Society/Culture Monarchy vs Republic for Australia, and what is your main reasoning?

[JoondalupJ]

I meant to say it is not entirely ceremonial, there is a bit more to it. There are serious reserve powers which require a person of maturity and sound judgment.

It also requires that this person of sound judgement and maturity is never ever voted for!
That is why our system as it stands is safe , because of those reserve powers mentioned.

GG and political parties can never be politically connected , someone special needs to be the GG , but even then we make mistakes, thats life.
We have a safe system I 'd like it left that way, and I don't really care much about the Royal family except for the brilliant history behind it. I love history .

 

[Snake_Baker]

Monarchy but the monarch must be Australian.

A republic without radical constitutional change is nothing more that a pointless 8 letter word.

Don't get sucked in by the hyperbole people.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

A republic without radical constitutional change is nothing more that a pointless 8 letter word.

Don't get sucked in by the hyperbole people.

What would you change in the constitution and how would they connect to republicanism?

 

[tandino]

No expert, but the President of, say, Italy seems comparable to the GG in terms of powers and authority. From wikipedia:

Italy seems to be an interesting case study.

The powers of an Italian President are small in number but they are powerful. He has the usual powers to appoint and dismiss Governments and dissolve Parliament, but he is not burdened to act on the advice of his Ministers in these matters.

Italy almost went back to the polls last year due to a disagreement on who should hold a particular ministry, he rejected the choice of the newly designated Prime Minister. In the end the President won the argument and the position was filled by another member of cabinet.

I felt it was a poor exercise in democracy, though it was totally legitimate according to the constitution.

 

[Snake_Baker]

What would you change in the constitution and how would they connect to republicanism?

https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/index.html

 

[Bomberboyokay]

https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/index.html

Are there specific bits you want to replace specific bits in this link? Or the whole entire English translation of the Swiss constitution in place of our current one?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Are there specific bits you want to replace specific bits in this link? Or the whole entire English translation of the Swiss constitution in place of our current one?

I would replace the current colonial joke with the entire thing and more.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

I would replace the current colonial joke with the entire thing and more.

You must know it will never happen on those terms. You sound less republican, more jaded 45-year-old who wishes they'd lived through a revolution.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You must know it will never happen on those terms. You sound less republican, more jaded 45-year-old who wishes they'd lived through a revolution.

Hey, at least you can identify the statutory enslavement of the Australian people, which puts you ahead of the average schmuck.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Hey, at least you can identify the statutory enslavement of the Australian people, which puts you ahead of the average schmuck.

Calling us slaves suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of what slavery actually is.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Calling us slaves suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of what slavery actually is.

Your interpetation suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of a simple sentence.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Your interpetation suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of a simple sentence.

How are we enslaved?

 

[Snake_Baker]

How are we enslaved?

If it's not obvious to you, then I CBF'ed putting the time in to explaining it.

UTSE to check up on reams of stuff I have posted about this in the past

 

[Bomberboyokay]

If it's not obvious to you, then I CBF'ed putting the time in to explaining it.

UTSE to check up on reams of stuff I have posted about this in the past

I'm not trawling through Swiss law again.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I can't for the life of me see how someone like that would get anywhere near to winning a national popular vote. Think about the sort of person that would appeal to a majority of the nation, and you'll be looking at someone pretty vanilla. We're not going to vote in crackpots like Hanson or Palmer.

If there is no limit to number of candidates or there is a large number of candidates, then I could absolutely see a nutter getting up in a popular vote.

 

[Father Jack]

If there is no limit to number of candidates or there is a large number of candidates, then I could absolutely see a nutter getting up in a popular vote.

Preferential voting is our very best friend

 

[its free real estate]

Preferential voting is our very best friend

It delivered Abbott.

 

[Father Jack]

It delivered Abbott.

That was more on the parliamentary system than the voting system, as is evidenced by the fact that it was Parliament that ousted him.

 

[its free real estate]

That was more on the parliamentary system than the voting system, as is evidenced by the fact that it was Parliament that ousted him.

The voting system with preferential voting delivered a party with Abbott as leader. It has also delivered Clive Palmer, Pauline Hanson, etc into seats.

The idea that the preferential system is a defence against despotism is little more than parochialism.

 

[Father Jack]

The voting system with preferential voting delivered a party with Abbott as leader. It has also delivered Clive Palmer, Pauline Hanson, etc into seats.

The idea that the preferential system is a defence against despotism is little more than parochialism.

If the despot is the least preferred candidate then fine, but the original point was that the number of candidates will have little effect on the chances of getting a nutjob as president because the candidate still has to get more than 50% support. Not even the US were dumb enough to give Trump that much.

It was this fear of democracy that led the US to have the electoral college, which ironically denied the people their will to not have a total arsehat in control of their country. If you're going to be democratic you simply just have to trust the people, and having a system that properly reflects their will is part of that.

 

[its free real estate]

If the despot is the least preferred candidate then fine, but the original point was that the number of candidates will have little effect on the chances of getting a nutjob as president because the candidate still has to get more than 50% support. Not even the US were dumb enough to give Trump that much.

It was this fear of democracy that led the US to have the electoral college, which ironically denied the people their will to not have a total arsehat in control of their country. If you're going to be democratic you simply just have to trust the people, and having a system that properly reflects their will is part of that.

Preference manipulation led to Fraser Anning.

 

[Father Jack]

Preference manipulation led to Fraser Anning.

Again, that's different because that's the Senate, and we're talking about a single-member electorate.

 

[its free real estate]

Again, that's different because that's the Senate, and we're talking about a single-member electorate.

Which has never coughed up, haha, Clive Palmer or Pauline Hanson.

 

[tandino]

What's so wrong with that anyway? Are people not entitled to vote for who they want to vote for?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Preferential voting is our very best friend

Who says that preferential voting will happen in this instance? It's one vote for one person to fill one position.