Politics The Republic - no way

[Admiral Byng]

Why can't we establish our own royal house. Everyone on the electoral roll goes in a lottery, winner is the new monarch.

You need someone who knows the rules and conventions behind Westminster style democracy. Much of it is unwritten. I wouldn't want Kylie from the local bakery shop to get the gig if she knows * all about the practical workings of government, nor any of the proper official pomp and ceremony type stuff which the person would inevitably have to do too. Need someone with the proper manners for hosting foreign heads of state and all that.

 

[Gough]

If the English royals can be described as being invigorated by a pair of young fogeys breeding, imagine what Kylie from the bakery could do for us. We could have the first regal reality show. We could turn what it means to royal on its head, Ugg could become By Appointment.

 

[TimmeT]

Why can't we establish our own royal house. Everyone on the electoral roll goes in a lottery, winner is the new monarch.

How would you feel if Lyle Shelton was the winner?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

So a referendum with a simple "Yes" / "No" between the current constitutional monarchy model and a republic model will determine that choice.

A simple "Yes" / "No" vote between Monarchy and Republic. If the "Yes" get up then and only then do we decide on the model of Republic.

 

[Roylion]

A simple "Yes" / "No" vote between Monarchy and Republic.

Once again. That is not a referendum.

If the "Yes" get up then and only then do we decide on the model of Republic.

And whether that model is accepted, must be voted on against the current model of a constitutional monarchy via a referendum to alter the constitution. What is so difficult to understand about that?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

In the interests of fairness to the entire electorate, I'd be happy with a review of the judicial processes involved in Constitutional decision-making, and amendments where applicable.

 

[Roylion]

In the interests of fairness to the entire electorate, I'd be happy with a review of the judicial processes involved in Constitutional decision-making, and amendments where applicable.

Why isn't the current method of changing the constitution "fair"?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Why isn't the current method of changing the constitution "fair"?

Because it ignores the (potential) will of the people. If 60% of Australian voters want an Australian Republic and 40% don't, to my way of thinking that should be a 'lock' and the next logical step after that should be choosing a Republican model.

Conversely, if the majority of Australians choose to keep the current Constitutional Monarchy in place then so be it. There would be no subsequent need to spend more taxes on a referendum to rewrite the Constitution.

That's democracy.

 

[Roylion]

Because it ignores the (potential) will of the people. If 60% of Australian voters want an Australian Republic and 40% don't, to my way of thinking that should be a 'lock' and the next logical step after that should be choosing a Republican model.

How can a "Yes" / "No" vote on a republic vs. a constitutional monarchy in a binding referendum ignore the will of the people? There's a clear choice between a model of a republic vs. the current model of a constitutional monarchy.

Conversely, if the majority of Australians choose to keep the current Constitutional Monarchy in place then so be it. There would be no subsequent need to spend more taxes on a referendum to rewrite the Constitution.

Why spend taxes on a plebiscite when a binding referendum will do the same job? The referendum to change the constitution has to be held anyway.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

How can a "Yes" / "No" vote on a republic vs. a constitutional monarchy in a binding referendum ignore the will of the people? There's a clear choice between a model of a republic vs. the current model of a constitutional monarchy.

Because it splits the YES vote unneccesarily. There's nothing fairer than YES - Republic / NO - Constitutional Monarchy.

Why spend taxes on a plebiscite when a binding referendum will do the same job? The referendum to change the constitution has to be held anyway.

Going with my example he referendum itself will decide the model, and thus the wording or the Constitutional rewrite. You can't decide the model before deciding the 'make' through a binding plebiscite which may or may not decide the need for the referendum.

 

[M Malice]

 

[Roylion]

Because it splits the YES vote unneccesarily.

So, as I've already said, it's all about getting the outcome you want, rather than "fairness". You don't want the "Yes" vote split. If you don't want it split then present a model that more than 50% of Australians will vote in favour of.

There's nothing fairer than YES - Republic / NO - Constitutional Monarchy.

