Not homeless but close on the rest. Problem is that I have a family. I am a great grandmother. Too many in-laws.

.

Well, it looks like ...

.

a majority of Australians does not want either Gillard or Abbott.

Not many want the Greens or the Independents either.

Both the current prime minister and the leader of the opposition are internal appointments of their respective political parties.

Nobody asked us if we agreed they should hold their current positions, or govern the country and represent our interests.

Having finally faced the electorate, it now appears that neither of them is willing to accept that most Australians rejected them.

Both have chosen to ignore the result of the popular vote and are seeking to "purchase" votes which designated other candidates, again, without consulting the Australians who designated those candidates.

In my view, candidates at an election do not "own" votes and have no mandate from the electors who designated them to "sell" the designations to the highest bidder.

As Churchill rightly observed, there is no perfect democracy but it would be a definite improvement if we were to adopt a constitutional republic, instead of our current constitutional monarchy, and elect an Australian citizen as president, by universal suffrage, in order to put a cap on the eternal and, apparently, inevitable, power struggle associated with party politics.

There is no "vote market" in a presidential election. Each elector's vote stays where he or she puts it and does not get sold over his or her head to somebody he or she does not want ... at any price!

The political power in the presidential suite would certainly straighten out the ideas of all those aspiring tap and toe dancers in the political parties that infest the basement of our democracy, with their incessant intriques and conspiracies which may suit them but are completely contrary to our vote.

Continued ...

.

.

Continued ...

.

Need I add that in a democracy such as Australia, any political alliance established with the objective of forming a national government to rule the country, should clearly announce its formation and political platform to the electorate before the elections take place, not after the elections are over and the results published.

It is a basic principle of democracy thet the electorate should know exactly who and what it is voting for. Its votes should not be misappropriated and used to elect somebody who was not specifically designated on the ballot forms, nor as a booster to political power of some party that did not have the voters' preference.

Each ballot is the personal expression of the democratic choice of each elector. It is not a simple commodity that can be traded among political parties long after it has been cast.

"A priori" alliances are democratic. "A posteriori" alliances are not democratic. They are autocratic.

If the political parties are not satisfied with their scores and want to come back for a "double dip" or a "second helping" after the party is over, they should ask the electorate if it does not mind if they help themselves to whatever scraps are left over in the voters' plates that nobody else wants.

.

George Williams could you just learn about what the constitution is about before writing about it? The statement “they include that the governor-general acts on the advise of the caretaker prime minister” is in my view a constitutional nonsense! It amazes me that with my crummy English, as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, I seem to be the only person who really understand/comprehend what is constitutionally appropriate, see my blog at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati for a set out of the relevant constitutional matters regarding this issue of commissioning a person to form a government. Who will form the next government has nothing to do with the majority in the Parliament as it is a prerogative power exercised by the Governor-General and so WITHOUT the advise of the Prime Minister!
Neither Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott or for that anyone else elected for the House of Representatives are Members of Parliament until after the return of the writs when they take up a seat! And, back in 1901 E. Barton was commissioned to form a government without any Parliament existing and was subsequently elected. Don’t confuse the role of a government with that of the Parliament, and I for one having campaigned for long for electors to vote for INDEPENDENTS to bring about a lesson to the major political parties am satisfied they are getting their message.
On 19 July 2006 I defeated comprehensively the Commonwealth that compulsory voting is unconstitutional and while I do not oppose voting I oppose any form of compulsory voting and the Court upheld my cases! This my blog also displays. Voting is our constitutional rights but in the way we desire and not hijacked by politicians dictating how we should vote! See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com. As for the Greens as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that some of their alleged issues are a constitutional nonsense. Do I need to say more?