[Ocker]

What did you vote, or if you couldn't, what would you have?

If you don't know, the 1999 referendum put 2 questions forward, to become a republic, the other on a preamble to the Constitution.



Question 1:

Do you approve a proposed law to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament?

Question 2:

To alter the Constitution to insert a Preamble

Here are the results:

Q1, 45.13% For, 54.87% against (all states total).
Obtained majority in no State and an overall minority of 1 137 763 votes.
Not carried.

Q2, 39.34% For, 60.66% against (all states total).
Obtained majority in no State and an overall minority of 2 489 435 votes.
Not carried.

[GandalfTheGrey]

I voted against the referendum, because I see no problem with the existing system. If it works, stick to it.

The referendum was defeated, not because people are monarchists, but because republicans were deeply divided. The minimalist system, propsed by Malcolm Turnbull and the ARM (Australian Republican Movement), was the proposed system which was decided at the constitutional convention. In this system, the President would simply replace the Governor General. Since the Queen could no longer appoint the head of state, it would be decided by a parliamentary majority. However, a significant faction of republicans, headed by the populist Ted Mack, wanted a system whereby the president is elected by popular vote. Even amongst this faction there was a sub-division between those who wanted the president as a figurehead, and those who wanted a US style system. The referendum failed, because the 'popular vote' faction of the republican movement boycotted the ARM proposal.

I disagree with the 'popular vote' system because the elected president then has a mandate, which creates a dangerous precedent for many reasons.