Do you think that the fact that the people vote to choose the head of state is a good thing, personally I'm beginning to doubt it?

[Julie4]

In presidential elections, people are called upon to elect the person who will represent them and defend the nation's interests.

However, I've noticed that most people have no solid knowledge of economics, international relations, etc. With such a lack of knowledge, I wonder how the people are capable of electing competent elites, whereas a candidate, even if he or she doesn't have solid skills, can convince a majority of people to vote for him or her, with simplistic, reductive but fiery speeches.

[RavVid]

First Charles III is not a Head Of State and I don't accept this laterday attempt to rebadge the Monarchy as Head of State.

The Monarch is the Monarchy is all. Constitutionally the Monarch is a trusted neutral umpire. Other than that the Monarch is just Head Of Bling and nothing more.

There are distinct advantages at having the Monarch live about half the earth's circumference from your country. His local rep, the Governor General is just the last guy who might still stick an emu feather in his hatband. Governors Generals are, like children, best seen and never heard.

Of course the commies & socialists want to make the Governor General an elected position. The original Constitutional Convention considered this and thoroughly rejected making it an elected position precisely because it will make the GG a politician and it was also rejected by the people in 1999. In 2025, even more are against a republic than in 1999. People like the Monarch better than the pollies. Charles does have the unfair advantage of being 17,000 K away and never doing anything so of course he will be more popular and we only hear him say anything at Christmas.

If you really want someone to embody the spirit of the nation... let me present to you The Australian of The Year... who ever wins that has at least done something. He/she can also get the honorary moniker of Head Of State without any powers or constitutional role and definitely no free house to live in. :)

Cut it down to a Head of Gov't and sack the Head Of State. You do need need one. Election writs can be issued by your Constitutional Court.

It is definitely a bad thing to have an elected Head Of State but the powers of office have to go too.

Our system is better. Unfortunately the UK and Canada have wrecked their versions because they have presidentialized their Prime Minister. In our system when a PM polls drop badly it is still Off With His Head. Much less gridlock. If we had a situation as France has we could have fitted in at least 3 fresh elections by now. Eventually you'll get a working Parliament.

[Julie4]

In France, our president has the most power of any democratic country in the West. France has absolutely no parliamentary system.

[RavVid]

But the French President appoints a Prime Mister and there is a bicameral system of Senate and National Assembly. That looks like a parliament to me :) The PM advises who the president should appoint as Ministers. I suppose the president can say Non where as Charles can't and if the president appoints PM's I guess he can sack PM's. I grant that is a lot of power.

The important feature is are Ministers of, in and answerable to Parliament? I don't enough about the French system and ministerial responsibility and maybe that is where you say France has no parliamentary system.

It is a good thing that Ministers can torn down during question time because the incompetent or corrupt tend not to survive for long. PM Kevin Rudd the DUD only lasted a couple of years before his incompetence exposed himself and PM Julia Gillard the WITCH knifed in him the back in the party room. Then Rud the DUD made a comeback and knifed Gilliard the Witch in the back. The people got to vote both out of office a short time later.

So there is fun political theatre in our system and I recommend it. Can you imagine Biden surviving question time?

If you don't think the French President should be voted for but think there should be a French President how do you plan on not voting him in? Appointed by the August Senate? That could work.

I think you should just become a constitutional monarchy again. You have perfectly good Bourbon and Napoleon descendants available as a monarch. A Napoleon descendant would have more prestige and elan I believe. Then you don't need a President.

[Julie4]

I misspoke, of course we have a parliamentary system, but the French president always has a majority in parliament which means he can conduct the policy he wants without real obstacles, today the president no longer has a majority in the assembly because Macron dissolved the assembly, we find ourselves in a situation where no political party has a majority and where each new minister and under the threat of censure. The English, Germans, etc. are used to compromise, not France.

[RavVid]

Thanks for the clarification. And I did read that negotiating compromises is not a common practice in France. In a lot of cases there is not a lot of difference but minor parties often want some token win to point at.

I can see more where you are coming from now. I do think it is an inherent problem/risk when the executive is outside the legislative houses. It is a risk in any system for that matter. Quite possible for the upper and lower houses to be opposed. But it is never possible for a PM to be opposed in the lower house because he will cease to be PM. It is rare that a gov't has control of our senate but they still manage to negotiate legislation through.

It helps that our voters punish parties who can't govern themselves and who can't negotiate with minors. If minors won't negotiate they will be crucified by the gov't going to an election with a popular policy the minors frustrated.

I imagine in France, with mostly strong gov't, there is rarely occasion to compromise. And often parties nearest in ideology fight the bitterest because their block of voters could easily go over to the competitor.

The party that was classically our balance of power party disappeared in two elections because it went left of the left party and ceased to be center. It's reason to exist evaporated.

With a strong Presidential system you have to accept there will occasionally be gridlock or not have a presidential system It is archaic in my view as it mimics a Monarchy.

[CalmUntilAbused]

Oh... Now that is a strange feeling for me. While I agree that demo (n) cracy is absolutely deplorable and I do not support it, since it is incredibly easy to use the media to manipulate people into voting for absolute scumbags, the recent elections in the USA have filled me with hope that some demo (n) cracies, if given enough time, might evolve back to politeias, apparently contrary to the way You interpret the recent events. I still prefer monarchy or aristocracy, but I am currently not writing off democracies-turned-politeias, as I used to do.

[purplepoppy]

Until politicians are held criminally responsible for breaking their election promises you'll always have that problem. I propose tattooing each promise on a finger and in 4 years sawing off the one's unfulfilled.

[exitseven]

Yes, this my be true. However if an administration that is voted in has very poor performance where citizens do not feel safe and see their finances suffer they will probable vote them out of office.

The average citizen may not have a solid grasp of Microeconomics but they know that they do not like to be pushed in front of subway trains and they know how much a gallon of gas is.

[AviatorTom]

One of the weaknesses of democracy is acknowledging that much of the electorate is ignorant. But it's the best system humans have created, so we learn to live with it.

[KostasKouvalis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE

[DrPepper12]

I'm inclined to agree but democracy, direct or republic, is the only form of government consistent with human rights.

As George Carlin observed, "Humans have done a piss poor job of organizing themselves"

[msc545]

This has been a very constant criticism of popular voting for a long time. It is not entirely wrong but the thing is that there is no alternative method of selecting a head of state that seems better or fairer. Also, if you vote for a head of state, you seem less likely to complain about him afterward. That is not true completely obviously, but to some extent it probably is. We literally do not have a better way of doing this.

[Julie4]

I don't disagree with this argument, in fact it's the same argument as Churchill.

Maybe we should only allow people with a serious intellectual background to vote.

[Joshydavid25]

I think that there should be some requirement that people learn about these things to be better educated on candidates and their policies.. I honestly think government sucks anyways..

[NathanDavis]

politics are not about knowledge on none of that...

[Avicenna]

Where the head of state is powerfully, like in France, that office needs to be an elective one.

[KostasKouvalis]

This guy sums it up perfectly

https://www.youtube.com/embed/QFgcqB8-AxE

[OddBeMe]

I'd say it'd be best to let them choose a less powerful head of state. To feel like they've been heard. Then only let land owners pick the actual politicians. This general election shit is too much.

[Anonymous]

It's comical how lefties suddenly start questioning the very system they fully supported four years ago when the tables turn and their candidate doesn't get elected.

[noohair]

People are smarter than you think...

[eagle1951]

beats me