An absolute dictator, then. That’s what I suspected.
So rioting is better than orderly elections?
Getting past the idea that you can have a selection process that works that well, which I think is an utter impossibility and the real flaw in your idea, who would create the selection process? If we find that the selection process is not going well enough, how do we go about changing it?
Same problem, who creates the selection process?
Elected Monarch. Hmmm. Been watching Star Wars?
As for not held accountable, ask Gray Davis. Ask Nixon. Sure, neither one of them were thrown in jail or tarred and feathered, if that’s what you consider “held accountable”. They weren’t even fined. But I think there were sufficiently deposed.
Then whoever designs and administers the system of examination is the de facto ruler.
And, unfortunately, there is no system that works to select the “best” ruler, and no such system can be designed. And those who administer the system are human and therefore corruptible, as are those selected by the system. And your system has even less accountability than democracy.
If people were perfectable, we could set up this system. They aren’t.
Regards,
Shodan
After all the grief we’re going thru for this election, I’m ready to advocate just picking someone at random from the phone book every 4 years.
Yeah, & then you’ll get Jeffrey Dahmer or Reza Pahlavi as chief executive. The problem in this country is monarchy. One guy appoints the entire federal government. It’s time we joined the modern age.
Separate elections for federal departments would be a place to start.
Johnson didn’t run in 1968. He specifically declined the nomination well in advance.
As for the half-assed proposal in this thread, I don’t recognize that either of these:
is demonstrated, nor how a monarchy would be an improvement. If anything, a monarchy is a more static form of government, with policies presumably lasting the lifetime of the monarch. This leaves little, if any, chance for innovation or social progression. I’ll stay with democracy/capitalism, thank you.
Let me be the first to quote Lord Action:
History is replete with despots who started out benevolent, but as time passed found it necessary, for the good of the people, of course, to accrue more power to themselves. Eventually, your council would find themselves enemies of the state, and Caesar would have no boundaries.
Isn’t this the same type of government the Soviet Union had? A Premier, a Politiboro, new candidates for office rising through the ranks of the Party, all power supposedly derived from the will of the People?
BTW, it’s Lord Acton, the British peer of the Nineteenth Century, no relation to Captain Action, the plastic action figure of the 1960s.
It’s an amusing typo - and I’ve certainly made my share.
Or studying Polish history?
Here’s a link to the Monarchists Society of America: http://home1.gte.net/eskandar/monarchistsociety.html
There used to be a site for the Royalist Party of America (“Purple Shirts”) but it seems to be off-line.
Then you have Tsarist Russia, which was described by one Russian noble as “Despotism tempered by assassination.” In all seriousnessm, though, probably the closest government to what you’re describing was Imperial China, where almost all political and administrative positions were filled based on the results of comprehensive examinations that were (theoretically) open to everyone.
An excellent parallel for the OP’s idea of examinations! Scarf-ace, here’s a few problems with the Chinese meritocracy:
Yes. Because he knew that the war would sink his reelection bid in the most embarassing way possible. He knew that the voters would hold him accountable in a way a monarch or dictator would never be subjected to. I stand by my point.
Adding to the point about the Chinese examination system, the stagnancy in the bureaucracy stifled innovation. Some historians believe that this stagnancy was responsible for the centuries-long decline of China, from the most technologically advanced country of 1,000 years ago, to being a pitiful and helpless nation right up until the latter half of the 20th century.
Doesn’t sound like a very good model.
I have to join the voices that are asking for defense of these two statements, and a clearer explanation of how your system would be an improvement on what you regard as the faults of an existing one (Which existing one are we discussing, by the way? There’s several flavors of democracy in play these days.)
Well let me start by saying that I have no perfect answer to a better system in complete detail. It seemed though that a form of monarchy, if carefully implemented would not have the above faults.
As for the faults being real, I cite 2 examples:
Anyone with a degree of mental ability and a willingness to dredge through the dullness would find no shortage of other examples.
Neither of these are really examples.
What does #1 mean? The election certainly had issues, but they can be corrected. How does “Bush” explain anything about how the people have a say in the government? In a split electorate, roughly 50% of the people aren’t going to be completely happy.
#2 happens no matter what. The people can vote out Blair at the next election, they don’t need a specific person to blame.
Well, if you want to have an extended war, monarchy is better than democracy because your people will have less war weariness and you don’t have to pay as much to maintain your forces, since the feudal lords pay a portion of the upkeep. On the other hand, democracy has much higher rates of production so you can have a larger military.
Oh, sorry, I’ve been playing Civ III again. What was the question?
Well with example 1, I was under the impression that Dubya got his brother to order a “recount”, because he had actually lost the election.
Sturmhauke:
Don’t forget you get +1 to food as well!
I happen to vigorously disagree with President Bush’s policies. However I have no doubt that he will politely stand down, with a gracious speech, if Kerry wins.
And you think King Bush would be better?!
You might not care about Blair’s dodgy dossier. But these people do:
“Dramatic new evidence from the intelligence services casts fresh doubts over Tony Blair’s central claim that Iraq continued to produce chemical and biological weapons until the outbreak of war, The Observer can reveal.”
“Some of Britain’s top spy masters and government figures face criticism by an inquiry into intelligence British Prime Minister Tony Blair cited to justify war against Iraq,”
MPs are planning to impeach Tony Blair for “high crimes and misdemeanours” in taking Britain to war against Iraq, reviving an ancient practice last used against Lord Palmerston more than 150 years ago.
Finally Monarchist Britain used to have a overseas colony, in a land brimming with promise. They very reasonably asked for seats in Parliament, given that they paid revenues to the Crown. (There was some catchy phrase, but it eludes me. 
)
Because King George III was a) mad and b) unelected and c) impossible to overrule, the colony duly gained its independence. (Can’t quite remember the details… 
)
Why on earth do you think Monarchy is better than democracy.
P.S. In CIV 3 PTW, Monarchy decreases corruption. But democracy does it even better!
There were shenangigans but this wasn’t one of them. In a close election, either candidate has the right to call for a recount - it doesn’t require any special favors. Besides, it was actually Gore that requested the recount.