Should Australia become a republic?

[SemperFidelis]

One of my other concerns with becoming a republic is that it would cost a significant amount of money for, in my opinion, very minimal change, and I for one would prefer that money to be spent on meaningful causes like health, education, the environment then on what basically amounts to a glorified name change.

Just my opinion

Blessings to you all

Steve

 

[TheDag]

I know it is off topic, but Australia DOES NOT have compulsory voting. We have compulsory attendance on voting day, but thats it. Once you are there you can scribble on your ballot paper,draw a rude picture or just put a blank ballot in the box. No one can force you to put a number or a tick in any of the of the boxes.

Blessings

Steve

Hi Steve
I think you will find that by compulsory voting he was talking about that you have to turn up. The problem with this is that people tend to mark the form rather than going with the options you mentioned. I used to know a person who was involved in counting votes at elections. He was telling me about the large numbers of donkey votes which is why every candidate wants to be the first on the list. Just in case you don't know a donkey vote is where the person numbers the boxes in mumerical order from the top of the page to the bottom of the page. I wish everyone who couldn't care would make sure their vote was informal. that way it would be left up to people who do care and more likely have actually thought about who to vote for.

 

[GodsoldierClintus]

None of that has anything to do with being a republic vs constitutional monarchy.

Well actually it does.

The current model is a hybrid between the british westminster model and the american federal model. Replacing the Queen with a head of state requires a system of voting in that head of state. Since the current Queen is not voted in, that will actually mean a possibility of change to the model.

If the President is simply voted in and replaces the G-G with the same powers, then really, it's just a pointless exercise.

If the President assumes anything more in terms of political power then it would actually mean a fundamental change in how Australian politics would function - I don't think there is any point in replacing the Queen and G-G with a President if all he's going to do is sit there and smile and sign a few documents and get paid for it, without actually any political power. It'd be like a popularity contest, where the winner gets a free job out of it, for doing nothing.

If the president gets any more power then the model would deviate from the Westminster model and you would have to assume we would go the American path. The effects could potentially, although very doubtful to be far reaching. You could for example, reallocate the way states function and perhaps you could remove state governments and replace them with regional governments for better administration and clearer accountability instead of amalgamating regional governments and keeping state ones with local ones which has just resulted in over-regulation, and lack of accountability between the governments - all in all a big mess.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Hi Steve
I think you will find that by compulsory voting he was talking about that you have to turn up. The problem with this is that people tend to mark the form rather than going with the options you mentioned. I used to know a person who was involved in counting votes at elections. He was telling me about the large numbers of donkey votes which is why every candidate wants to be the first on the list. Just in case you don't know a donkey vote is where the person numbers the boxes in mumerical order from the top of the page to the bottom of the page. I wish everyone who couldn't care would make sure their vote was informal. that way it would be left up to people who do care and more likely have actually thought about who to vote for.

Yeh, sorry, I'm sure that is what he was referring to, I just felt compelled to point it out because, as you mentioned, people do feel compelled to vote for someone, rather then no-one.

Don't get me wrong, I think we should all take the time and effort to find out enough about our candidates to cast an educated vote, BUT, if people can't be bothered doing that, I wish they wouldn't vote at all. I've heard people who voted for a candidate because they liked their name, or thought they were attractive or thought the party the represented was amusing (The More Beer parrty spting to mind here).

Blessings

Steve

 

[TheDag]

and that is why I would like voting not to be compulsory. For the most part those people wouldn't bother turning up.

 

[SemperFidelis]

and that is why I would like voting not to be compulsory. For the most part those people wouldn't bother turning up.

True, but the problem then is that you get an over-representation of extreme groups, like in the US where the gun lobby and the Christian far right has so much power, because the more extremist types will turn out to vote, while a large portion of the more mainstream population is likely to just stay at home, even if they do have legitimate opinions on who should be elected. I mean, in America they have somewhere around 60% of people turning up to vote. I can't believe that 40% of people have no interest in the election or no relevant opinions either way, so I have to conclude that in a situation with non-compulsory voting, a large number of people who may have otherwise cast a legitimate vote, just don't bother turning up for whatever reason.

