"I can honestly say that I have never voted to make a particular person PM."
Here is a post from Australia that would likely produce incomprehension and then fury in about 99% of Canadian pundits and political scientists, who are deeply committed to the principle of leadership autocracy in Canadian politics, and 100% of the odious hacks in the leaders' offices, whose careers are based upon it.In the post, an Australian complains that one of the major Australian parties has toughened the rules, so that to remove a prime minister from leadership of his or her party now requires two-thirds support among the elected MPs of that party. (As previously, the MPs in caucus would thereupon immediately choose the new leader/prime minister by a simple majority vote)
The Australian blogger, a citizen who distrusts all the political parties and wants to ensure their accountability, argues that this super-majority is too much of a limitation on the ability of the people's elected representatives to control governments and leaders.
Looking back over Australian political history, the most successful governments have generally been parliamentary rather than presidential, governments in which the prime minister or premier managed to control egos while giving ministers real power within the cabinet framework.Imagine!
Image: Canadaland
