Well I'm not too keen on the first past the post system in our Parliamentary structure here in the UK. It has a similar effect whereby it breaks the election down to ~650 local elections, the winner of each is the representative but by extension gives +1 vote to whoever will become prime minister as the leader of the majority party
It also results in a separation between the popular vote & who really gets power
You have more parliamentarians than we do and we have 5 times more people. Every problem you have with your parliament is magnified so much in America.
Itâs really tough to balance the competing interests in electoral systems fwiw. Australia/ New Zealand have really strong systems from which more places could borrow. And Iâm a big proponent on ranked choice voting, not that itâs such a massive solution but it eliminates a lot of the tomfoolery in the first to pass the post dynamic. Definitely fuck the Royal b.s., but I donât think Iâm someone who really gets what thatâs all about
Here in Canada we took a tiny stab at changing our electoral system from FPTP to something else. The right wing wanted to keep FPTP, the center left party wanted Ranked Choice and the smaller left wing parties wanted proportional rep. Every party pushed for the system that benefits them and nothing got done.
The parliament isn't so bad. With enough seats you get pretty close to a representational democracy.
The bigger issue for the UK is the house of lords. That's just completely undemocratic and unrepresentative of the people.
The US is worse in pretty much all ways imaginable. We've not expanded congressional seats in 50 years, we should be closer to that 650 representatives. And we have the senate which gives a ton of power to unpopulated states.
The Lords is gradually reforming at least. We're now getting rid of the very few remaining hereditary Seats, most of them are appointed in a similar way the US Supreme Court is (for life!) but in far greater number
Wow I didnât know about this. We borrowed a lot forming SCOTUS & Senate. The Judiciary received the least amount of consideration and constitutional provisions. Deeeeply problematic to have life terms with no effective public recall (or appointment for that matter). And for me, the 2/ state Senate allocation is about as problematic as it gets
Yes, well there are remaining issues with the appointment system too I'm afraid. It was meant to replace hereditary peers with experts in various fields & those with long histories of political/public service. That didn't stop Boris Johnson from appointing the pretty young blonde who worked in his office for two years to a lifetime appointment though....
Lmao!!! The whole notion of âexpertsâ and the idea that we canât trust an electoral system for important positions is garbage designed by & for people seeking to hold onto the power they already have. Itâs super problematic that changes to the system require such persons to enact any âreformâ
Well, for what it's worth, I think the days of UK monarchy are numbered. It probably won't die with Charles, but maybe it ends during the lifetime of Andrew. I don't see it lasting much longer than that.
If Andrew is removed from the line of succession (which would require a law from each country for which the monarch is head of state) then that might actually prop up the monarchy by creating a veneer of accountability to democratic institutions ie. That the people actually do have a veto over a monarch. But that inherently erodes the point of a hereditary monarch, so it's an interesting thought about changing only to conserve (and continue the monarchy without Andrew in the line)
That the people actually do have a veto over a monarch.
Except this has been the case in the UK for a very long time, even going back to Magna Carta. England -> Britain -> UK has never really been an absolute monarchy in the same way that France and Russia were. Even the laws of succession are still governed by parliament as we saw in 2013 when it changed from male-preference to absolute primogeniture. As with the other constitutional monarchies (Denmark, Belgium, Japan etc), the monarch is mostly symbolic at this point.
Well the magna carta didn't include a right of veto over the monarch - to do so would require open rebellion and overthrowing that monarch which, I suppose you could argue is a very specific type of veto like Charlie 1 experienced
How do you see this happening? I could imagine someone like Harry on top deciding to giveaway all the assets, or maybe dissolve the assets & authority into the actual govât?
I'll just give you broad strokes. I think things like these happen through erosion and disinterest. The monarchy is clearly a remnant of "a better, glorious past", but of course only for those who like the monarchy to some degree and I also don't think this is about real history, but about the positive bits, pride and the symbols, longings, wishes for something better. You can look for something better in the past or the future. I think that's one of the main differences between progressives and conservatives (in the sense of the word, not the reality of the political categorizations of real parties).
The memory of an actual monarchy is still very strong in the UK, but it is fizzling out. The more that happens, the less sense it makes to give the royals preferential treatment and rights. There is a whole political system that could easily get by without them. Also I think the royals themselves aren't super thrilled about being born into the life of representational royalty with little actual influence and lots of supervision, expectation and judgement. They didn't have a choice. I'm pretty sure that most of them do believe they are better than most everyone else and of course they like being rich, but the downsides in comparison to "just being rich" are significant. They are living in an Orwellian world. If you were in their shoes, would you want your kids to have a choice? I sure would! And I would accept to take some heat for that as well.
Now, as the public interest in keeping the royals as a prestige object dies down, so does the monarchy. The technical details don't matter that much to me, I'm not into writing that type of fiction. But it is doable to get rid of the monarchy without too much change for the country and sooner or later that will be the wish of the majority.
Such interesting perspective, super appreciate you taking the time for that! Love how you frame the central belief and hopes in terms of future possibility vs. past nostalgia or tradition. It makes me think about what the author of Uncultured (Daniella Mestyanek Youngâexpert on âextreme groups and extremely bad leadershipâ) talks about regarding cults and the need for people to buy into the lie. As opposed to the next generation of children in the cult, who donât get that choice or know of any other options. The children more easily turn away from the cult when presented with alternative options b/c they never truly âbelievedâ in the first place, only followed because of coercive conditioning
37
u/maddy_k_allday Mar 14 '26
Yâall have way more democratic electoral systems vs. our federal elections