Here is a small selection of some of our best responses. I wouldn't disagree with the analysis but I think it misses another huge factor about the change in our democratic structures - the rise of the career politician and politicisation of public service with five-year contracts. Politicians are less representative (how many now come from previous careers outside politics?) and the public service expertise, advice and standards have been eroded so it is more malleable to the ideological agenda of parties in power.

Jud Politics is increasingly complex in a society that is constantly multiplying in size, diversity and information. In this environment, each individual becomes progressively less capable of performing the role of the citizen: knowing what is going on, speaking intelligently, showing respect for others, voting intelligently, volunteering to play their play in civic duties. Blaming politicians for our inadequacies is convenient, but inaccurate.

Craig Bingham The way members of the major parties project their policies must be part of the cause. There is a new lexicon and set of mannerisms solely aimed at avoiding the question, pushing the party line and obfuscating either the truth or any independent thought that might inform the debate. It's Orwellian double-think live on the 24-hour news cycle. The end result is a conversation so execrable that people are flooding to the minors who, while they may not have defensible positions, at least appear to be doing something other than toeing a party line. A politician changing their mind should be a cause for celebration, not their imminent resignation. In this the news cycle and the way the media portray politicians also has a role to play.

David Fist

The extensive privatisation of Australia's government institutions over the last 20 years is rendering governments ineffective. Without the levers these institutions provided governments to generate revenue and initiate programs they have lost their ability to shape our society. This affects every Australian who senses the profit motive has become the priority above a caring and cohesive society. They are correct in this belief because private entities are not tasked with doing anything beyond achieving business success.

Scoppo Loading As the mainstream media is hollowed out by the collapse in earnings of classifieds the quality of journalism suffers. People turn to the internet where they find others like themselves no matter how odd, poorly informed or just plain wrong they are. Many of these people are baby boomers and have done very well from very high immigration, historically low interest rates and state governments reluctant to release land for housing. They are smart enough to sense they gained their wealth via “the system” but don’t really understand how. They are not comfortable with their wealth as much as terrified that the changes around them will take it away in some unintelligible way just as they gained it. Layered over this is greater inequality via the falls in the real value of some (but notably not all) forms of welfare, the ability of those who are fortunate enough to have backed the right company in the global economy and a fall in the real value of labour. Whilst the Elon Musks of this world make billions by paradoxically starting and running companies that never make a profit, those who are technically skilled at any task that can be imported directly or indirectly have suffered. The result is a society that is simultaneously wealthier with higher inequality based more on luck and age than ever before for reasons that are too complex for the average person to make sense of. This is a fertile garden for those with polarising views.

Lucas

I think there is deep distrust of politicians today in the general population. I also think there is a deep hunger in the population for politicians to be wiser, finer and more inspiring as human beings than the rest of us are. However I think that there are inbuilt systemic problems within our parliamentary system that mitigate against many politicians reaching their potential and behaving in a way that builds respect within the voting population. One structural matter concerns the current system of allowing career politicians to serve ongoing terms in Parliament. This invites politicians, despite their best initial intentions, into a conflict of interest. The concept of a career politician whilst offering us the potential for politicians to mature and gain experience in the role fosters the competing if unconscious serving of politicians’ own ego and personal interests. I suggest longer but limited terms in Parliament for well-paid politicians with the view to encouraging them to work towards and achieve their visions, gaining the satisfaction of having left their mark in our nation’s history.

Necia Merrells Democracy is an illusion in Australia because, under the preferential voting system, government is effectively controlled by four major parties, ie Liberal, National, Labor and the Greens. Therefore the voting membership of those parties (less than one per cent of the Australian population) has total control over whom the persons are that are put up for election by the unsuspecting voters. My perception is that only the interests of those major parties are ultimately served. This is then duplicated across federal and state governments.

We only need local government and federal government to run Australia, disband all state government. No need for the Senate or legislative councils, either. (Federal) candidates should be elected direct from local government, but only after a minimum of 10 years’ service locally.

Greg Thomas Compulsory voting means that policy tends to be focused on populist policies rather than thoughtful strategic policy settings that benefit the economy and the nation as a whole. Party politics means that there are always the satisfied and the disenfranchised. A system such as the MMP system in NZ creates a climate of negotiation in which a broad range of views has to be taken seriously and accommodated. The Senate is an obstacle to reform and it is becoming a block to policy rather than a house of review. The system is broken on so many levels and will continue to deteriorate unless radical reform of the parliamentary system takes place. Given the self interest of the elected representatives I can't see this happening.

