XPost: alt.politics.socialism.democratic   
   From: joshb@xs4all.nl   
      
   â€¢ Someone said¹ they preferred a Constitutional Monarchy.   
      
       Comment:   
   I see, thanks. I believe, as do you, that we need a Constitution. I am   
   skeptical about an hereditary Monarch, because you never know what kind   
   of King or Queen you will get next. It could be bad, and then what do we   
   do. On the other hand I see the danger of the chairman of whatever top   
   Sovereign National Government / Parliament it may be, to start behaving   
   themselves as a bad Monarch.   
      
   I thought it was an idea if we elected a body of 10 persons, and the   
   oldest thereof becomes the “King Electâ€�. Once he or she dies or   
   steps down, the next oldest becomes “King Electâ€�. If too many people   
   step down from this 10 person body, than the King falls and there are   
   re-elections for this body, thus affording a form of control on the King.   
      
   â€¢ Someone said they thought this was an interesting idea, not unlike   
     tiered voting where candidates are ranked.   
      
       Comment:   
   Thanks. The idea is to prevent some populist to get a lot of power and   
   become hard to control. That is still possible with this system, but   
   the risk is pretty good that the populist will have to deal for many   
   years, even decades, with someone older than him. Hopefully that will   
   cool off the hysteria in time. Secondly the current “King Electâ€� can   
   face re-election just like that, snap of the fingers by only a few key   
   people. Hopefully that will cool down his own hysteria somewhat. It's   
   probably not fail safe, but at least it's something.   
      
   I guess it is sort of ranked voting, although the final group of 10 isn't   
   ranked by popularity, but by age. I sometimes want a far less popular   
   candidate to be King Elect for a good many years, before we get the more   
   popular ones, because I think that cools everything off a bit. Age in any   
   case is good to have more calm people. Extreme popularity is dangerous   
   for people. The unpredictability of the system itself might help …   
      
   Some things I didn't mention: Anyone could join the vote, by for example   
   having a petition to be elected and whomever gets the most and can fit on   
   the ballot can take part in the final election. Then anyone who does not   
   make it in the top 10, can re-assign their votes to whomever they please   
   within the top 10. That's a way to not waste these votes, but roll them   
   into the dough as it where. Now it gets even more interesting …   
      
   At this point, the difference between the most popular person, and the   
   second popular person, become the spare votes by which the most popular   
   person has won, right ? He can assign those votes to whomever he wishes,   
   in the whole Nation. That way he could directly pull others into the   
   Council of Princes, if he has more excess votes than the one who gained   
   least of the 10, who then drops out. That means if he chooses someone who   
   will be oldest, that person would immediately be “King Elect“. He then   
   puts himself even further from that chance, if he had any (the 6 least   
   oldest in the Council of Princes cannot get King Elect in that round).   
      
   I also had the system that the current “King Electâ€� can buy out   
   a candidate. If a candidate takes the money, they cannot stand in   
   the election. They get money, we don't have to suffer a King who can   
   be bought.   
      
   The job that I have for this King is also not what most people would   
   think. The job is: nothing. However if he wishes, he can study the   
   Constitution for a year, and then he is promoted to the rank of Sovereign   
   Inspector. He may inspect the State and businesses at will, and has a   
   small force to do it. Inspect only means, to bring to light. He has no   
   role in Government, signs nothing, decides nothing, but is still the   
   formal head of State. This is basically a formality, unless the normal   
   Government (a direct and representative democracy) is in chaos. When   
   in Chaos, this King will rule on his own for a year, after which there   
   are new elections for King Elect. If this happens three times in a row,   
   there are no new elections, and the King rules permanently, but cannot   
   change the Constitution on his own.   
      
   The King Elect does have the right to speech, and that is his main   
   power. Not power to speech in the Councils, but I mean generally, as a   
   person to whomever in the Nation cares to hear it.   
      
   The point being: the King becomes a new branch of Government, against   
   internal corruption of the system. It is the watcher who watches the   
   watchers, and we can watch the watcher who watches the watchers, because   
   it is only one person. At least we have a better chance of watching   
   one or a dozen well known people, who normally operate outside of the   
   rest of the Government. That is of course the idea. When corruption   
   strikes, it will still fail, of course. However, I thought it could be   
   a little better. It might resist corruption for a little longer than   
   other systems. It isn't fail safe and I think nothing is really fail   
   safe. The fail safe is always going to be the people themselves, the   
   victims of corruption.   
      
                             ────────────┠  
   â”€â”€â”€â”€â”€   
   Â¹ https://www.reddit.com/r/distributism/comments/i1qci6/notes_f   
   om_talking_to_nondistributist_subreddits/   
      
   --   
   https://market.socialism.nl How economics works, and how to get it fixed.   
   Free Julian Assange and all other people attacked by western Fascism.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)