Originally posted by adamj
OK, I will restate it.
You say that people should have a person they want as a leader, they do, they voted into our Legislature a Prime Minister via representatives and via proportional voting into the Senate, a similar system in the states. Under the constitution, politicians have Parliamentary Sovereignty, that is they are the supreme Legislative Law makers. However under the Doctrine of the Seperation of Powers, there is a division between the Legislature (Parliament), the Executive (Government Departments By-Law makers) and the Judiciary (courts through judgements/precedents).
The Crown currently unites these, not Elizabeth Windsor. If we elected a representative, our courts would be influenced by a popular figurehead who has elections to worry about. THis is called the Greatest good for the greatest number, meaning a decision been made because a majority support it, something that a parliament should do at times in moral issues especially, but in terms of courts, it should not be centred upon. Such practice will mean courts are criticised and this comprehends the Rule of Law.
My argument is, that your system is about overturning our current safeguards, all in the name of, Australia's so called independance which we already under legislation and constitution have, with the argument that we should have a popular leader - very unfair.