David Caldwell Is politics broken? Nah ... but it ain't the same as it used to be. The rules are changing and the landscape is morphing into something we are struggling to recognise – and perhaps at its root is the power of social media. So what exactly is the personal cost of stomping on another’s sand castle? Well, your anonymity affords a level of protection that emboldens you to swing hard, with little to no direct, immediate consequence – but what is the long term cumulative effect of this erosion of polite or at least civil discourse? One contention is that the massive shift in the power of a single voice to catch alight and be gathered into thousands or even millions of sympathisers in time measured not in years or months but in day or hours, has created a tectonic shift in society, that we are only just beginning to wake up to. In 2013 Justine Sacco’s ill-considered comments to a modest 170 followers became the No. 1 worldwide trend on Twitter in just the time it took her to fly from New York to South Africa. A few short tweets of less than 160 characters, caused global outrage, caused her to lose her job and changed her life forever. Can you even begin to imagine the minefield politicians must now negotiate 24/7?, Had Twitter existed in the day, the Twitterati would have gleefully shot down a hapless Hawkie, he’d have crashed and burned 1000 times … and simply smouldered into obscurity. Andrew Lockwood

The clandestine and adversarial political party system itself is to blame for the current state of democracy in Australia. Private discussions and meetings, including cabinet, and the subsequent towing of the party line contribute to voters not actually knowing the values of the people they are voting for, and not being able to hold them to account. The decisions that any elected official makes should be a matter of public record and available to any citizen, not just known to various political party factions. In addition, all elected representatives should be working together to benefit Australia, regardless of any other group they claim allegiance to. The ultimate goal of political parties in the adversarial system, and the career politicians that lead them, is simply to win; to be elected and control the parliament. Making elected members' decisions transparent and scrapping the party system entirely, or severely reducing its relevance, can only be of benefit to this country. Kevin O'Connor Politics as it sits today is broken. Yes. Decisions are being made, as per the article, for very disparate groups. For every positive policy for one group, there is an equal and negative outcome for another (or at least a minor party ready to leverage the negative). Today’s world is ultra-complex. The economy is in transition, our population is in transition (ageing), the differing perspectives between city and regional, state vs state is increasing. Much of this destabilisation is a result self-interest over resources (jobs/growth/productivity), causing a splintering of the political population and subsequent minor parties. Yet the problems we face are far greater than I, me, mine… The Government (Major Parties/Minor Parties/Upper/Lower house) need to simplify the decision making for the population by agreeing on national Commitments to Climate Change and Energy production, Investment in Sustainable Energy & Technology (big data, robotics, sharing economy) and Basic/National Social & Health Services Standards… With a national commitment to each, the parties can then clear the “political” air and focus on second level challenges debated by the Left and Right – but always through eyeglass of Primary commitments. These primary objects should not be decided by the people. Climate Change is not a voting policy, nor is investment in future tech or social & health services. It should be implemented at a national/global level. Politics is broken – because the population is split over complex, transformational challenges. Take these off the table, take the decision away from the people. Mills

A key issue is that there is very little transparency around political donations in Australia. The cold hard truth is that the existing election process rewards parties that spend more - be it on mainstream advertising, campaigning or targeted advertising. Everything requires money. Unless we publicly fund our election process or limit private donations substantially, this problem will only grow in scale. Donors with deep pockets can sway political opinion in a far greater capacity than mere voters. Australia has some of the most ineffective political donation laws in the developed world, allowing individuals and organisations to easily skirt donation limits and foreign donation bans. In a healthy democracy corporations and wealthy individuals should not have such an outsized ability to influence politics. Fix the way elections are funded or risk going down the American path of hyper-polarisation and the exclusion of the public entirely from the policy process.

MK Democracy in Australia would be fine if the media wasn’t running the country. Politicians spend too much time with the media, and too little time getting sound advice, direction and policy from experienced, knowledgeable advisors and bureaucrats. The career oriented staff of current politicians rarely stay in a position long enough to develop the skills sets needed to provide the right information, so until politicians get staff with the necessary experience, they will get bad advice, and we will get bad policy and bad government. In this day and age, the right advice might include taking a bipartisan approach on matters of national importance.

Bushie Is politics broken, or just aspects of the way the current model is playing out? Perhaps the ”evidence” reflects an effort by people to signal their discontent with a political game whichever has become too confected, choreographed and often cynical. Perhaps the apparent polarisation and exploration of edges is no more than people, absent a more nuanced way of expressing their anger and frustration, trying to reach for a politics that is more honest, direct and authentic.

