companies to collect some biometric data on their drivers. In a metro area of 2 million people 40k voted against the measure and 50k voted in favour. Uber and Lyft promptly cancelled their service in the city, as they had threatened to do.

    I think if there are minimum requirements placed on the vote (eg 60% turnout) then referendums can be good and make politicians more accountable to their constituents than they currently are.

    I think holding separate ones is a waste of time and money.

  • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2016 - 15:30
    +1

    So far 14/33 ppl believe we can trust the government to make decisions for us. LOFL.

  • Diji1 on 30/06/2016 - 16:02
    +1

    Not really.

    Referendums boil down to answering one question. Telling people that they have power by answering one of two options that the powerful propose is a classic way of keeping control which is basically controlling the options. It causes foolish people to assume they exercise power by answering one question.

    A recent example of this was the Republic referendum that Howard ran.

  • BuyoTheCat on 30/06/2016 - 16:16

    I suggest a new political party. The OZB Party

    • c0balt on 30/06/2016 - 16:24
      +1

      There's already a party that advocates being thrifty with money.

      • cDNA on 30/06/2016 - 23:46
        +1

        Liberal Party

        • Speckled Jim on 02/07/2016 - 13:24
          +2

          Let's see…
          Record defence spending (how's JSF going for ya?!)…
          …followed by record PTSD spending.

          Sounds like a win-win to me!
          /sarcasm

          Damn. I was calling out Coalition fanboys in the 2014 budget topic. You were all so very quiet then.
          Where were you? Smart enough to avoid that one eh?

        • cDNA on 02/07/2016 - 15:15

          @mcmonte:

          When Indonesia and Malaysia invade due to a lack of resources, natural disaster or running out of land to house their 250+ million population, then you'll be on your feet begging the Liberal Party and the US for big weapons and aircraft.

          In the past 2000 years, there has been a war nearly ever century. Don't assume that we're safe just because we have the US on our side. Humans are violent organisms, especially those who follow radical islamic teachings and radical christian doctrine.

        • Speckled Jim on 02/07/2016 - 16:27

          Humans are violent organisms, especially those who follow radical islamic teachings and radical christian doctrine.

          At least we agree on this. So does this guy:
          Part 1
          Part 2

          Enjoy your reading!

        • BigTed on 04/07/2016 - 11:23

          @mcmonte: I think both sides of politics are profligate but the JSF is not a good example for you to use.
          Australia signed up to the JSF program in 2002. Both sides of politics have had plenty of opportunity since then to pull the pin on it.

        • Speckled Jim on 04/07/2016 - 13:39

          You present me with fish in a barrel. Shall I pull the trigger?

          You won't like it. It will upset you. You may cry. You may lash out at a loved one.

          Shall I?

    • Mumbles on 01/07/2016 - 10:15
      +2

      Right on. I'd vote for a party that removes ALL price discrimination.

      I'm sick of paying more for items because we live in Australia a.k.a the "Australia Tax". Its getting ridiculous the number of items and companies who are doing it. Eg. iTunes, Netflix, Ikea, Sony, Klipsch, Porsche, Mercedes, …

      I recommend creating a consumer watch dog with teeth. Start with outlawing internet geo-blocking. Remove artificially created DVD region codes.

      Lower postage costs. Increase international free trade agreements. Amazon for everybody!

  • Tech5 on 30/06/2016 - 16:44
    +3

    The problem with referendums, plebiscites and democracy in this regard is that 51% of the population can completely override the voice of the 49%

    • ozhunter on 01/07/2016 - 06:17
      +1

      Well you could just let the government deal with it, but then that's less than 1% of people overriding the rest.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/07/2016 - 16:29

      That is not correct. In Australia you have to have a double majority. The chances of achieving that on 51% are negligible.

  • scupper on 30/06/2016 - 16:55
    +3

    Evidence shows that the public is susceptible to scaremongering. Just like the support for brexit and even the Iraq war. The best decisions are not made in fear.

  • meumax on 30/06/2016 - 17:23
    +4

    There can sometimes be problems with referendum because they can boil complicated issues down to a simple yes no vote when a more nuanced compromise is the better outcome. Most political questions do deserve better than a black and white answer.

    Your poll demonstrates the issue nicely. I can only choose between more referendum or let the government decide everything when what I really want to say is, use referendum where appropriate and it offers a real benefit and let the government do their job otherwise.

  • glengood on 30/06/2016 - 18:34

    The government should start an Facebook page and just make FB polls. What's the worst that could happen?

    • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2016 - 18:48
      +1

      80% of the voters would be younger persons thus leaving older adults who typically/historically have seen longer term tendencies of parties for starters. That surely counts for something.

