Assembly shrieks at the idea of getting a real job

shutterbug said :

p1 said :

Do away with the idea of voting for parties at all. Each name randomly on the ballot, you have to vote for them all in order. While I concede that the assembly would be full of useless crackpots and weirdos, at least it would be better then now…

hmmm, dozpot – the crackpot for top spot?

For some reason those ad’s always made me think “Tosspot”

“Tosspot for topspot”

p1 said :

Do away with the idea of voting for parties at all. Each name randomly on the ballot, you have to vote for them all in order. While I concede that the assembly would be full of useless crackpots and weirdos, at least it would be better then now…

hmmm, dozpot – the crackpot for top spot?

Do away with the idea of voting for parties at all. Each name randomly on the ballot, you have to vote for them all in order. While I concede that the assembly would be full of useless crackpots and weirdos, at least it would be better then now…

caf said :

The premise behind the poll is flawed. You can believe “If they can’t get anything done in 12 years its time to move on“, but also believe that the responsibility is upon the electorate to enforce this.

Since the Hare-Clark system allows us to support particular candidates rather than just Party tickets, there’s really not a strong argument that the electorate can’t get rid of the timeservers if it wants to. Didn’t that happen to a Liberal MLA or two at the last election – beaten by a newcomer from the same party?

Yeah with Caf on this. The local system is well designed to allow us to boot show-up-only people out of the Assembly. Or they see the writing on the wall and bail before facing the ignonimy…

“I would like to suggest that the ACT Electoral Office consider doing away with those expensive ballots for the next election and just use a poll here on the RiotACT. Surely the result couldn’t be any worse.”

+1

I would like to suggest that the ACT Electoral Office consider doing away with those expensive ballots for the next election and just use a poll here on the RiotACT. Surely the result couldn’t be any worse.

Has anyone served that long?

I would like to think that if we ever find one good enough to re-elect that many times, we should be able to keep him/her. My suspicion is that we’ve kept some hims and hers in office despite the fact that we’ve never found one good enough…

I don’t think it’s a particularly bad thing to limit terms, but I do think it would be better to vote them out rather than legislate them out. Therefore I would like to suggest a better system: public ballots. That way whoever the idiots were who voted for Hargreaves and Gallagher could be named and shamed…

I think its worth considering a term limit for the leaders, but you dont want to be cycling the entire assembly too regularly, unless you want an assembly of inexperience as well as incompetence every 4 years when those up for their term limits move on. Having said that, Chief Jon has been better behaved than some others who have been around longer than he.

However, those people who are members of government, are elected by the people to represent them and in some situations (think rural areas) they may wish to continue with a known and established representative. That thinking doesnt so much apply in this situation, but.. better the devil you know.

phototext said :

Two term limit, something Costello wishes had existed here I’m sure.

+1

Some states have term limits for the Governor, some state legislators have them and New York has a two term limit on (or been changed to three by Bloomberg ?) elected officials, Giuliani couldn’t run again for New York Mayor.

Two term limit, something Costello wishes had existed here I’m sure.