It may be true that our mainstream parties and political players have trapped themselves in the baleful cul-de-sac of “peak spin”, but perhaps if they could free themselves from politics as game-playing, they could discover the value of taking politics back to its roots - an honourable search for common purpose and shared commitment that mediates inevitable differences of opinion and values with an honest, simple, engaging and respectful process of conversation, decision and accountability.

Martin Stewart-Weeks The skills required to become a political leader are different to the skills required once in a leadership position. Rarely does one person have both these skill sets.

Erich Mayer People living in long standing democracies fail to understand the value of compromise. They have enjoyed 70 years of relative peace and prosperity driven by the achievements of our political system. The entitlement culture combines with the desire for a quick fix may end up destroying the system as the mob loses respect for the collective good. That will not be fun.

Sydney Slug I think the big problem with our democracy is that our politicians are unable to confidently make difficult decisions. We need to make changes that allow our politicians to tackle big issues like taxation, energy policy and social services without fear of impending electoral damage. Everyone says they'll reduce energy prices - but what if they need to go up and be rebalanced somewhere else - these decisions aren't made because they're electorally toxic. These decisions need to be able to be made with confidence in the decision and that the public will trust the decision making process.

Kyle It is a most unfortunate situation that the press have brought about whereby there is too much emphasis stressed on the standing of the incumbent government. When a government is elected by a large majority, when ratings see the elected party slipping in the polls, that excess of reality sees the possibility that they will start to believe that they will not be re-elected at the next election and dissension with party policy starts playing its part.

Omar

Wanting to be a politician automatically makes you suspect. Conscript candidates from a pool of qualified, educated individuals between the age of 21 and 65, with no political, criminal, or media affiliations. Scrap the party system. Review performance every four years and sack non performing members of Parliament, elect to replace them, and only allow a max of two terms. Publish the review criteria, use an independent commission to conduct performance review.

Roger The biggest challenge to democracy in Australia is the confusion of majoritarianism with democracy. To put it another way, we’ve confused the process for allocating power (election by majority) with that of exercising that power (respecting the dignity and governing in the best interests of all). This confusion has caused short-term focused policy and is constraining long term Australian progress.

Jonathan Steffanoni There is no genuine democracy in Australia. Voting every four years for people you don’t know, have no say in preselecting is not democracy. Parliamentarians, are, in the main, too isolated, too well paid, too insulated to understand the growing problems of poverty, homelessness and unemployment. The media, in the main, is also isolated and tends to reflect the status quo. People feel alienated from the political process, which further weakens democracy.

Marion Harper Representative democracy has changed and the system needs to too. We're are no longer burdened by the tyranny of distance, so we don't need local members. We need the members of Parliament to reflect the views of all Australians. Multi-party seats would make much more sense. The Greens get about 9% of the primary vote, while there Nationals get about 5% but the latter has far more seats. And neither of the major parties gets more than 40, so should never control the house by themselves. Until the house represents the views of all Australians it will fail to function well again.

Rodd Yes. There are several reasons for this, and the recent examples in Victoria from the Opposition and also the Government show a lack of ethics and principle, which can be seen in federal politics as well. Too much focus is on winning points against the other side and not enough on what is the appropriate thing to do. The people representing us seem less intelligent and less informed than at some times in the past, relying too much on lobbyists and party apparatchiks and not asking relevant questions leading to poor decisions and badly thought-out policies. There's also not enough actual leading, setting the scene, and too much obvious corruption. The digital answer will make things worse. The public also has to be educated about their role in a democracy.

Peter Geyer Parliamentary democracy has resulted in the complete disenfranchisement of the electorate from the decision making process. Whatever you choose, it will result in either of only two elected dictatorships who proceed to do whatever they choose, (or are bidden) without regard for their electors. True democracy is when electors have some actual influence over what is done by their representatives, who are (supposedly) there to serve those electors. Let's replace the upper houses of Parliament, with Citizen-Initiated Referenda, allowing ordinary citizens the opportunity to put forward their desired legislative changes; which must become law if passed by a majority of electors. It costs a bit to run but is insubstantial if most referenda are held in concert with general elections, as is the case in many European countries and states of USA where CIR has been running effectively for scores of years. In these places, CIR has not supplanted parliamentary democracy however politicians are more motivated to promote the majority-preferred agenda lest any contrary actions simply be overturned by the population in a referendum. It is an easy system to implement in Australia and would de-shackly politicians from the manipulation of special interest groups.

