Australian republic and Gore/Bush

[Theta Sigma]

In 1999, the referendum on Australia becoming a republic was defeated. One reason for the defeat was that people did not like the model of the republic that was proposed and that was for the Parliament to elect the President. People wanted to elect the President in a popular election. People even said that they wanted a US style system of electing the President.

A year later in 2000 came the disputed US presidential election between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W Bush. Bush ultimately won because he had won the majority of the votes in the Electoral College although Gore had won the popular vote.

I don't think people prior to 2000 pay much attention to the Electoral College. They probably took it for granted that the winner of the popular vote and the Electoral College are always one and the same.

Regardless of what people's opinion on Australia becoming a republic I like to ask if the referendum had been held after the 2000 US presidential election would the outcome be any different. I mean people for a popularly elected President would not have been able to argue for a US style system due to the Electoral College. I mean the Electoral College electing the US President is not that much different from the Parliament electing the Australian President.

 

[Syf]

I hate to say it, the same outcome would have most likely been still a defeat for the referendum. I'm a U.S. citizen, and believe me when I say that the public has been let down. Let me share a little of the history of the US so you can see where my thoughts are. Some 200 plus years ago when the United States of America was founded, the idea was to allow the people to control the government. The founding fathers were however faced with a dilemma. The general populous of the US was from other countries in which they were the poor. Back in those days, Education was not a "right", but a privilege that was given only to wealthy and upper classes of most all the countries in the world. In order to create an election process that would be able to elect the leader of the nation, they had to ensure that educated people had a way of "correcting" this lack of education. So, the country was formed, and the Electoral college was create. To prevent corruption, the electoral college was to be a secret process within the government, with no one knowing whom those selected to be the electoral college are until the election. Also, when the general populous was educated, the idea was that this electoral college would be removed when the time was at hand. However, this was never the case, and with the 2000 election, we have now learned that the government has found a way to corrupt the system. They used the electoral college as a way of "guaranteeing" victory for a specific side. So right now, there are people trying to fix this problem within our election system. It may take a lot of time to force the government to remove this corrupted piece of our election system.

Now, back to the question. I think the people of Australia want a "We the people, By the people" type republic. Like what the USA is supposed to be. So, after watching what happened within the US election, I think that the vote would have been a total rejection of the idea to let the Parliament elect the head of the nation. Because of what happened in our election, I think it gave the people of Australia a chance to see what would happen.

And don't get me wrong, I am a patriot of my country. I can only hope that Australia can learn from our mistakes, and become a great republic when the time comes.

 

[EAS_Intrepid]

I actually think that the model of a popular election is the best one. Instead of voting for other people that may have own interests (Psychology plays a big role in politics) a popular election is true democracy.
Democracy gets in trouble, as soon as more complex systems as the US one are in such a large use. The USA is a huge country, when I look at it, and 50 Federal States (look, we have only 16 and it all goes down the drain!) the democratic system may confuses itself, as the Gore/Bush rally in 2000.
A popular direct election of the President would have prevented that. I mean isn't it quite easy? You put your tick in a sheet of paper, let's say for Colin Powell. This is done by a majority in different states, a minority voted for Wesley Clark (umm, ex-General against ex-General). But in other states Clark won a majority. But instead of saying "he won the states of Oklahoma, Coloradao, Hawaii, Alaska" etc etc you count all votes for Clark and all votes for Powell. In the end you see who has the majority in the whole USA! That's more fair, because it is really the majority of US citizens (or in other cases Australian citizens; okay, Howard did not have a majority in Alaska).
It is much simpler!

I think I can tell something from the democratic system of the Federal Republic of Germany. So our system in now different again. It has it's flaws, the politicians live in a world far far away, but, hey, it more or less worked for about 60 years. No, that's not much.

The first try of German democracy failed in the Weimar Republic, where the Parliament elected the Chancellor (Chief of the government) and the President (representative head of state). In the end, in 1932, two parties that where against the constitution had the majority in the parliament. These two parties where the Nazis and the Communists. Why? Because the Republic wasn't able to defend itself and because the people trusted the wrong people.

However, what this caused do we all know, and afterwards they tried it again with the democracy in Germany, now under Allied control (well, pretty logic after such a war).

A system was established, in that the people did not elect the head of the national body. No, our people can't really vote for the head of state. Instead they vote for a party that decides who is going to be the top of the non-sense speakers. This isn't good either, because now the politicians do not have anything to do then fighting each other INSIDE THEIR OWN PARTIES!
If it is election and when it comes to the question who is going to be the candidate for the chancellor's election anything in the world can happen, but these people fight each other with the most dirty methods (Print media, TV, internet propaganda).
Angela Merkel won her fight in the Christian Conservative Union.
Then she was candidate for chancellorship. And what happened?
Election evening somewhere on a Sunday: A draw. She (or better: her party) did not made a clear majority of votes and now she and the other politcians formed a "great coalition" (Coalition of the Unwilling). This coalition includes: The Social Democrats, the Bavarian Christian Union (yes, the Bavarians have their own party!) and no-one else. The opposition here is suppressed. In Berlin the Internal Intelligence Service "Verfassungsschutz" even gathered intelligence about people that were critic to the decisions of the parliament!!

What do I want to say now? Simple again: Popular, direct election is the best. Switzerland made it and it works since a hundred years. For a larger country it must be adapted, but it works.

And: Does Democracy end, when I put my tick on the vote sheet? No! Democracy starts there. Democracy is the will of the individual to partcipate in the nations political decisions! Period.

 

[Cylon]

But can democracy ever truely work. You could never have a completly equal society even with communism. When you are voting are you voting for a person or for what they say they will do. In Britian we vote for the party and the party choose the leader.
Many people may hate Tony Blair but still vote for his party.

 

[TM150]

People said the Mexico election system is best that the US one but... well anyway here the people vote, the same day the PREP (programa de resultados electorales preliminares or electoral preliminar results [ in my bad traduction of course]) shopw a winner trough a a fast counting of votes of some electoral places... this system have a 0.3% of mistake in the actual election the result was so close that the local autority (IFE) that is independent of the goverment don't gove the result becuase the two contenders was very close, this was the 2 of July now in the 5 of july the IFE make a total counts of votes and the winner has been decided but the other contender was the option to go to tribunals, and that si more hard
HERE IS DOEN'T IS OF PARTIES HERE BEFORE THE VOTING THE PARTIES CHOOSE A CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCE AS WELL LOCAL THINGS ALL THAT AND THE CANDIDATES FIGTH EACH OTHER TO TRY TO WIN IN THIS ELECTION HAPENNED A WAR WOOW AMAZING EVEN THE WIFE FLY LOL!



I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND!