Keating Making His Move

[Jimmy_041]

It's not illegal not to vote, only to not turn up.

Paul Hogan - precisely why I don't favour an open election.

Incorrect - voting is compulsory - http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/Compulsory_Voting.htm
Which is why I said Paul Hogan
The politicians have tried to use that argument as the reason why we are so stupid that we cant be trusted
They do have evidence of our stupidity though - we elect them

[redandblack]

Thanks for that, Jimmy, you're right about the compulsory voting in theor, but in practice having your name marked off the roll and putting your ballot paper in the box at the polling place is compulsory, but actually voting for a candidate is impossible to police.

Thanks for the link, though, I accept that and agree with you.

[Jimmy_041]

The AEC are wrong

[redandblack]

Sorry, I edited my post before seeing your last one.

The AEC aren't wrong, I was

[tipper]

Whatever is said, the opponents of a republic, who are aghast at the 'wrong' model being chosen, are presumably happy to have the following:

A foreign head of State.

That HOS must be from one particular family.

He/she must be the eldest of that family.

He/she must be C of E (I think the Labor Govt here might have changed that recently. If so, hooray)

That HOS isn't voted in (and if he/she was), Australians wouldn't have a vote.

A Governor-General of Australia appointed by the Prime Minister alone (in other words, by just one of the politicians you don't trust).

the way i see it, just because someone voted against the referendum for australia to become a republic, does not mean they are endorsing the current system.

if, for arguments sake, the current system is broken, and an individual wishes for a republic system instead, is there any reason to bring in a new system that is in the individuals view, just as bad, if not worse than the system we have? why replace one crap system with another crap system just because it is called a "republic". if replacing the current system surely people should be voting for a "better" system, whatever that might be.

not saying i voted either way at the time by the way, i was not of voting age at the time so i am really not up to speed on the debate (i remember that there was a referendum on the topic, but not the details) i am actually not sure if i am a monarchist or republican, i think i lean towards an "if it isnt broken, dont fix it" point of view, i dont personally have a problem with the current system, ,but i havent thought on it much.

[Gingernuts]

IMO the last thing Australia needs is a Presidential election circus like the one America has at the moment. The process of electing a head of state will end up being a ridiculous and expensive popularity contest just to install someone into a position we haven't needed for our first 100 years, I just don't see the point.

We have one of the most stable and effective governments in the world. I've heard that the UN even uses our model as an example for effective democratic government.

Who cares if we have a ceremonial figurehead as our head of state. ******* around with something as important as our system of government just because you don't like who's head is on your coins doesn't make sense to me. Leave it alone I say.

[Bat Pad]

IMO the last thing Australia needs is a Presidential election circus like the one America has at the moment. The process of electing a head of state will end up being a ridiculous and expensive popularity contest just to install someone into a position we haven't needed for our first 100 years, I just don't see the point.

We have one of the most stable and effective governments in the world. I've heard that the UN even uses our model as an example for effective democratic government.

Who cares if we have a ceremonial figurehead as our head of state. ******* around with something as important as our system of government just because you don't like who's head is on your coins doesn't make sense to me. Leave it alone I say.

I agree.

Lets just have a referendum on whether we want to secede from the Commonwealth.

No need to change anything else.

[DOC]

You do not have to secede from the Commonwealth to change the head of state (ie. India is a republic and thus have a President, we are a constitutional monarchy and have the Queen). It requires constitutional change, which requires a referendum.

[Bat Pad]

You do not have to secede from the Commonwealth to change the head of state (ie. India is a republic and thus have a President, we are a constitutional monarchy and have the Queen). It requires constitutional change, which requires a referendum.

True, but wouldn't that be a little hypocritical?

To maintain benefits of membership in the commonwealth (as small as they are) yet to say that its head isn't good enough for us would be IMO.

I personally would rather just secede.

[dedja]

Why have a Head of State? ... Just piss off the GG and leave everything else as is.

Problem solvered.

[Jimmy_041]

I bags the wine cellar when that happens

[dedja]

toss you* for it ...

[Gingernuts]

Just don't go too hard* with the current one's frocks okay lads?

[Psyber]

It's not illegal not to vote, only to not turn up.
Paul Hogan - precisely why I don't favour an open election.

I agree that there has to be some form of vetting process or definition of qualifications for candidates prior to direct election.

I would like the occupant of the HOS position to have some power to restrain government excesses if they arise, and not be a cipher.
It should not be a retirement job, or pension post, for past politicians - like Bill Hayden.
Nor should it be a token position filled by popular entertainers who won't rock the boat.

[Jimmy_041]

It was an extremely flippant comment to expose a ridiculous argument put up by the supporters of the model.

If there is to be a popular election, I'd suggest 3-4 candidates are put up by parliament