@foxy

the fact that no many make any posts does not mean the topic is irrelevant

it just means australians do not like to deal with the elepbant in the room

take the thread on 'Arson in our Burning Continent'
this is as real as real can be
fellow citizens are burnt alive and hundreds of million destroyed
but we like to say it is because of electrical fires or lightnings

those arsonists who were caught only get 10 years at most and in all cases, they were allowed parole after a couple of years

that foxy, is the problem with australia

Wow! So many great arguments are now finally
coming forward. Thank You. You've all raised
some very valid points.

I have to admit that
I agree the Presidency suggestion is not perfect -
but I suspect very few political systems are perfect -
however what does appeal to me about the Presidency
is that it allows a hand-selected group of
specialised, (often civilian) individuals to take on
policy portfolios instead of the usual promotions of
party hacks. You'd at least get experts who know what
they're talking about (hopefully). Of course there's
also the problem of "money talks," that's associated
with the American style of government - the costs
involved in running for office are enormous and are
usually funded and supported by vested interests -
although that's starting to be the case in our system
as well to a certain extent.

Yes . It is necessary to understand the difference between a non - executive president , which was proposed at the 1999 referendum , and an executive president .

A non - executive president would replace the Queen [ and her local representative , the Governor General ] . This type of president would perform the same functions and exercise the same powers which are now performed and exercised by the Governor General . S/he could still , however , be called the "Governor General or simply the "Head of State . "

Most significantly , the Governor General would not be appointed by the Queen [ the Queen would be removed from the Constitution ] . Either the president would be appointed by Parliament or at an election by the voters . S/he would be head of state [ in place of the Queen ] However , s/he would NOT be head of government [ like the Prime Minister ] . There would still be a Prime Minister .

An executive president would be similar to President Obama , in that the president would exercise real powers , such as proposing to the Parliament or Congress [ in the USA ] the making of laws , including taxing laws . Parliament would still have to pass the proposed laws . In certain circumstances , the president might be able to declare war , though the latter power is disputed by the US Congress .

This type of president would combine the roles of head of state and head of government . This was not proposed in 1999 and is not now proposed by the Republican Movement .

In the American system there is not the rigid party discipline that there is in both Labor and Libs in Australia. A member of Congress is freer to consider her or his conscience, the wishes of constituents, the good of the country and the world than her or his counterpart in Australia. Therefore interests contribute to the campaigns of individual candidates in the US and to the party in Australia.

This means that politicians are for sale on a retail basis in the US and in Australia one buys pollies wholesale.

Wholesale is cheaper.

Would it still be necessary to have a PM. Could bills be posted and then introduced into the chamber by the speaker for debate and formation before going to the senate for final, legal + amendments. Then signed off by the President.

Elect a President and you get a politician !

Having done that, executive or non-Executive, you have generated a
second power centre.
That is a formula for chaos.
You cannot elect a politician and call him Gov General or President
without laying down trouble for the future.