Opinions on elective monarchy like the Roman kingdom? I have no related images so have some ghetto palms

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks) Hide country (this board displays your country when you post if this is unchecked)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf, pdf Max filesize is 12 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 4 per post.

File: 173062e9e3f5749⋯.jpg (333.34 KB, 645x864, 215:288, stelprd3840298.jpg)

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 06:38:29 983afb No.719

Opinions on elective monarchy like the Roman kingdom? I have no related images so have some ghetto palms

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 08:56:07 89acd9 No.721

Skeptical. There's the obvious problem that the more you expand the electorate, the closer it resembles democracy. If only a few aristocrats vote, it can work without going down the shitter. Even then, a king thus elected is the highest aristocrat and likely to be influenced by the interests of his class. Hereditary monarchs, on the other hand, can be a truly independent element. So I'm inclined towards having a hereditary anarchomonarchy, but compared to what we have now, a genuine elective monarchy would of course also be a step forward.

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 17:20:10 000000 No.725

>>719

I do not understand the idea behind an elective monarchy. It's like you take all the good parts of monarchy and replace it with democracy. I'm inclined to agree with >>721 though, that it is possibly a step in the right direction.

The main good thing about elective monarchy is rhetorical. E.g., you can say to a democrat (small d), "So, what we fundamentally disagree about is the term-length."