Johnj, I share your concerns.

Nick writes; “Its mechanisms are there to ensure that our society works, not to serve a short-sighted prejudice. There is no point in changing a system of government which has delivered a safe, civil, liberal society but there is great danger in doing so.”

The trouble is, the current system is full of the most appalling short-sighted prejudice, to the extent of gravely endangering the very fabric of our society, with its highly anti-sustainability momentum. Obviously, there is all the point in the world in changing this system. But there is no indication that a republic, especially one with the likes of Malcolm Turnbull in any position of power, would in any way change it for the better.

John, you write: “I repeat that our constitution does not explicitly protect any rights except the right to vote.”

Yes, but it does not protect the basic right of having our vote count where we want it to count, which makes a complete mockery of the right to vote and of democracy itself! Hence my repeated vehement criticism of compulsory preferential voting on OLO.

I would have hoped that the Australian Democrats or the Greens would have been the forces to bring about, or at least strongly lobby for, these sorts of changes. But alas, Andrew Bartlett (and by extension, the Democrats) has shown himself on OLO to be nothing more than a third pea in the pod of anti-sustainability future-destroying mongrels. Perhaps even more depressing; Bob Brown and the Greens have maintained a narrow focus, which has not had a great deal to do with sustainability or the governmental changes that we have to have.

The republican movement is devoid of effective reforms or anything that appeals to the populace. So this leaves us with an empty bucket.

If only people like Ian Lowe, Tim Flannery, Clive Hamilton or Frank Fenner could become our national leaders.

Sorry about my confronting statement; “Try reading his article”. It was unnecessary. I should have exercised more tact.

Ludwig,
What do you mean by this statement in reference to maintaining our right to vote?

Quote: "Yes, but it does not protect the basic right of having our vote count where we want it to count, which makes a complete mockery of the right to vote and of democracy itself! Hence my repeated vehement criticism of compulsory preferential voting on OLO."

What nonsense! Preferential voting is the only way you can ultimately make your vote count according to what you prefer. To follow the "How To Vote" by Party lines by placing "1" in one box denies you choice and the Party distribute your preferences. By numbering all boxes in sequence of your own preferences gives you absolute choice and the Party cannot change that. Compulsory preferential is the only way you get the majority of opinion of the whole electorate on their first choice of Candidate. First past the post is a fraud: eg

A = 10 votes
B = 20 votes
C = 30 votes
D = 40 votes

In that example D should be elected; but A + B + C = 60 votes. They each placed D last in their preferences. Who best represents the will of the electorate? C with 60 preference votes or D with 40 votes?

That you did not get your Candidate elected because you voted D is not a mockery of democracy. It is the will of Democracy. It is a process of elimination of candidates with less preferences. If C had two invalid votes and preferences flowed to B before C then this could be contested even though B received the most second preferences with 58 votes

Philo, I am pleased that you raise this matter.

There is all the difference in the world between optional and compulsory preferential voting. Optional preferential voting, where you number only the squares that you wish to number, is fully democratic.

Compulsory preferential voting, in which you are forced to number every square, and thus have your preferences filter down until they count for one of the two major candidates / parties, is totally antidemocratic. For example, if you wish to vote for an independent or minor party and you put Labor and Liberal last and second last, in the vast majority of cases your vote will count for whichever you put second last.

With compulsory preferential voting, your vote can and often does count where you have no intention of it counting. Nothing could be more of a wrought of democracy.

David Latimer,

After the fiasco over weapons of mass destruction, I though you would have been more careful than to blindly copy data from the CIA.

When it comes to constitutions, the oldest is a matter of definition. Some would put the first one as far back as the Code of Hammurabi. The definitions I use are ones that I think most posters would relate to, which are:

1. A constitution is, as Justice Marshall said in the US: “A superior paramount law … unchangeable by ordinary means..” In other words, if an act called a constitution can be amended just like any other law, it is not what we would regard as one. This means that countries like NZ, UK, Canada only have constitution acts, not a constitution. Until 1982 Canada was governed under the British North America Act, and when they wanted a change they had to ask the UK to amend it.

2. The constitution must have been in continuous force, and not have been effectively suspended by military occupation, dictatorship etc.

Looking at David’s list we can exclude the following countries for the
reasons listed.

San Marino:............. definition 1
Argentina:............... dictatorship 1976-1983
Canada:.................. definition 1
Netherlands:.......... German occupation 1940-1945
Belgium:................. German occupation 1940-1944
Luxembourg:........... German occupation 1940-1944
Tonga:.................... definition 1

Denmark is a marginal case, as the German occupation was more of a token affair, and the constitution could be said to have remained in force.

This leaves the US, Switzerland and Denmark with older constitutions than us, and so ours is the fourth oldest.

Becoming a republic will allow Australia to mature and stand on it's own feet. However, Australia has such a small history it could get 'lost'.

Traditionally the English "peasants" were expected to cringingly touch their caps in deference to those who, by right of birth, considered themselves to be the peasants' "betters". The monarchy is part of this system. Even in Britain, an increasing number of people are seeing it as an unnecessary anachronism. Although it is good for their tourist trade, a bit like Side Show Alley.

We don't have this tradition in Australia. I would suggest that most of us consider ourselves to be the equals to the Queen and any member of her family. "Long to reign over us"? Bulldust!

Monarchists often say that the British monarchy is part of our checks and balances and this is currently true. But does anyone seriously believe that, given the necessary time and effort, we are unable to come up with a suitably fair republican system which would satisfy most Australians? Or are the monarchists claiming that the present system is the ultimate and cannot possibly be improved upon?