Pyrpolizer wrote:Paphitis wrote:
There can only be one option. That is the way it is suppose to be.
the minute you differentiate between the different types of Republic, the Republicans have lost. How? I will explain.
If there were multiple options for a republic, let's say the following:
1) USA style Republic,
2) French Style republic,
3) Greek Styles Republic,
4) you can add any other country of your choosing. etc etc
The Republican Vote has lost hands down.
Because there are republicans like myself who would vote for the Monarchy just to avoid a USA style Republic.
Don't get me wrong, the USA in my opinion is a model democracy. Everything from the way it was founded to the core of its constitution is a level of democracy that is unmatched by any country. But who in their right mind would want to endure the debauchery of a long and drawn out USA style presidential election? Not me. And many Republicans won't go for it.
People will not go for the French model just because its French and Aussies are a bit like that.
Greek model - well the Monarchists will say Greece isn't a good model because they are a dysfunctional and failed state and they had a fascist dictatorship. Plus Aussies associate Greece with things like Yiros and Souvlaki but not necessary look at Greece as a model of running Australia.
The Monarchists will therefore win with 90% of all the votes. I too would vote for the Monarchy because the system we have has proven to be a workable system whilst the USA system is chaotic, the French System is French and the Greeks don't look like they even function.
A referendum like that would be the Monarchists dream.
That is what I would call a rigged referendum that isn't fair.
Realistically, what the Republicans had in mind when voting for a Republic was just some cosmetic changes. In other words, maintaining the British Westminster System and just replacing a couple of the ceremonial entities with a non elected President that is appointed to conduct ceremonial duties in place of the Monarch. This could not be mentioned because the minute you mention it the Monarchist campaigners will accuse the Republicans of wanting a dictatorship (scare campaign). The only other alternative to that is the politicized USA campaign for POTUS, which is again something most republicans in Australia would not want. So the Republican Campaign is 1000% doomed to fail with no hope in hell.
You can't complicate referendums. if you complicate it, then the odds are stacked in favor of no change.
You also have no clue on how the Anglos think and operate.
I think you missed the point. The point was not whether you should ask 2 questions but whether each of those 2 questions could be implemented in a single way already known to the voters. The Leave question could not be implemented in a single way. Furthermore the outcome of the various ways of leaving was unknown. And it wasn't just deal-no deal, it was far more options than that. This article explains it clearly:
https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/blo ... eferendumsThe question was: ‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’ and the alternative answers to appear on the ballot paper were ‘Remain a member of the European Union’ and ‘Leave the European Union’. This is perfectly intelligible. However, the respective preferred outcomes were very different in their knowability. Remain was relatively clearly defined as the status quo regarding the UK’s EU membership. Leave, on the other hand, could be understood to refer to a wide range of outcomes. For example, the UK could leave the EU, but join the EEA instead. Or the UK could seek a bespoke association agreement. This could range from an agreement to remain in the Single Market and the Customs Union to a very loose association or trade agreements as entered into by, say, Turkey or Canada. Or it could mean none of the above. In short, ‘Leave’ had the potential to mean all sorts of things to all sorts of people in ways ‘Remain’ did not.
This referendum would be declared void by most Supreme courts around the world because the Leave voters were asked to vote for unknown ways of leaving.
Did you know that the Swiss court declared void a referendum they had, just because the voters did not have enough information about the 2 options?
Btw didn't you guys in Australia had a multiple choice referendum in which you were given 4 choices to chose your national anthem?
There was already a single way according to The Republican Movement and that was to implement a ceremonial President who will be appointed and not elected and who will not be a political; figure. So someone with great public service or even perhaps a retired Military General, Commodore or Admiral who served Australia.
The irony of this is that it would be a system similar to Greece.
If this was made known, the monarchists would be handed their Christmas and would win with 90% of the votes.
And to those who wanted the President to be elected (so its democratic) would result in the politicization of this office and a system more like the USA.
Christmas again for the Monarchists who would get 90% of the votes, including mine.
Better off not having a referendum at all.
Australians and Anglkos are not like Cypriots. They will not change the system for the sake of change. They won't become a Republic if the system is not broken and they look at all the Republics around the world and see they actually have the best system in the world. And it is true.
The choice in a referendum can only be binary and to be carried it will require 50% of the votes plus 1.
