What are your thoughts on an Australian Republic?

[Matilda]

Poll question: What are your thoughts on an Australian Republic?

I'm going to assume that most Aussies posting on DU favour the move to
an Australian Head of State. Those who disagree are welcome to post
comments in this thread, but my questions are aimed at those who would
vote "yes" in a future referendum to decide whether Australia will become
a Republic.

Our numbers here are small and there's no way that this poll could be
seen as representative of the Australian population, but I'm curious as
to how people feel ten years after the John Howard referendum that
screwed the Australian Republican Movement.

So, assuming you would vote "yes" in a referendum on an Australian as
Head of State, please give your views on the following:

[Esra Star]

1. As far as I can see

The only rational way to embrace the concept of a head of state is to have that
person appointed by a 66% majority of a joint sitting.
The resultant person would most likely be above politics.
If you have a populist "President" you will always ultimately end up with a Bush or Reagan.
Any necessary removal of the HOS can also be achieved by a 66% majority at a joint sitting.
I would also like to see people vote primarily for their local member. At the moment most
of the population think they are voting for a prime minister.
The major characteristic of the office of PM is:- "the person who can win a vote of confidence
on the floor of the House of Reps."
Cheers

[uriel1972]

2. We still would need a referendum

to change the constitution and the best way to ensure that there is no friggin' in the riggin' would be in labor's second term

[Matilda]

3. You can answer more than one question.

There are actually three sets of questions, with two options for each, but the setup doesn't really
reflect that, and I didn't make it clear. The sections relate to the referendum, the form of the
vote, and the timing, so feel free to click more options.

For myself, I'd like to see the question asked at the next election, so that if the unthinkable
happens and Labor loses, the people will have voted already. Rudd is signalling however, that he
will wait until his second term.

I also agree that the President should be appointed by the Parliament - if the choice is up to both
sides of politics, then we should be preserved from party hacks. I know the majority - apparently
over 70% according to different polls - want a directly elected president, and I don't have a big
problem with that; I think in the end, people will make the right choices. For example, had we
been successful in 1999, I would bet that the people would have voted for Sir William Deane, and
there couldn't be a better choice. He'll be too old now, but I think people know when it's time to
get real, and will make their choice accordingly.

And I don't think we should wait until the Queen dies, because what has that to do with it? If
anything, Prince Charles has stronger ties to this country from his time at school here, and he
genuinely likes the place, something the Queen has never indicated. No, I think once the decision
has been made, and the constitutional changes put in place, let's just get on with it.

[Esra Star]

4. I do have a big problem with a directly elected President.

It may not happen straight away, but eventually you will end up with a populist.
Reagan was the biggest joke President before Bush took the prize.

[Matilda]

5. And then there was Nixon ...

What is it about Republicans?

[Esra Star]

6. I always thought Nixon knew what he was doing.

The two clowns I mentioned were both off with the pixies.
It does seem to be a conservative thing.

[Matilda]

7. Nixon was a strange bird.

I think he was extremely intelligent, but his insecurity really screwed him up.

From all accounts, there was no need for Watergate - Nixon was going to win; even the Dems thought
so. But in his paranoia, he just had to make absolutely 200% certain of it - and it came crashing
down around his ears.

He envied Kennedy his ease with journalists, and his common touch with the people. But when he
tried to mimic him, we had the hilarious scene of Nixon walking along the beach, in a suit, with
his shoes on. Instead of being himself, he needed to try to outdo Kennedy on his own ground - how
could such an intelligent man misjudge so completely?

Eisenhower had doubts about his ability in 1960, and didn't endorse him until late in his campaign,
when it became clear that Kennedy was a real threat. I think he knew that as VP, Nixon had
reached his personal glass ceiling.

He was smart and a complete political animal, who knew the system inside out; but also insecure,
paranoid and full of self-pity. And yet vain - that's how Frost trapped him, by leading him to the
point where Nixon couldn't resist letting the world know how clever he'd been. If Nixon had done
his homework, he'd have known that was not the first time Frost had played that trick - I saw him
do it more than once myself, in London.

A strange paradox of a man.

[XemaSab]

8. Can Americans vote?

;)