4 ms·

We already had a referendum in 1999 which was voted down. A president in Australia would be a significant departure from the current system, and I'm not sure I

We already had a referendum in 1999 which was voted down. A president in Australia would be a significant departure from the current system, and I'm not sure I know anyone who would support it. We don't vote for a person to be Prime Minister, we vote for a person in our specific federal electoral seat and the leader of the party that wins the most seats is the Prime Minister. This person also doesn't have any powers that their party doesn't give them for the most part. No veto powers etc afaik, and party leadership (and hence the Prime Minister) can be changed at any time by a party vote.

vidarh 7y ago
> A president in Australia would be a significant departure from the current system There are parliamentary systems with presidents as head of state with no significant power. E.g. Iceland. So it doesn't need to be much of a departure. Iceland simply replaced their king (also the Danish king) by a president, made the president elected, and changed little else. US style presidential government would certainly be a big departure.
- senectus1 7y ago
  I suspect, provided we keep mandatory voting we should be ok either way.
  - elyobo 7y ago
    Really? It seems like one of the most insane parts of the Australian voting system. Forcing people that don't know enough to vote under their own motivation doesn't suddenly impart them knowledge or wisdom, it just introduces a huge number of low information voters into the system. NZ's approach seems safer; compulsory enrolment, so that come voting day everyone should be able to vote if they so choose. Voter turnout is still very high.
- cannabis_sam 7y ago
  Germany also has a president, but who the hell have heard about Frank-Walter Steinmeier? Meanwhile everyone knows Merkel
elyobo 7y ago
The referendum does seem to have been seriously flawed though; it didn't ask "should we become a republic", but "should we become a republic in this specific way" and many that were fine with the republic were not fine with the specific way. The Brexit referendum had the opposite problem; they only asked whether to leave, and not the way in which it should be done (not that they really could have, lacking a specific deal at the time) and now they can't agree on the way. The system here does need some serious reform though (and you might as well bin the Queen while you're at it). The STV approach at electorate level is good, but the electorates then being combined FPTP style to form a government retains most of the downsides of an FPTP system anyway. Safe seats are largely ignored and minor parties have far fewer seats than their support would warrant. NZ's approach (a vote for your electorate MP, and a vote for your preferred party, with the government formed in line with the percentages in the party vote) is more representative and would be a big improvement to the system. NZ's could be improved in a couple of ways though; the vote for the electorate MP is still really FPTP, we should copy the AU STV system for that part. And we retain an unrepresentative 5% minimum for representation at the party vote level*, this should be dropped entirely, or if not then votes should also be transferred from any party falling under that line to preferences above it. Kiwi living in Australia if any of the we/you/here/there is confused :D
- elyobo 7y ago
  Forgot the * - by winning an electorate seat, you end up getting at least that seat, and any seats in parliament proportionate to your party vote, even if you would otherwise have been cut by the 5% threshold.

vidarh 7y ago

> A president in Australia would be a significant departure from the current system There are parliamentary systems with presidents as head of state with no significant power. E.g. Iceland. So it doesn't need to be much of a departure. Iceland simply replaced their king (also the Danish king) by a president, made the president elected, and changed little else. US style presidential government would certainly be a big departure.

senectus1 7y ago
I suspect, provided we keep mandatory voting we should be ok either way.
- elyobo 7y ago
  Really? It seems like one of the most insane parts of the Australian voting system. Forcing people that don't know enough to vote under their own motivation doesn't suddenly impart them knowledge or wisdom, it just introduces a huge number of low information voters into the system. NZ's approach seems safer; compulsory enrolment, so that come voting day everyone should be able to vote if they so choose. Voter turnout is still very high.
cannabis_sam 7y ago
Germany also has a president, but who the hell have heard about Frank-Walter Steinmeier? Meanwhile everyone knows Merkel

elyobo 7y ago

The referendum does seem to have been seriously flawed though; it didn't ask "should we become a republic", but "should we become a republic in this specific way" and many that were fine with the republic were not fine with the specific way. The Brexit referendum had the opposite problem; they only asked whether to leave, and not the way in which it should be done (not that they really could have, lacking a specific deal at the time) and now they can't agree on the way. The system here does need some serious reform though (and you might as well bin the Queen while you're at it). The STV approach at electorate level is good, but the electorates then being combined FPTP style to form a government retains most of the downsides of an FPTP system anyway. Safe seats are largely ignored and minor parties have far fewer seats than their support would warrant. NZ's approach (a vote for your electorate MP, and a vote for your preferred party, with the government formed in line with the percentages in the party vote) is more representative and would be a big improvement to the system. NZ's could be improved in a couple of ways though; the vote for the electorate MP is still really FPTP, we should copy the AU STV system for that part. And we retain an unrepresentative 5% minimum for representation at the party vote level*, this should be dropped entirely, or if not then votes should also be transferred from any party falling under that line to preferences above it. Kiwi living in Australia if any of the we/you/here/there is confused :D

elyobo 7y ago
Forgot the * - by winning an electorate seat, you end up getting at least that seat, and any seats in parliament proportionate to your party vote, even if you would otherwise have been cut by the 5% threshold.