      Your comment reminded me of a conversation I had with someone a few years back…

      He stated that it is laughable to allow 18 years olds voting privileges. Argument was what does the average 18 year old know about party politics? He went on to say the minimum voting age should be raised to at least 21, which I'm sure would still have some arguing that even at that age…

    • Diji1 on 30/06/2016 - 20:50
      +4

      I'd have to make a Facebook account?

  • saintmagician0 on 30/06/2016 - 19:14
    +2

    Note that the word referendum means different things in different countries.

    With brexit fresh on our minds, a lot of people think a referendum is basically like brexit. But in Britain, what they call a referendum is not legally binding. Where as in Australia, it is. So make sure we're talking about the Australian referendum here.

    For people who like the idea of more referendums - if what you like is to be able to individually vote on issues, you could consider supporting this political party:
    https://voteflux.org/
    I think their idea is to have a phone app or sth so people can vote on individual issues, and their candidates if elected will vote/act according to the poll results (of their supporters).

    Actual referendums are expensive to run and don't work well for issues that don't have a yes or no answer. Gay marriage allowed - yes or no, is actually an easy question to vote on. Refugees allowed - not at all, only from these countries, only political refugees, only religious refugees, no except for children and families, yes but only this many a year, yes but only with security checks… my god we'd be wasting all of our time just deciding on what the allowed options are!

  • coolfriendjoachim on 30/06/2016 - 19:22
    +3

    This recent column by David Mitchell about Brexit sums up my feelings on it pretty well. Most people aren't really informed enough to make those kinds of decisions (even if some of them think they are). I know I'm definitely not. It is the responsibility of parliament to make these decisions, and to be well-informed about them. It's our responsibility to elect people who are up to the task, and it's their responsibility to live up to that.

    (In particular, the idea of a plebiscite on gay marriage is infuriating to me. Why should people like me, who have nothing to do with it, get a say in whether or not other people can get married? Especially considering Malcolm Turnbull himself has said he'd support gay marriage. All it'll do is give a megaphone to minority hate groups, waste money, and divide people. Just do it, and it'll be done.)

    • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2016 - 19:25

      I guess only time will tell.

    • BigTed on 01/07/2016 - 11:56
      +1

      I really don't like your idea of outsourcing your thinking about difficult issues to the political classes and really hope most other people don't feel the same way you do.
      I have met many members of parliament and, save for the odd one or two, wasn't impressed with their intellect.

      • coolfriendjoachim on 01/07/2016 - 15:17

        I don't advocate for outsourcing to the political class; my hope would be that the political class outsource to experts, rather than the average person. Like I said; it's our responsibility to elect competent people. Vote for the "odd one or two" you were impressed by.

        In particular, vote for people who ARE willing to seek out and listen to experts in the matters. Neither regular people, nor politicians, are experts in macroeconomics, or international relations; we should hope that the people making the decisions ARE experts.

        • BigTed on 04/07/2016 - 11:26

          Your response indicates you understand our political system as well as most of my colleagues who believe that they just voted for Turnbull or Shorten - even though they live in WA.
          The few politicians who have impressed me don't happen to run in my electorate(s).

        • coolfriendjoachim on 04/07/2016 - 16:29

          @BigTed: That's a cool assumption, friend. It's wrong, though. It's a shame you don't like the politicians in your electorate. I'm sorry. But so far you've not read my first post, and extrapolated nonsense from my second post. Considering the point you're defending is "the electorate is well-informed enough to be trusted with referendums on important matters", I don't feel like you're doing a great job.

  • Adz81 on 30/06/2016 - 19:37
    +6

    The best argument against giving the general public more say about how their country is run can be found in the comments section of any article on www.news.com.au.

  • goegge on 30/06/2016 - 20:20
    +2

    In Switzerland, Direct Democracy has a long tradition: The origins of Direct Democracy can be traced back to the late the middle ages: archaic forms (assemblies of the electorate discussing and deciding major political issues) have been practised in part of the country since the founding of the Old Swiss Confederacy in 1291.
    Swiss voters are given the opportunity to vote in federal referendums on average four times a year. Typically, voters will also vote on a number of cantonal (State) and local issues on the day of a federal ballot. For any change in the constitution, a referendum is mandatory (mandatory referendum); for any change in a law, a referendum can be requested (optional referendum).
    For example the voters had five propositions on the ballot for the 5 June 2016 referendum:
    1. A popular initiative for fair transport financing. According to this initiative, revenue from fuel tax will be used exclusively for road construction.
    2. A popular initiative for public service. Launched by four news and consumer rights magazines, this initiative seeks to improve public services by mandating that the government not set any profitmaking goals for public services, that any profits not fund the overall budget, and that public service directors do not earn more than the corresponding government minister.
    3. A referendum on amendments to the medically assisted reproduction law.
    4. A referendum on amendments to the federal asylum law.
    Whether this system of governing a nation is better than others is of course up for debate. I personally like it.

