Auggie wrote on Dec 13
th, 2017 at 3:22pm:
Quote:Our system is known as "responsible government". This is a system where the leader of the country - the PM - is popularly erected and appointed by the lower house of government - the House of Reps, not the Senate; the "people's house".
Government, therefore, is seen as "responsible" (or accountable) to the voters rather than the Crown, a president, or head of state.
Yes, but don't you think that we the people should choose our head of government/head of state rather than the party machinery??
I haven't decided. There are definite advantages in having a monarch - look at the stability this has given countries like Cambodia and Thailand.
In Cambodia, of course, King Sihanouk at one point joined a party and was elected to government, sharing power with Hun Sen. In Thailand, it's hard to say whether all the military coups are a result of the power of the king, or in spite of it. The power of the new Thai throne is under question as the new king does not have any popular support.
A popular vote is really only a concession to real popular representation. A leader or government is chosen by a little over 51% of whoever votes - and with jerrymandering, if that. While important, a popular vote is only really a symbol of democracy. 49% of voters may not get a say. The current US president got there with a minority of the vote.
Real democracy would require members of government to know and speak on behalf of all their people. A vote may not be necessary to achieve this function.