The 'above the fray' thing sounds nice, but to a lapsed anarchist who used to teach US civics, it is impossible to swallow the idea of any hereditary positions in government, even mostly ceremonial ones. loukeeya's remark about Charles points directly at the problem. No one gets a say in who sits on the throne, so it is a dice roll with results that can last decades. I don't know the stories of many British monarchs, but I'm pretty sure one reason that Elizabeth is so beloved is that she has been a distinctly different monarch than the few who preceded her.

Leadership 'by whim' is far more likely with a real (governing) monarch. I'm a staunch critic of the imperial presidency tradition here in the US, but even the worst offenders in that regard still had many checks on their power. Admittedly, the whims of a mass voting population can and does lead to all manner of stupid public policy, e.g. California's unbelievable set of budget rules that would have them in a crisis even if the national and world economies were humming along nicely. But that's just an illustration of Churchill's famous insight about how perfectly awful democracy is, until you start looking closely at any other form of government.

lol GW Swicord i have to say i find american politics baffling. ok we have a monarch and elected politicians but it seems in america who ever has the most cash and friends in business can become president. it does make me smile when the us president is described as the most powerful man in the world, surely thats not possible if america is a democracy. as for calafornia, have heard its beautiful but avoided going coz it sits on a great big fault   lol

I would accept that argument, except I believe that democracy is so easily infiltrated by unsavory elements. I have a wide variety of choice if I wanted another plutocratic douchebag in office. It's not to say that there aren't some legitimately good people in congress (who will remain unmentioned to avoid flamers), it's just that congress is mostly filled up with people who depend on wealthy interests to get reelected.

Well, it's not as if you said there's nothing wrong with the system, and it's not as if I love monarchies. Really, it's that sometimes I feel that it'd be better if we chose members of congress by drawing lots.

I'm only half-joking about the lots.

I have a fancy MA in gov't with a specialty in US national and I still find many things baffling. Democratic stuff is very messy to start with, and because we are a democratic republic (limited democracy, checks and balances), it is even weirder. Folks used to the comparatively logical public bureaucracies of places like France and Britain can get serious headspins when they learn that our national bureaucracy is more or less founded on the idea of institutionalized turf wars. Got a regulatory question about a food product? That's for the Food and Drug Administration (part of HHS), unless it's meat, in which case you have to go to the Department of Agriculture.

That is indeed pretty much how it works. It's also how y'all get parliamentary majorities, unless I've been wildly misinformed.

I scoff that one mostly because our presidents last 10 years at most and real power is a long-term thing, also probably a matter of high discretion (being known for power is a risk to that power).

I don't see how monarchies are any better-protected from "unsavory elements" than democratic systems. Most of what I know of British monarchs comes from film and the BBC, which means that the wackos are overrepresented because their stories are more fun, but still, there's no shortage of folks whose time on the throne did far more harm to the nation than good for it. I suspect you're just fretting about our biggest modern problem with mass democracy, which is how to provide political equality for everyone without unduly penalizing folks on 'the good side' of our growing economic inequality. It's really the heart of the democratic problem at the moment, and the UK seems a bit ahead of us across the pond by virtue of short campaign seasons. But they're losing ground because they seem to be adopting our personality-driven campaigns instead of staying focused on party-centered campaigns.

yes we seem to be adopting american style politics here in the uk, our labour prime ministers had delusions of grandeur and thought they were presidents   lol   i hope we dont become like america tho as our institutions suit us and most seem happy having the monarch as head of state. god forbid tony blair ever became president!!!! i would move to swaziland  lol

If I remember rightly, the classical Athenians used a lottery to select people for administrative duty (citizens had to volunteer to be in the lottery). Back in the '70s, some clever comic book writer took that notion and ran with it as a way to get Matter-Eater Lad off the active duty roster of the Legion of Superheroes--he was drafted to serve in his homeworld's parliament. I've long wondered if a desire to hold public office should be an automatic disqualification.

I'm hoping that your current parliament will take steps to firmly stave off that trend in campaigning by establishing PR or a ranked-choice voting system. But your PMs have always been more powerful (internally) than our presidents, regardless of party, because they dominate both the legislature and the cabinet (hung parliaments excepted). Disraeli helped establish the modern Conservatives and he was hardly a humble public servant.

at first i think most of us got excited at the mention of "Hung Parliament" coz we thought it meant politicians were gonna be strung up  lol

it is sad tho that most ppl dont bother to vote but constantly whinge, maybe it shld be compulsary as in oz

65.1% who could vote did so.

this time maybe rick but generally ppl dont bother at all. its undestandable when u see how dull politics is