CJ Politicians no longer have to mix with the rest of the population. They stay with, mix with, socialise with, travel with the better off in our society. They act as bullies in parliament. I don’t like the hard left or hard right. I am very frustrated by both parties. Our parliament is not indicative of our population, gender, ethnicity, age...... Name not specified

True democracy is under serious threat because of the questionable actions/ decisions of the government. My understanding is that democracy is based on the premise that the elected representatives are elected to carry out the will of the people. If this is the case then many of the key decisions being made in the current climate are clearly undemocratic. Decisions appear to be based on three criteria. Firstly, decisions are based on maintaining power in a short election cycle, secondly decisions are based on the big money interests of large overly influential companies and thirdly decisions are based on powerful ideological groups within the part (eg.the far right). In each case the decisions made by the government are not necessarily made for the people that voted for them instead they are formulated decisions based on short term political gain. This, therefore, makes their decisions undemocratic in the truest sense of the meaning and instead we see a growing divide between the rich and powerful and the general public leaving the “majority” with an ever diminishing role.

Mark Norman A 117-year-old constitution is not working for us, it was meant to be a work in progress, to be changed and improved over the years to reflect society. Instead we have now a Parliament only looking after themselves, no control over spending, and a senate blocked by minor parties holding the country to ransom.

Ken Harvey Yes I share the view our polititians have failed its people. Why? Because: 1. Politicians seem incapable of long term planning and vision. Indeed incapable of making decisions and governing 2. They represent not the people but the large international corporations and lobby groups. 3. They have no vision other than to remain in power. 4. They are prisoners to the news cycle responding to news by knee jerk reactions rather than thought out responses. 5. They are not leaders but spineless observers as they fail to lead a principled course for the long-term betterment of the Australian people

Ken

Short answer yes, but what are the remedies? Decide what are the essential projects for the good of the nation. Tell a true, coherent narrative as to why you believe it to be so. Be open to opposite points of view in the discussion phase. Remember that politicians are elected to make hard decisions, not drop them like a hot potato (eg widespread tax reform, recommendations from the Chief Scientist). If you make a mistake apologise. Don’t play to the 24/7 news cycle. Some questions from journalists may need time to reflect prior to answering. Pay less attention to your own media advisors who follow nothing but mindless polls. Finally, and worth repeating, tell the truth, don’t cherry pick convenient answers because it tells voters you think we are stupid and that leads to more mistrust.

Lawrence Hayden There are many problems, one of the major issues is political donations and the massive conflict of interest this engenders. The "economy" is seen as the be all and end all, but is it? The stress we are placing on the environment is being ignored and nothing of major significance is being given protection (Murray-Darling, Great Barrier Reef, Koala habitat, food security, water resources, etc). It's as if the political parties are thinking about the ultra-short term. There is no grand vision for the future. Everything is being thought of in the here and now and just like the Australian cricket team, sledging is the new black. There are no great debates about how we can move forward (climate change/energy policy), only what we can sell (which apparently is everything including the artesian basin and the great barrier reef) to get more money in the coffers. The rich are now multi-billionaires and the poor get to live on $100 a week, if they're lucky. We need a major reset on what is really important as we've lost sight of that. Power is no longer vested in the people, it's vested in the powerful and the rich. And those that make political donations.

Mel Jones It’s hopelessly broken for a simple reason - elected politicians are terrified of making a decision that won’t be popular at the next election. The result is difficult decisions aren’t made, or are hopelessly compromised by minority parties. IMHO we would be better served by replacing all state and federal Parliaments and committee system is preferable where people are appointed for one fixed 10-year term based on having demonstrated skills in the relevant field. With straightforward rules concerning corruption and nepotism. It would perhaps be boring as public opinion polls and the media would also lose their influence.

Fred

When more credentials and exposure is put on a slogan or headline than the underlying discussion, there is no sensible debate on issues. In my lifetime the media has moved from an instrument of social conscience to a political tool. In this process the investigative journalism has declined. Political statements without factual basis are no longer challenged in the media and on rare occasions that it happens, it is quickly displaced with ‘newer’ inconsequential items. This results in a public desensitisation and passive acceptance. There is more exposure, credit and votes for diametrically opposing views than for considered conciliation. Only the public and media combined can change this.

Mike Wildeisen No it is not broken. The voters have become more critical and the parties have become too dependent on career politicians that start their career in uni. However, if they were less well oiled political machines we would criticise them for being disorganised.

