Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith is not allowed to vote. Why not?
Because Her Majesty is part of Parliament, which is composed of the Queen, the Lords, and the Commons. Since she is one third of Parliament in her own right, she does not have the right to participate in the selection of the Commons. She summons the Lords and the Commons for the purpose of holding the Parliament with her.
It’s a combination of things. First of all, it’s the House of Commons, and its members are supposed to be selected by the common, non noble and non royal population. This has changed somewhat since the reform of the House of Lords, with most hereditary nobles now being allowed to vote, but the principle is still there. The Queen isn’t even supposed to enter the House of Commons.
Secondly, after the whole democracy thing took off and people decided that being told what to do by an unelected monarch is a bad thing, the Queen is supposed to be neutral in politics and do what’s she’s told to do by the elected officials. If she’s overtly political and starts expressing her opinion on issues, this idea gets compromised. Technically, she picks the prime minister and he serves at her pleasure, remember. What’s to stop her from saying, “Screw you guys, public, I’m a Green Party supporter and am picking Caroline Lucas”? While something like that probably wouldn’t happen, if she was known to be a big supporter of the Tories, it could cause some friction if there was a Labour Government in power, and vice versa.
But basically there’s nothing legally to stop the queen from voting if she really wants to. But like so many things that there’s nothing legally forbidding the Queen from doing (like announcing that she was naming me Prime Minister and that Britain was now at war with France), if she did them, it would cause a scandal and a constitutional crisis and give the press something to talk about. The British constitution is maintained by giving the monarch all sorts of wonderful absolutist powers that she must never use.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/elections-faq-page/
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/Queenandvoting.aspx
If those guys don’t know the answer, then we’re in trouble 
But don’t the candidates vote? (presumably for themselves). And aren’t they members of Parliament? 
The list in <sotto voice> * that other thread* should have included this:
“Shall I hold your purse, M’am?”
“Sodding 'ell, NO!”
Would the queen voting matter at all? The vote is private, so what does it matter? One vote is not going to make a difference in a conventional election.
No - Parliament has been dissolved and there is no House of Commons at the moment of the election. So no-one is a member of Parliament (i.e. the Commons) at the time of the election.
It’s not like the House of Representatives, where the House is still in existence and the current Congress folk continue as members until after the election.
No, but if she voted, one assumes it would be for someone. That she had a preference would be sufficiently disruptive to her role as non-partisan head of state, regardless of whom the preference was for.
FWIW, IIRC the Governor General of Canada has the right to vote, but chooses not to.
Strictly speaking, she could vote in European elections.
Under the Human Rights Act 1998, you probably couldn’t deny her a parliamentary vote if she insisted on having one. But, as said earlier, she does not press the point.
At one time, many army officers considered it their duty not to vote, as officers should be above politics.
<Johnny Carson voice> I did not know that. <Johnny Carson voice>
Do American Supreme Court justices vote?
Not only do they vote in elections…
Not what you were asking, but along the same lines, some military officers do not vote, out of respect for the notion that the military should not participate in politics.
Not all officers go to this extreme, and certainly they’re not prohibited from voting.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens mentioned in an interview a few years ago that he doesn’t vote, as he never knows when he might have to rule for or against some public officeholder. But it’s his own decision not to vote, not a legal prohibition against him doing so.
I have no cite but I believe that by custom officers must resign from the armed forces if they choose to stand for election.
I don’t think that its because they believe themselves to be above politics but its to seperate the armed forces from political power.
As to the Queen she is the reserve parachute of our political system.
If any party in government tried to usurp power by declaring a crisis just to stay in office or refused to stand by an unfavourable election result, or tried to make a major decision like nationalising the banks, or only allowing the vote for white people, that was not in their election manifesto then the Queen would suspend Parliament until another election was held.
The Queen has to sign all legislation passed by both houses before it becomes law.
This means any legislation that she doesn’t sign is not law and the armed forces, police and Civil service do not have to enact them and can not either individually or as a group be penalised for not enforcing them.
The mere fact that politicians of all persuasions know this; means that just by existing the Queen prevents them even from bothering to try and subvert the democratic process.
Many Brits(wrongly) believe that because they have never been used,and are not formally written down the Queens powers are theoretical only.
Luckily for us this is not the case.
As to her voting,even with the secret ballot,someone would find out how she voted and would be unable to keep it to themselves or various factions would fabricate how she voted for their own purposes.
This would unbalance voting as all left leaners would no doubt vote against the party that she had allegedly voted for and all admirers of the Q would vote FOR the party that she’d allegedly voted for.
The first time a British Monarch visited the Commons was when Charles I visited, to great surprise, on 4 January 1642. He sought reconcialiation, as Commons had already ordered the King’s trusted advisor Strafford beheaded and rumors were it was turning its attention to the Queen Herself.
The visit ended badly for His Majesty. He fled London immediately thereafter and did not return until he was brought six years later under arrest to be tried and beheaded. (Has any subsequent Monarch intruded into Commons? :rolleyes: )
The thread suggests some Dopers are unfamiliar with the concept, however obsolescent, of Sovereign. Note that Elizabeth does not even have a passport.
There was a rather tongue-in-cheek way of saying this when I was young:
“The Queen can do anything she wants to. Once.”
Meaning, of course, that she has essentially no legal (as opposed to conventional) limits on her powers – but if she uses them actively in a way the public takes sufficient umbrage to, she may find herself possessed of the franchise – in time to vote for the first President of the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as Mrs. Philip Mountbatten, pretender to the throne.
The story goes that, when the King asked the Speaker if six notorious antiroyalist MPs were around, the Speaker replied, “Your Majesty, I have no eyes to see nor ears to hear, except what I am instructed by this House to see and hear.”
Mr Speaker Lenthall, in an uncharacteristic display of firmness, asserts the famous words in this painting:- http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/collections/speakerlenthall/
Maybe her friends call her that, but wouldn’t it be more polite to use her full title?
Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.
So why is she Duchess of Edinburgh, but Duke of Lancaster? Does her gender change just by going south a ways?
And if Lancaster is there, why isn’t she Duke or Duchess or something of York? Seems like I remember some significant dispute about those titles in England?