David,

Currently the Governors of the States are appointed by the Head of State (as they would be in my proposal also). If the Head of State were resident in Canberra, the office of Governor General would be obsolete, since the office of Governor General is a Viceregal office. State Viceroys would continue to make sense as the Head of State (whom they would represent)would not be resident in any of the States.

If consider my proposal carefully, you will see that the Head of State (who has replaced the Governor General) is independant of the Federal Government (as is currently the case) by virtue of election by the State Viceroys.

If the role of Governor General remained (I situation which I believe would result in a bit of a double up, giving no breathing space for the Head of State), then the Governor General could be considered a member of the Council of Electors, perhaps as their head. I don't think that works quite as neatly, though.

Totally Agree Ev.

.
“The preferential system is better than first past the post.”

But David, the optional and compulsory preferential systems are poles apart. I would say that compulsory preferential is worse than first past the post.

“…it is possible for a voter to cast a formal vote and cause the candidate they ranked last to win the election.”

YES! But second-last, not last. This indicates that there is an absolutely fundamental problem with compulsory preferential voting, that outweighs anything else in any voting system – the fact that your vote can count where you have no intention of allowing it to count, which is diametrically opposed to the principle of voting!

“The advantage of the compulsory preferential system is that the winning candidate appears to have majority support”.

“Appears to have” indeed. In the optional preferential system, the winner has real majority support. Why is there an advantage in a system that appears to show majority support when that support is always partly false?

“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.”

It is an artificial majority to some extent, because some votes are gained from voters who declare preferences to winning candidates that they would not have declared if they didn’t have to number every box. How on earth can this help confirm the legitimacy of parliament? Surely just the opposite is true.

The stability of society requires the major parties to adapt to changing times. Compulsory preferential voting helps keep the minor parties suppressed and their doctrine minor. This helps keep the pressure off the big parties. Consequently, they are more inclined to practice the same old methodology, which might have been fine while the nation was developing, but which is not fine any longer, with real threats of resource depletion while demand continues to escalate.

Compulsory preferential voting aids political stagnation. In the short term this may help the stability of society, but in the longer term it is bad news.

response to SchÜtz,

If people want our Head of State to be an Australian Citizen, wouldn't the easiect way be to have the Citizenship Act amended to confer citizenship on the current monarch? There is actually a precedent for this in 1702, when the Act of Settlement settled the crown on Sophia of Hanover and her descendants. Having done this, the British Parliament passed an act for "The Naturalisation of Sophia, the Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the issue of her body"

p.s. where is the u umlaut key on an australian keyboard? I could only manage a capital one.

Response to Plerdsus:

I've always believed that being truthful is both self-serving and serves the interests of others. Nothing in what you say changes the age of the Argentine constitution. The document was written in 1853. It was not replaced in 1983, when democracy was restored. That’s how the age of something is determined.

Any you throw in France for some reason. Isn’t that Professor Flint’s habit when he gets stuck? We can be at least impressed by your confidence. BTW, you have yet to give an offensive and incorrect excuse for resetting the age of the constitution of Norway.

The latest foot-in-mouth effort, you say that "we have had many posts from David Latimer, but nary a one that specifies a specific model." You have overlooked my post of Sunday, 19 March 12:52 PM, which points to a better constitutional system under an Australian Republic. I’ll repeat part of that post here:
> See past article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3703
> See my model: http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/intro/

So not only have I explained the benefits of being a republic, I can outline what I believe to be the best way of establishing a republic. Yes, I can do it.

A summary of the model:
We want to elect our Head of State, but we don't want to destablise our system of government or worse, unravel our constitutional safeguards. Under my proposal, our Head of State shall be directly-elected, non-executive and apolitical. Their one and only constitutional duty would be to appoint the Governor-General and State Governors upon a nomination by the Prime Minister or Premier, respectively.

The governors would continue to be our constitutional umpires, impartial and able to exercise reserve powers if necessary. This would leave the Head of State with the role of an ambassador for Australian goodwill, our national representative above politics and independent of the Prime Minister and government in general.

You may also review my submission to the Senate Republican Inquiry of 2004: http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/submission/title.html

And the inclusion of my efforts in the final report "Road to a Republic": http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/republic03/report/c07.pdf

(No, I don't support hanging lawyers, or anyone else.)

David Latimer - in your model why would you need a Head of State as well as a Governor-General? - isn't this overkill? Surely just one person could do the job which would then permit taxpayers to fund a residence, salary and allowances commensurate with the status that should attach to such a position. This would provide Australia with a much needed National symbol and ambassador. I'm not too sure why we need separate State Governors either - if at the moment they are just representing the Queen in her absence then surely they are not needed when we have our own resident Head of State.

Response to Sajo:

Thanks for your question; it’s a good one. There are many reasons why replacing the Queen with an Australian Head of state (HOS) works and works well.

#1 It how the current system works today. The GG is not the HOS, the Queen is.

#2 Australians support a non-executive HOS. The GG has significant powers under the constitution. It's better and simpler not to strip the GG of these powers through codification.

#3 Many Australians support electing the HOS. But if we also want an apolitical HOS, then reserve powers cannot be assigned. No reserve powers means no mandate, no what-if questions during the election.

#4 It’s less expensive for the taxpayer. Although we must pay for this one new office (~10c/year/per capita), there is little cost for the six state governments. The states don't work out their republican transition and don't elect their governors. “Elect-the-GG/President” models result in being about twice as expensive.

#5 For what we pay, we get a direct benefit. We're paying the HOS to do a job, which is to promote civil society at home (eg community organisations, Australian values) and to promote Australian business, culture and tourism overseas.

#6 Governors and GG are overworked in their ceremonial roles. They attend thousand of events every year and have to reject invitations to thousands more. The model adds 15% capacity to these services, the first expansion in 100 years. (If we removed Governors then politicians would fill the void – a political speech for every community function!)

#7 Often overlooked, the Crown is a common feature of each state and the federation. The model maintains this unifying feature of the current system

#8 The conventions between the PM and GG remain operative.

#9 Transitionally, an elected HOS succeeds the existing HOS – no more complex than King Charles succeeding Queen Elizabeth.

#10 The PM does not interact with the HOS. They have very different constitutional roles. The separation of these roles is very distinct – a very advantageous feature.

#11 Less overall change to the constitution: about 300 to 600 words altered.