Sean No, I think that because society is going through major changes - ie due to the internet and also many people have a better education today than was common in the past. A result of this is people has become more independent in their views of how we should be governed. More critical in their judgement of people in authority- teachers, doctors and parliamentarians etc. There is a saying you cannot please everyone but everyone today thinks theirs is the only opinion that matters. It has caused increasing chaos as a result. Democracy means an acceptance of other people's view point from time to time and is a sign of maturity (I include politicians in this as well.)

Ann Davison Broken? Not yet but it's getting there. Politicians chase politics as a career. From university to being a lawyer or party official to becoming a staffer to getting a safe seat to becoming a minister. Winning their next election is the only thing that matters to most of them. Doing the right thing for the country as it stands now, let alone looking ahead to where we will be in 20 years, is a lower priority. They muddle through, ignoring expert advice or cherry-picking bits and pieces of evidence and the solutions. The imposition of a Federal ICAC with teeth, a ban on all political donations and spending from anyone other than a resident Australian voter, and compulsory release of consistent cost-benefit analyses on all policy from a truly independent budget office would do much to provide us with more confidence. Can anything else save us? Yes, our compulsory voting means motivated extremists who care little for the views of other Australians have less power.

GTB

If democracy consists of a government chosen by the people from within their own neighbourhood, and opposition in Parliament is to give alternatives or challenge policies, then we do not have a democracy in Australia. Here a great number of our politicians are groomed from an early age, therefore do not represent their neighbours. Our opposition only attacks the government both on policy and personally without any reasonable arguments or alternatives. Once elected, politicians become the ruling class and do not have to consider pensions, health care or future income, therefore losing the ability for empathy with ordinary citizens.

Valda Johnston A. A preoccupation with politics (playing childish games to beat the other team) rather than developing long term policies. B. A win at all costs attitude, rather than doing what is best for the country. C. Conducing expensive and extensive reviews by experts (ie Henry review) then basically ignoring or being selective in picking what suits the party. Generally must be considered as a whole. D. Inability to explain problems and solutions to the public. E. No leaders.

Jim The Senate should be halved and no one with less than five per cent of the vote can take a seat so in some cases not all senate seats in all states will be filled. At least the government of the day won’t be held up by multiple special interest parties which are not mainstream.

Mr Tom I think politics is working better than it has in years. It’s supposed to be hard for a government to force tax cuts for rich companies through the Senate, not a sign of broken politics. Politicians not delivering is the reason for political polarisation, not Facebook.

Michelle As long as electoral funding is not fully disclosed in close to real time there will always be the suspicion that parties or individual politicians can bought. In addition, the rules around ministers taking post-parliamentary positions related to their portfolios need to be strengthened. The establishment of a Federal ICAC is essential.

Alastair McDougall

If the public thinks politicians are out of touch, then I'd like to invite those members of the public come work in a standard state or federal electorate office for one week to show them just out of touch they are regarding what's happening in their own communities. Many ordinary people have no idea what's going on, yet a politician will likely be in contact with their constituents almost every day and will hear about a wide range of problems and issues that are affecting the community. Yes, there are some politicians who are wilfully out of touch with ordinary people’s lives, but the public are just as more likely to be the ones with their heads in the sands about what's going on in the lives of their fellow Australians.

Name not specified It is nakedly obvious that people have to organise and lobby hard in order to win a policy argument. So success is definitely related to the budget available. The deeper the pockets, the more likely to achieve success. That is fine, but it clearly muddies the big issues. For instance I doubt that we understand why we fight wars in other people’s lands, or why we can’t be whole-hearted on climate change, or why we can’t be more determined to turn around the prospects of first people. Indeed why we aren’t more focused on health care and education. It seems that democracy isn’t serving the potential that this country owns. We seem more and more to be followers, somewhat craven and lacking confidence. Bruce McLean

Fewer and fewer individuals and companies pay their fair share of taxes, but they enjoy the benefits of government spending on infrastructure, health, education, policing etc. Moreover, executive salaries are obscenely high, while workers and unemployed have to live very frugally. Social inequality is rising, which brings a number of other problems. Other countries (eg Scandinavian) can resolve these issues to maximise social benefits for all. Why not here? Gordon Campbell One of the survey questions in the article asked if politicians understand what ordinary people think. The highest response was "no", yet I believe they know perfectly what the ordinary persons thinks and therefore know how to play to those thoughts. The great master, John Howard, taught everyone that skill, and Labor to its discredit largely followed. In decades past, there was vision beyond the three-year election cycle. Nowadays, any vision from our leaders is only there as a means to justify the present. Now that politics has lost its vision and become purely reactionary, the fault lies with the voting public. At least the old system of polarised voters meant a political agenda largely followed through (rightly or wrongly) - better to move forward with some missteps than to stall. Comparing the Hawke/Keating years with the Howard years, we moved from a consensus model that allowed people to get ahead without leaving too many behind, to the individualistic model that taught us to get ahead at any cost. We've traded away our ability to dream for the sake of an investment property, 80-inch TV and a tax-free retirement lifestyle. The genie is released - now try putting it back.

