How should our " president " be selected

Part of the reason why the last referendum was rejected was due to the model that was proposed by the Liberals at that stage .

Thought I'd start a post on how that should work . Once We've got a few suggestions I'll post a poll re the options .

btw , I think the perfect peson would be someone like Kurt Fernley

For me there should be a few

1} Some people should be disqualified

They shouldn't be someone who has been a politician in either state or federal politcs , so we never have suggestions of " jobs for the boys / Girls . I do wonder if there should be an exemption if they haven't been in politics for a number ( say ten ) years

They shouldn't have a conviction for a serious criminal offence , so if they had a drunk and disorderly in their twenties they'd be ok , but if they've done violent crime or fraud etc they would be excluded

Their nomination shouldn't be considered frivolous - ie nothing from a random who is backed by a social media campaign ( don't know how to police that ..)


2 ) There needs to be a nomination process by the public , via online . Maybe a couple of rounds . Firsr to narrow the field down to say ten people and once that short list has been created , a further online vote to narrow it down further .

I think the parliment should be able to nominate candidates ? 2-3 , but they'd have to be agree to by a vote or ? 2/3rd ? 75%

Once that short list of maybe 4 candidates , 2 public , 2 parlimenent there should be an actual vote by the public

I do see the logic of continuing the current practice of it being someone appointed by the parliment , BUT there would be a significant number of people who would be against that , so in a referendum , it's more likely to fail

Put up your suggestions

Cliff

 

All nominees should be put into a big ring, last standing wins

I'm tired of having overweight paper shufflers that have never had or done hard physical work in their lives (I'm only realising the cost on my body for min wage now, yet they get well rewarded ).

There should be a basic permanent federal Govco, the President could have a government of advisers but the buck would stop/rest on the shoulders of the individual at the top

 

How about seriously addressing the question

cliff

 

Which is the least worst scenario:

A presidential election that results in someone unsuitable, and they cannot be removed.

Government paralysed and deadlocked because the MPs can't agree on anything.

Someone in another country having the power to remove the elected government, technically limited only by their decision not to use that power.

 

The fact is, you wouldn't get an overwhelming majority on any particular way. Forcing a decision on it just alienates a significant minority, maybe even the majority. So if it ain't broke (unless the GG abuses the power).....

 

I would like no present or former politician's- bureaucrats well know business people and Australian elite business people or especially X unions officials now within Labor on the final list.
How to make a list down to 10 people that could be done with a simple elimination process starting with criminal assessments by AI .

 

Is it realistic to find a person who would want to be the leader, but who has not held political office? They would still need to work with parliament etc.

For most people they just want to change things due to ideology. Practicality be damned.

 

Most GG’s aren’t politicians . They seem happy to do the job . Don’t think that is an issue .

cliff

 

I will admit to having a dislike of the current system, but changing it for the sake of change without having a proven system with all the right checks and balances fully understood by all prior to a referendum would only result in a vote to remove the monarchy, not to implement a better governance.

As others have implied, it's no good having an existing politician, but how do you find anyone with actual real world experience who understands how the "system" actually works so they can effectively manage it ?

Aka that Govco runs along no matter whom is at the top, but all the decisions rest with the elected individual.....

How you actually find and elect that person is anyone's guess currently.

 

Which just goes to show, there is no easy solution

 

... and an IQ test! Intelligence, emotional and social

 

Why do we need a president at all? My understanding is that they would be replacing the role of the governer general, who's role is pretty much ceremonial. Except for that one pretty significant thing where they can dissolve government. So why not just set a criteria for the dissolution of government that doesn't require human intervention? I.e. government must dissolve after a set timeframe, or set criteria (failure to legislate supply bills etc).
Maybe if there was dispute it could be referred to the the full bench of the high court for a final verdict.

 

ok , so we need a level of competency. Pity they doesn’t apply to politicians …..

so either we have standards that need to apply , maybe a judge , or maybe as someone suggested the role has two clearly defined elements .

the ceremonial role and the umpire role and for that they have to act based on the advice of the Chief Justice or a panel of experts ?

Just because it’s hard , doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be looked at and sorted out .

cliff