Philo

“just vote 1” is a suggestion. If everyone, or the vast majority did this, it would pretty well be the same as first-past-the-post. But the thing is people are free in NSW and my state Queensland to exercise the option of declaring preferences or not. The net result is a wonderful mix, oozing the sweet smell of freedom of choice, of just-vote-1ers and preference-declarers. That makes it very different indeed to first-past-the-post.

If a lot of supporters of the major parties take up the just vote 1 suggestion, and don’t declare any preferences to the smaller parties, I can’t see that it would matter very much. Afterall, in the vast majority of cases, preferences wouldn’t count if you put one of the two major candidates / parties first. The difference between optional and compulsory preferential systems is most manifest for those who don’t vote for the major parties.

Can you see how, under the compulsory preferential system, your vote can end up counting where you really don’t want it to count?

Better to have a voting system like that of Switzerland's, where the population is better informed on issues and politics that affect them, and regular voting, rather than just every few years. Informed, involved citizens make a strong democracy, not monarchs or presidents.

Republicans need to sort out what their beef is: is it with the fact that our head of state is a foreigner, or is it with the fact that the head of state is chosen through chance of birth rather than through a democratic election?

Here’s a suggestion that may fix both without losing the stability that comes with our established form of government. It’s loosely based on the old Holy Roman Empire model of elective monarchy.

1) The Head of State will be an Australian citizen.
2) The Head of State will replace exactly the position and duties currently occupied and carried out by the Governor General, but without any reference to any foreign authority.
3) The Governors of the States will be retained in their office serving as viceroys of the Federal Head of State and continue to be chosen as they currently are but with reference to the Head of State in Canberra rather than to the British monarch.
4) The Governors of the States will form a Council of Electors responsible for choosing the Head of State.
5) [Nb. This is the clincher:] The Head of State will be elected FOR LIFE rather than a limited term in office.

Life-time office would mean stability and distance from day-to-day political issues while allowing time for respect, familiarity and fondness to grow among the citizens for their Head of State. It would be cost-effective and cause minimum disruption to the day-to-day business of government.

Of course, voluntary retirement should be allowed, and measures could be put in place for extraordinary circumstances should the removal of the head of state be required (eg. unanimous agreement of the Council of Electors).

I can’t imagine a more cost-effective, non-partisan and non-disruptive way of choosing and maintaining an Australian, non-hereditary Head of State. We could even call her or him "Your Majesty".

About voting (Philo and Ludwig):

There is an element of truth in both your views. The problem is that no system of voting is perfect. The argument is really about the advantages and disadvantages of each.

The preferential system is better than first past the post. But it does have some disadvantages. For example it is possible for a voter to cast a formal vote and cause the candidate they ranked last to win the election. Such a voter would be better off voting informally.

This is explained in the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

The advantage of the compulsory preferential system is that the winning candidate appears to have majority support. Ludwig is saying that this is an artificial majority in some circumstances. But it may help in confirming the legitimacy of parliament and thus for the overall stability of society.

Response to Schutz:

Your proposal implicitly merges the roles of Head of State and Governor-General. It also has the Governor-General appointing governors of states, who should be constitutionally independent of the federal government.

The Head of State should be an Australian citizen who replaces the duties of the current Head of State - the Queen. It is in those terms that your proposal would make most sense.

David Latimer,

I did say that Denmark could be considered marginal. If Denmark is ruled out by the German occupation, then our constitution becomes the third oldest.

Your suggestion that I ring up the relevant consulates gave me the best laugh I have had in years! Talk about self-serving. It reminded me of the time in the fifties when Evatt astounded the House of Reps by stating that he had proof that the Petrov affair was a conspiracy because Molotov had confirmed it. Of course republics like Argentina would like to forget the frequent dictatorships, brutalities, murder and torture that have characterised their history, and pretend that their constitution has held sway since 1853, but blind freddy knows better. Much the same can be said for many other republics, particularly the French, who I believe are currently up to their fifth republic, but that doesn’t get us very far.

To direct the debate back to the subject, we have had many posts from David Latimer, but nary a one that specifies a specific model. I know that many passionate republicans don’t care what model is adopted, but most people do, and we have the votes. I would love to see a proposal from him that takes into account the widespread contempt and suspicion in Australia of politicians and lawyers.

In particular, he should take into account Jack Cabe's famous remark: "The first thing we do, let's hang all the lawyers.", and secondly of Dr. Johnson's polite dictum that "he did not wish to speak ill of any man behind his back but he thought the gentleman was an attorney."

Over to you, David