![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
58.110.36.101
In Reply to: RE: You're thinking of old Britain. If you'd care to start a conversation posted by jamesgarvin on August 29, 2007 at 16:20:45
Monarchy does not actually necessitate an inherited title.
Systems that elect parliaments to rule are closer to democracy than presidential ones, in my opinion.
THe black population of Britain has only really been statistically significant for 50 years.
I haven't lived there for 8 years so I can't comment on the number of black representatives in local government.
Follow Ups:
"THe black population of Britain has only really been statistically significant for 50 years."
Let's not forget that until the mid 60's, a scant forty years ago, black people's right to vote was somewhat limited in the South. It was not that long ago racial murders were taking place.
"But the USA elects a king every 4 years"
Elect is the operative word here.
"Systems that elect parliaments to rule are closer to democracy than presidential ones, in my opinion."
With the major distinction being that the Prime Minister is not elected by the people, but rather by the representatives the people elect. Sort of like Congress electing the President.
"Monarchy does not actually necessitate an inherited title."
I am not sure what you mean here.
I was trying/hoping to say that monarchy merely means rule by one and that it is not necessary for that to be a hereditary title.
In Britain, for example, it is not as important who is prime minister as it is important in the USA who is president.
The power is not as concentrated. The party rules to a much greater extent.
For this reason, it has not been that rare for ruling parties to change leader during a parliament, eg when the Conservative Party dismissed Thatcher.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: