.

Dear Bazz,

.

You wrote :

« … the PM is an elected member of parliament »

Quite so, Baz !

But each member of parliament is elected by a majority of voters within his or her own particular constituency – not by a majority of voters at the national level (for the whole of Australia).

The job of Prime Minister is not limited to governing just one particular constituency (or electoral division). His role goes far beyond that. The Prime Minister is the principal political leader of the whole nation. We all should have a say in who is to assume that role.

I understand that the largest geographic constituency in Australia is Durack in Western Australia, an area covering 1,629,868 Sq Km (about four and a half times the size of Germany) with a population of 177,000. And the most highly populated constituency is Pearce, also in Western Australia, a hybrid urban-rural seat located to the east and north of Perth, with a resident population of about 195,000.

What that means is that our Prime Minister is elected by a majority of voters from one of those federal electoral divisions whose population is necessarily less than 195,000, i.e., less than 0.78% of the total population of Australia of 25 million.

So far, under the current electoral system, we have had no less than 12 Prime Ministers chosen by the members of the ruling political parties or coalitions and not by democratic popular vote, cf., the ABC “fact check” list of 11 Prime Ministers to which should be added Scott Morrison who replaced Malcolm Turnbull in 2018 :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-17/fact-file-prime-ministers-who-came-to-the-job-without-election/6782652

Comparing our Constitutional Monarchy to the American Republic in a previous post, Bazz, you asked “Which system has had the least disturbance ?”.

I guess that depends on what we find “disturbing”.

Personally, I find our old colonial constitution disturbing, the fact that we don’t have a constitutionally-entrenched Bill of Rights, that we have a foreign monarch as our head of state and that our representative democracy has been hijacked by political parties controlled by an exclusive elite.

.

The PM is elected democratically, because a majority of those that
selected an elected MHR were elected themselves democratically.
The majority elected them and a majority of them elected him, and he
can only remain PM while he satisfies that majority with the government's policies.

It works, it has worked for a long time and governments are removed
if they do not please the majority of voters.
When a tie in parliament occurred the GG stepped in and sent them
to the people.
Republics settle that sort of problem with guns.

I note Mr O shows nothing of history as he does not express his knowledge on the subject, just abuse of the person he addresses. He does have a personal insecurity problem.

The Westminster system is still the most practical system of government in the world. It has been fought out through a bloody history to become the most stable and peaceful system of Government. At the referendum for the Republic a proposal was put forward that we change the Crown [the people] for a popular elected President.

When you witness the current debacle in America to remove a duly elected President; I say no to a Republic. The President then becomes the most popular person, which might be a tranny or queer, and not the most stable social institution, a family or queen. In our system the Queen DOES NOT RULE, she is almost hidden just accenting to laws and parliaments on behalf of us the people [the crown].

Josephus,

I only have an MA in history from Sydney. Please forgive me for not living up to your expectations.

Banjo, yes we have changed PMs a number of times, but I am not sure
that has been a bad thing, at least you can get rid of a dud quickly.
Voting for a President means you generate a separate power centre.
Also you get a politician in that separate power centre.

Mr O, obviously you are merely an unlearned troll, as you cannot discuss for an against with logical arguments of held positions. If you demonstrated learned facts about history you would not need to show off a purchased degree MA. It means nought unless it is used. Demonstrate you know history rather than sitting / daydreaming on the inside of a university.