Thanks for that, I mis-read wiki.The President of Italy is elected by the Chamber of Deputies (HOR) and the Senate as well as regional representatives.
The President is not elected by the people. Take a look at the last election (2006) to witness all the political posturing bullshit that came with the election of Napolitano.
It's not. The entire history of democratic government disagrees with you. Power gravitates to popular individuals commanding a mandate.You know its true.
You've put up the example of the USA which has had a President with broad executive powers since day one as an example of of your point.It's not. The entire history of democratic government disagrees with you. Power gravitates to popular individuals commanding a mandate.
But you continue to base your ideas on little more than naivete and reference to fledgeling systems less than a century old.
There's not much point discussing it with you.
Its irrelevant, because the point I am talking about isn't tied to the level of executive powers. Merely the the manner in which power has shifted in democracies and republics over thousands of years. The USA is just one example of many. As I keep saying, it is merely indicative of a broad trend in virtually all systems with a representative head of state throughout history.You've put up the example of the USA which has had a President with broad executive powers since day one as an example of of your point
kerr acted under an extreme circumstance, as our system allowed.if you think back to 1975, which was the last time the governor general really exercised his powers available to him, you can only think how things may have worked if he had the extra weight of a mandate from the people behind him.
I think he probably would have pushed the button quicker.
The Queens got nothing to do with it .Thats why most of you republicans have no idea what your talking about. We have a great safe system, my question would be WHY????I reckon it will happen in the next decade, or when the queen dies..
Would you vote yes this time around on Australia becoming a Republic? IMHO I think that this time the in favour votes will far outnumber the against votes.
like i said call it what you like just don,t change it .we should be a republic.
Get rid of the mentions of the monarch, continuing having a parliamentary appointed head of state (like the gg) but give the role a different name.
The brits wouldnt care and there would be no risk
even price charles is reported to have sugested australia should become a republic.
Oh I certainly agree with that. He really made the only decision available to him, and despite the ramblings of a vocal minority, his decision was vindicated by the people's vote.kerr acted under an extreme circumstance, as our system allowed.
Probably lucky he did. Although personally it ruined him.
Why on earth would there be demand for them to be appointed by mandate? I think that's a rather large assumption based on rather little. The PM is appointed by public mandate, the PM will be the leader.A Head of State and a Vice-Regal Representative are two very different things. It is accepted that we don't get a big say in the GG primarily because the GG is first and foremost the representative of the Queen, not us.
Call him what you want, I doubt people would be willing to accept a Head of State appointed under the current arrangements for the GG. If you were lucky you might get it past the initial referendum, but sooner or later there would be a demand for them to be appointed by mandate.
Once the HOS receives a mandate from the people, then you start to have problems. There is little conflict between the Crown and the PM precisely because only one of them can legitimately claim the backing of popular sovereignty.
You call the entire history of democracy 'very little'? Name me one single long-standing democratic state - existing or defunct - where the head of state is chosen (rather than hereditary), but does not receive a mandate from the people to fulfil that role.Why on earth would there be demand for them to be appointed by mandate? I think that's a rather large assumption based on rather little. The PM is appointed by public mandate, the PM will be the leader.