And you think this was a vote in favour of keeping Canada a monarchy? My impression was that monarchy was taken as a given in that process.
But let's go with your version: you think that one vote in 1982 is enough to not only establish someone as head of state for life, but also their children, grandchildren, etc., in perpetuity? That's absurd.
I was 5 years old in 1982. I had no say in "voting" for monarchy or even in voting for an MP you claim voted for monarchy. You think that a collection of MPs, now mostly dead, should have more say about the rulership of the country today than its current citizens? That's anti-democratic.
There's a reason why democracies refresh their mandate with periodic elections... at intervals much less than 40 years.
And the question is brought up regularly -- do we want to remain as we are, or do we want to change? And someday, I don't know when, when enough people agitate for it, it will be addressed again, and then I presume you will be old enough to vote.
I've said before, I rather support the situation the way that it is, but I recognize I'm only one voice, and in fact many of my good friends disagree with me, and would prefer to dissociate ourselves from the British monarchy altogether. I would vote against that -- but as always, I will accept the will of the people.
Of course, if we do that, we have to then decide what that change should look like? Do we want to become "American?" I most assuredly do not. Do you want to make the PM into a President? Will that President then also be head of the legislative branch? Be careful what you wish for.
But as I said, when the debate comes up, I'll argue my views, and when the issue is decided, I will accept it.