“Australia has a history of leading the way in being the most democratic, free, and equal society in the world.’

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Hi Tom,

There must be some age which only about 365 Australians reach each year: 95 was my best guess. You say training costs would be prohibitive, but what training? All they would have to do is sit in a wheelchair and read. And it could hardly cost more than the current nonsense -- particularly if State governors were selected by the same method.

But I have an alternative suggestion: Skippy for President! She's photogenic and her speeches are mercifully short (perhaps we could recruit one of the actors who played Sonny on the show to translate for her: "What's that, Skip? You'd like to thank everyone for being here?"). An intelligent kangaroo could easily be taught to cut ribbons and hold up cheques. For harder jobs like foundation stone laying she could have a stuffed mechanical double that was wheeled into place by a couple of minders (hey, it worked for Brezhnev!). Best of all, when she got old and feeble she could quietly be put out to grass and a new Skippy substituted without anyone being the wiser.

It would save taxes. It would save a talented human being from a life of useless drudgery. And we would be the first country to have a President who was on our coat of arms!

If Australia is to keep the Westminster system, and it is difficult to believe any Australian Federal politician would allow any other model to be considered, then it is critical that the President (as a surrogate Governor General) not be a politician. Mr Whitington is quite correct, a popularly elected President will certainly result in a politician being elected and that would almost certainly lead to a constitution crisis. However he incorrect in saying India has only elected politicians as a President. Among the 12 elected so far there has been a trade union leader, a poet, a philosopher and an aeronautical engineer. The current President has been a politician but is famous for being the leading woman's rights activist in India. Australia should seriously consider the Indian model for electing a President. Every five years the country holds a Presidential Convention where all the elected politicians at the state and federal level gather to select a President by majority vote.

Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία ([dimokratia] (help·info)), "popular government"[1] which was coined from δήμος (dēmos), "people" and κράτος (kratos), "rule, strength" in the middle ..
_________________________________________________
http://www.alcoholtreatmentclinics.com

The author says "Australia has a history of leading the way in being the most democratic, free, and equal society in the world"

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that.

He then tries to argue that the referendum we had a few years ago did not resolve the issue of a republic. Hey where was he? The vote was taken and was overwhelmingly defeated, in all states. And on the model selected by the republicans themselves.

Now he says we should directly elect a president from a list of 10 persons randomly drawn by a computer. The mind boogles. He is proposing a bloody lotto draw for the president of an Australian republic.

The footy season is over but looks like there are still dropkicks around. He is an obvoious nut case.

He is an advisor to the NSW Government, so it is little wonder we are in such a mess.