On Dec 23, 9:01 pm, Jim Breen <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CL wrote:
> > Declan Murphy wrote:
>
> >> I can't see any reason why it couldn't be done within 48 hours of the
> >> election, the way it is in every other developed country with a
> >> democratic system. The only problem might be the sheer number of
> >> appointees the US system seems to involve.
>
> > It smells too much like a coup d'etat or royal succession.  Besides, as
> > a representative democracy, there has to be time for the House and
> > Senate races to be settled.  My own "home" state has still not declared
> > the winner of the US Senate seat contest, yet.  The incumbent
> > excrescence, Norm "Smarmy Normy" Coleman, seems to be leading by less
> > than one hundred votes out of three million cast.
>
> Here in Oz it takes weeks for the final results to be known, as
> postal votes trickle in, recounts are done, etc. However the
> general outcome is usually known within a couple of hours, and
> is usually pretty firm within 48 hours - firm enough for a
> change of government to start. We usually see a new cabinet
> sworn in about a week after an election when the government
> changes. From what I see of parliamentary systems around the
> world, it's much the same all over*. The US with its couple of
> months of lame-duckdom is the odd one out.

I'm not old enough to remember cliffhanger elections such as 1961,
though I imagine Menzies would simply have acted as caretaker until
the results were confirmed. On the rare occasions where Australia
changes government the results seem to be swift & clear enough for the
swearing in done within a week to ten days or thereabouts. The 2 man
cabinet of 1972 being the only anomaly I can think of.