Thanks for the considered reply kwatt, and I sympathise with how you come to hold your views. However, in the end I totally disagree with you that "Governments move too slowly for annual general elections". As for "new policy" etc., one cannot implement new policy until you have "the people" willing to accept that policy. And in any case, what new policy are you talking about specifically? Doesn't that mean elected representatives would HAVE to consult with the electorate? Doesn't that mean elected representatives would HAVE to build support for their agendas? Wouldn't that mean elected representatives would therefore gain STRONG mandates to accomplish change (when change was needed)? Here's one of the best lines I've ever read about the idea. It came from a letter to the editor of The Australian Financial Review in April 2000 in response to an ex-Prime Minister (Gough Whitlam) calling for 4 year fixed terms in the Australian Federal parliament: ".... Only anual elections which result in the need for a ballot in relation to every Budget will force politicians to convince the electorate rather than to bribe it. With annual elections politicians cannot continue the pattern of soft pre-election Budgets and harsh post-elections Budgets. If politicians don't believe they can convince the people, then they really believe in the rule by elites, not in democracy" Thee & me both want the best for everyone, right? I trust that is not too big an assumption to make about thee. This is an assumption that I make about the vast majority of "The People". Yes, there will always be a malicious few, not to mention a misguided many. But my basis of 'faith' in the democratic system lies in the overall wisdom of the electorate. With a caveat! Democracy is best served by a two-party system, viz: a government and a strong and encouraged alternative government (who swap seats every now and again). Remembering that the point of any Party who sits on the Treasury benches is to govern for all, not some particular sector. Representative political democracy involves differences and opposition, but only such differences as can be subordinated to and controlled by the spirit of the whole. If most people did not have confidence in government, there would be no government. However, government needs (at times) to use compulsion in order to carry out the purpose of the state. The purpose of that compulsion is to insist on a legal and constitutional method of settlement of differences and rivalries within a community. The problem of how to keep governmental power from being perverted to private ends can and is solved in different ways. A second-class law obeyed is better than a first-class law disobeyed. What is needed, and what is most difficult, is to combine the technical knowledge of the expert with the practical experience and understanding of the common life of the ordinary public. Democracy assumes for its success an educated public. Annual general elections will help buttress any academic education and focus people's attention on what we are doing (together!) to create a future, rather than (as is the case with many) harking back to some past "perfect life" (with prophets, saviours, etc.) The two-party is also best for a number of reasons. For a start, it pushes the wacko right & left out of the picture and allows a serious debate/dialog to proceed. I am not about banning independents or third parties, but I certainly believe that majoritarian (single member electorate) voting where a candidate needs to gain at least 50% of the vote to win a seat in the legislature is the best system! I sincerely believe much of the trouble in the Middle East would be alleviated if Israel had a different electoral system. It is presently a fully proportional representation system for the whole country, which has a parliament (Knesset) of 120 members. Therefore a candidate only needs to attract an extremely small percentage of votes to secure a seat in the legislature. Thus for a party to gain a majority in the legislature and form a government, it is forced to construct strange alliances within the legislature with all sorts of minor parties and individuals - usually weird far-right, ultra nationalist & religious or far-left political parties. For instance, a landslide "victory" at Israeli elections equates to only 30 seats of a 120 seat Knesset. This means the government has to form alliances with at least another 31 members of the Knesset in order to gain a majority on the floor of the legislature. Essentially any reformer has their hands tied because of this and an inordinate amount of power is given to minorities. It is one of my greatest lamentations that Israel adopted this most useless and dysfunctional electoral system!!! Intellectually, two-party is also best for sifting through varying claims and desires and coming out with a difference that may be strongly held but nonetheless respected by the other side. Think of science: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. I'm sorry kwatt, but on the subject of 'short-term' thinking, etc. I believe I have answered you. Would you care to put up an actual real-life instance that we might pick over (not a "hypothetical")? My example for you would be the war in Iraq. There is no way known that those loonies Bush, Blair & Howard could have invaded Iraq if they had to face "The People" every year. I cringe when I think about what the long-term outcome of that policy will be! In peace, David Tehr Perth, Western Australia