FormulaNova said...
Yeah, I can just imagine it...
the first week's vote: "who wants to spend more money on schools"?
the next week's vote: "who wants to spend more money on roads"?
the third week's vote: "who wants an increase in taxes to pay for the last two votes"?
Despite the media making out that it is easy and the decisions are simple, I would argue that I understand it enough to know its not that simple.
Not much different to how parliament runs in Australia now anyway. Ministers go to the PM asking for money. The PM says yes. The finance minister says no. The treasurer sides with the PM and then says to the people we need a new tax.
Representative democracy is failing, ie it failing to represent us much and quite often it doesn't represent us at all. Politicians increasing represent sectional and special interest groups as they can bring pressure to bare down on politicians. It happens on both sides, ie the mining tax backdown and the carbon tax introduction.
In each case most Australians were probably against each decision made, ie scaling back the super profits tax (what a stupid name) and introducing the carbon tax. In each case special interest groups, ie big miners and the greens, pushed their agenda onto the politicians and got it through. In each case it went against the better judgement of the politicians to make the decision they did but they failed to stand up for themselves.