SELECTION OF THE HEAD OF STATE
Now that the people of the states and territories have chosen their respective representatives, the eight candidates will attend the House of Representatives in Canberra for similtaneous sitting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as the lower houses (Legislative Assembly or House of Assembly) of each State and Territory.
The Lower Houses have been selected from each state as they represent the people. The Federal Senate represent the States and will only be required if it is necessary to break a tie.
Each candidate will give a 10 minute speech in the House of Representatives to put their case forward to the elected representatives to choose them to become the Head of State of Australia. It will also be telecast (& web cast) to be viewed by the Federal Senate and the State and Territorial lower houses, as well as the people of Australia .
THE FIRST ROUNDS OF VOTING REJECT THE LEAST PREFERRED CANDIDATES
The parliamentarians of the federal, state and territorial lower houses will vote out their least preferred candidate until 2 remain.
All the lower house representatives of all the Parliaments in Australia will have a combined vote within 15 minutes of the last candidate’s speech, to vote out their least preferred candidate.
By that completion of that time period, their secret vote will placed in a ballot box in the chamber and will be immediately counted by 3 members of the State Electoral Commission. If the parliamentarian has not voted within that 15 minute time-frame, they will have been considered to have abstained for that round.
The 3 SEC officers in each house will advise the SEC tally room who will then post the confirmed results on the telecast and internet.
With the vote confirmed, The Speaker of the House of Representatives formally advise the House of Representatives (and the other House of Representatives and people via the telecast) of the first rejected candidate and the second rejection round will begin immediately.
Once the vote is proclaimed by the Speaker of the House, the lower house parliamentarians will be given exactly 15 minutes to cast their next vote, that is, to vote out the next candidate, using the same procedure as outlined above. At the end of that 15 minute period the voting in that round is closed and tallied, and next candidate is rejected.
This will continue until two final candidates remain.
THE FINAL VOTE WILL BE FOR THE HEAD OF STATE
Of the two candidates remaining there will be a final vote for the Head of State.
The Speaker will remind the parliamentarians of the lower houses that they are now voting for the Head of State of Australia.
The person who receives the majority of votes will become the Head of State. The person who receives the minority vote will be the Deputy Head of State.
Each parliamentarian has now 15 minutes to cast their ballot. Once cast the SEC will tally the vote. Before the Head of State is announced the SEC will formally advise the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and once that is done, the Speaker can formerly announce the Head of State and the Deputy Head of State.
IN THE EVENT OF A TIED VOTE
In the event of a tied vote the parliamentarians will recast their votes within 15 minutes.
In the event of another tie after the second vote, all the Lower Houses and the Federal Senate will vote on the final selection within 15 minutes.
In the event of another tie, the Prime Minister may make the final selection from the two remaining candidates. This must be done within the hour of the second vote being declared a tie. The PM may further consult with either or both candidates or anyone else, before advising the Speaker of the House of his deciding vote.
There are potentially 593 votes (668 with the Federal Senate included in the event of a second tied vote)
The Parliamentarians entitled to vote belong to the following Houses of Parliament:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
House of Representatives – 150 votes
Senate – 75 votes (if required)
STATES
- New South Wales
Legislative Assembly - 93 votes
- Queensland
Legislative Assembly – 89 votes
- South Australia
House of Assembly – 47 votes
- Tasmania
House of Assembly - 25 votes
- Victoria
Legislative Assembly- 88 votes
- Western Australia
Legislative Assembly - 59 votes
TERRITORIES
- The Northern Territory
Legislative Assembly - 25 votes
- The Australian Capital Territory
Legislative Assembly - 17 votes
<<< PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE >>>
.:.
hi. i `am not interested in a puppet head of state. especially when the last choice goes to the prime minister whats wrong with the french system where both have the power and selected by the people.
Hi Tye,
Simply put, in my opinion, the majority of Australians don’t want a single powerful person as president.
I don’t believe the politicians will support a candidate for President who is more powerful than the Prime Minister in a Westminster System of Government.
The only way a referendum on this would be passed is for a multipartisan support from all politicians from all our Political Parties and even then it would be tough to pass.
But I do believe Australians want a say in who is Head of State.