Take for example here in Australia. I have believe that I have a well informed and legitimate opinion on who to vote for. I intened to cast that vote, but as it turns out, I have a a wedding to attend in Sydney on election day. If attendance was not-compulsory, I would likely not get round to voting, however as it is, I will vote. I am sure I'm not the only person in a similar situation.

I feel that in that situation you are too likely to have a government elected by the vocal minority rather then the silent majority.

Just my opinion

Blessings to you all

Steve

 

[TheDag]

True, but the problem then is that you get an over-representation of extreme groups, like in the US where the gun lobby and the Christian far right has so much power, because the more extremist types will turn out to vote, while a large portion of the more mainstream population is likely to just stay at home, even if they do have legitimate opinions on who should be elected. I mean, in America they have somewhere around 60% of people turning up to vote. I can't believe that 40% of people have no interest in the election or no relevant opinions either way, so I have to conclude that in a situation with non-compulsory voting, a large number of people who may have otherwise cast a legitimate vote, just don't bother turning up for whatever reason.

Take for example here in Australia. I have believe that I have a well informed and legitimate opinion on who to vote for. I intened to cast that vote, but as it turns out, I have a a wedding to attend in Sydney on election day. If attendance was not-compulsory, I would likely not get round to voting, however as it is, I will vote. I am sure I'm not the only person in a similar situation.

I feel that in that situation you are too likely to have a government elected by the vocal minority rather then the silent majority.[/quote]
As I was typing my previous post I was thinking someone will bring up an example like this. I was thinking about making a pre-emptive comment on it but was tired and in a rush so didn't. I do realise that in cases like yours with the wedding on will occour. I was however talking about normally and people who can make it and don't have special events on that day. I do see your point about vocal minority though. Maybe you should look up Diane Windsor's post asking what is wrong with being like America and give the response you have here!

Just my opinion[/quote]
yes how dare you have an opinion!

 

[GodsoldierClintus]

I get the point about silent minority and vocal majority, and call me harsh - but if you have the right to vote and don't use it - then you pay the consequences. But I'm actually moving back the other way now because if voting wasn't compulsory it allows intimidation of certain groups to make sure they don't vote.

It's just a bit silly though cause I know most people don't care about politics and they should. I guess that's what living in a free country all your life does to you. How many people would die for the right to vote in the world right now?

 

[HisdaughterJen]

I have a question for you...and maybe it demonstrates my lack of understanding but I'll ask anyway:

As Christians, we know that there will be a one-world government and Europe is leading the way. (It seems the NAU is in the works as well which Americans are fighting and quite livid about) How would it effect Australia if there was no more Great Britain but a super-state in Europe? Would Australia be taken in to that super-state because of your affiliation to Great Britain?

If you were a republic like us, your allegiance is to yourselves regardless of what is going on across the pond.

 

[HisdaughterJen]

True, but the problem then is that you get an over-representation of extreme groups, like in the US where the gun lobby and the Christian far right has so much power, because the more extremist types will turn out to vote, while a large portion of the more mainstream population is likely to just stay at home, even if they do have legitimate opinions on who should be elected. I mean, in America they have somewhere around 60% of people turning up to vote. I can't believe that 40% of people have no interest in the election or no relevant opinions either way,

That's an interesting perspective of America. Don't forget about the gay lobby and the abortion lobby and a million other ones...everybody has an agenda they want to promote and try to push. But who you vote for is completely up to you regardless of the lobbies. If the Christian right has so much power in America, we would still have prayer in our schools, honor family values, and glorify God. The power is solely in numbers at the voting booth. As far as guns go...in the hands of honest men, it keeps people polite.

 

[lmnop9876]

I have a question for you...and maybe it demonstrates my lack of understanding but I'll ask anyway:

As Christians, we know that there will be a one-world government and Europe is leading the way. (It seems the NAU is in the works as well which Americans are fighting and quite livid about) How would it effect Australia if there was no more Great Britain but a super-state in Europe? Would Australia be taken in to that super-state because of your affiliation to Great Britain?