Greg Cox

News media, desperate for clickbait, promote a sense of impending political catastrophe. Simpleton extremists like Hanson aid the process. Where are the stories about the hundreds of hours of reasoned debate and the hundreds of pieces of legislation that result which most politicians cooperatively produce every month? Where is the news that, for all its flaws, our political system gives us one of the most prosperous and peaceful societies in the world?

Rhys Daniell People just aren't paying attention like they used to. They have less leisure time, now that most families have both parents working, and there are so many great entertainment options that they don't want to spend their precious downtime absorbing the news. So they fall for the three-word slogans.

Steph Democracy has definitely become more tribal, due to the ability to find bias-confirming websites. Politicians tend to focus too much on attacking each other rather than selling us their policies; and explaining them in an open and honest "warts and all" manner. It seems that politicians cannot handle questions from the voters that might force them to admit errors in their policies; they prefer to ram through ideals without consultation. The waste that is occurring, for no perceived benefits, is alarming, and polarising. Extreme parties like One Nation have no policies, but have tapped into voter discontent. When asked to deliver policies, they implode, leaving us with the two majors, who are concentrating on their respective differences, rather than finding consensus to govern.

Chris Harding When I was growing up you didn’t care that your boss had more money, a better car and home because the wage you earned from even unskilled labour was enough to live a good life. You could save a little, even buy a house where you could raise a family. And you you knew your kids were likely to end up better educated and hence better off than you. The political system was not perfect but it served a broad majority. The true haves and have-nots occupied a comparatively small extreme. Politics reflected this.

The political system now serves ‘the haves’. In all of history any concentration of wealth purchases political influence. What’s the point of wealth if not to buy a better form of justice? We the plebs are rightfully angry with policies that favour a wealthy few at the expense of the rest. Growing wealth disparity is the root of the problem. A more even spread of wealth gives you a harmonious society. It’s not rocket science.

Name not specified Surprised to see that the majority of respondents consider political parties a necessary part of democracy, given that party politicians act in the interests of the party and vote on party lines, rather than representing and voting in accordance with the wishes of their electorate. For these and other reasons, I would have thought it quite obvious that political parties are inherently undemocratic. The other very negative aspect of political parties is that they make it so much easier for broad based corruption to occur.

Ted Your question is wrong. There is nothing wrong with democracy. There is everything wrong with a political system that sees its only purpose to be the gaining of political advantage. No concept of fairness, truth or justice is allowed to get in the way. My local butcher needs to make a living - but he acts as though he also wants to serve the community. I see no such sense of service in our politicians. Their rhetoric is directed only to making a political point; and so we do not trust them to represent decent values and thrash around trying to find a remedy in minor parties. Don’t blame democracy - blame an utterly self-serving political outlook.

John Goddard Over the last 20 years I've seen an increased use of what used to be termed "wedge politics" in Australian political discourse. A political party would make an announcement or policy and they would be accused of being anti-any alternative. The thing is, this isn't even described as wedge politics now as it is the norm. I think this 'approach' was media induced but also more importantly media supported as it provided a sense of conflict and winners and losers. Unfortunately this has become the norm.

Democracy isn't 'broken' in Australia. A healthy democracy depends on institutional checks and balances: the parliament, the judiciary, the government, the public service and organised civil society, which in general function as well as ever. Citizens in our democracy are better informed than in the past. On the other hand, dissatisfaction appears to be increasing because the natural shortcomings of public figures and institutions are amplified, while shallow individual opinion is elevated through the media and expertise diminished. In the past there was greater respect for those with authority and less investment in an individual's opinion. Politics is seen as a market where money, rather than judgement prevails. But these social changes have not significantly undermined Australian democracy. Jack I believe our political and media leaders have trained the population to act in this fashion. Facts are not required it is whoever yells loudest who wins, and with that, debate has died. In 1996 Howard shifted the longstanding norm that whoever gets elected is governing for everyone irrespective of who they voted for on Election Day. We need to return to this ethos. So, how to move forward? Hawke set up the tripartite system to reform business and trade union affairs. Can government establish such systems across a range of policy areas to move our society forward in terms of policy implementation but more importantly to rebuild trust by shifting groups and then people to create workable solutions?

