The Forum > Article Comments > A democratic republic > Comments
A democratic republic : Comments
By Luke Whitington, published 8/10/2008It is nothing but rank elitism to suggest that someone needs to have served as a judge or a politician to be able to act as our head of state.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 10:49:28 AM
| |
Or, instead of wasting time and money to introduce a new system which will potentially give rise to significant risks, we could retain the one we already have.
You know, the one that works. Really, to expose the nation to such risks for some silly symbolism is madness. Posted by Scott Smith, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 10:51:57 AM
| |
I think we are perfectly capable of electing heads of state who are Australian.
May I please refer readers to this blog, which is a draft proposal for a new constitution for Australia as a republic and includes a whole chapter on the presidents and how to elect them. http://www.blognow.com.au/newcon21australia/ thank you one and all. Posted by consRmad, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 12:45:59 PM
| |
Unfortunately, if our figurehead President was selected by a lottery, then anyone who actually had a productive job and an interesting life would immediately refuse the position, and only the idle and useless would accept. But why not take the idea further and allow every Australian who reaches the age of 95 to be President for one day? The stipend would be a useful boost to the old age pension, and I'm sure that most of the old dears would be delighted to be feted and ferried around at the public's expense for twenty-four hours. And a senile geriatric President would be in an ideal position to deal with so many other world leaders -- Castro, Mugabe, McCain, the Queen...
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 6:12:20 PM
| |
Jon J, I think you may find that Luke Whitington can cut you a deal on your proposal, as long as you are willing to compromise a bit on the details. I know the man, and can vouch for his integrity as a negotiator.
Holding the presidency for just one day would be impractical, because the costs of training and of running a perpetual selection roster would be prohibitive -- but we could easily restrict the jury-style selection system to over-95s who pass, say, a basic health check. Incidentally, why would you want to peg this at the age of 95? Is it symbolic of something in particular? I would have thought 65 or 100 would be the obvious choices. Posted by Tom Clark, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 8:47:07 PM
| |
Apologies for my previous question, Jon J: I have been reminded that 95 is the nearest whole integer to Don Bradman's 1st class batting average.
Posted by Tom Clark, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 8:51:12 PM
|
If that is so, remember that it has all been done under a monarchy!
“So, we are embarrassed by the institution of monarchy, and most of us wish to abolish it.”
How could anyone be possibly “embarrassed’ by the monarchy, when it is part of our history, our culture, and we have achieved so much with it?
There is absolutely no evidence that most of us wish to abolish the monarchy. Polls are too wishy washy to believe, and the only real test of public sentiment on the matter – a referendum – was soundly defeated. The republicans thinking that the defeat came out of the particular model presented are deluding themselves. Even the ex-big shot of the republican movement, Malcolm Turnbull, has pushed aside the idea for the time being.
This author merely points out to us, in his pondering on different approaches to republicanism, just how the whole idea is just one big headache not worth the turmoil and expense.
As for choosing a presidential candidate from Australians as a whole, come on! Just how much say does anyone think we would get in that charade? It would simply be manipulated by the high and mighty and, like current political candidates selected by a party, we would have to just vote for one of a list whether or not we had ever heard of them or even wanted them.
The ‘off-the-roll’ idea suggested by this author is one of the most bizarre ideas ever to come from a pro-republican.
It seems that we have a long way to go before people who want to get rid of a perfectly good institution have their own ideas worked out before they can start convincing the rest of us.