> a body of "experts" that somehow elects itself
No, not experts - there's never been an Oz republic so there are none in this field - and the 'somehow' is personal commitment and a sense of personal responsibility - the 'maturity' that McGorry is calling for. It may surprize you to know that some of us are already doing this, and with practical results, such as a database of info that can be used as the basis for legislative drafts and challenges.

> with an en-defined role to which their 'discuss, debate and decide' actually affects government.
Not sure what this means. 'en-defined'?

> your only alternative is a US-democracy style of an elected all-powerful sovereign;
Why 'only'? You said yourself that a republic can be almost anything except a monarchy.

> Neither of which corresponds remotely to what I have actually been talking about,
> and unfortunately, I get the impression you haven't actually noticed.
Well, I've looked back over your posts on this thread, and can see a number of relevant comments - "a Republic DOES have great power to drastically improve our country - "the low-accountability, stratified system we currently have" - "all Australians concerned of this issue are divided along these lines" - "this issue will never get off the ground until people start taking the implications behind it more seriously."

I'm new here, you've obviously been around for a while, and may have posted constructive material elsewhere, but there's nothing definitive or constructive in what I've seen. Have you documented your idea of what a republic should be? If too long for a post, do you have a website or other reference? What is the first step you'd take in implementing it?

The body of wise men who are unelected raises many questions- how do they, specifically, if not elected, get into power? Who decides that they are in fact, wise? What actual input or power over the rest of our governance would they have? These are the questions I am asking.

The system I am endorsing- both clearly in this thread and others, is a Republic where the arrangement of power results in political influence relinquished by politicians and passed onto the people directly in form of referenda, somewhat similar to the Swiss Republican Model; where politicians' power is much more limited outright and the discussion of which role gets which powers becomes moot.

My system factors as many situations as possible where an issue may be stripped from the politician's hands and into the publics (you will notice that I stated I did not endorse intervening powers by the presidential body to change policy- but instead to pass it onto the electorate).

You however went on to talk about what the president would do or imply, suggesting a perception of the oligarchical presidential system.

> how do they, specifically, if not elected, get into power?
I have no idea. Personally, were I one of them, I wouldn't have the slightest interest in 'getting into power'. One point of my previous posts is the simple fact that different individuals have very different characters, personalities and ambitions. Certainly, I'd like more say in the direction this country is taking, but so would everyone else. Some will be prepared to live the media-intensive life that public recognition requires. I wouldn't. Like I said, this is completely new territory, there are no rules, and to assume that past or existing rules apply is just that - an assumption.

> Who decides that they are in fact, wise?
At the end of the day, results and posterity will judge and decide.

> What actual input or power over the rest of our governance would they have?
That's for them to discuss, debate, and decide.

> These are the questions I am asking.
Appreciate the interest; hope my answers, though terse, indicate the direction of my thoughts in the matter.

> The system I am endorsing ... results in ... referenda
Yes, it's a nice idea, but in the present circumstances so entrammelled by pre-existing regulations, procedures and authorities (quite deliberately by those who oppose such things) that you'd never get a clear result, only an ongoing argument. One of main benefits of stepping outside the existing system is that you can make your own rules to some extent, though the lawyers will certainly be tapped to prove that whatever you're doing and suggesting is illegal.

< cont ...

... cont >

> somewhat similar to the Swiss Republican Model
Don't know it but will investigate.

> My system factors .. pass it onto the electorate).
Sounds good in theory, but have you delineated the practical aspects? In my experience, the majority don't give a damn about such things until it's actually hurting them, and then they want someone else to solve the problem and stop their pain. Most populist political ideology suffers from the delusion that the public is actually interested in politics. They're not. They're interested in a home, an income, three meals a day and a bonk twice a week.

> You however went on to talk about what the president would do or imply
Frankly, I've only ever seen a president as a figurehead. Yes, there's a great temptation to envisage him/her as an all-wise, all-powerful father/mother figure, but the reality of the world is, and always has been, that individuals only gain power through brute force (Genghis Khan) or the barrel of a gun (Mao). Non-brutal systems always require debate, compromise, and concessions - i.e. representative groups acting for mutually benefical outcomes that none expect to be perfect in an imperfect world. Lee Kuan Yew appears to have created Singapore single-handed, but he had a coterie of very dedicated and talented followers who protected him and stayed in the background whilst he wore the barrage of media attention. He also had a remarkable marriage to a very loving, intelligent woman who stayed well out of the limelight, but was essential to his success. He was never the President, nor wanted to be.

"Lee Kuan Yew appears to have created Singapore single-handed, but he had a coterie of very dedicated and talented followers who protected him and stayed in the background..."
So he wasn't a solo wonder boy? Imagine that.
"Perhaps if the President were multiply schizoid ..."

"REPUBLICANISM is not about living as republicans wish to live, it is asking others to live that way and eventually forcing them to do so >> one way or another"

All insidious political change comes from Type 'A' Personalities: people who are either ugly or have a terrible inferiority complex. I know of no one who is beautiful or has inner beauty who wishes wishes to raise the ONE so far above the many, for so many 'unspecified' reasons as republicans.