Switzerland's political system is unique in that it contains a collective executive within a separation of powers system.

At the Canton level (equivalent to Australian States), the government is directly elected by the people and consists of usually 5 persons. The Parliament is elected separately from this.

Unfortunately, at the Federal level, the Government is chosen by a joint-sitting both Houses of Parliament.

If we implemented this system in Australia, we could introduce direct election of the Government, say, a Federal Council, which would consist of 7 persons. This could be done using a system of proportional representation so that there is broad party representation within the executive branch.

In order for this to be effective, both the Government and the the Parliament would need to be up for election at the same time (in full). So the Federal Council would serve 3 years in line with the House of Representatives.

In addition to this, we should also use the voting system of proportional representation in the House of Representatives to ensure a broad representation of parties. In most cases, the composition of the Federal Council would mirror the composition of the House of Representatives.

The benefit of having a collective executive that is separate from Parliament as opposed to a single person is that it ensures broader representation within the decision-making process (since the Council would need to act collegially). It would also uphold the principle of 'separation of powers' since the Federal Council is elected separately and has distinct functions to the Parliament.

I think this system would be easier for Australians to swallow and accept, particularly those who support a republic, since it would retain a Cabinet-style executive.

One difference with the collective executive model is that the Federal Council isn't accountable to the House of Representatives and members cannot be removed (except by impeachment); but this is a component of the 'separation of powers' system.

Regarding who our Head of State would be, this is easy - the Presidency would rotate to each member of the Council every year, and the President would simply be 'primus inter pares', representing the nation abroad for that calendar year.

Might work for Switzerland - not here.  Our system of elected government is theoretically based on equality of one vote over another, and on each individual voter being a member of this nation first, and not of other nations, even internal 'nations' such as your personal ethnic or social group.

Your point raises an issue - should 'dual citizens' - who cannot stand for elected office here - be permitted the vote? SS-DD.  If an elected representative must be Australian first and foremost - why then should dual citizens, with clearly divided loyalties, have the right to vote?

Remember this guy:-

https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/2674080999658262/

Earl McClung is Native American. He was one of two Native American scouts for the 101st Airborne.

He signed up direct from the reservation when America was under attack - his 'First' Nation was secondary to the Nation as a whole.  It is the same here.

Members of a certain group are absolutely free to elect their own representatives within and for that group in isolation - they do not and cannot have the right under our form of government to directly elect their own 'family' into parliaments... nor should they, for the simple reason that it unbalances discussion of issues.**

Muslims can have their 'spokesmen' (never women) - Aborigines can have their elders and spokespersons - these people can speak out and be heard - they have a 'voice' - in fact much more of a voice than any they claim is their opponent has - that should not translate into election to office by one group exclusive of all others.

I am one owner of the Belvoir Street Theatre in Sydney (not a shareholder - an owner same as Mel and Geoffrey etc) - at one time with board elections coming up, there was a push for an arbitrary position to be allocated to staff working for the theatre.  I disagreed on the basis that staff already had a serious level of input into the operations of the theatre, same as a manager of an RSL need not be a Veteran and usually isn't, but still has massive influence on the operation of that club.  Thus any allocated position was unnecessary and unbalanced the elected representative process through having an arbitrary installation of one or more members.

Put simply - the two 'arms' of government, administration and operation, should be separate, division of powers.

Sorry - can't go with you here.

** for my dedicated followers over the years - the same applies to the feminist (fringe sheilas and their lap dogs) invasion of parliament - it savagely unbalances any discussion of the relevant issues, and thus must be banned.  They are essentially a 'nation' unto itself with divided loyalties, and thus put the whole arena out of kilter

The Swiss are pragmatic people and it is helpful to look at what they are doing. A few years ago they rejected UBI for example.

AiA wrote on Aug 29^th, 2020 at 10:01pm:

The Swiss are pragmatic people and it is helpful to look at what they are doing. A few years ago they rejected UBI for example.

