Exotic Governmental/Legal Systems - Page 37

Agemegos · 07-13-2018, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

A monarchy where instead of passing from parent to child it rotates between the top ranking noble familes. Obviously it would be a weak monarchy...

The Malaysian monarchy rotates among nine royal families, each Yang di Pertuan Agong serving as supreme head and king of Malaysia for five years at a time.

ericthered · 07-13-2018, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason taylor

These are chosen by a series of elections and lotteries

Ok, looked that up, and its crazy and awesome.

jason taylor · 07-13-2018, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

A monarchy where instead of passing from parent to child it rotates between the top ranking noble familes. Obviously it would be a weak monarchy...

Or the nobles would have a vested interest in the monarchy as their family gets it sooner or later?

jason taylor · 07-13-2018, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericthered

Ok, looked that up, and its crazy and awesome.

Thank you...

ak_aramis · 07-14-2018, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

A monarchy where instead of passing from parent to child it rotates between the top ranking noble familes. Obviously it would be a weak monarchy...

Venice and Poland both had variations on that theme... they elected the monarch from the nobles.

David Johnston2 · 07-14-2018, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Or the nobles would have a vested interest in the monarchy as their family gets it sooner or later?

The monarchy has to be weak so the monarch's family can't say "You know what? We're keeping the crown."

jason taylor · 07-14-2018, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The monarchy has to be weak so the monarch's family can't say "You know what? We're keeping the crown."

There also has to be a way of washing out the biggest noble, otherwise you get a Shogun eventually. If they are originally balanced then some of the limitations on monarchy could also be used as a means to flush advantage away.

RyanW · 07-15-2018, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

Venice and Poland both had variations on that theme... they elected the monarch from the nobles.

In fact, many monarchies were elective, to different degrees of theory versus practice. Pre-Norman England, France prior to the twelfth century, the Holy Roman Empire, etc. It's just that, to help facilitate the transfer of power, the king would hold the election during his own life (and politic it to ensure his chose heir would win).

The Roman Empire was an interesting case. In theory, there could be no monarchy, so the Senate would technically have the authority to select the emperor in case of vacancy. So every emperor had his chosen heir crowned co-emperor to prevent a vacancy from ever occurring.

Johnny1A.2 · 07-15-2018, 12:55 PM

1. A legislature (probably a relative small one) that can suspend a member at any time, for any reason or none, by a simple majority. The 'suspended' member still gets paid and is still officially a member, but can't vote or speak in session and has no access to secrets, etc.'

This lets the group neutralize troublemakers and fringe members, and also tempts the majority to oust the minority. But the catch is that if the chamber is reduced below a certain level, a peremptory election is triggered. So ousting members for trivial or blatantly partisan reasons risks annoying the electorate with you, too, and gives them a chance to act on it.

It also produces some odd internal politics. Senator John can't stand Senator Dave, thinks he's a pompous moron who's policies are damaging. But he also knows that ousting him shrinks the body to the point that other members who can't stand Senator John have a shot of making a majority against him. Risk it or not?

2. The chief executive (we'll use American terms for convenience) has the authority to issue a 'Special Decree' on almost any subject that can not be overruled and needs no support from the other branches. In short, it allows the president to act as a dictator on a given issue. The catch is that issuing it counts as a vote of impeachment against the issuer, with a trial and possible ouster to follow. A succeeding president can rescind it, though.

So using American terminology, President Smith can issue a dictatorial binding decree that can't be overridden, but doing so means he faces an automatic Senate trial that might well end in his removal from power and replacement by a man who will reverse it anyway. So he has a strong incentive not to use it unless he really, really considers it vitally important...

2b. If the president had a solid Senate majority, he might not be too concerned with that, so version (b) would be that issuing a special decree would precipitate a 'reverse senate impeachment trial', meaning that the president who issued the decree is assumed to be resigning by so doing, unless a 2/3 majority of the Senate votes to keep him in power.

Adjust official terminology and details to suit the realm.

David Johnston2 · 07-15-2018, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

Venice and Poland both had variations on that theme... they elected the monarch from the nobles.

Yeah, we'd already done elective monarchy. But we hadn't done a set rotation.

07-15-2018, 12:55 PM	#369
Johnny1A.2 Join Date: Feb 2007	Re: Exotic Governmental/Legal Systems 1. A legislature (probably a relative small one) that can suspend a member at any time, for any reason or none, by a simple majority. The 'suspended' member still gets paid and is still officially a member, but can't vote or speak in session and has no access to secrets, etc.' This lets the group neutralize troublemakers and fringe members, and also tempts the majority to oust the minority. But the catch is that if the chamber is reduced below a certain level, a peremptory election is triggered. So ousting members for trivial or blatantly partisan reasons risks annoying the electorate with you, too, and gives them a chance to act on it. It also produces some odd internal politics. Senator John can't stand Senator Dave, thinks he's a pompous moron who's policies are damaging. But he also knows that ousting him shrinks the body to the point that other members who can't stand Senator John have a shot of making a majority against him. Risk it or not? 2. The chief executive (we'll use American terms for convenience) has the authority to issue a 'Special Decree' on almost any subject that can not be overruled and needs no support from the other branches. In short, it allows the president to act as a dictator on a given issue. The catch is that issuing it counts as a vote of impeachment against the issuer, with a trial and possible ouster to follow. A succeeding president can rescind it, though. So using American terminology, President Smith can issue a dictatorial binding decree that can't be overridden, but doing so means he faces an automatic Senate trial that might well end in his removal from power and replacement by a man who will reverse it anyway. So he has a strong incentive not to use it unless he really, really considers it vitally important... 2b. If the president had a solid Senate majority, he might not be too concerned with that, so version (b) would be that issuing a special decree would precipitate a 'reverse senate impeachment trial', meaning that the president who issued the decree is assumed to be resigning by so doing, unless a 2/3 majority of the Senate votes to keep him in power. Adjust official terminology and details to suit the realm. __________________ HMS Overflow-For conversations off topic here. Last edited by Johnny1A.2; 07-15-2018 at 01:00 PM.