In this system outlined on this site we, the people, allow the politicians to choose from our list of our preferred elected candidates, rather than we choosing from the choices they prefer. While a Republican I rejected the concept of a President appointed by the Politicians — without Australians having a say –as was promoted by the Parliamentary Convention of 1999
I believe it ultimately gives ‘us’ – you & I, the power .
I believe e that this will be far more representative of the wishes of the people than the other way around.
I simply don’t believe that the Westminster System we have would work if the President appointing the Prime Minister, Ministers, vetoing laws — as is the system in France. You might like to check out all the powers that a single person can have — It’s quite frightening! Maybe readers can comment on this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_France
Of course, both the US and French systems were born of Revolution… But I prefer the way we came about as a Nation.
Personally, if it meant voting for an all powerful president or a president appointed by the PM, or staying with the status quo, I would stick with what we have and hope wiser heads prevail in the future.
Thanks for your response.
I’m not entirely sure if I like this method of ‘voting out’ candidates. It seems negative, and all too much like a reality television show. But that’s just my opinion (I personally favour the bi-partisan model).
Nonetheless, it’s well regarded that the reason the 1999 referendum was lost was because republicans couldn’t agree on the election process of the prospective president.
We use an exhaustive preferential voting system in Australian state and federal lower houses, so why not in a republic referendum?
Simplified example:
[4] Australia remains as a monarchy
[2] McGarvie model
[3] Direct election model
[1] Bi-partisan model
[5] Possibly some other pro-monarchy changes to the constitution
I’m not sure weather or not there is a constitutional restriction on using the preferential voting system for a referendum or weather it’s at the discretion of the government at the time, but WE USE IT BECAUSE IT’S THE MOST FAIR AND MOST ACCURATE METHOD. LET’S USE IT IN VOTING IN A REPUBLIC REFERENDUM ALSO.
Hi Peter,
The preferential system works well at a one time vote. I am sure you know the drill as well as I. Number the boxes starting with a 1 in your first preference. As the votes are counted, the one with the least votes gets the preferences (of the voter) distributed. By and large an unwieldly approach, but required for a single time vote where you are looking for a clear cut majority.
On the other hand you could have a non compulsory system where one candidate gets 40% of the vote and the others get the remaining candidates 60% and the candidate who gets the biggest vote is declared the winner. In this case you have a winner where 60% of the population didn’t vote for that winner. (This more or less happened when George W Bush won his first election…. 50% of the voters did not turn out — it went down to the wire with the remaining 50% of voters splitting their voting half and half… — in this case the US got an ‘appointed’ President, (GWB was efffectively appointed by his brother, Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida, ) a President, where an astounding 75% of the electorate did NOT vote for. (Still that’s their system and you get the politicians you vote for.)
But some countries don’t have a preferential system and go to the polls with the result that there is no clear cut winner gaining 50% of the vote first time around. Lets say there are 3 candidates, first poll — 40%, 35% 25% . The loser from the previous poll drops out and a second poll is taken. This is a time consuming and expensive process.
So, to me voting out the least preferred candidates until two final candidates are ready to be voted for makes sense, because at the start of the process it is a definite who the politicans do NOT want as a HoS. It also stops the “shennanigans” on allocating preferences.
I disagree that the republicans couldn’t agree on an election process.
The Republican Convention was a fulfillment of a political promise made by avowed monarchist John Howard. By inviting monarchists to a republican convention he knew it would stymie the whole process. The monarchists knew that the people wanted a direct say in the election and they ensured that the option that was least palatable to the electorate — where the electorate had no say in the selection process of a HoS — was presented. The electorate was quite mature in rejecting this. The upshot is — the people want a say.
The system of putting them all up in a Referendum has merit, but could be risky. (If I recall we did that when we changed our National Anthem from “God Save the Queen” to “Advance Australia Fair” in 1974. “Waltzing Matilda” was also a choice on the ballot).
In doing so you run the risk of getting the “direct election model” which has major political ramifications. I have no doubt that if this preferential method had been selected at the Republican convention, we would have been a republic now and with a Direct Election for the an Australian as head of state.
The method outlined on this website is a compromise between “Direct Election” and “Bi-Partisan” method, also bringing into play the States and Territiories
1. The candidates that come from each of the states (and territories) are nominated and selected by the people.
2. The HoS is selected by the politicians from the candidates given to them by the people.
Thanks for your comment