Sup Forums's thoughts on elective monarchy?

...

Poland eventually abolished elective monarchy, so there's that.

thank you for the fun fact Marcin, I was looking more for an opinion whether it could work, given the right conditions
I'm pretty fucking aware we are not voting for no kings now

"you didn't vote for kangz"
- refugee crisis

It's the one and only way, Hitler was technically elected a monarch

Polish elective monarchy weakened the Commonwealth so much (because nobles are corrupt pieces of shit easily bought by Russian and Prussian gold) that they got partitioned with ease.

Elective monarchy sounds pretty good in theory, but empirical results point to it being a failure in practice.

Kangz and Caliphs

Democracy = mob rule

We should be ruled by the highest iq members of society.

That's not what I mean. The 3 May Constitution specifically saw elective monarchy as flawed and replaced it with hereditary system.

i think we can agree that the empirical sample is pretty small though, so I wouldn't base the verdict 100% on that

with the internet, anti-corruption programs etc., could it possibly work nowadays? at least better than (((democracy)))?

Elective Monarchy was a shit government form in EU4.
Enlightened Despotism when?
For the size of the Polish commonwealth it was pretty weak.

>doesn't vote for kings now
>[laughs in Czech]

Representative democracy basically is elective monarchy, only the electors are everyone instead of just nobles, and the "king" gets to rule for 4 years instead of for life.

The only true democracy would be direct democracy, which is becoming more and more possible with advances in telecommunication tech. Of course, our (((representatives))) WILL fight tooth and nail against direct democracy because it's a direct attack on (((their))) interests.

so you would argue that hereditary monarchy is superior? even though you may encounter a total retard now and then, especially with all the inbreeding going on, that fucks the whole thing up for everybody?

If a prince is a total retard, he'll never be nominated an heir to begin with. And even if, everyone else will try their best to block any harmful policies. Hereditary monarchy does not mean absolute monarchy. The political system the 3 May Constitution envisioned still had a Sejm and elected representatives.

but would you be confident to give the legislative power directly to the people? wouldn't you get communism the very next day?

the way the representatives that are now chosen works that can't really be elected without money backing them up - which means that at least a little bit of meritocracy is implemented into the system
(even though that allows (((others))) to influence policies, but if people voted directly on shit, (((media))) would at least equal the influence on normies)

ok, good point
better than democracy and today's system, in your opinion? would we be able to adapt and change policies faster and more efficiently, or would it be even more of a clusterfuck?

If we base our judgement on the efficiency and longevity of a regime, the roman one is still the best.

A parliament and a kind-off elected Emperor/King.

Don't get why people fetishize the Elective Monarchy, the ineffectual politics that it created contributed to the fall of the Commonwealth.

rome did fall eventually , in part of not adapting that system to all the italian regions niggers, that wanted the citizenship and voted in populists

Personally, I'd institute direct democracy with a weighted vote - depending on your competence as a person, your vote is worth more or less; also I'd institute a Starship Trooper-esque citizen-civilian dichotomy (to get to vote, you have to make a positive contribution to society first either community service, military service or something else) - also IMPARTIAL civil education would be a MUST to get to vote on things.

Simultaneously, while the legislative would be in the hands of the people, the executive would be in the hands of ONE man a la monarchy to balance out the mob impulses of the people, that one guy would be charged with defending the constitution (once set) from changing without full national consensus rather than just 50%+1 majority.

All this is a rough sketch, it would have to be far more detailed out but thats more or less it.

>IMPARTIAL civil education

Elective Monarchy has been a disaster in practice, de Maistre said this aswell.
Aristocratic Republic is better than a Monarchy

I know it sounds silly, but it could be done if there was a will for it.

To add to this, the judiciary would be taken completely out of human hands and given to AI which would strictly and impartially interpret the letter of the law in any given situation and sentence accordingly, without emotions getting in the way of facts.

Direct democracy has always been possible. The founders called it mob rule and strove to avoid it.

