Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

constitutionnet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#61

Post by throw0101a »

skissane wrote: post #58
ggm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia voted no. Many assume this was older anglo Australians who revere the Queen and hope for a re vote when Charles accedes to the throne. He's a nong, and has much less visible support, and even active opposition. I personally suspect it's the dichotomy of directly elected president or a chamber elected symbolic president which functionally is what the governor general is. Basically the republican vote was spl…

> I voted for a republic. I wouldn't have, if the intent was to make it a direct election. What is wrong with the Irish model? A President who is directly elected, but also largely apolitical, a mostly ceremonial role with strictly limited powers. A key element of the Irish model is tough nomination criteria - to run for President, one must be nominated either by 20 members of Parliament (9% of the total), or by 4 co…

> What is wrong with the Irish model? A President who is directly elected, but also largely apolitical, a mostly ceremonial role with strictly limited powers.

Nothing necessarily, as long as people understand it is a symbolic position.

It is interesting to note that of the top ten countries in The Economist's Democracy Index, eight are constitutional monarchies:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_country

Ireland and Iceland are the two that are not, and Iceland changed to a republic in "only" 1944. In the top twenty, a lot of the countries also have ceremonial heads of state.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#62

Post by [deleted] »

dane-pgp wrote: post #13
ggm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia voted no. Many assume this was older anglo Australians who revere the Queen and hope for a re vote when Charles accedes to the throne. He's a nong, and has much less visible support, and even active opposition. I personally suspect it's the dichotomy of directly elected president or a chamber elected symbolic president which functionally is what the governor general is. Basically the republican vote was spl…

> a symbolic minor depoliticised role is better to me There would be no harm in directly electing such a person, and it would be good to prevent the government of the day using its majority to elect a president who just rubber-stamps whatever they want. The advantage of having a directly elected president, is that they can act as a check and balance against a government which concentrates executive and legislative po…

[deleted]

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#63

Post by throw0101a »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #17
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #4

Curious if when Queen Elizabeth passes away, if there will be a surge in republican interest in the various realms outside of the UK. For the vast majority of the population in those countries, she's the only monarch they've ever known. Once Charles, or perhaps William, takes over, that link to the past will have been severed.

I (Canadian) would personally vote to be a republic. Symbolic or not, I think it's absurd that hereditary rule exists in any form in the current day and age.

As another Canadian, I wouldn't be against becoming a republic, as long as the new system can guarantee things working as well as the current one. We're currently in the top ten of The Economist's Democracy Index:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_country

And 8 out of the top 10 are also constitution monarchies. Plenty of symbolic-president republics in the top twenty though.

Whatever replacement system that is proposed needs to have a decent track record.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#65

Post by throw0101a »

myrion wrote: post #39
MarcScott wrote: post #33

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners. If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.

Having two houses of parliament can be used to balance out regional representation with population-based representation. That way, population centers don't completely overshadow more rural areas. That can be overdone, like in the US, where rural areas can completely overshadow the population centers but the idea isn't terrible.

> That way, population centers don't completely overshadow more rural areas.

So ((one person) ≠ (one vote))?

Why should people in rural areas get more representation than non-rural areas?

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#66

Post by throw0101a »

trhway wrote: post #24
vmception wrote: post #21

As a non-Commonwealth person, I don’t really get it. Can someone explain why all these countries keep rejecting the idea of leaving the Commonwealth? The people keep doing it. Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK. Are people really so enamored by the crown? Do they really feel comfort in the possibility that their laws can be overriden at any time but simply never occurs? Island n…

do they pay for having a Queen? If not than they get that for free, and if it costs nothing than why not? >their laws can be overriden at any time only in theory. I think the key to such a successful survival of the English monarchy is their understanding of the limits of their power - granted that understanding came as a result of almost losing it all back then. Yet they were the only one who survived the WWI - and…

> do they pay for having a Queen? If not than they get that for free, and if it costs nothing than why not?

AFAICT, they go from paying for the Queen's ceremonial representative, the Governor-General, to paying for a elected ceremonial president.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#67

Post by captn3m0 »

dane-pgp wrote: post #13
ggm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia voted no. Many assume this was older anglo Australians who revere the Queen and hope for a re vote when Charles accedes to the throne. He's a nong, and has much less visible support, and even active opposition. I personally suspect it's the dichotomy of directly elected president or a chamber elected symbolic president which functionally is what the governor general is. Basically the republican vote was spl…

> a symbolic minor depoliticised role is better to me There would be no harm in directly electing such a person, and it would be good to prevent the government of the day using its majority to elect a president who just rubber-stamps whatever they want. The advantage of having a directly elected president, is that they can act as a check and balance against a government which concentrates executive and legislative po…

India does this, but the President’s veto is both toothless (they can only refuse to sign a legislation twice) and rarely used (last two presidents haven’t used it).

However the president is a nomination confirmed by the parliament, so it’s not exactly the same thing. The Vice-President gets a vote split but that is also rarely used (once a decade maybe).

In my perspective, it adds additional bureaucracy, overhead, and administrative expenses for very little gain.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#68

Post by notfromhere »

EarlKing wrote: post #50
MarcScott wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But don't you end up with tyranny of the minority? Small states, that fit a very niche demographic, end up being pivotal in decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans, often due to the intense lobbying that is targeted at these senators.

What you call a 'tyranny of the minority' is in fact an equal representation of classes... that the rural proletariat is represented in government rather than yielding all decisions to the urban bourgeoisie. The American form of government was designed specifically to ensure a balance of interests rather than allowing one class to run roughshod over the other. It's a design feature, and a good one at that, no matter…

It’s not. Rural voters work the same types of jobs that their urban counterparts do. Rural doesn’t mean agriculture because that is a tiny fraction of the workforce. Poor rural voters work the same jobs that poor urban voters do (largely service or manufacturing).

The urban “bourgeoisie” isn’t big enough to dictate anything as a voting bloc, but the “equal representation of classes” angle is a great way to justify suppressing urban political representation.

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#69

Post by hash872 »

skissane wrote: post #56
hef19898 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I life in a parliamentary syatem, and branches, all of them, are equal. In pratical terms, there is some overlap since people in the executive tend to be pretty powerful in the legislative as well. If you take France, with a pretty strong President, even the president needs the legeslative to pass laws, he can't order them around.

What country do you live in? By definition, in a parliamentary system, the executive is de facto subordinated to the legislature, even if they may be theoretically considered equal. If the executive and legislature are equal in your country, not just in theory but also in practice, then you do not live in a true parliamentary system, even if some might call your system “parliamentary”. You mention France-as I said, F…

I think the argument is that a powerful Prime Minister is not really subordinated to parliament- that Merkel does not, in practice, really answer to the party, but instead the party answers to her. I am not personally making that argument, but I think that's the response- that there's a difference between how parliamentary systems work in theory, versus in practice

Re: Barbados’s long-drawn-out promise of a republic

#70

Post by Mikeb85 »

rnmwfQ3f wrote: post #18
Mikeb85 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I (Canadian) would personally vote to be a republic. Symbolic or not, I think it's absurd that hereditary rule exists in any form in the current day and age.

Why is that absurd?

We say we're against racism, sexism, and other isms that involve people not being equal because of a condition of their birth.

Well all of us have less wealth and privilege than the royalty by virtue of our birth and it's somehow enshrined in law.

Post reply on HN