[cryptome] Re: Definition of Democratic Election Process

  • From: doug <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:18:59 +0100

Dear Ryan & Todd,
Thank you for your most intuitive and kind replies, but unfortunately you are living under an illusion and allusion perpetrated by the powers that be and the powers that are.

The queen of England and now the UK, isn't the Chief Executive Officer, neither is the king...when we have one. She/he are the sovereign heads of state subject to the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament and to consultation from the Prime Minister. They aren't elected either, though they are heads of state, and can theoretically declare war and also have their own unelected Civil Service and diplomatic staff at their disposal. Every commissioned officer in the armed forces and in the police and judiciary, including the lawyers for the prosecution as well as the defence; swears an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign, based on historical feudal relationships as well as battles won and lost; as do the Members of Parliament in the House of Commons and the peers in the House of Lords...if they want to get paid.

The sovereign got the job through the blood lines of previous incumbents who fought others for seizure of the land and control of the serfs, centuries ago. The Prime Minister is the top kiddo in the UK, the Chief Executive, if you like...like the President of the United States...what's in a name. He isn't elected by the majority of the people, he is elected by the majority party in the House of Commons, of whom he is leader. The majority party may not have won the majority of votes in the general election. The queen might not like the new incumbent and theoretically, according to our unwritten constitution, can refuse to appoint him, and though this has never been done, appointments have been delayed in the past, the last occasion, being during the reign of Edward Heath and Harold Wilson here in the UK. I do apologise for my digression, Shaun's meandering is catching I fear...:-).

So...I will try again. Do the USA and the UK have unfettered processes of electing their Chief Executive Officers, and are therefore more democratic than China and Hong Kong?

On 02/10/14 03:49, Todd Judge wrote:
What about the king?  He kinda elects her.

On Oct 2, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Ryan Carboni <ryacko@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ryacko@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Not in the UK. No one elects the Queen.

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 6:31 PM, doug <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    Dear Colleagues,
     In the USA and the UK and every other western democracy, anyone
    in the world can stand for the post of Chief Executive Officer of
    the country, without any restriction or qualification, and, as
    long as they are elected by a majority vote of the citizenry, they
    can take up the role. Unlike China and Hong Kong, where the
    candidate has to be vetted and selected beforehand, would you
    consider this proposition be true?
     ATB Dougie.

Other related posts: