Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 04/24/08 1:28 pm:
I am an American concerned about Mcclain, Clinton, or Obama

and so you should be ;but one is much better than the other 2 .At least McCain plays lip service to some conservative principles .

On the other spectrum Obama is pure Marxist .
example...... in the debate he rejected Cap Gains tax reductions even though it is a proven economic stimulus ; because it wasn't fair (from each according to their ability) . He also commented about the bitter populace clinging to religion (the opiate of the masses) .His wife has been going around the country speaking of the virtues of the duty to social services and to deny "middle classness " .Of course we now see his pastor who has been preaching that clap trap has now retired to a gated community .

Clarification/Follow-up by paraclete on 04/24/08 11:54 pm:
Tomder and labman; in case you didn't notice this question has nothing to do with bloody American politics. If you lot arn't sick of it by now, the rest of us certainly are. Your nation demonstrates just why we wouldn't want to follow you down the republic path into insanity. We can get an election campaign over in a month and an election over in a day.

The Australian economy operates on a socialist model and operates very well because it has balanced care for the individual with the need for economic development. The conservative government here lost the last election because they tried to move away from that model. Because of this the only true disdvantaged here are the indigenous population, and I'm unconvinced that isn't by choice because any of them that get off the gravy train do well.

So I come back to the original question, what is the benefit of becoming a republic when you are already a stable parliamentary democracy? No one has actually answered it yet.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 04/25/08 11:39 am:
I stated the reason I prefer a Republic. It works very well here. I suppose without the diverse population dynamics that we have that it is much easier to come to a consensus. I would like to see how your vaunted parlimentary system would work there if you weren't basically still a 2 party dominated system and instead had multiple parties and coalition forging to cover a diversity of ideas.

Let me ask you ;why is there a movement to scrap your system and adopt a republic?

Your elections are different also because an unknown could never get into a position to be the head of the State. Our system allows for that so prudence says we should spend more time vetting them.

Clarification/Follow-up by paraclete on 04/26/08 11:30 pm:
I don't know about "unknowns" becoming head of state, the next G-G has been catapulted to the top job whilst being unknown to most Australians and this has been so for some politicians particularly in state politics like Iemmma; the Premier of NSW, and Gorton; a Senator, who became Prime Minister, but I know what you are saying, your system allows someone with little political cred and enough money/backing to campaign. Our head of state position is currently filled by a person with strong service credentials, if we become a republic that will change and we will have another politician.

Australia has moved from a head of state appointed by the British Crown as nominee to a head of state appointed by the Australian parliament. The position is largely cerimonial. In 1975 one of these appointees sacked the government leading to a constitutional crisis and great polarisation of the electorate. The "Socialist" Labor Party has resented this ever since and wants change even though the G-G who did the deed was their appointee anyway. I think they see the ability of a non elected official to sack an elected government as undesirable even though they get to appoint to the position when in office.

Clarification/Follow-up by arcura on 05/18/08 8:35 pm:
paraclete,
Regarding your comment to my answer.
NO I did not say that at all!!!
I'm sure that each system as advantages and disadvantage over the other.