Frequently asked questions
Q. We won't know how they vote, will we?
A. Yes, no doubt you wouldn't know which way your MP voted. But under the present system it isn't worth knowing anyway.
Q. You refer to ex-party MPs but I don't think you have explained why an
MP is, suddenly, no longer aligned to a party.
A. They can be. But when the party is no longer able to control it's MPs' votes the game will change. From that point the party's interest in endorsing that member will vabish, as no member can then be relied upon to vote according to the policy decided upon by the party.
The basis of the power and financial support for the party to win the next election and pass desired legislation rests on the foundation of the compliant voting team in parliament.
AS the financial support dries up, the power of the party hierarchy will vanish, and their ex-members will be out in the cold.
Existing and prospective party members will therefore have little option but to relate realistically with their electorate, literally.acting as independents.
Existing members, in safe seats, will find a subtle change in their security as minority voters sniff a fresh wind of opportunity for change.
Q. You are proposing that votes be secret, but when they debate they indicate which way they are going to vote, so then their vote is publicly known. So, their vote is only secret if they don't participate in the debate?
A. Certainly they will disclose their attitude on the issue by debating, and their vote could be reasonably assumed. Not all will feel the need to debate, if the tenor of debate is favourable.
With all members free to respond, a majority of the whole parliament will be free to be won on any issue - by persuasive debate. Those who don't show their hand in debate will be the 'fish' to be caught in the ballot.
Members will act independently in achieving results desired by their electorate - an attractive scenario for all worthwhile participants.
Q. Why would a political party not still be relevant?
A. A party is a group specifically designed to seek political power - to win elections, establish an executive and rule without reference to other competing groups. The ballot in parliament will severely inhibit, even prevent, that kind of objective, with rule by a parliament-appointed executive. Some of those executives may have been party executives, but will then be subject to parliamentary rule, or be deposed.
Q. People of similar mind (ideology?) will still meet to discuss how to win their objectives.
A. There is nothing to prevent that. But it will become evident that local meetings will present free, and effective opportunities for protagonists to pursue any particular issue of merit - very effectively.
All issues will then be better attended to with effective impact in local meetings. Ideology will give way to objective community assessment of the various issues which will each need to win the needed support on merit, and be launched in parliament by the local member. People acceptably active in local meetings will be possible rivals to a sitting member who proves inadequate.
But, as Abraham Lincoln said:'In this country public opinion is everything.'
That is the democracy to which we aspire.
Q. Local members, or aspirants, may be amongst the smartest, most confident, most articulate, most charismatic etc . Would these not attract substantial following in respect of certain issues and overwhelm all opposition.
A. Possibly. But the local member, local media and other constituents are not likely to lie down under such an eventuality. The danger appears less than at first might be thought. With the ballot we are facing a new democratic system, growing in strength to combat undue influence.
Q. Perhaps a ghost-writer could write a novel that might throw light on the way it would work out in practice, outlining in detail the transition to ballots in parliament in a way people could relate to.
A. Sounds like a great idea! We'll just have to see if a writer might catch the vision and
volunteer!
Party