Electoral musings

One of my pet subjects is hypothesizing alternatives to our Westminster democratic parliamentary system of government.

Why? Well I have this suspicion that technology is allowing the system to be gamed by the major parties in a dance of death with hyper-partisonship. And that this gaming is leading to an absence of differentiation in policy and a diminution in the rate of development of useful new policy. I am not the first to think this.

Just possibly we could learn something from the corporate sector where shareholders elect boards and boards appoint the senior management. It seems to work most of the time with notable exceptions when shareholder oversight is weak.

Imagine electing a board of governors here in Australia who are then tasked with appointing ministers based not on party lines but on actual capability.

The board would get re-elected every four years. Non performing ministers would be replaced whenever by the board but election results would be based on incoming governors identifying changes they would like to see, and hence a carrying a mandate to change certain ministerial appointments.

The chairman of the board could be our president, elected amongst themselves, and holding reserve powers.

I have recently learnt that of the top 100 entities on the planet (by value) that about half are countries and half are corporations. The corporations are gaining ground in this measure so maybe their governance processes are just that much more effective. And corporations are now increasingly considering other forms of capital other than cash and capital – they are basically heading towards full management consideration of all the the matters that affect our daily lives.

It’s not the worst idea I have ever had.