Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ] |
| Subject: not sure about changing the role of the monarch | |
Author: Ian (Australia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 12:43:46 11/09/04 Tue In reply to: Trixta (UK) 's message, "Intrigue must continue (sorry)" on 22:55:23 11/08/04 Mon I'm interested to know what you mean by a "mandated representative of public opinion". I feel it is risky to try and shift the monarchy from a symbolic to a representative role. I'd also like to know how your multiple vote system would work. People with more education or with a proven record of public service get more votes? Here in Brazil, where we have very poor and uneducated people in far greater numbers and reproducing much more prolifically than anyone else, I have been known to suggest a system whereby you gain the right to have one child when you finish primary school, two children when you finish secondary school a third when you finish an undergraduate degree, and so on. People tend to assume that I am joking. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Multiple Voting | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:55:08 11/10/04 Wed Okay, you've convinced me - I'll open the forum. Hell, I could really use other minds better than mine to resolve the conflicts in the theory. As regards the 'mandate' for monarch it is really an evolution of the concept of crown as it stands today. Bear with me here, for this is the slightest glimpse at what would be a hideously-complex principle. Basically (oh, I hate that word) what if the crown became a representative for public opinion in a definitive form rather than, say, a poll of x,000 Londoners (as is common). Think 'yougov' where the opinions of those who feel strongly enough about something can register their objection to legislature passed, for example, mid-term. Take the Iraq war (no, please, take it) - suppose Tony says 'we do not need a second UN resolution'. Then suppose that the crown-administered system registers a majority voting No to the motion 'Should the UK go to war without a second UN resolution?' The electorate, i.e. the poor sods who will die in any retaliation, get to control our parliament more directly on key issues. As it is crown-run, then when TB turns up at the palace to let HM know that the UK intends to go on regardless of the UN our monarch can step in and say 'Based upon the wishes of the British people I refuse to accede'. Would create quite a stink, obviously, but also mean that when enough of us thought the 651 numpties in Westminster weren't listening to us we could veto them directly by, in effect, going over their heads. Uh-oh, I'm doing what I didn't want - going on ad infinitum about my own theory in the wrong place. Tell you what, keep an eye out and I'll post the address of the forum when I've got it setup - we'll discuss it there. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Intriguing forum | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:18:59 11/10/04 Wed Right, I've done it. The forum is now open at www.voy.com/187701/ Please feel free to pop in and share your thoughts. It's still in the most basic form and I'm looking for like-mindeds who wouldn't mind bouncing the idea about. Cheers :-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |