Hacker News Reader

Comment by yohannparis | Hacker News Reader

It's mostly because Australia, like the UK and Canada, have a Prime Minister instead of a President.

In case of murder of a PM, the government will quickly select a new one in the matter of weeks. It is a silly political move to kill a PM.

In case of a President, there is a mandate from the population, because he/she was elected directly. And replacing the President is a matter of several months at least, or, in the case of the USA, not at all. And that sends a bigger message to kill a President.

I personally see both system (Prime Minister and President) have pros & cons that doesn't make one better than the other.

View on HN

> In case of a President, there is a mandate from the population, because he/she was elected directly. And replacing the President is a matter of several months at least, or, in the case of the USA, not at all. And that sends a bigger message to kill a President.

We have a fairly well defined line of succession.

And even if you're talking just about mandate, if the president dies the VP often takes up the dead president's mandates. Like LBJ passing major civil rights legislation the year after JFK died, or Truman following FDR pretty closely. Although Andrew Johnson did the opposite of that and Gerald Ford (not following a death, fair) didn't do anything at all.

I agree that there is a line of succession, but those people "in line" are not directly elected representative. I know I'm being facetious, but my point is that the population have chosen their president, not the rest of the line. The VP becoming the Acting President is akin to a PM in parliamentary government.

Why would it take months for a new president? In case of the death of a president, the vice-president gets automatically sworn into office as fast as possible and in fact becomes a president. Now if the vice president also dies, you have a line of succession to act as a president.

I haven't found any information about the obligation to hold new elections in such event, but I could be wrong

Your parent has "in the case of the USA, not at all". I think what they're saying is that someone who becomes president by inheriting the role is not seen as a full president, even if they formally are one.

> inheriting the role is not seen as a full president

Just in the 20th century, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson directly contradict your statement.

Your statement does describe the most recent case, afore, but it’s such an oddball case it’s not surprising it’s an outlier.

Got it, but I think most democracies (for example US, Brazil, Argentina) have a line of succession either in their constitution or in the amendments that follow it. Whenever anyone takes the role of president next, they have full authority, power, and responsibilities of a president, even if in some cases they don't have the title of President.

I know of a few examples that it's required to have new elections months after a president step down, which is the case of India, but even then the acting president has the full power of a president.

You seem to think that a new election is required, but in the case of the death of a President, the Vice-president is sworn in pretty much as soon as they can get a judge available to do the swearing in which can be done in a matter of minutes to hours. Much faster than gathering a bunch of drunk member of Commons together and letting them boo each other while some chap screams "orduh". ;P

> Much faster than gathering a bunch of drunk member of Commons together and letting them boo each other while some chap screams "orduh". ;P

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but it's worth noting that the Parliament has almost nothing to do with appointing a Prime Minister. In practice (in Australia) the majority party meets, picks a new leader, and then sends them to be appointed as PM by the Governor General. That's all that's needed.

In Australia there is always a Deputy Prime Minister available to fulfill the role of the PM in their absence because of illness, travel or leave. That said in the case of a coalition government, such as we have now, they are from the minority party in the coalition, and the deputy would unlikely to succeed as a permanent PM in the event of a sudden demise such as drowning in the surf - or taken by a Chinese submarine if you believe that. (For those not in the know this happened to Harold Holt, our PM in 1967l

I don't think this is about elections, but about how much people care about the leader as an individual versus a representative of a party? For example, in a traditional monarchy, even if you had a very clear successor (popular 60yo king with a popular 35yo eldest child etc) killing the king would still be a huge "message".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com