If you were a republic like us, your allegiance is to yourselves regardless of what is going on across the pond.

not all Christians, particularly in Australia, believe that the one-world government is going to occur or if it does that it is a sign of the end-times. if any country allowed one particular fundamentalist Christian understanding of eschatology to dictate their policies or to stop them from entering into an alliance with neighbouring countries, I would say that country's government was acting very unwisely.

 

[TheDag]

I have a question for you...and maybe it demonstrates my lack of understanding but I'll ask anyway:

As Christians, we know that there will be a one-world government and Europe is leading the way. (It seems the NAU is in the works as well which Americans are fighting and quite livid about) How would it effect Australia if there was no more Great Britain but a super-state in Europe? Would Australia be taken in to that super-state because of your affiliation to Great Britain?

If you were a republic like us, your allegiance is to yourselves regardless of what is going on across the pond.

In regards to the underlined bit it would have no effect as decisions made by them have no effect on us. While some may mention that they still have a law saying they have to give permission for us to exist as a country it would be a silly argument the reality is that they could try to say we don't exist but we still will. A similar comparison could be that there is a law saying publicans must provide hay for your horses. I doubt you would find a single pub with hay available in case someone comes in by horse.

 

[HisdaughterJen]

not all Christians, particularly in Australia, believe that the one-world government is going to occur or if it does that it is a sign of the end-times. if any country allowed one particular fundamentalist Christian understanding of eschatology to dictate their policies or to stop them from entering into an alliance with neighbouring countries, I would say that country's government was acting very unwisely.

can open...worms everywhere

Since this isn't the thread for eschatology, I have to let it go. But I'd love to know what it is that Christians in Australia believe about the end times because we are all reading the same Book, right?

 

[HisdaughterJen]

In regards to the underlined bit it would have no effect as decisions made by them have no effect on us. While some may mention that they still have a law saying they have to give permission for us to exist as a country it would be a silly argument the reality is that they could try to say we don't exist but we still will. A similar comparison could be that there is a law saying publicans must provide hay for your horses. I doubt you would find a single pub with hay available in case someone comes in by horse.

Well, and too, you have an advantage in that you are somewhat out of reach. It would be a major undertaking for them to enforce any law. Is it to Australia's advantage to remain a Commonwealth?

That's funny about the hay...I can picture a scenario that might've put that one on the books.

 

[lmnop9876]

can open...worms everywhere

Since this isn't the thread for eschatology, I have to let it go. But I'd love to know what it is that Christians in Australia believe about the end times because we are all reading the same Book, right?

indeed, but most Christians in Australia aren't fundamentalists, and many Australian Christians would not take a particular interest in eschatology or the end times or what is going to occur. The premillenialist interpretation of there being one world government is not held by all Christians.

 

[HisdaughterJen]

indeed, but most Christians in Australia aren't fundamentalists, and many Australian Christians would not take a particular interest in eschatology or the end times or what is going to occur.

At first, I thought that must be unique to Australia but on second thought, there are many Christians here who have no interest in end times/eschatology too. I don't understand it other than maybe it appeals generally to people who are more future-oriented. Some people are content in the present and some are planners who always are getting ready for the future.

The premillenialist interpretation of there being one world government is not held by all Christians.

I suppose you are correct.

 

[GodsoldierClintus]

With regards to end times - I see no scriptural reason for us to be worrying about tomorrow let along end times. Jesus says himself, no one knows the time except for the Father. I don't understand why then we need to worry about or do anything about end times?

How did a debate about the republic get to about end times?

 

[Monarchist]

With regards to end times - I see no scriptural reason for us to be worrying about tomorrow let along end times. Jesus says himself, no one knows the time except for the Father. I don't understand why then we need to worry about or do anything about end times?

How did a debate about the republic get to about end times?

where is the fun in that (add smiley face here)

 

[HisdaughterJen]

How did a debate about the republic get to about end times?

Sorry, totally my fault.