[EM] Australia Votes To Keep Queen

[David Catchpole]

Well, there's not much one can do about splitting the agenda into smaller
parts in the referendum which will lead definitely to a constitutional
change. What there should have been is a plebiscite between different
modular options which preceded the referendum. I'm advocating this for
next time (next time, NEXT TIME, Gadget!!!) (and yes, Gadget, next time
will happen). (more further down)

On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:

> Note the standard manipulation of the question.  
> 
> Namely, the failure to divide the question into 2 or more questions-- such 
> as-- 
> 
> Shall the monarch of the U.K. continue to be the head of state of Australia ?
> 
> If NO, then shall the head of state of Australia
> 
> (A) be directly elected by the electors (voters) of Australia ?
> 
> (B) be chosen by a majority vote of the Parliament of Australia ?
> 
> (C) be chosen by a two-thirds vote of the Parliament of Australia ?

Well, B was never an option. Our parliament has to be commended for not
trusting itself (or- the people sitting on opposite sides of the Speaker
for not trusting each other). I believe that more than the two
remaining options above would exist if the vote were held soon, given the
fact that other questions exist over Pres / PM relations, powers, etc.
Also, direct-election and a supramajority are not the only fruit. I'm
advocating a system in which a two-member college is directly elected by
PR and _it_ appoints the President. Best of both worlds- non-partisan and
popular. That's probably not the only "hybrid" or "alternate" model being
bandied about at the moment [arch-crank Richard Macgarvie insists that his
model of a geriatric college of ex-justices and ex-Governors (i.e.
Richard Macgarvie) still has some hope to be accepted, though in all
reality the reasons for the rejection of the failed supramajority
model would have been brought even further to bear on him]. (more further
down)

> 
> The second question might have used YES/NO votes and number votes (1, 2, 
> etc.) with a Condorcet tiebreaker.
> -----
> Australia Votes To Keep Queen 
> Voters Reject Referendum To Drop Britain's Queen Elizabeth II As Head of State
> 
> By ROHAN SULLIVAN
> .c The Associated Press
> 
> SYDNEY, Australia (Nov. 6) - Australians on Saturday refused to shake their 
> colonial past, rejecting a referendum to make their nation the world's 147th 
> republic and drop Britain's queen as their head of state.
...> 
> Billy Porter, a 22-year-old electrician, voted no. ''I'm not a hardcore 
> monarchist,'' he said. ''The reason I'm voting no is because we already have 
> a good system and for financial reasons. It will cost millions to change.''

This indicates one of the base untruths used in the No Committee's
campaign. A 100 million dollar figure (the cost of the referendum and the
preceding convention process) was implied by the Noes to be the cost after
the change. Oh well.