Shireroth

who would you want as King?
How would you be deciding who it is?

I dunno who I'd want as king (or queen!), but I've had some thoughts as to how to choose.

The good old-fashioned American method would be to hold an election for the very first monarch, and let the dynasty proceed from there. But I've become disillusioned in elections... so I'm leaning toward one of three different methods:

1. Find a bloodline that has a history of prominence and leadership in America, and which is preferably descended from royalty.

2. Invite a member of a royal family from some other country to become our monarch. Maybe even one who's already a reigning monarch... after all, having spent so much effort to get ourselves away from a British monarch, it would be oh-so-fitting to go crawling back to one!

3. Hold a series of bloody duels. Last one standing gets to be royalty. Haphazard, but it wouldn't be boring, I can guarantee it.

One name.... Hefner... Enough said..

NEVEH! I'll burn the white house before that happens!

Or you can make me king! Think of how much fun we (meaning "I") would have!

Hefner would rock as President! Who doesn't love Hefner.. he's so laid back.. he LIVES the American Male Dream...hehe

I say we make a Political Party.. call it the... Bachlor Party.. and nominate Hue Hefner in '08..

What happens when you arent a bachleor or happen to be of the opposite sex?

Than all is still well.. it's just the name of the party...

Shyriath wrote:I dunno who I'd want as king (or queen!), but I've had some thoughts as to how to choose.

The good old-fashioned American method would be to hold an election for the very first monarch, and let the dynasty proceed from there. But I've become disillusioned in elections... so I'm leaning toward one of three different methods:

1. Find a bloodline that has a history of prominence and leadership in America, and which is preferably descended from royalty.

2. Invite a member of a royal family from some other country to become our monarch. Maybe even one who's already a reigning monarch... after all, having spent so much effort to get ourselves away from a British monarch, it would be oh-so-fitting to go crawling back to one!

3. Hold a series of bloody duels. Last one standing gets to be royalty. Haphazard, but it wouldn't be boring, I can guarantee it.

I like the dueling idea myself, but if that's not chosen, I'd take anyone as the new dynasty save those DAMNED KENNEDYS!!!!!

Aren't they all dead by this point?

There are still a few lurking around, jacking up gas prices or whatever it is robber-barons do.

I think something of a termed monarchy, set up similar to what we have here would be effective.

termed monarchy? Sounds like the system we HAVE NOW?! :P

Um...except for the fact that if you apply terms to a monarchy your royal line won't be able to breed fast enough. Not to mention it's pretty much at odds with the entire rationale behind monarchy itself.

The monarch doesn't have to be a bloodline member. Someone else proposed that.

I've got a couple more criticisms, but since I'm a little bit hung over (for the first time ever, I didn't drink any water when I got home), I'll keep it down to the biggest points.

Firstly, whoever is put into that position would have to first have some kind of popular legitimacy. Otherwise, the people simply wouldn't accept him. This is especially problematic in the United States where 200+ years of the expectation of at least the appearance of choice has been thoroughly ingrained into the political culture.

Secondly, who do you choose? A foreign monarch? Why would the people accept rule by some far away kinghead that they don't even know anything about? An academic? One would never be able to command enough popular support. You're basically left than with picking from among the families of the American political elite then (who I very much doubt would even themselves be able to command enough popular consent to be allowed to sit on a throne).

This then is the big problem. Terms, appointing from outside the bloodline, whatever ideas you might have to try to check this monarchy, would be totally pointless. Whoever sits on the throne is going to appoint an heir who agrees with him and who, if he isn't a part of the American political elite already, would quickly become part of it as that monarch's interests would lay in preserving his political power - the same as the other political elites. You might see some conflict between the monarch and legislature over power relations between them - but never would either want to do anything that would fundamentally upset the system. What you basically have done then is to permanently install one party in the executive without giving anyone even the semblance of choice. It has excaberated the problems of the American republic, not corrected them because you have replaced a number of competing "dynasties" with a single one that doesn't see itself as needing to compete for legitimacy.

This then is the big problem. Terms, appointing from outside the bloodline, whatever ideas you might have to try to check this monarchy, would be totally pointless. Whoever sits on the throne is going to appoint an heir who agrees with him and who, if he isn't a part of the American political elite already, would quickly become part of it as that monarch's interests would lay in preserving his political power - the same as the other political elites. You might see some conflict between the monarch and legislature over power relations between them - but never would either want to do anything that would fundamentally upset the system. What you basically have done then is to permanently install one party in the executive without giving anyone even the semblance of choice. It has excaberated the problems of the American republic, not corrected them because you have replaced a number of competing "dynasties" with a single one that doesn't see itself as needing to compete for legitimacy.

I completely agree.

As well, unless you wish to completely eliminate our Republican tradition, (the government system, fewls ) it is just pointless to switch to a Monarchy, as nothing will change other than the President being longer term. All of the remaining monarchies in Europe have less power than the President in the US - they are little more than celebrities, which I find very sad. Part of a royal bloodline should not be something to compare with an actor.

Oh, and having a rotating monarchy? That's just pointless. All you have done is remove the ability for the people to (remotely) elect the leader. It does not have the majesty of a true monarchy. Shireroth manages to work it out because it is ultimatley not simply a Monarchy - it is a meritocracy at heart, where a person gets to do whatever he wants for awhile as a reward for his efforts in the nation. If we had a true monarchy, Erik would have been leader for a long time and wouldn't become leader again after he retired.

It's true that they are little more than celebrities, but I'm not at all sad that they are bereft of power.Eventually, the peasants and townspeople realized that they oughtn't to be ruled by people who are potentially idiots, just because said idiots parents were idiots before them. Now, I wish people in America would realize the same thing and clear out the corruption that now plagues a nation meant to remedy the curses of absolute monarchy!

What's this malarky about popular selection? Sure, there's popular acclaim for the President in the USA, but the people have never actually elected their President. This job falls to the electoral college, extraordinarily similar to the Elector Counts of the Holy Roman Empire. They take the popular vote as their lead, not necessarily as their commandment. In effect, the President is the equivalent of the Holy Roman Emperor anyway.

I like the duels idea, though...

Only by arbitrarily choosing to ignore the fact that US electors do take the popular vote as a lead. Actually, in many states they are legally required to and in all cases run the risk of punishment from their parties. That's the principle difference. The 7 Electors of the Holy Roman Empire on the other hand simply chose whomever they wanted according to their own interests with no regard paid whatsoever, let alone any kind of legal safeguards or threat of party censure, to what the population would have preferred.

Of course, I still think it's a shitty system.

The major flaw of the electoral college system is that most states have a winner-take-all system, not the electors themselves. And - crap, I just cut my finger.

That's a shame.

About which part?