Well, they also gave women the vote in 1973.

Auggie wrote on Aug 29^th, 2020 at 10:21pm:

AiA wrote on Aug 29th, 2020 at 10:01pm: The Swiss are pragmatic people and it is helpful to look at what they are doing. A few years ago they rejected UBI for example. Well, they also gave women the vote in 1973.

Yes. From guns to welfare to healthcare to women's rights, the Swiss political system moves slowly.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Aug 29^th, 2020 at 9:43pm:

Might work for Switzerland - not here.  Our system of elected government is theoretically based on equality of one vote over another, and on each individual voter being a member of this nation first, and not of other nations, even internal 'nations' such as your personal ethnic or social group.

The proposal I've made is to have a collective executive directly elected by the people. This can work whether the state is a unitary state or a federal state.

AiA wrote on Aug 29^th, 2020 at 10:25pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 29th, 2020 at 10:21pm: AiA wrote on Aug 29th, 2020 at 10:01pm: The Swiss are pragmatic people and it is helpful to look at what they are doing. A few years ago they rejected UBI for example. Well, they also gave women the vote in 1973. Yes. From guns to welfare to healthcare to women's rights, the Swiss political system moves slowly.

I don't think the political system can be solely blamed for these slow progresses. It's also Swiss culture and attitudes, which have affected this.

I don't think that transplanting the Swiss system over to Australia would make us reactionary or slow to change.

Auggie wrote on Aug 29^th, 2020 at 10:21pm:

AiA wrote on Aug 29th, 2020 at 10:01pm: The Swiss are pragmatic people and it is helpful to look at what they are doing. A few years ago they rejected UBI for example. Well, they also gave women the vote in 1973.

SIR!  Everyone is entitled to ONE mistake!!   ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Auggie wrote on Aug 29^th, 2020 at 10:26pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Aug 29th, 2020 at 9:43pm: Might work for Switzerland - not here.  Our system of elected government is theoretically based on equality of one vote over another, and on each individual voter being a member of this nation first, and not of other nations, even internal 'nations' such as your personal ethnic or social group. The proposal I've made is to have a collective executive directly elected by the people. This can work whether the state is a unitary state or a federal state.

Define your collective.  Sounds awfully like a Voice in disguise to me - for every farken special interest group...

Who exactly ARE these 'collective' people - and what do they stand for?  We already have a Federal Senate based on State votes.... thus it would seem that any proposal for a 'canton' type of arrangement is superfluous.  Our 'cantons' already have their say.............. via the Senate...

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Aug 30^th, 2020 at 1:41am:

Auggie wrote on Aug 29th, 2020 at 10:26pm: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Aug 29th, 2020 at 9:43pm: Might work for Switzerland - not here.  Our system of elected government is theoretically based on equality of one vote over another, and on each individual voter being a member of this nation first, and not of other nations, even internal 'nations' such as your personal ethnic or social group. The proposal I've made is to have a collective executive directly elected by the people. This can work whether the state is a unitary state or a federal state. Define your collective.  Sounds awfully like a Voice in disguise to me - for every farken special interest group... Who exactly ARE these 'collective' people - and what do they stand for?  We already have a Federal Senate based on State votes.... thus it would seem that any proposal for a 'canton' type of arrangement is superfluous.  Our 'cantons' already have their say.............. via the Senate...

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, so I'll try and explain it again with terminology we can relate to.

In our current system the Cabinet is chosen by the party which commands a majority in the House of Reps - the party which controls a majority wins government - we all know this.

The Swiss system means that the voters directly choose the Cabinet - 7 people as an example rather than having the party choose the Cabinet. In our current system the Cabinet acts collectively; the Swiss Cabinet would act in the same way. Thus, it is a 'collective' executive as opposed to a unitary or single executive, as in the United States.

