Ben commented on Ben's question: “But we have real examples of represenatives democracy in parliament right now - whatever you think of the politics of Katter, Windsor, Oakeshott and Wilkie, they seem to genuinely fight for the needs of their communties and aren't controlled by backroom pollsters. MPs should be about people, not parties. Italy's woes are mostly economic, there are functional models of multiparty, or even post-party, democracies all over the world.”
Ben commented on Ben's question: “I didn't say that the interests of the electorate never fit with the party line, just that an MP's priorities should lie with the former rather the than latter. The lower house was envisioned as a genuine house of representatives; not a bloated, homogeneous duocracy. Of course parties act disproportionately in the interests of marginal seats, that's precisely the problem. As for the balancing function of parliament, I agree entirely – but that can't happen when parochial interests (other than those of Sydney's Western suburbs) never leave...”
Ben asked the question: “Given that the vast majority of State and Federal MPs vote according to party lines rather than the specific interests of their electorates, how can we ensure that community needs are addressed by government? Is systematic change required if we are to move beyond lazy populism and obsequious pork-barrelling?”
