Q1: You're running on a policy platform that consists of one policy?

A1: The first Policy 'Make it LAW that elected representatives in the Australian Parliament must vote as directed by the majority of voters in their electorates.' in a Democracy it is key to all that follows. Without this policy in place it doesn't matter what the majority want it can always be over-ruled by parliament.

All the other policies for the electorate are either proposed by the voters in the electorate ( as the elected rep is also a voter they can propose and vote a policy ) or are determined by the legislation that is scheduled to be voted on in the next session of parliament.

Q2: How will you determine what a statistically viable sample size of respondents will be?

A2: In the VoteWrap method when voters initially engage with a policy they will rate it using the simple scale of High/Medium/Low to reflect how Urgent and how Important this policy is to them. A value is then assigned to each selection:

• High = 3
•  Medium = 2
•  Low =1

The total of Urgency and Importance will be calculated and then divided by the number of voters. This will give an averaged Importance ( e.g. 1.48437 ) and an averaged Urgency ( e.g. 2.15296 ). These values are then rounded to a whole number:

•  Less than 1.5 = 1
•  1.5 and less than 2.5 = 2
• 2.5 or greater = 3

 Which in this example gives:

• Importance 1.48437 = 1 ( Low )
• Urgency = 2.15296 = 2 ( Medium )

Using these values we read a 3 x 3 matrix to determine the required voting % to achieve a consensus on the policy: 

                  

Note that the VoteWrap method uses a variable consensus level because experience shows that as a policy becomes more important then a higher level of consensus is required for a stable result. If a policy is of high importance and you only get 51% then there is 49% of the constituency who will work to undermine the outcome. If the majority is higher then the opposition group become smaller and less able to undermine the result. Experience also shows that the less urgent a policy is then the more time there is available to build a greater consensus which again will increase the stability of the final result.

Now to answer your question about determining a statistically viable sample size of respondents. Using the example values of Importance & Urgency above we then read a similar matrix for voting compulsion.

             

In this example the vote will be Voluntary and the sample size will be whatever the number of voters who care to vote for the policy. 

In the very unlikely event that nobody in the electorate cares about this policy then the elected representative can vote for what they think is best for the electorate.

If the Urgency decreased and/or the Importance increased then the vote becomes compulsory and all voters must have their vote counted for it to be valid.

It is impractical to get everybody to vote directly on every compulsory policy. But it is practical with a network of Bill Representatives collecting proxy votes from voters who don't have the time to be directly involved.

These proxy votes can either be Directed, which means that the voter instructs the policy representative how to vote. Or they will be Open which means that the Bill Representatives can cast the proxy however they see fit. At this point it is expected that there will still be many voters who haven't engaged with the policy either directly or by instructing their policy rep. This is where the network of general representatives will come into play. The policy reps will then engage with the general reps requesting them to cast their blocks of general proxy votes to build to the required consensus.

So even if the vote is compulsory at say 65% it will in most cases not require 100% of all eligible voters to have either their direct or proxy vote counted. For example if 80% of voters have had their vote and that was enough to reach the 65% consensus then the remaining 20% of voters would not have to be counted.

If a consensus isn't reached by the policy's deadline then the representative votes for the position with the most votes even if it is below the required consensus level. For example if 20% say No and 25% say yes then the vote will be Yes.

A further point to note is that under the current rules of the Australian parliament only a 50%+ result is needed to pass legislation. So when the voters in the electorate are deciding what their majority position is on upcoming parliamentary votes they will use 50%+. But the matrix position for Compulsion will still be used to determine if it is to be a Compulsory or Voluntary vote.

Q3: Who will actually keep you accountable?

A3: The voters & the representation of general and Bill representatives will keep the rep accountable because they are the ones who are voting on the policies. In my case I have signed a statutory declaration saying that I will vote as directed by the majority so I say that makes me directly accountable. And if for some reason I did go against the will of the voters then I have declared that I would offer my resignation of I did. That has to be 100% accountability.

Q4: How will it be enforced?

A4: As I have legally committed myself to representing the majority of voters using the legal instrument of a Commonwealth Statutory Declaration if I fail to do that then I will be liable to serve a jail sentence of 4 years. So the Commonwealth ultimately will enforce my adherence to representing the majority Will. 

Q5: How do you plan to address that the ability of the electorate to ask questions is infinitely greater than one person's capacity to answer them?

A5: Even with the best of intentions it is as good as impossible for one person to represent the 100,000+ voters in a federal electorate. The proposed solution to this dilemma is to establish a grassroots network of Policy and General Representatives. The Policy Representatives will be focused on individual policies bringing to bear their respective knowledge and experience to deliver a majority position on each policy to the elected Representative. The General Representatives will use the proxy votes they hold to vote for policies that those who they represent have no interest in, or even awareness of. And using the VoteWrap method it is possible for thousands, millions or even billions of voters to be watching debates or receiving information via any channel relevant to the policy. As they individually vote their votes are aggregated in real time to give immediate feedback on each policy or policy element they are voting on.

Q6: This is a dreadful idea. The general population doesn’t have the necessary training or education to make legislative decisions, it also doesn’t have access to qualified advisors like politicians do. Plus minorities need to be protected against mob rule. Just an awful awful idea. What is needed is politicians who will act in the true interest of all, and who are devoted to bringing about a better world.

A6: You are right that we do need politicians that will act in the true interest of all, and who are devoted to bringing about a better world. Unfortunately that is exactly what we don't have because the two organised political mobs are playing political party games to get elected again instead of governing for the long term benefit of all Australians. They may have training, education & access to qualified advisors to make legislative decisions, but they frequently ignore that advice, and what the people are saying they want, and make politically expedient decisions that result in dreadful outcomes for the country and its people. The cynical manipulation of the Murray-Darling basin plan to give water to the big cotton irrigators resulting in the appalling recent mass fish kill would be a recent clear example. And how are they going at protecting minorities? Well I'd say not too well. The parties are more than happy to sacrifice  minorities for base political gain. Look at how they treat the unemployed, the homeless and other at risk minorities. In a country as wealthy as ours no one should be homeless. And recent evidence I have seen shows that it costs more to the public purse to have people homeless than it does to provide them with suitable accommodation. That is a clear example of the parties ignoring evidence based advice.

When I ask people in Dickson if they think their elected representative should represent what the majority want they overwhelmingly agree. I suspect that you haven't read my website to understand how I plan to address the very real issues you have raised.

I do think that with 100,000+ voters in a federal electorate that there will be sufficient people with the skills and knowledge to come up with viable policy positions. And where a policy covers multiple or all electorates in Australia that all of the specific policy groups from all interested electorates will work together making the pool of expertise and knowledge even broader and deeper.

Mob rule has always been a criticism of democratic systems. At the moment the mass of voters are not the mob ruling, it is the highly unrepresentative political parties and their donors. The mob rule dynamic coupled with group think is equally as bad in its own way. I believe the approach laid out on the Dickson Reps website will reduce the negative effect of mob rule to a level where it is no longer a problem. I could argue the pros & cons till the cows come home but that would be of little use if it isn't turned into practical action.