  • Bystander on 30/06/2016 - 20:53
    +4

    Political parties go into elections with very few policies and promises. And we're asked to vote for them based on this. And for the majority of their term they make decisions without consultation and frequently not in the best interacts of the people.

    Personally I think the majority of people should get what they want the majority of the time. So yes, more polling for peoples opinions.

    I also think that there is a growing number of people who want to be heard. That's why people are voting for Brexit, Trump, and for minor parties.

    • Bystander on 01/07/2016 - 02:01

      should read
      best interests of the people

    • scupper on 01/07/2016 - 04:27
      +2

      Hence don't let any of the 2 major parties get majority. A hung parliament will act as a brake on the winning party from doing whatever they want without adequate consultation from other representatives of the people.

  • Diji1 on 30/06/2016 - 20:57
    +1

    It almost sounds like a democracy.

    Of course over here we follow the American model which is only the extremely wealthy have access to political power by making payments and a huge charade is performed every few years where people are forced to vote in order to pretend that we live in a democracy.

    • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2016 - 21:21

      I hear your sarcasm & despondency… can't say I entirely dissagree.

  • centrelink on 01/07/2016 - 00:23

    I'd say yes, who doesn't want a bit of political power?

  • RefusdClassification on 01/07/2016 - 02:13

    It is common for people to winge about politicians, but unfortunately very few people want to genuinely change the situation. Although they will deny it, most people hate freedom. Their heads hurt every time they have to make a decision or do something to define their lives. They want the government (the leviathan "nanny" state) to coddle them, to look after them and make decisions for them.

    Democracy is an awful system in reality. It is not about government 'of the people, by the people, for the people'. In reality society is ruled by a coalition of 2 elites groups: wealthy free market capitalists (oligarchs) and well-off social progressives (what Americans call 'Liberals'). Group 1 wants to get richer by exploiting,manipulating and stealing from the common folk (gambling ads are a good example of these oligarchs at work), and Group 2, wants to indoctrinate everyone with their ideology, just like their Communist ancestors did. While pretending to care about the poor, Progressives actually despise them because they do not share their progressive values (the ALP, Greens and Democrats fit into this category). These 2 groups win every election. We are effectively a one party country: different politicians but the some governance. Immigration is a great example of this monopoly: no matter who you vote for, you get the same result - hundreds of thousands of people each year flooding into our overcrowded, congested, overpriced cities.

    Look at our elected officials. How representative are they of our community? Politicans are mostly lawyers, bankers, and highly paid Union officials: upper middle class folk. We would get better government by using a computer to randomly select a representative for each seat the people who live in that electorate, and ditto for the Senate, randomly chosen individuals from thoss of voting age who live in the State. The end result would be a parliament that perfectly represents the Community, a broad spectrum of people: labourers, sales clerks, pensioners, self funded retirees, university students, unemployed, underpaid fast food workers, police, stay at home mums, homeowners, landlords, renters, Christians, atheists, agnostics, disabled and so on.

    Australia democracy is the pits because of the Caucus system. What is the point of having all of these politicians in Canberra if party members vote as a block? Why not just have 1 member per party. Politicians never cross the floor since their party will give them the boot. (We have the ALP to thank for the Caucus system monstrosity). At least in 'Murica politicians can vote freely rather than being forced to tow the party line.

    Referendums could be held very cheaply if we adopted electronic voting. Almost every household has access to an internet enabled device, and we could have computers at schools, nursing homes, shopping centres, grocery stores and libraries for those without benighted folk smartphones or PCs.

    At the next election, say no to this contemptible system by defacing your ballot paper, or voting for someone other than the Libs, ALP or Greens. Say No to fake democracy.

  • Bystander on 01/07/2016 - 02:30
    +2

    As Mumbles writes above, the majority of referenda fail. Which highlights one of the big issues, how the questions are written. Take for example the Republic Referendum. It was clear that the majority of Republicans wanted a head of state elected by the people but Malcolm Turnbull ensured that the question put to us was "whether Australia should become a republic with a President appointed by Parliament".

    So while the majority of Australians do want a republic they also want a say in who becomes president. And the result was predictably that many voted against that particular republic model.

    So while I definitely believe that the people should be consulted more often I also think that the questions need to be de-politicised.

  • Geewhizz on 01/07/2016 - 06:10
    +2

    Referendums are only held regarding changes to the constitution. When it comes to the day to day running of the country we are at the mercy of the politicians.

    To be honest, based on the results of some elections where parties have campaigned heavily on a particular agenda, and won, I wouldn't want the general public having too much of a say in a lot of matters. At the end of the day the general public has no accountability and are clearly too easily swayed by the media etc.

  • cowiie on 01/07/2016 - 07:55

    Countries

    It's spelt country's

    You're welcome.

    • c0balt on 01/07/2016 - 09:58
      +4

      No, no it's not. Here it is so others can see you are attempting to 'correct' - "I do believe that the overall running of the/a countries should be done by the political party".

