The current political conditions say no. "President"? Eww. Queen? She's like that pair of shoes you wore to your first ball, and still love even though they don't fit anymore. The model that was layed down for voting was, no question, edited together by the monarchists. By the time the final referendum question was put together, it had pretty much been squished into a model that was only worthwile if you were a politician. It became less of a "Do you want to ditch the Queen?" and more of a "Do you want the current government to be an autocracy?" Funnily enough, the only state in which that question passed was the ACT (63%). The 'rural' areas said "Fuck no", but despite the government situation we'd have had being absolutely shithouse, we still got a lot of people saying yes. Which means, according to my TEE research assignment (:P), that Australia as a whole (aside from the ACT, which I don't personally count as a territory) had no idea what they were voting on. The best way to sabotage a referendum is to make the question rambling and complicated (see conscription). Effectively, in 1999, people were saying "Monarchy meh", except that the referendum system is fuxed. Another way to get a referendum 'No' is to tack on an unpopular question. Hey presto, the completely random question of adding a preamble, which mainly just kisses butt of everyone under contention (war, indigineous Australians [remember the "Sorry" deate?], imigrants [Tampa]), which didn't even get passed by the people who wrote the question.
Also, right now, changing the political system has the unpalatable taint of "Revolution". I hardly need to point out that, in times of political turmoil and international instability, the People will vote conservative, and not want change. Thank god that it didn't go ahead, in retrospect.
(Oh, and I've found that, Australians being what we are, the vocal minority forms the basis for each side. And most of us are standing there shrugging out shoulders saying "She'll be right, mate." We're not a red state/blue state country.)
no subject
The model that was layed down for voting was, no question, edited together by the monarchists.
By the time the final referendum question was put together, it had pretty much been squished into a model that was only worthwile if you were a politician. It became less of a "Do you want to ditch the Queen?" and more of a "Do you want the current government to be an autocracy?"
Funnily enough, the only state in which that question passed was the ACT (63%). The 'rural' areas said "Fuck no", but despite the government situation we'd have had being absolutely shithouse, we still got a lot of people saying yes. Which means, according to my TEE research assignment (:P), that Australia as a whole (aside from the ACT, which I don't personally count as a territory) had no idea what they were voting on. The best way to sabotage a referendum is to make the question rambling and complicated (see conscription). Effectively, in 1999, people were saying "Monarchy meh", except that the referendum system is fuxed. Another way to get a referendum 'No' is to tack on an unpopular question. Hey presto, the completely random question of adding a preamble, which mainly just kisses butt of everyone under contention (war, indigineous Australians [remember the "Sorry" deate?], imigrants [Tampa]), which didn't even get passed by the people who wrote the question.
Also, right now, changing the political system has the unpalatable taint of "Revolution". I hardly need to point out that, in times of political turmoil and international instability, the People will vote conservative, and not want change. Thank god that it didn't go ahead, in retrospect.
(Oh, and I've found that, Australians being what we are, the vocal minority forms the basis for each side. And most of us are standing there shrugging out shoulders saying "She'll be right, mate." We're not a red state/blue state country.)