And with regard to the Senate, it's not based on State votes, it's equal representation for each State. Germany's upper House, the Bundesrat is comprised of delegates chosen by the State governments who then vote as one bloc on behalf of the State. This is more reminiscent of a 'States' House' than ours is. Our Senate has become the House where minority parties have representation - that's all.

Hokay - I agree that we should be voting for our cabinet and our PM/President and not the parties. 

On that basis the cabinet would not always act together, but would have various views.  Same for a PM or President.

I think the greatest cause of unrest in Australia at this time is the control of our Parliament of the People by parties which are horrendously out of touch with the wishes and even needs of the voting public.  This is so reminiscent of the system from which our system was born - the English one, where there is still a House of Lords - a house of the privileged, and which is descended, not from universal suffrage - but from suffrage of the privileged.  That attitude persists to this day in Australia, and is made worse by the fact that this was a convict colony with the privileged ones holding total control over the rest. 

It took a very long time to wrest that control from the privileged - and that is still an ongoing process which has suffered reverses time and again, until only massive change in our approach to government will make any real difference.

I'm happy to look at changes.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Aug 30^th, 2020 at 8:35pm:

On that basis the cabinet would not always act together, but would have various views.

Yes they would but ultimately they'd have to come to a consensus since the executive power is vested in the body itself.


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Aug 30^th, 2020 at 8:35pm:

I think the greatest cause of unrest in Australia at this time is the control of our Parliament of the People by parties which are horrendously out of touch with the wishes and even needs of the voting public.  This is so reminiscent of the system from which our system was born - the English one, where there is still a House of Lords - a house of the privileged, and which is descended, not from universal suffrage - but from suffrage of the privileged.  That attitude persists to this day in Australia, and is made worse by the fact that this was a convict colony with the privileged ones holding total control over the rest.

It's actually quite interesting - if you think about it a parliamentary system is effectively a fusion of party and state institutions (at least for that electoral cycle) which is not too dissimilar from a one-party state. I guess a slight difference is that the President of the party is not always the Prime Minister whereas in Communist nations the General Secretary of the Communist Party is almost always the 'President'.

The fusion of party and state institutions is a dangerous idea.

Auggie wrote on Aug 29^th, 2020 at 10:21pm:

AiA wrote on Aug 29th, 2020 at 10:01pm: The Swiss are pragmatic people and it is helpful to look at what they are doing. A few years ago they rejected UBI for example. Well, they also gave women the vote in 1973.

With that system did they refuse it again ?

Auggie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2020 at 6:43pm:

It's actually quite interesting - if you think about it a parliamentary system is effectively a fusion of party and state institutions (at least for that electoral cycle) which is not too dissimilar from a one-party state. I guess a slight difference is that the President of the party is not always the Prime Minister whereas in Communist nations the General Secretary of the Communist Party is almost always the 'President'. The fusion of party and state institutions is a dangerous idea.

Actually two parties in lockstep are the same as a one party state.  Ask our learned pundits here.

That Government of Two Parties (now you know why I devised that name) does indeed fuse party and state institutions...... the wishes of the party are translated into power and control through the institutions of government, and in our current malaise - are either virtually bi-partisan or totally along ideological lines.  On the central 'core' issues, however, say 'women's rights' and such - there is scarcely a dissenting voice, even though for a right to be a Right it must apply equally to all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed, or gender.

Footnote:-  I appreciate that I can argue with you without the insane vitriol you get from some here.  We can remain civil even when we disagree...

But Switzerland is a progressive European Nation that is submitting Politics, Religion and Military into the Woman's Basket of duties. Medicine, Sport, Media and Music is what really runs Switzerland now.

Jasin wrote on Sep 1^st, 2020 at 8:35am:

But Switzerland is a progressive European Nation that is submitting Politics, Religion and Military into the Woman's Basket of duties. Medicine, Sport, Media and Music is what really runs Switzerland now.

