Multiple Voting -- FCS Discussion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

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: Multiple Voting

Author:
Trixta (UK)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:55:08 11/10/04 Wed
In reply to: Ian (Australia) 's message, "not sure about changing the role of the monarch" on 12:43:46 11/09/04 Tue

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.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> 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 ]