Talk:CascadeGovernment

from: http://www.facebook.com/nemothorx/posts/10150198476968216

Nemo Thorx Dear #QLD, a unicamarel legislature is not cool. Get some checks, balances, and an upper house. Thanks. 16 May at 20:38 via Twitter

     Margaret Bremner likes this.

           Nemo Thorx btw, from the Democratic Audit of Australia...
           http://house.cx/qldgov
           16 May at 23:24 · 

           Nemo Thorx ‎(house.cx being yet-another-URL-shortening service, so you may see me using it more from time to time now :)
           16 May at 23:24 · 

           Alex Unreason Unicamarel senates are cool.
           Tuesday at 00:11 · 

           Nemo Thorx too much Doctor Who for you sir.

           Also, banana and caramel, thanks :)
           Tuesday at 00:19 · 

           Alex Unreason ‎...*does not know how he made a Doctor Who reference*
           Tuesday at 00:19 · 

           Nemo Thorx it's all in how it's said, and, to be honest, usually about an item of clothing. Especially hats.
           Tuesday at 00:20 · 

           Alex Unreason But I like unicameral senates. They are proportionally representative and doesn't afraid of anything.
           Tuesday at 00:21 · 

           Nemo Thorx yes, but that's not what I'm talking about.
           Tuesday at 00:25 · 

           Alex Unreason Uni-caramels?
           Tuesday at 00:25 · 

           Nemo Thorx QLD has no senate
           Tuesday at 00:26 · 

           Alex Unreason Yes, I'm aware. I was originally stating my preference for the exact opposite of what Queensland has.
           Tuesday at 00:27 · 

           Nemo Thorx ok good. I wasn't quite sure there :)

           My preference, in fact, is that the senate be populated by representatives of the next level of govt down. (ie, federal senate populated by state reps. state senates populated by local government (city and shire) reps)
           Tuesday at 00:29 · 

           Alex Unreason
           I can see the reasoning, it's a pretty idea. I also can't see that being a responsible system of governance.

           Each level of government is going to be in conflict, and choosing who exactly represents the "best interests" of that government ...on the next level up is going to be hard enough - without it also eating into the ability of those members to be responsible to the lower level of government they are a part of.

           The more of their time they have to split, the less likely they are to be able to grasp the events on both levels. And the more likely they are to give the higher level more attention. As much as politicians don't do, they still need to keep on top of information.
           Tuesday at 00:55 · 

           Nemo Thorx
           choosing who 'best represents' is the same issue as we currently have for any ministerial seat.

           I don't see why the state government having a (or a few) "minister for the federal senate". The state govts can choose however they want imho, b...ut a current-senate like restriction on changing too often might be good. (say: once you're a minister for sitting on the next level-up senate, you retain the position for a set period of time, regardless of local level government change. however you lose the position if you lose your local representative seat)

           Politicians always serve multiple masters (the population, the party, the cabinet job they have), so I don't see this as being greatly different.

           I think it DOES risk a greater level of bureaucracy (though perhaps that is balanced by reducing the number of actual politicians?See more
           Tuesday at 01:11 · 

           Nemo Thorx
           anyway, this isn't a new idea of mine, and my other thoughts and writeups are on the inevitable wikilink: http://wiki.thorx.net/wiki/CascadeGovernment

           also note, this has come back into my head due to a proposal by the QLD party to reintrodu...ce the Upper House here, and populate it with local city Mayors (which I think is nuts, even if the same basic idea as I have. Mayors are the WRONG PEOPLE)

           direct link to the news: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-party-vows-to-reintroduce-upper-house-20110516-1eoiy.htmlSee more
           Tuesday at 01:13 · 

           Alex Unreason I'm not so much concerned about them serving multiple masters as much as I am concerned that they will be less able to pay attention. If a politician has to watch twice as many issues at once, they will not be as good at representing the people they're meant to represent.
           Tuesday at 19:35 · 

           Nemo Thorx
           that's easy enough to solve. exclude them from voting on state matters (for state->federal style)

           their state colleagues would act as advisors on state matters to them, so they can voice those concerns federally, and they would act as revers...e communicators from the federal level back to the states.

           of course, as with all things people based (and especially political), what something is designed to do, and how people subvert it... can be very different things :/
           Tuesday at 19:44 · 

           Alex Unreason
           I think that actually causes more problems not less.

           If an individual crosses more than one governmental body and cannot vote in the lower level, they cease to be useful to their seat's constituents because they can no longer vote in the lev...el of government that's closer to them.

           It also highlights a further flaw - if each level of government is derived from representatives of lower levels of government, then federal politicans must be state AND local politicians as well, while likewise being excluded from voting in either of the two lower levels.
           Tuesday at 19:57 · 

           Nemo Thorx
           no, govt is not made from reps from the lower levels. govt would be directly elected (in as far as what we have now is "direct"

           I'm only talking about the upper house - so,
           federal upper house is made from state reps.
           (and state upper house ...is made from local council area members)

           the senate is meant to represent the states and provide a house of review. I'm just saying that the states already have representatives - so let's use them!

           not being able to rep at the level they were elected to though - yeah, good point. (though given some parties don't allow crossing the floor at all, the point is almost moot at a practical level, but certainly valid at a conceptual one). I'll have to rethink angles on that

           Of course, I'd like to ban banning of crossing the floor too, but that'd be impossible to enforce I think
           Tuesday at 20:54 · 

           Alex Unreason Banning banning of crossing the floor is easy - ban political parties, make each individual stand on their own policies. :P
           Wednesday at 12:23 · 

           Nemo Thorx yes... so who forms government?

           (I'm also a fan of the idea of liquid democracy, but that has it's own raft of problems... :/
           Wednesday at 12:35 · 

           Alex Unreason Well it's not really liquid democracy unless you have any-time-voting, but you can elect people to portfolio positions and you don't actually need a Prime Minister.
           Wednesday at 12:43 · 

           Nemo Thorx oh, I know that partyless is not liquid. Liquid definitely does require any-time voting, and a politically aware (and maybe even active and educated) populace
           Wednesday at 12:55 · 

           Alex Unreason Actually, practically speaking you could elect people to portfolio positions and have no Prime Minister even with parties, although the Prime Minister position might still be useful then.
           Wednesday at 12:59 · 

           Nemo Thorx ‎/me copies this discussion to //wiki.thorx.net/wiki/Talk:CascadeGovernment
           2 seconds ago ·