Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pick any developed country in the world and have a look at their census. The US census is the most bare boned of the lot. As you made the claim about how amazing America is at (a) collecting data that leads to (b) better social outcomes can you provide a shred of evidence to back it up?
You've jumped to a conclusion (that the US Census is the primary source of US stats) which is not supported by the facts.
I mentioned the US Census only in relation to the ancestry questions it asks. The census is decennial, so relying on it wouldn't answer a lot of questions, to say nothing of timeliness.
Here's a list of 130 annual surveys conducted by US Census Bureau.
USCB are far from the only stats keepers. Every government department keeps both its own relevant stats, plus collects and collates from state and local.
So back on topic. Who wants or doesn't want a Republic and why?
Ok, I have always wanted a Republic. My heritage is distant Scottish English German and French, and my husband’s is Italian. At the time we were married it was the custom at weddings to have a toast to the Queen. We went to the effort to avoid that as it seemed irrelevant to both of us.
However I honestly cannot remember what I voted at the referendum for for a republic. Like so many, to me the issue was the proposed model.
That is still the issue. I do believe that with the death of the Queen more effort will be made to find some acceptable consensus on who will be head of state that will lead to a vote for the republic.
As I have previously commented, many of the more conservative supporters of the status quo are likely to be less than impressed with the strong environmental advocacy of the Royal family. So some support for the monarchy will be lost there.
It is not likely that another vote will take place for about five years and it is hard to predict how the community will feel about the whole issue then.
But like so many, to me it is not a big issue. I rarely hear it discussed.
So back on topic. Who wants or doesn't want a Republic and why?
I could not be bothered either way, if a referendum came a along id vote yes (like i did in the last one), but I cant even see the reason for having it in the first place. what is it going to change?
You've jumped to a conclusion (that the US Census is the primary source of US stats) which is not supported by the facts.
I mentioned the US Census only in relation to the ancestry questions it asks. The census is decennial, so relying on it wouldn't answer a lot of questions, to say nothing of timeliness.
You introduced the census not me. Every country I've lived in asks some version of race/ethnicity in its census. I didn't see why it was particularly unique. If you meant a broader data set fair enough I misunderstood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humphrey_C_Earwicker
I'm not suggesting other countries don't keep stats. I am suggesting they don't keep as extensive stats.
Whether or not America keeps more data than other countries was not the issue, what I thought was ridiculous was the implied corollary that it produces better social outcomes. On that I stand by my comment that America is no world leader or even particularly good at it.
I could not be bothered either way, if a referendum came a along id vote yes (like i did in the last one), but I cant even see the reason for having it in the first place. what is it going to change?
What is going to change is entirely up to the people but as a start wouldn't you agree that it would make sense that the Australian head of state was Australian and someone who actually cares about this land? Even if their purpose is solely for diplomatic purposes having a head of state with no connection to this land doesn't make much sense does it? Now in terms of what institutional changes this will bring about. I am curious myself to see what the republican movement envisions
Ok, I have always wanted a Republic. My heritage is distant Scottish English German and French, and my husband’s is Italian. At the time we were married it was the custom at weddings to have a toast to the Queen. We went to the effort to avoid that as it seemed irrelevant to both of us.
However I honestly cannot remember what I voted at the referendum for for a republic. Like so many, to me the issue was the proposed model.
That is still the issue. I do believe that with the death of the Queen more effort will be made to find some acceptable consensus on who will be head of state that will lead to a vote for the republic.
As I have previously commented, many of the more conservative supporters of the status quo are likely to be less than impressed with the strong environmental advocacy of the Royal family. So some support for the monarchy will be lost there.
It is not likely that another vote will take place for about five years and it is hard to predict how the community will feel about the whole issue then.
But like so many, to me it is not a big issue. I rarely hear it discussed.
Very true, watching the likes of the British King Charles and Harry get involved in the climate change agenda is them doing something which essentially the Queen didn't do, pick sides. Ironically the very people they are allying themselves with here are the very people who would be against the monarchy.
True I rarely hear it discussed and probably won't be until a new campaign starts.
What is going to change is entirely up to the people but as a start wouldn't you agree that it would make sense that the Australian head of state was Australian
Yes. I do. But look at the responses on here. People are far more interested in continuing the stability they have than a revolution for revolution's sake. I think, with respect, this is the bit you keep not understanding. FWIW, I think the monarch is bit player in the stability in Australian politics but that's a hard argument to win. Just look at Britain: It's a 19th century theme park sliding into the Atlantic while the parliament just keeps sticking its head in a noose. Has the monarch done a thing? How about that rabid idiot in the Solomon Islands getting away with delaying the election by a year – again where is the monarch?
Yes. I do. But look at the responses on here. People are far more interested in continuing the stability they have than a revolution for revolution's sake. I think, with respect, this is the bit you keep not understanding. FWIW, I think the monarch is bit player in the stability in Australian politics but that's a hard argument to win. Just look at Britain: It's a 19th century theme park sliding into the Atlantic while the parliament just keeps sticking its head in a noose. Has the monarch done a thing? How about that rabid idiot in the Solomon Islands getting away with delaying the election by a year – again where is the monarch?
I do very much understand this but I'm trying to invoke some patriotic fire in one's belly by coming at it from all angles lol. I want Australians to be more assertive with their place in the world so as to distinguish itself from a colonial past. Australia is a well capable independent nation that is growing as such a rate that it's changing rapidly. Everyone needs something to get behind, patriotism is a virtue and if Australia doesn't lay down some roots now in what it wants people to unite around then it may end up drifting toward a very different set of values and governmental structure in the future driven by a completely different demographic.
The monarch is essentially useless however what power would we give a future president of Australia? Would it merely be a figurehead role much like the British monarchy today?
I do very much understand this but I'm trying to invoke some patriotic fire in one's belly by coming at it from all angles lol. I want Australians to be more assertive with their place in the world so as to distinguish itself from a colonial past. Australia is a well capable independent nation that is growing as such a rate that it's changing rapidly. Everyone needs something to get behind, patriotism is a virtue and if Australia doesn't lay down some roots now in what it wants people to unite around then it may end up drifting toward a very different set of values and governmental structure in the future driven by a completely different demographic.
The monarch is essentially useless however what power would we give a future president of Australia? Would it merely be a figurehead role much like the British monarchy today?
The head of state in almost all parliamentary republics is a figurehead, US being a notable exception.
Maybe that's why people here are not embracing your idea. What's the point in changing one type of figurehead for another. If the monarchy isn't a burden why dump it? Unless you're going to go the US route which has greater "separation of powers" safeguards.......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