Name not specified Far from believing that politics today reflects the general will of the people, I believe that it has been captured by political parties and individual politicians who consider that their ideological beliefs and attitudes should always prevail irrespective of whether the outcomes produced reflect what the majority of citizens desire and expect or whether such outcomes benefit society as a whole in both the short and long term.

John Herbst

Politicisation of the senior public service has resulted in a lack of independent advice from experienced public servants. The ‘unrepresentative swill’ of the Senate allows small states to exercise undue influence on national debate and outcomes. The electorate has turned off in disgust to the combative nature of parliamentary debate and 24/7 media coverage. There is little sense of goodwill and cooperation in Parliament. It is so rare to hear a party leader respond constructively to a proposal from the opposing side. There must be occasions when the genuine response should be ‘yes, on the face of it that sounds like an idea worth looking at, for the good of our nation. We’ll get back to you with our considered response.’ Our leaders lack the courage and humility to see through a vision and handle criticism.

Dianne Vincent The oppositional model of Labor vs Liberal creates tit for tat politics, lacking long term vision. Australia needs a proportional voting system that will enforce the formation of multi party cooperative government with a broad support base and a platform where new ideas can trickle through. In practice Australia currently has the choice of two major parties that live in the past. Labor is still shackled to the unions and the Liberals really should be renamed to the Conservatives. No wonder voters are looking for alternatives.

Disillusioned If Australia's representative democracy were a car, we would've traded it in or suped it up after the first 10 years - let alone the last 117. As it stands, our constitutional amendments have done little to adjust/adapt how we "do politics," and as such political parties game the outdated procedural constructs for the best outcome. It's no wonder we get outcomes we disagree with, when the system only encourages those who feel deeply one way or another about an issue.

Name not specified While our democratic institutions are fine, the electoral mood is not. The problem is that a centrist or moderate position is not longer rewarded with electoral support. Our current Prime Minister seems to be loathed by both left and right constituencies. He is clearly a centrist, a bit like Alexander Kerensky who was prime minister of Russia between the May and October revolutions in 1917 when there was no appetite for centrist politics. Perhaps the functioning of democracy itself is dependent on a large middle ground, which is arguably being eroded by the extreme positions presented in social media.

Mark Tennant

There are many factors hurting our democracy that cannot be linked to voting patterns. One of the key areas is the advice that ministers and politicians receive. The lack of life experience among ministerial staffers and their shadows is a major concern. Access to politicians from lobbyists and vested interests also warps the view of politicians who often arrive in Canberra with the best intentions. I am an active member of a political party but bottom up policy development does not occur. You are more likely to influence a policy outcome with membership of the Qantas Club or the Chairman's Lounge than you can as a member of a political party. Even government departments are now bludgeoned to deliver policy and service delivery outcomes with impossibly complex legislative requirements driven by Senate amendments and grandfather clauses. This drives the major service delivery failures we see in Centrelink and child support. The complexity has forced departments to move away from a model that resolved issues at the face to face contact point to a cold faceless IT driven model that claims to be more efficient but has completely failed to deliver. Speaking to hundreds of voters at polling booths and market days I can assure you this issue more than any other drives the perception of a broken system.

Greg McHugh Government, at all levels in Australia, is mainly influenced by lobby groups and very wealthy others. Governments make decisions that benefit the few, not the general public, and restrict information by hiding behind excuses such as “commercial-in-confidence” and “privacy”. Unless governments are mandated to show their advice and/or business cases for making decisions, nothing will change. Oh, and let’s not forget that we desperately need a federal ICAC.

Andrew Vivian Unfortunately we have got to the point where money controls politics, and those who have money are not the majority of Australians, it is big corporate Australia and the multi-millionaires. Real change will happen when the people on the ground get to speak to politicians without cameras in their face for political gain. Politics is about one-upmanship rather than working for the greater good of the country.

Politicians need to start looking at their parties' policy for their electorate rather than how it benefits the party they are associated with. Once they start doing that, we might actually get this country moving forward in a way that the population is happier than we currently are.

