I believe that Australia should adopt a presidential form of government, and completely abandon the Westminster system of government.

Through months of research, I have identified the flaws of the American system, and have develop checks and balances to make the system more efficient. I have found ways to resolve many of the issues we experience in America.

What is the benefit of a presidential system? Well, first of all, it's a one man show in the Executive, which means he/she does not have to worry about cajoling to a Cabinet; she/he is more decisive and can act quicker; and with the additional features that I've added, the President can do more stuff.

Most people don't support the presidential system because like all new ideas, they simply don't accept them because they are 'new', even it's better.

I would like to convince of you of your support for such a system, because I believe that it will produce better outcomes for Australia, and the States.

So, are you open-minded, or are you simply happy with the things are?

Do you have concerns about the presidential system? Like the 'Trump-effect'? Don't worry I've solved that problem!

Auggie wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:



No, don't have any concerns about that, it's proving to be a good antidote to Jesuit style disruption and corruption

The meritorious ideology of "Draining the Swamp" should be in every constitution and political system. Swat the corruptors and usurpers before they do any damage

It took too long to get rid of Dastyari. Shorten should have gone with him, that's how a new constitution should work

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 2:04pm:


Part of my Constitution would be to have 'term limits' - limited to 12 years. That means that there would fresh blood in Congress frequently. It wouldn't exactly address the problem you're raising, but it would help a hell of a lot.

Grendel wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 1:51pm:


The PM is not the head of state, dear. He's the head of government.

The Queen is the head of state, known in legal terms as the Crown.

The US adopted the French model of a republic, where the Crown is erected.

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 3:00pm:


I think 12 years is fine.

The reason is because I'm taking the piss out of Aussie. Long story. I'll have it changed.

Edit: Aussie had been given the Avatar of 'Hero of the Soviet Union' on the forum Political Animal by Monk who is the GMod on that forum. Aussie DID NOT ask to have the Avatar, and it was imposed on him by Monk WITHOUT Aussie's permission.

Around that time, I adopted the name 'Auggie' and also the same picture (the toad playing golf) in order to confuse people, and take the piss . I sought his permission, and he said that it was ok. I also changed my name and avatar on OzPol to reflect the change on Political Animal. I have since reverted back to my original name.

Auggie wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 3:22pm:


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.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 3:35pm:



Yeah, Cambodia and Thailand - how many government coups have they had in the last couple of decades??

The Danish, Swedish, Dutch, British, Norwegian monarchies and societies are, of course, much more stable and peaceful and politically settled. Not to mention Australia, Canada, NZ.   But we must always look to the third world, don't we, Kameel. Because being ourselves exemplary to the world, especially the third world, in such matters is just unbearable, isn't it.

Here you go:




Cop this - looks familiar?



Sure does.

Frank wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 4:33pm:


These countries function in spite of their monarchies. Thailand and Cambodia in particular have had serious political upheaval.

Thailand has coups like we have election cycles. Cambodia had Pol Pot.

The Danish, Swedish, Dutch and Norwegian societies aren't peaceful because they have monarchs. If anything, they're peaceful because they got rid of imperial powers. Constitutionally, do these monarchs have any function at all?

In Thailand, the king has the power to overturn criminal convictions and sentences. I'm curious. What can the Swedish king do? 

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 4:45pm:


That is actually correct. And factual as well. Cambodia seems to be the exception to the rule, but there are always exceptions (in terms of being a basket case country).

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 3:35pm:


My proposal would include an electoral college, similar to that of the US, EXCEPT that each elector would represent one district. This would not only ensure an equal say for people in the regions, but also ensure greater democratic principal. The person who got the majority of the electors in the majority of the districts would be elected President.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 3:35pm:


It's also important that an Chief Executive has the power to implement his/her agenda with decisiveness. A Cabinet-style government has the issue of where one must consult with about 20 people before making a decision. This can be cumbersome, and is the reason why many Westminster systems are paralyzed.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 4:36pm:


That's exactly right, we're too stupid to understand all the issues. That's why we elect represent to do their job full-time, so that they can dedicate their time to assessing legislation.

Funny thing is right, that Aristotle actually considered representative democracy as 'oligarchy', whereas 'democracy' was direct participation by the people by a process of sortition - i.e. random selection from among the populace to serve in various offices.

Auggie wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 6:21pm:

Because he is. Deep in his heart.

Frank wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:


No. These countries have political stability because people accept the results of erections. For much of their history, these countries have had coups by rivals and invasions by other monarchs. Some - England - have had revolutions.

The British monarch has influence, and I think this brings real power. You're a country-shopping foreigner, but if you read our constitution, you would think the monarch has all the power.

In WWII, there was a move for the royals to take power, Franco-style. A few less Spitfires, and that may well have happened if Hitler won the war.

The British throne was important in the reconstruction, if only symbolically. Few other European monarchs have this role - Holland's royals are popular, but nothing like the soap opera of the Windsors.

Europe's monarchs are redundant. Europe is now a bureaucracy, and this is not a bad thing. It is far preferable to the rest of European history.