The model of a republic up against the current constitutional monarcny is very "fair". You want to skew the result in favour of a republic. If the model of a republic is seen to be superior than that of a constitutional monarchy by more than 50% of the Australian electors in a majority of states, then it will succeed.

Going with my example he referendum itself will decide the model, and thus the wording or the Constitutional rewrite. You can't decide the model before deciding the 'make' through a binding plebiscite which may or may not decide the need for the referendum.

Many people who support a republic will vote 'No" in a "Binding" plebsicite, because they will want to see what model of republic will be installed.

The other outcome is that if the "YES" vote gets up in a so called 'Binding plebsicite", the model of republic could be defeated in the referendum. What happens then? We keep having referendums until a republic model is successful?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

So, as I've already said, it's all about getting the outcome you want, rather than "fairness". You don't want the "Yes" vote split. If you don't want it split then present a model that more than 50% of Australians will vote in favour of.

'Splitting the vote' is just the way I'm framing the argument. From my point of view. I should have stated this at the time. Let me make myself clear on this - I don't want "'my preferred outcome" to come at the expense of the free and democratic choice of the Australian electorate.

Either we want a Republic or we don't.

Many people who support a republic will vote 'No" in a "Binding" plebsicite, because they will want to see what model of republic will be installed.

The other outcome is that if the "YES" vote gets up in a so called 'Binding plebsicite", the model of republic could be defeated in the referendum. What happens then? We keep having referendums until a republic model is successful?

If they vote NO, then so be it. That is democracy. On the other outcome, how it works is this;

Binding Plebiscite:

Should Australia become a Republic? YES/NO

If NO then the matter proceeds no further until the next challenge, however long that may take.

If YES then the matter proceeds to Referendum

Referendum

The Australian voting electorate has exercised its free and democratic wish to become a Republic. Several models are up for public consideration (these models will be explained at length before the referendum so that voters are fully informed);

A)
B)
C)
D)
etc.

These models will only compete against each other, with the NO vote already being decided in the negative. The model with the most votes will see the Constitution rewritten to reflect that particular choice.

 

[M Malice]

It can't be done that way GS, it has to be put up against the existing situation eg. the monarchy.

Note- I am all for a republic but would vote NO if I didn't like the republican model being put up for vote.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

It can't be done that way GS, it has to be put up against the existing situation eg. the monarchy.

Note- I am all for a republic but would vote NO if I didn't like the republican model being put up for vote.

Yeah, we moved beyond that argument to what might be a "fairer" syystem, as in a more direct democratic choice. Fair enough though, nobody else has the right to take away your genuine beliefs regarding the matter. Whether you let pragmatism, emotion or other forms of conscience be your guide those things are YOU. As long as you aren't hurting others via your decision long may they continue.

 

[Roylion]

Referendum

The Australian voting electorate has exercised its free and democratic wish to become a Republic. Several models are up for public consideration (these models will be explained at length before the referendum so that voters are fully informed);

A)
B)
C)
D)
etc.

These models will only compete against each other, with the NO vote already being decided in the negative. The model with the most votes will see the Constitution rewritten to reflect that particular choice.

As has been explained many times already, a referendum cannot operate that way. It can't be a model with the most votes that alters the Constitution.

"And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent."

This means there MUST be a double majority. A majority of electors overall must vote "Yes" and a majority of electors in at least four states must vote "Yes".

To change this must in itself be the subject of a referendum.

Section 128 and section 51 of the Constitution specifies that alterations to itself cannot be made without a referendum.

A plebsicite can have multiple options, such as the 1977 National Anthem plebiscite, but they do not alter the constitution.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

G'day Roy! Please excuse me, I'm drunk. Dunno if you saw the Geelong win, but it was well pleasing See my earlier reply to Jason.

 

[King Brown]

Why can't we establish our own royal house. Everyone on the electoral roll goes in a lottery, winner is the new monarch.

Yes, I think most people just want an Australian head of state that is born in Australia, steeped in Australian culture and speaks with an Australian accent. Someone who goes to the footy, is there for the first ball on Boxing Day each year, holidays in Australia, not Balmoral.