Andrew B Politics is 'mathematically' broken. The recruiting grounds of the major party memberships - the churches on the conservative side and the trade unions on the progressive side - are both in long-term structural decline. As these membership bases dwindle the number of party preselection votes required to gain a major party nomination becomes smaller and smaller. The number of votes required to 'stack' a branch is counted in the tens, not hundreds or thousands, so appealing to fringe/special interest groups will get you elected.

Shaun Colley Ordinary people are not encouraged to discuss and consider issues. Therefore they think that they have no role in the political process. There is far too little actual debate in all levels of Parliament, both state and federal, just mudslinging and catchphrases. Politicians are paid too much for too little work. There are too many career politicians, and the Senate is a joke.

Graeme Bucholtz The problem is we vote in people to do a job but they forget this under party policy. If Labor have the majority the LNP should work with them for the benefit of Australia and vice versa. But right now all they do is work against the party that is in for their own egos In business if the workers are working against the business the business will go down not up. Quite simple really.

Ian The structure of democracy is flawed; one party or the other. The result is around half the electorate becomes marginalised at each successive election and we swing left and right rather than make strong forward progress. Local and national policy should be framed by the public through educated informed debate and government should execute their wishes. We should vote for who we think will best do our bidding, Their allegiance should be to their voters not a party. The elected should work together to produce compromises acceptable to all voters and unite rather than divide the country.

Nik Smulian

Australian politics is no longer dominated by ‘representatives’, but by careerists. The two party political system rewards party hacks and loyalists rather than representatives best suited to their electorate or local community. Political correctness at any cost also plays a polarising role and has disillusioned many voters as they have seen jobs disappear overseas while local jobs are increasingly going to permanent or temporary workers from low income countries. Along with stagnant wage growth and job insecurity, this is a recipe for political discontent.

Peter Morfea We are in the midst of massive changes across the world (gender equality, economic changes, movement of people, environmental challenges, job restructures) and politics mirrors the challenge and uncertainty of this. I think we need to be respectful of people and the planet, to listen wisely and act compassionately.

Jorie Ryan The preference system is set up to protect the major parties. We have no chance of voting them out when they preference each other. Time to review this system. First past the post is more a reflection of what the people want.

Christine Gatt Politics isn't broken, it's bent. Full of bent people and their crooked hangers-on. I see two main factors: the rise of a professional bureaucratic managerial class and the unwillingness of journalists to challenge them effectively. The first has lead to the loss of quality leadership across nearly all forms of public activity, while the second has normalised mediocrity and mendacity among the first. Back in 2005, the Nobel for Economics was won for ground-breaking research that demonstrated absolutely clearly that selfish partisanship is ultimately self-defeating in a long game like politics or business. All the way back in 1797, the second US president, John Adams, warned in his inaugural address that partisanship of all forms was the biggest threat to his young nation. He was right, for them and us.

Australians aren’t stupid. We see the corruption, the destruction of ideals, the erosion of job security, the lies, the rigidly controlling regulation and its unbending processes, the secrecy, the sheer disrespect, and we have rejected them. That isn’t the Australia we want. We are desperate for trustworthy, genuinely decent people as our leaders, in politics and its offshoots, business, social enterprise, churches. The challenge lies in making it possible for them to rise and soar like eagles from under all the turkeys. That’s the problem we all face, but none more so than journalists. You reflect us to ourselves, so it’s about time you gave the mirror a polish.

Craig Whilst the overall concept of the Senate (checks and balances) is sound, its reality is flawed. It is an unrepresentative, unfairly elected body. It is ludicrous that each state has the same number of senators given the huge differences in populations. It beggars belief that fringe, single issue, tiny minority groups can be elected to the Senate on such small numbers of votes. These senators effectively decide whether legislation proceeds or not despite the fact that virtually nobody voted for them. This is totally undemocratic as it is preposterous.

Barry Anderson I think one of the key issued is that we have such short political cycles that no party wants to make the big decisions, as there is not enough recovery time for the public to see the positives. We are forever going to the polls and this has caused us to create a system where both major parties, and some other minor parties, all look the same because the decisions made are the easy ones. It is easy to say no the boat people, or reviewing the tax system as you only need to argue your point for a short period of time. This attitude is also displayed by the major parties and the flicking of the 'prime ministership ball' so very often, it has no made the position somewhat laughable, and demonstrates that that the role is not taken as leading the country, it is taken as a political promotion. I fully understand that politicians work long hours but I think perhaps we need to go back to working more smartly. The system we have created is based on an insular world, and it is a public service model, you start low and work your way up, and the real life experience is dwindling away. Maybe it is time for a benevolent dictator...

Sarah Brennan