The place of the British royals is a main reason for their differences with Europe. This goes back to the French Revolution and 1840s revolutions, where the British bolstered and rallied behind their throne. They created social/political philosophies like conservatism to defend it. The crown is an important part of British culture. It has faded since the 1950s, surpassed by the power - and model - of the US president.

Most independence movements did away with their thrones if they still had them. Cambodia and Thailand are two exceptions. The Middle East is another. The Cold War was not a good time for kings.

Alas, old boy, Pakistan and India have done away with theirs. What would you prefer, old boy - tinted, ten-rupee presidents, or tinted old queens?

Please explain.

Auggie wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 6:35pm:


Only in a diagnostic sense. The old boy calls the hommers dirty little inverts.

Scientific, innit.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 7:07pm:



Very wide ranging load of bollocks, as usual. So much of a mish-mash of nonsense that it's impossible to untangle it. Taking each of your points it would be the easy way to show how none of this nonsense hangs together.

If Europe's monarchies were redundant, for example, your supposed 'Europe as bureaucracy' would have done away with them. But they haven't because they aren't.

The UK, Denmark, Sweden (used to be part of Denmark), Norway, Holland became or remained independent and did not do away with the monarchy - so Thailand and Cambodia are far from the exception.

And so on.



You are too blinkered, too stupid, too committed to the miam-miaming of sh!te to ever see your way clear of the swampy sociological nonsense you imbibed and simply cannot shake.  Staying stupid is your way of validating your life as a fuddy-duddy, old 60s fossil.  Maintain the nonsense, comrade.

Auggie wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 2:18pm:

a quick look at history and most republics will answer why.
Didn't you do history?

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 9:06pm:



You are trying to do a Bwian but it doesn't work any more, Kameel.


Taking each of your points would be the easy way to show how none of this nonsense hangs together.

If Europe's monarchies were redundant, for example, your supposed 'Europe as bureaucracy' would have done away with them. But they haven't because they aren't.

The UK, Denmark, Sweden (used to be part of Denmark), Norway, Holland became or remained independent and did not do away with the monarchy - so Thailand and Cambodia are far from the exception.

And so on.


You are incoherent as usual.

Auggie wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:


You are absolutely right. In other words Australia should liberate itself from devastating British colonial
despotic rule and became independent democratic sovereign country, what we did long time ago.
If it happened Australia would become a world power like US.

Hey I'll even highlight the points you fail to understand karnal.

Grendel wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 9:45pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 8:06am:


Feel free to say all of that, Secret, but what do you think? Can monarchies deliver democratic representation, or is a republican model more effective?

I'm torn. I can't see how much would change if we got rid of the queen. Other countries, however, do. Nepal recently got rid of its king in return for a Maoist government. I spoke to a few there about this. They all had the view that it's just politics - nothing changes. Nepal still has earthquakes, Nepal stays poor.

Long term, however, the Nepalese might regret the decision to overthrow the crown - or maybe not. The Nepalese king had a lot of power. People blamed him for much of their plight - especially corruption.

The Nepalese are now seeing that no matter who's in power, the corruption remains.

Jasin wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 3:13pm:


Good point, JaSin. As Turnbull recently said, we're now in the unique situation of having our major trading partner (China) distinct from our major security partner (the US).

Without a doubt, Australia will need to reconfigure this arrangement. The Philippines - a former US colony - has already made the switch. Duterte has scrapped the US alliance in favour of one with China.

Australia has never been in the orbit of a non-Anglo country. We share a language and a culture with the UK and US.

In the end, this won't matter. Russian politics and culture are a world away from the Anglo-sphere. A number of members here have expressed a preference for the policies and sensibilities of Putin over those of Mother England.

And the US has elected a leader who has done just that.

Auggie wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:


Oh, sorry about that. A typo.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 4:25pm:


Haha, thought it was funny anyway.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 4:25pm:



Yeah, right - thank you, Sigmund.

Auggie wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 4:27pm:

If you truly believe that he has a bridge to sell you as well

Grendel wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 5:55pm:


Are you intimidated by Karnal because she is a Muslim woman?

Auggie wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 6:46pm:


You have "researched" it, have you?      Bwin is pwoud of you. tks, tsk.   And what did your research teach you about the difference between 'the system' and 'historical developments and institutions'?
Not having 'researched' it as extensively as you proudly have, it strikes me that the 'system' IS the 'historical developments and institutions'.


Tell us the latest/current truth on this, according to 'research'.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 7:51pm:

Not to take Paki mongs like you seriously. I learned that you are too stupid to actually face any counter argument - this post of yours is the freshest example. To you, life is a demo, shouting, grimacing, bending over, taking it up the Kyber pass to get all that mad tenssion relieved, sneering at others who don't.

You are loud and stupid but have nothing coherent, nothing that lasts a day or two. You are all idiotic, grinning, crazy-eyed agit-prop.


A bit like this little m/bugger:



I always think of you like that little loser.

Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 7:04pm:

LOL
Talking in the 3rd person are we?  A sign of madness is it not.

You are a clown a troll clown...  intimidate me?  Not on your nelly

Another crack at it? Something I've been trying to convince my wife of for years, pity I don't have an ideology to brainwash her with and use to make my dreams come true!

Look at this my dear, what will we do?! Do you want to sit on it again or shall we have another crack at it?