I'm not sure people really want a political head of state though, after Trump a constitutional monarchy that simply fills the symbolic role for head of state would be preferable.

 

[Wallaby]

I don't think we need a referendum to change the head of state. We merely need a referendum to change the Head of State from the Queen (or British Sovereign) to President 'as elected by the Australian People'.

We have changed our election rules many times over the years (we didn't have compulsory voting until after WW1, Preferential voting came in about the same time, and the ACT now allows electronic voting, Women voting (1902), Aboriginals(1962) , 18-year olds (1973), for example). The right to vote is in the constitution (sort of) - not how to vote. And we currently do not vote for our Head of State.

So step 1. Referendum 'Do you want a Head Of State Chosen by the People of Australia - either directly or by proxy via their elected Federal parliamentary representatives'.

Step 2. How do we do it ('Phone calls cost 55c per minute - ask the bill-payers permission, and you can vote as many times as you want') And yes - that will take a few years.

It means bugger-all in the long run - just someone to wear the funny hat, open the fetes, and hand out the gongs to the public servants. Probably most importantly, a president becomes our most important identity overseas. No one O/S has a clue who the PM is, because they're not the ceremonial Head of State.

 

[The_Reaper]

Why can't we establish our own royal house. Everyone on the electoral roll goes in a lottery, winner is the new monarch.

Next Australian captain to win an Ashes series in England becomes King of Australia.

Problem solved.

 

[LeverPuller]

The first question Labor are asking is non-binding on future outcomes. Saying "Yes, we would like a republic" does nothing for the constitution. Roylion is absolutely right.

The Republican movement is headed straight for 1999 at this rate.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

'Splitting the vote' is just the way I'm framing the argument. From my point of view. I should have stated this at the time. Let me make myself clear on this - I don't want "'my preferred outcome" to come at the expense of the free and democratic choice of the Australian electorate.

Either we want a Republic or we don't.



If they vote NO, then so be it. That is democracy. On the other outcome, how it works is this;

Binding Plebiscite:

Should Australia become a Republic? YES/NO

If NO then the matter proceeds no further until the next challenge, however long that may take.

If YES then the matter proceeds to Referendum

Referendum

The Australian voting electorate has exercised its free and democratic wish to become a Republic. Several models are up for public consideration (these models will be explained at length before the referendum so that voters are fully informed);

A)
B)
C)
D)
etc.

These models will only compete against each other, with the NO vote already being decided in the negative. The model with the most votes will see the Constitution rewritten to reflect that particular choice.

We have preferential voting. Use that in a plebiscite, with multiple questions if need be. And then, if the winning respose is not the status quo, Yes/No questions go to the referendum. That way, at the referendum the model has been chosen and there is more chance that if it gets to a referendum it passes. [It is already shown to be a model people prefer over the status quo]
I'm guessing there would be many like me who would say yes to a republic, but no to certain models. Although, not necessarily the same models.

The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 sets out that referenda questions must be Yes/No in nature. Of course this is an act of parliament, not in the Constitution itself, and so can be changed without a referendum. No such rules, or any rules, apply to plebiscites.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

We have preferential voting. Use that in a plebiscite, with multiple questions if need be. And then, if the winning respose is not the status quo, Yes/No questions go to the referendum. That way, at the referendum the model has been chosen and there is more chance that if it gets to a referendum it passes. [It is already shown to be a model people prefer over the status quo]
I'm guessing there would be many like me who would say yes to a republic, but no to certain models. Although, not necessarily the same models.

The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 sets out that referenda questions must be Yes/No in nature. Of course this is an act of parliament, not in the Constitution itself, and so can be changed without a referendum. No such rules, or any rules, apply to plebiscites.

Exactly. Plebiscites aren't defined as any one thing, even as 'binding' or 'non-binding' in nature. The preferential voting method is interesting, I'd never even thought of that!

 

[sydney eagle]

Why can't we establish our own royal house. Everyone on the electoral roll goes in a lottery, winner is the new monarch.

Just allow Hutt River to take over Australia and the problem is solved !