      It's a pathetic act to post only to 'correct' someone's spelling. To make an incorrect correction makes it both embarrassing, and pathetic.

      You should be reprimanded in the OZB court. Prosecution should move to have you banned from posting for 1 month. All in favour say aye!

      • cowiie on 01/07/2016 - 14:31
        +1

        I was referring to the title.

        But if that is wrong as well, I didn't know. Thanks for correcting me.

        • c0balt on 01/07/2016 - 15:56
          +2

          The defence brought new information to the trial.

          The prosecution does not know how it missed this evidence.

          The Judge looks to be moving for a mistrial and the defence gets off with just a stern look.

          OZB court is now out of session.

        • cowiie on 01/07/2016 - 18:57

          @c0balt: haha all good.

  • Sweetnsour on 01/07/2016 - 09:45
    +2

    Referendums are expensive and divides a country. During elections "battle lines" are drawn but they are only every 3 years. We don't need another reason to hate each other. The ugly side of referendums is the far left/right. The majority moderates are from out by the noise of the extremes.

    We vote for our politicians to do a job, we only need referendums if they change our constitution or have major country changing impact.

  • snook on 01/07/2016 - 10:34
    +1

    I'm sure that they could set up electronic online polling and voting could be voluntary. After setup, minimal cost, and they could actually touch base with consituents which they do F all now.

    At the very least it would give a general idea of how important an issue was and whether it actually needed further attention.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/07/2016 - 15:35

      Electronic polling is problematic because of the possibility of tampering/rigging, etc. Friends were able to "rig" a few relatively large voting competitions when we were in high school - imagine the opportunities for people with actual education/skills/knowledge to FSU.

  • Whomastadon on 01/07/2016 - 10:38

    IMO politicians dont care about social issues like gay marriage, immigration, welfare for poor / old people, healthcare. All they care about is money and serving the big businesses that their mates run and the ones that line up with their own self interests. The only time you'll hear the pollies speaking about social issues is coming up to an election, when they need votes, or if an event happens that they think will affect their standing.

    • snook on 04/07/2016 - 10:39

      Exactly. There isn't a Senator in the US that isn't a millionaire. Same thing is going to happen here.

  • jayzee on 01/07/2016 - 10:50
    +2

    Should we have a referendum to let Bill Shorten know that the SSM legislation is not country's Number One priority.

  • MrFrugalSpend on 01/07/2016 - 11:30
    +5

    What you need to remember is, no matter how concerned or interested in particular political matters you are, there are millions of people out there who:

    (A) Don't know enough about the issue to make an informed decision;
    (B) Don't have the time or care about the issue enough;
    (C) Don't take each issue seriously (The Boaty-McBoatface Issue); and
    (D) Don't have to deal with the consequences of the decision.

    Accordingly, experts need to be elected and employed to be fully informed about the full facts, work through the issues, develop policies, and manage the flow-on effects. Unfortunately cheap politics often take over from electing respectable officials to take us forward (from all sides of government), but that's generally how it is supposed to work.

    For example, if you have a referendum on whether everyone in Australia should be given $1 million by the government - it would probably get passed with flying colours. However the reality is people would quit work, it would devalue the currency, the inflation would be disastrous, it would bankrupt the country, destroy businesses, and degrade our credit rating, and we'd all suffer greatly as a result.

    Popular opinion is often not the best outcome once these matters are fully researched and understood. Not enough people will take the time to do that with a referendum on every issue. Same with refugee intake that you speak of - there are practical realities to deal with (affordable housing opportunities, infrastructure, jobs, language support, financial assistance - it takes resources to actually improve people's living standards). Its a balance, whether you think the intake should be higher, lower, or is the same - its a reality that all 6 billion people on earth can't move here tomorrow, on the opposite end of the scale it is irresponsible and in-compassionate to help no one - Somewhere in the middle is a sensible ground and it is far too complicated to put it out to a vote (rather, elected officials and experts need to work through the problem determine what we can do to help and when).

  • SirFlibbled on 01/07/2016 - 11:43

    If you have enough referendums, then the effectiveness and the level of discourse around it will diminish.

    We live in a representative democracy that we can vote out our members of parliament every 3 years if we don't like them. The establishment has, obviously, had a hold on this process for decades, but it seems like this may be breaking down with parties like the Greens and the Nick X team coming into prominence. At the end of the day though, just because you dont agree with your MP's stance on issues, the electoral process is what it is and they do represent the majority of the electorate.

  • [Deactivated] on 01/07/2016 - 11:49
    +1

    If the vote is non-binding anyway, has anyone considered the possibility of holding it online?

    They have government accounts with 2FA and all that physically verification. Why not make it more accessible to cast your preference online? It would be cheaper too. Each account can only vote once obviously.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join