By Rich Bowden:

One of the more intriguing aspects of the 2010 election has been the rise of Senator Online, a direct representation model which aims to give Australians the opportunity to directly influence Parliamentary votes through the Internet. The model would allow voters to have their say on every Bill before Parliament through the Senator Online website with the elected representative bound to follow the majority view.

In an interview with the party’s NSW representative Wes Bas, theangle’s Rich Bowden discusses the concept, its strengths and pitfalls and how it can work for Australians.

Rich Bowden: Can you describe the core aims of the Senator Online political party?

Wes Bas: SOL believes in offering Australians the opportunity to develop their own informed opinion on Bills (being presented to Parliament) and issues shaping our nation, and for those opinions to be clearly heard. We believe this can be achieved by:

* Reaching as many people as possible through an easily accessible medium: the Internet;
* Giving Australians access to accurate information and balanced argument on each Bill before Parliament, and the important issues facing our nation;
* Offering people the opportunity to vote on the Bills and important issues concerning them and their wider community;
* Tallying the votes and determining the clear majority voice which will then be SOL’s view for the vote on each Bill;
* Giving the majority voice a chance to be clearly heard in Parliament above that of the vocal minority—not influenced by party politics or by deal doing;
* Encouraging more people to have a greater involvement in our social and political issues;
* Making our Australian political process more progressive;
* Promoting social and environmental change;
* Actively encouraging government accountability when presenting the case for amendments to existing legislation, or proposing new legislation.

RB: Are there any similar direct election systems such as Senator Online operating in any other part of the democratic world?

WB: SOL is direct representation or direct democracy as opposed to direct election.

There have been a number of attempts at a similar system, I believe that most of these have been progressive European countries.

The fact is that until now the SOL idea would not have been appropriate for Australia, even at the last federal election access to the internet was only about 60% which would not constitute a majority of Australians having the ability to interact with our party. However, the uptake of internet at home has risen to over 80% and with the other 20% having access at libraries, schools, work or internet cafes we are confident that we will be able to confidently represent the majority view.

RB: How does Senator Online stand on directing preferences to other parties?

WB: SOL is non-partisan. However, under the current Federal system we must give each party a preference; otherwise we would not get an above-the-line status on the Senate ballot paper.

Accordingly, for the upcoming Federal election after minor parties we will preference the same number of states to Liberal over Labor as Labor over Liberal.

How SOL allocates its preferences for each state will be determined by how these parties preference SOL.

RB: Is this the most direct form of direct democracy?

WB: Giving Australians the ability to have their say not just every three years, but every time on every bill or policy that is important to them means we are the only party that truly represents is constituents in a very transparent and accountable way.

RB: Hypothetically, what would you do if you were directed by a majority of the voters to vote for a proposal on which you fundamentally disagreed? (eg conscience issue)

WB: All senators will have the ability to voice their opinion on a topic via the SOL web site and through public comment.

My view is that the role of a politician is two fold. They must be able to inspire and influence their constituents to believe and abide by policies and laws that serve to better Australia but most importantly they must represent the majority view. The concept of a conscience vote should be the conscience of the constituents not the conscience of the individual politician.

In short, I would make my opinion very clear but where the majority dictates that I must vote in a particular way I am proud to say that I will represent that view. This is pure representation and in my mind the foundation of good politics.

RB: As anyone can vote online, wouldn’t the result of polling be subject to whoever can organise enough people to vote, whether they be another political party or lobby group? Therefore how real is the danger of the whole Senator Online concept being hijacked by vested interests and what is the organisation doing to prevent this occurrence?

WB: The integrity of the polls is fundamental to SOL. We are taking steps to ensure that it would be difficult for an organised group to hijack a poll.

The SOL executive will consider the effect that significant, biased and inaccurate campaigns run by organised groups might have on SOL’s online polling. The executive will also consider computer analysis of SOL’s polled votes if any unusual activity or voting patterns surrounding a vote is reported.

Bills not of national significance will probably poll less than the minimum 100,000 votes that SOL’s constitution requires to determine a party majority view. When less than 100,000 votes are polled, the SOL executive, including senators, will determine if a clear majority view is reached.

SOL expects that issues of national significance will result in large numbers of votes, especially given the extensive access to the internet, and because it will be easy to register as a poll member and vote. With a 70% threshold for a majority vote and polling numbers beyond 100,000, it will be difficult for an organised group to change a vote’s outcome.

RB: Wouldn’t Senator Online discriminate against certain demographics (ie the very poor and the elderly) who as a group are less likely to have internet access than say the young?

WB: I disagree. I think that SOL will include more demographics. At the moment the people who are heard most in our political system are those that can afford to lobby or have formed organised groups who usually have a very narrow agenda.

As previously mentioned access to the internet is very wide and SOL will give everyone the ability to have not only their voice heard but their vote count.

RB: Looking into your crystal ball, can you see the Senator Online ideal being expanded to bypass traditional political parties altogether?

WB: There will always be a place for traditional political parties. Senator Online has no aspirations to run the country, what we want to provide is a further check and balance to a system that has become a rubber stamping exercise for the lower house.

I believe that traditional political parties are vital in developing policy and direction for the nation. To have a party like SOL in the lower house would not be in the nations interest. The government of the day runs the country on a day to day basis and needs to have the freedom to continue to do that. But giving the public a say on bills and important issues in the senate ensures that the government of the day remains accountable throughout the period of their incumbency.

Got further queries about the Senator Online model? Go to their website here.

Tags: direct representation, election 2010, senator online, wes bas