Robert LePage,

I would prefer neither but, at least, we would get to vote for or against GW Bush. The acid test is exactly that, viz, that we get to vote for one of them. Having travelled to the UK I was surprised that many British people view the "royal" family as nothing more than a tourist attraction.

The fact is the monarchy is totally irrelevent to Australia.

Agree, more or less, with Francis.
An online plebiscite would allow some of the proposals to be included or dismissed from any following referendum, which should first ask, if we the people want an Australian as head of state, yes or no.
Then, what model of selection we the people want? By the people or by the parliament? Yes or no!
If we are to have a referendum on this topic, why not also ask if we want a bill of rights, which would act to curtail the unbridled power of politicians, to trample over them at will, or legislate them out of existence?.
One assumes the President would be largely a ceremonial figure head?
Have no real power of veto, and no longer be the virtual commander in chief, of the armed forces?
To reiterate, the plebiscite also ought to ask whether we the people elect our president, or it is left to two thirds of the parliament?
Which could place unprecedented new power in the hands of the Prime Minister?
Instead of the Governor General using reserve powers to dismiss a Govt, the PM, would be able to remove the Governor General/President?
The argument for retaining the present arrangements, are that that would exclude the normal political corruption, special interest lobbyists and the ability by the most powerful, to buy/bid for the position.
In any event, the position can't ever be allowed to fall into the hands of former power hungry Politicians?
A President Rudd anyone, or maybe a President Palmer?
Rhrosty.

Many of the ideas mentioned have merit, however what are the chances of power-mad bloodsucking parasites offering to give away part of their control over the sheeple ?? I suggest that finding a clutch of rocking horse eggs would be infinitely more likely. Sure they SHOULD ask us if we want an Australian head of state, a bill of rights, and for that matter, citizen initiated referenda. Fact is they WON'T because that means less power for the bloodsucking parasites ... absolutely unthinkable.

Aside from that, why on earth would we want a ceremonial head of state ?? We already have a bunch of horribly expensive albeit totally useless 'ceremonial' parasites who fill their time swanning around big-noting themselves. Another level of control over parliament would be a good thing, providing the people have control over el presidente'. Scatterbrained females (or males for that matter ... its just that the present GG & QLD governor are the former) need not apply, how about someone like Peter Cosgrove ?? At least he should know how to whip a mob of unruly brats into line.

Agree with Francis, both are pains, Bush and Liz, when the average person like myself views the monarchy they see a person with untold wealth and bling, one only had to watch the wedding of Phil to Liz, front row plenty of bling and gold carriages, second row, by herself in nun'garb, Phil's mother.
Can someone please explain why all the fuss over these people, what really do they do to warrant all the bling, bow and scrape, what for, they all sit on the toilet just like you and I,why should the monarchy be handed down from one to the next for ever and a day, lets have someone who has earned the position as Head of Australia, I could think of plenty of people.
Bring on an Australian Republic, the sooner the better

Ron Unz, publisher of The American Conservative, has demonstrated time and again the extraordinary ability to re-examine settled issues and show that the accepted conclusion was incorrect.

In terms of democracy, and any constitutional change to a Republican model we should consider the following:

Unz is discussing the efficacy of democracy. Does the way democracy works in America provide any more self-rule than in undemocratic regimes? He offers this example:

“Most of the Americans who elected Barack Obama in 2008 intended their vote as a total repudiation of the policies and personnel of the preceding George W. Bush administration. Yet once in office, Obama’s crucial selections, Robert Gates at Defence, Timothy Geither at Treasury, and Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve, were all top Bush officials, and they seamlessly continued the unpopular financial bailouts and foreign wars begun by his predecessor, producing what amounted to a third Bush term.”

Today, the few Americans who are free of the constraints imposed by dogmas on their ability to think and to process information have a huge responsibility for their small number.

The assault on the rule of law began in the last years of the Clinton regime, but the real destruction of the US Constitution, the basis for the United States, was achieved by the neo-conservative George W. Bush and Obama regimes.

Wars without declarations by Congress, torture in violation of both US and international law, war crimes in violation of the Nuremberg standard, indefinite detention and assassination of US citizens without due process of law, universal spying on US citizens without warrants, federalisation of state and local police now armed with military weapons and uniforms, detention centers, the need to present papers (identification) not only at airports but also on freeways, streets, bus terminals, train stations, and at sporting events.

If this is the Republican model of democracy at work, I hardly support any notion to work toward going down that version of the ‘Republican’ road

Why do so many contributors refer to America, as if their system is somehow relevant to Australian republicanism? I don't know any Aussie republican who is attracted to the US model, which, after all, is 230 years out of date, whereas ours is in the comparatively early stages of senility at 110 years old.

The specific changes suggested by a republican model are all-important. Nothing in my very detailed Advancing Democracy proposal remotely resembles the American model, and while the ARM merely has suggestions these days, rather than a specific proposal, they haven’t suggested an executive president, which is the key features of America’s mess.