Any surrender to feminist concepts should be resisted firmly and immediately.  It all sounds so good and easy and 'right', but the results are taking a viper to the breast of the nation while sucking down hemlock.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Sep 1^st, 2020 at 1:45am:

On the central 'core' issues, however, say 'women's rights' and such - there is scarcely a dissenting voice, even though for a right to be a Right it must apply equally to all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed, or gender.

The government needs to be a leader when it comes to enforcing social standards - it can't ask private businesses to adopt progressive values whilst not doing so itself.

With regard to women's rights, I think most people agree that women should not have to be disadvantaged in life because of their biology (i.e. carrying a child). Equal pay is about recognizing that women are automatically at a disadvantage and cant' be expected to have the same level of continuous service and continuous experience as men. Now, that's not to say that women can't manage both very well but it's a lot easier if you have a good job and can afford childcare etc.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Sep 1^st, 2020 at 12:12pm:

Jasin wrote on Sep 1st, 2020 at 8:35am: But Switzerland is a progressive European Nation that is submitting Politics, Religion and Military into the Woman's Basket of duties. Medicine, Sport, Media and Music is what really runs Switzerland now. Any surrender to feminist concepts should be resisted firmly and immediately.  It all sounds so good and easy and 'right', but the results are taking a viper to the breast of the nation while sucking down hemlock.

I disagree. Many men have been liberated from the pressures of being the breadwinner or of being the main provider for their family because their wife/partner has a good job and earns more than them. It may actually be a good thing that more and more men are no longer subject to the traditional notions of 'fatherhood'.

We all know the Women are more 'professional' than the Men here in Sport, like the Women are to the Men in American Music. Same with Politics in Switzy, the Women are taking over. While the Men are the Alpha's in European Music.
Some Rises, Something Else Falls.

Jasin wrote on Sep 1^st, 2020 at 6:16pm:

We all know the Women are more 'professional' than the Men here in Sport, like the Women are to the Men in American Music. Same with Politics in Switzy, the Women are taking over. While the Men are the Alpha's in European Music. Some Rises, Something Else Falls.

Why do you care if women take over?

Auggie wrote on Sep 1^st, 2020 at 7:03pm:

Jasin wrote on Sep 1st, 2020 at 6:16pm: We all know the Women are more 'professional' than the Men here in Sport, like the Women are to the Men in American Music. Same with Politics in Switzy, the Women are taking over. While the Men are the Alpha's in European Music. Some Rises, Something Else Falls. Why do you care if women take over?

Their history to date is not good...... they are the ultimate petty fascists with an absolute born to rule™ mindset and entitlement™ complex - name me one female politician etc who has done a better job than similar men and who has actually achieved anything more than petty tyranny over others...... and most particularly over those others who lack the ability to fight back.  Name me one such who does not advocate violence as the means to an end and that the end justifies the means.

Put simply - once handed power women are like children in a lolly shop and grab for whatever they think they want regardless of all other factors... they are in fact spoilt infants - princesses - in the methods of government and need a much longer and proper apprenticeship before they should be permitted to take the reins.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Sep 1^st, 2020 at 7:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Sep 1st, 2020 at 7:03pm: Jasin wrote on Sep 1st, 2020 at 6:16pm: We all know the Women are more 'professional' than the Men here in Sport, like the Women are to the Men in American Music. Same with Politics in Switzy, the Women are taking over. While the Men are the Alpha's in European Music. Some Rises, Something Else Falls. Why do you care if women take over? Their history to date is not good...... they are the ultimate petty fascists with an absolute born to rule™ mindset and entitlement™ complex - name me one female politician etc who has done a better job than similar men and who has actually achieved anything more than petty tyranny over others...... and most particularly over those others who lack the ability to fight back.  Name me one such who does not advocate violence as the means to an end and that the end justifies the means.

You do realise that nearly all wars in history were started by and perpetrated by men?

And yes, I can. Julia Gillard, Jacinta Ardern, Angela Merkel.