This is a forum for those who think monarchy is a noble and viable alternative to the crude and materialistic mob mentality of republicanism.
Discussion
Elective monarchy is probably the best choice for the US, since A: we don't exactly have many candidates to choose from and B: it's far more familiar for your average Joe. I don't think it should be a direct election, though. I think a good model for it would be the Republic of Venice which used lotteries and lotteries to choose electors, as well as the electors who elected the electors-and so on.
The basic system I've come up with is that each county within a state vote for a possible elector, and from the 25% of those voted in are randomly chosen, and they, in turn, select three possible electors who are randomly chosen to sit in the electoral college and vote for the new monarch. In this way, a bad heir can be avoided but the ability to rig or influence the election illegally would be nigh-impossible.
Archived post. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
"So you know how elections are just popularity contests where one conman supported by money is voted in over the other conman by the hordes who have no idea how to run a government?"
"Yeah?"
"Let's have that but the elected guy is is in office for life."
I recognize this is a strawman but otherwise the shitty joke wouldn't work. Elective monarchy is inferior to hereditary but if it's limited to the monarch's family or nobility (which is historically the case anyway) then it's mostly okay. It still causes division and crudely vying for power among the heirs though.
It's working in Malaysia though.
I did say elective monarchy is mostly okay. Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy where the monarchs don't actually govern in the first place anyway so it's not like talking about any big boy monarchies.
Hence why I suggested a form of sortition for choosing the electors. Discourages politicization since you can't guarantee who's going to vote.
If you have an elected monarchy that is limited to the royal family or nobility, that has all of the negatives of a normal democratic election(populism and political factionalism) coupled with the greatest weakness of a hereditary system (extremely limited talent pool.) It's literally the worst of all worlds.
It doesn't actually look like a monarchy. To have an elective monarchy, you need to restrict the candidates for the post among a few born into the role. In Malaysia, only the kings of the member States are candidates for the post of king of the country. In Cambodia, only male heirs of the royal dynasty are candidates for the throne.
I see you draw inspiration from the Venetian Doge, but he wasn't considered a monarch, more like a president for life. I'm not saying your approach is bad, I'm just saying it's not a monarchy, not even an elective monarchy. I think Alexander Hamilton proposed that the president be elected for life or until impeachment initially.
One alternative might be to use the State governors as Electors and that the President be chosen only from the governors and elected by governors. So only someone with Executive experience on the State level could become president, and he would have to have the respect of his peers. But, again, that's not a monarchy, it's just a republic with an indirectly elected president.
I'm going to be that guy and point out that the functional, practical difference between a monarch and other lifetime leaders is mostly on the basis of what they're called. The difference between a dictator and an absolute monarch is, for all intents and purposes, what they call themselves.
With that being said, the main advantage of a sorition-method of choosing electors is that it discourages over-politicalization of the election. Since the person you vote to be drawn isn't guaranteed to be chosen, this encourages choosing electors who will, y'know, elect competently.
I think you're selling short the influence the selection process has on the job. The Doge was not called a king nor a monarch, someone who is made the ruler by a democratic vote has no legitimacy to resist a democratic challenge to his rule, a monarch that has the crown by the law of heredity cannot have it so easily taken away. Furthermore, one who knows his heir will inherit the job will not necessarily behave the same way as one who knows the job will be given to another unrelated guy.
Likewise, a dictator and an absolute monarch are different in that the former has earned his position through violence, might makes right, and so can do whatever he wants as long as he maintains an hegemony on violence. The latter hasn't earned the crown, he inherited it by law, and because his rule is only made legitimate by law and tradition, he has to uphold law and tradition or risk undermining the very basis of his claim to the throne.
If you nean the Poland like monarchy then no. And if you mean the malaysian one here we would not see the difference
This sounds most like the system used by Negeri Sembilan,with the indirectly elected four Undangs choosing the next Yang di-Pertuan Besar from among the Sri Menanti dynasty.
Is it a good system?
In Poland, this didn't turn out well
Thinking less like Poland, more like Venice, which wasn't a monarchy but had elements of one.
It’s better than Democracy but worse than total Monarchy
Please elaborate.
Poland moment
That would depend on the electors as the pope and the monarchs of Europe where the electors of the HRE emperors and Cardinals under 80 elect the Pope
It's dumb, but here's my idea:
At the lowest level (cities and towns), there would be local democracies. Essentially, if it affects you directly, you have a say.
Each state becomes a kingdom.
Each kingdom has a bicameral parliament. Like the UK, the lower (the folkmoot) is elected. However, the upper (the earlmoot) is hereditary.
Above the kings is the high king. He would be elected from and by the kings.
From all the points I've seen discussed overtime I think monarchy is inferior to hereditary monarchy as a whole. The only place it works best is the Papacy, which must be elective by necessity as Popes have no heirs to pass the post onto.
Something along the lines of "A bunch of lower nobles vote within themselves to see who the next one will be." Not sure if thats Elective Aristocratic, but it's the one I favour, especially in large unions of multiple cultures or nations. HRE style (I think atleast).