or embrace the sillyness of having a monarch in the modern era and appoint a random tree kangaroo the monarch and all of their descendant be the new royal family. Wheel it out a couple time a year for ceremonies before taking them back to their estate some nature preserve

> Serious question: name someone who might realistically be President who would not make you sad.

Michael Kirby, Marie Bashir–both too old now, but either could have been a fine President if we had become a republic sooner. Or, similarly, Ted Egan, former Administrator of the Northern Territory.

Frank Brennan–the whole his being a Catholic priest thing is somewhat of an obstacle, admittedly (although possibly not a completely insurmountable one.)

What about Susan Kiefel? Or Angus Campbell?

Thanks for the thoughtful response. If someone from this sort of list — I’ll pass on the priest, thanks, but otherwise — could make it, yeah, okay.

Perhaps I’m just jaded. I don’t see it happening. I see it being one of the same old dudes that we all basically can’t stand.

I think Ireland has a good system.

The President is a largely symbolic apolitical role – yet also popularly elected. To ensure only high quality candidates run, the hurdle to nominate is rather high – nomination by at least 20 members of the Irish Parliament (the Oireachtas), or by at least four county/city councils (Ireland only has 31). My impression is that people are generally happy with the outcome of the process.

In Australia, we could similarly require nomination by at least 20 MPs (the Parliament of Australia is only slightly larger than the Oireachtas, 227 vs 220). The four councils requirement is a bit harder to translate – but rough equivalents would be nomination by 1 state/territory government, or by 70 local councils.

Yeah, but literally nobody knows who he is.

I would image most Australians would prefer Albo as our head of state rather than King Charles.

You're kidding right.

What? Most Australians do not support the monarchy, a lot of Australians want a republic.

For all of those Australians, having the democratically elected PM become president is clearly superior than having an unelected monarch be the head of state.

You're the one kidding, mate.

We might find out soon I suppose, no shortage of calls for a referendum. I imagine the dilly dallying has just been because the Queen was quite favorable, and didn't meddle. A don't fix what isn't broken situation.

A king who is also secretly

The Duke of Cornwall, The Duke of Somerset, The Duke of Norfolk and The Duke of Richmond

Sign me up..!

I'm actually wondering why anyone wouldn't prefer an elected head of state vs one given power through succession.

When one doesn’t need to be worried about being elected, one can make decisions based on principle, and the longer-term view, rather than pandering to popular opinion.

We always complain that politicians work on a two-year cycle. If your position is permanent (pending death), you escape this cycle.

See also: the House of Lords.

It’s weird to think about, and I’m a working-class Labour voter from Sunderland whose grandad was a welder on the ships, but there’s something to be said for it.

There's also the argument that if your job as ruler is known from a young age you can be groomed into the role in a way a career politician never will be. A system for choosing a head of state that requires an extensive training period and that meant they couldn't simply be turfed out on the whims of a gaggle of swinging voters has something to be said for it. But what sort of long term decisions would you have them make?

Probably infrastructure, as that takes a long time to complete, and can be made a little more effective rather than "if I can find a way to tunnel from the country to the beach, I'll get more votes" (/s)

Clive Palmer still knocking about? How about Michael Atkinson?