|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:36 pm
I don't recall this issue being discussed, but which model do you prefer - a President appointed by two-thirds of Parliament or one directly-elected by the people?
Personally I'd go for the Parliamentary Appointment model. The President is pretty much a figurehead so do we really need costly nation-wide elections for one every few years? Under the Direct Election model, we'd essentially have an Australian Idol type contest for a celebrity President. It'd be nauseating.
Silly country, could've voted "Yes" in '99. Now the republican movements may push for the Direct Election model the next time round because they think it's more popular. gonk
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 12:48 am
Generally speaking I lean to direct election, but I'd rather the parliament does it because it is more conducive to passing the referendum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
