The author seems to forget that we do not have a presidential election system although many seem to wish that we did.
The Prime Minister holds that position depending on the confidence of the parliamentary members. That there would be leaders of various belief factions in a party is to be expected and when enough of the party members have lost confidence in a Prime Minister then it should only be expected that there will be a change.
Each member of a party or coalition wants leaders who will provide in their collective view the best opportunity to maintain or win power so that the overall policies of that group can be put into effect.
I for one do not want it to be otherwise.

Once more I have to point out-Australians never have elected a Prime Minister,we elect a Parliament and the majority party forms the government. The Gillard coup might turn out to be a political mistake, however it's not undemocratic under our system.Too much American TV perhaps.

Foyle,

yes,who wants to elect a quasi-monarch for four years who is often in conflict with the national parliament.

Another hatchet job, another article cobbled together from emotion at the expense of reality.

Politics is a bloodthirsty business, played out among egotists. Fortunately for Australia, the bloodthirstiness has, so far, been only in a figurative sense (the Arthur Calwell incident aside). The author is either delusional or less than forthright in writing that it has ever been otherwise.
What would Jennifer prescribe for the future?

Suppose we have “moved forward” to a less-easily manipulated electoral system – one derived from a referendum declaring that parliaments run a fixed term, of four years, and on a fixed date (Perhaps each leap year, and the first of April?). Further, in addition to voting for the local candidate, the voter is required to cast a vote for preferred Prime Minister out of those putting themselves forward – Peter Garrett, Bob Brown, Steve Fielding, Ian Plimer, Andrew Forrest, Julia Bishop, Graham Young?

Then suppose again, subsequent to this great leap forward, that Tony Abbott gains the Prime Minister’s Lodge – what then if he gets run over by his own bicycle and has an early demise? Do we have another election – what is the democratic outcome for the unscrambled jumble of wishes for voters who have not only a preferred representative for their own electorate, but in all probability a preferred party in Government, and a preferred Prime Minister?

Jennifer, unbury the poorly-wielded hatchet, and make some sense.

Once again it's necessary to point out that even according to the PM herself, Australians do "choose" the PM.

According to black letter constitutional law of course that isn't the case. But in reality, campaigns in this country are run as presidential campaigns. The major parties use their leaders to win votes. The Kevin 07 campaign proves the efficacy of this strategy.

However, when the people have "chosen" the PM in this fashion, the party still retains the right to overthrow that "choice", even when that people's choice has got them in government.

This is inconsistent and undemocratic. If they're going to use the leader to win government, they should consult the voters when they want to get rid of that leader, who is now the PM as well.

Our constitution does not reflect our current reality. It is unrealistic to argue that we don't elect our PM, when clearly that is exactly what we do, and exactly what we are encouraged to do by the major parties.

Gillard and her gang have done nothing illegal or undemocratic in ousting Rudd; no more than has the Opposition when it rid itself of Nelson and Turnbull – who, like Rudd, had become liabilities to their respective parties.

But it’s no help for the Gillardians to sit back with a smug little smile on their faces, content that nothing ‘wrong’ has taken place because we - the dumb voters – have no say in who our Prime Minister is.

We clearly do not have a presidential system, but – and it’s a big but – ever since Hawk, Keating and Howard, we have had PM’s ACTING like presidents, with cabinet ministers being allowed, occasionally, to say in public what our presidential style PM’s have said they could say. It seems that cabinet, no matter which party is in power, has become redundant in favour of increasingly dictatorial Prime Ministers.

And let’s face it. When people say they would or would not vote for ‘that bastard’, they are talking about a party leader they do not actually vote for. Many people don’t even know the name of their local representative, who generally doesn’t take much notice of them either, until election time.

It seems clear, that the ALP Government would have fallen if Rudd remained Prime Minister. The leader of the country IS the Prime Minister. So how can we kid ourselves that what Gillard did is not serious?

The fact that Gillard refuses to tell us, the voters of Australia, anything about her swift disposal of Rudd because she ‘gave her word’ simply doesn’t wash. When the leader of our country is prepared to deny us the truth of her deeds – and doesn’t have to answer to us for it - she just has to keep in good with her cronies - it is a bloody disgrace.

Remember, Gillard was Rudd’s deputy; she regularly defended everything the man did, and as Minister for Education, she made the biggest and costliest errors of any Minister, ever, with the BER farce.