Make America Great Britain Again

[Trumpostan]

Yeah, let's just give some complete stranger power over everyone based on their looks and their ability to come up with a catchy slogan and have his cronies work with special interests to get him there.

If a poor leader is elected into power, it is the fault of the populous. If a poor leader inherits the power, it is the fault of the government system. Furthermore, poor leaders can be elected out of office in the next election while a nation is stuck with a poor monarch. When it comes to representing the people of a nation (the purpose of government), rule by popular vote will always be better than rule by whoever happens to be born into it.

Hereditary titles shouldn't exist, every title or position should be earned, not begotten at birth.

[The House of Petain]

I think I'd prefer your parliamentary system over our congressional system.

Considering the disdain many in the UK seem to have of their system of government, seems like a classic case of the grass is always greener.

[Settrah]

I'm not sure whether making the USA a parliamentary monarchy is the best cause of action. I will say this though, I would like USA's leading figure to be accountable to something else.

[Southeastern Xiatao]

Glad this thread got bumped again C:

[Cametonia]

Wait I have a better idea.




We have the South secede again and then the North can become its monarchy and the South can be a free independent nation with a new election and Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton won't become president.

[South East Europe]

Oh my God, this idea is absolutely brilliant. Together, we could once again by the most powerful country on earth and I could easily move to London.

[American Imperial State]

Oh my God, this idea is absolutely brilliant. Together, we could once again by the most powerful country on earth and I could easily move to London.

Actually, Canadians can't move to the UK any easier than Americans can.

[Dooom35796821595]

I think I'd prefer your parliamentary system over our congressional system.

Considering the disdain many in the UK seem to have of their system of government, seems like a classic case of the grass is always greener.

The system itself is inheriently superior to a congressional system, the problem in the UK is the HoL and FPTP.

[Hillary Clinton 2016-2024]

Yes,though I wouldn't be able to laugh at the voters stupidity,sadly,but it will better society.

[The House of Petain]

Considering the disdain many in the UK seem to have of their system of government, seems like a classic case of the grass is always greener.

The system itself is inheriently superior to a congressional system, the problem in the UK is the HoL and FPTP.

I don't agree. I think the prime minister is essentially a slave to his/her majority. I'd prefer a strong executive who can balance out the excesses of the legislature and vice versa.

[Liberated England]

Yeah, let's just give some complete stranger power over everyone based on their looks and their ability to come up with a catchy slogan and have his cronies work with special interests to get him there.

If a poor leader is elected into power, it is the fault of the populous. If a poor leader inherits the power, it is the fault of the government system. Furthermore, poor leaders can be elected out of office in the next election while a nation is stuck with a poor monarch. When it comes to representing the people of a nation (the purpose of government), rule by popular vote will always be better than rule by whoever happens to be born into it.

Actually, Constitutional Monarchs are Apolitical, they have no power or politically charged weight, they are simply a unifying force and a focal point of national unity, a symbol if you will. Politicians come and go and leave a mess behind them almost everytime.

[The United Republic of the Helghan Race]

I'd rather keep my rights and if some foreign power try's to take over I'd fight back

[Dooom35796821595]

The system itself is inheriently superior to a congressional system, the problem in the UK is the HoL and FPTP.

I don't agree. I think the prime minister is essentially a slave to his/her majority. I'd prefer a strong executive who can balance out the excesses of the legislature and vice versa.

Actually, the UK PM is not that dissimilar from the POTUS, since the UK has a non-executive head of state most of that power goes to the PM or parliment. One diffrence is that the POTUS needs congress to declare a state of war, while in the UK that's still (technically) within the power of the PM. The PM can't be removed without a vote of no confidence, and can only pass laws while he controls the legislature.

[AiliailiA]

As much as I am for a Democratic Monarchy, I think electing a monarchy we throughout over 200 years ago would cause the founding fathers to roll in their graves simultaneously.

If rolling in the grave was a real physical phenomenon, 70% of US electricity needs could be generated from the founding fathers.

[Dooom35796821595]

As much as I am for a Democratic Monarchy, I think electing a monarchy we throughout over 200 years ago would cause the founding fathers to roll in their graves simultaneously.

If rolling in the grave was a real physical phenomenon, 70% of US electricity needs could be generated from the founding fathers.

Prompting a civil war over the argument of who gets to keep them

And, of course both sides would have foreign backers.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Why not?

[Annorax]

I'd rather keep my rights and if some foreign power try's to take over I'd fight back

So would I but I think this is a giant troll thread. Either way screw the Queen and her inbred house of Windsor. I know the Brits think Americans are stupid but at least we don't pay tribute to a monarch.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

I'd rather keep my rights and if some foreign power try's to take over I'd fight back

So would I but I think this is a giant troll thread. Either way screw the Queen and her inbred house of Windsor. I know the Brits think Americans are stupid but at least we don't pay tribute to a monarch.

The only ones we should pay tribute to is our gods the founding fathers.

[Dooom35796821595]

I'd rather keep my rights and if some foreign power try's to take over I'd fight back

So would I but I think this is a giant troll thread. Either way screw the Queen and her inbred house of Windsor. I know the Brits think Americans are stupid but at least we don't pay tribute to a monarch.

Except for when you do.

[Cedoria]

I think I'd prefer your parliamentary system over our congressional system.

I prefer a Parliamentary model like England, but without the Monarchy at the head. So a Republican Parliamentary Democracy.

[Banija]

I enjoy Jeffersonian Democracy. Seriously limits the power of the federal government- which is a good thing.

I hope those 174 who voted Yes are trolls, because nobody can't seriously think this is a good idea

[Noraika]

I enjoy Jeffersonian Democracy. Seriously limits the power of the federal government- which is a good thing.

I hope those 174 who voted Yes are trolls, because nobody can't seriously think this is a good idea

I actually think that restoration of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, and adoption of a similar parliamentary system to the United Kingdom, as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, would be a very good idea. I'm pretty darn sure that it isn't totally an unpopular idea either.

[Theyles Ocreau]

Why not also make the Queen the monarch of India too? Damn coolies have no idea on how to run a country.

[Noraika]

Why not also make the Queen the monarch of India too? Damn coolies have no idea on how to run a country.

Doubt that would solve the issue, to be honest, the Queen is only the head of the nation in a ceremonial sense, so the domestic policies, corruption, and inefficiencies of the Indian government would not be altered or resolved from the restoration of the monarchy. With that said, if the Indian people wished to see the monarchy restored I have no objection to it. Any place which was, at one time, under the administration of the United Kingdom's empire, or its descended countries, has the right to join after all, and India is already a Commonwealth Republic.

[The House of Petain]

I don't agree. I think the prime minister is essentially a slave to his/her majority. I'd prefer a strong executive who can balance out the excesses of the legislature and vice versa.

Actually, the UK PM is not that dissimilar from the POTUS, since the UK has a non-executive head of state most of that power goes to the PM or parliment. One diffrence is that the POTUS needs congress to declare a state of war, while in the UK that's still (technically) within the power of the PM. The PM can't be removed without a vote of no confidence, and can only pass laws while he controls the legislature.

I'm aware of how the system works and I think with every one there are pros and cons. In my opinion, I see a vote of confidence as too easy of a mechanism to remove an executive. And the fact that the PM and his/her government requires the support from majority of the legislature is why I dislike it. I sincerely believe there should be a divide between the executive and legislature.