Elective monarchy is pretty great, desu senpai. It literally produced the wealthiest and longest running continuous regime in history in Venice.

The trick is to make sure only the right people get to vote.

>IMPARTIAL civil education

AKA brainwashing.

>depending on your competence as a person
agree, but how do you measure that? IQ, degrees, tax income you provide?
>to get to vote, you have to make a positive contribution to society first
never thought of that, good point
>IMPARTIAL civil education
heh

Direct democracy is tyrant of the majority and stupid as fuck.

see >I'd institute a Starship Trooper-esque citizen-civilian dichotomy (to get to vote, you have to make a positive contribution to society first either community service, military service or something else)

>high iq
>all liberal scientists and liberal people

really makes you think huh

The liberum veto was pretty bad too.

by impartial civil education, I meant simply explaining how the system works as it is without any indoctrinatorial attempts to inject ideological discussion of any kind into it

An FAQ course on the political system if you will, to prevent people from submitting retarded proposals that would pass because of even more retards supporting them.

>agree, but how do you measure that?
As I said, all this is a rough sketch, but I would say one's competency would depend on what the issue at hand actually is. How to do this I don't know, it's just an idea I had.

>elective
>monrachy

Pick one.

>Aristocratic Republic is better than a Monarchy

Except they degenerate into shit like present day US.

I'd rather be ruled by the shittiest Bourbon than D.C. at the present.

...

I prefer actual monarchy

so, like communism?

i'm thinking, if you wanted to implement at the very least the "only competent can vote rule", without the nuclear war, you'd be mob lynched.
what if we went the other way and slowly took away votes for shit like taking welfare, self casued injuries and health problems (that takes care of fatties and motocycle tards) etc?

Anglo Saxon kings were elected.

I don't think it's inefficiency that's the problem with modern democracies. A lot of it boils down to dividing the population into two factions hating each other. This pattern often shows up in history. In the end, mutual hatred outweighs the good of the country and the country itself falls. I'd prefer if there were no political parties and instead we had a non-partisan, independent king who doesn't have to satiate his voters and only thinks to leave the state in a better condition for his descendants.

Fuck voting for someone, this shit clearly don't work

Ultimately the best form of government for competent white, arab, and asian people.

Rest of the races seem to falter under dictatorships.

Enlightened Monarchy every day. The problem is that the ratio of good to bad monarchs is something like 2:1. Usually occurring in the order Good Good Bad or Good Bad Good. The conundrum of how to remove the bad king without compromising the authority of the monarchy has been pretty intractable for almost all of human history.

>elective monarchy
that has got to be one of the shortest jokes I've ever heard

Very very hard to do in the current political climate, since the trend seems to be towards expanding voting franchise rather than narrowing it.

In my opinion, you'd have to overhaul the whole system to implement such a thing, and if you're overhauling it anyways might as well implement the rest of it.

yea, that's a good point

most of the "peoples' revolutions" celebrated in the west were a grave mistake
it may be so that only AI overlords will be able to save us

military coup it is then

No, we should be ruled by philosopher-kings. Plato had it right.

what would you say the ratio of good democratic majorities is, for comparison?

Ah we'll see.
Representative democracy as we know it is slowly eroding away anyways, diminishing voter turnout and even more crippling public confidence is slowly but surely delegitimizing representative liberal democracy as a form of government. Who knows what the future holds?

This is what I mean. Philosophers are high iq.

Except look at all the toxic no-hoper shitbags that think that's a good idea.

Much harder to assess. There have been well-governed democratic regimes throughout history (Jeffersonian US, Periclean Athens) but all of them seem to succumb to the same intractable problems. A system with a near 100% failure rate isn't something I'd recommend, although they can sometimes be virtuous for a time.

that must depend on the fucking country then, in Poland all philosophy majors are parent's basement dwellers that later turn into 40yo kfc french fries machine senior operators

so we can say elective monarchy>current democracy
if we build some back door to impeach a bad ruler

yea, a schopenhauer monarch would be worst than nero, at least he knew how to party