[cryptome] Re: Definition of Democratic Election Process

  • From: Todd Judge <toddbob@xxxxxxx>
  • To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 20:46:00 +0900

I am familiar with the role of the English monarchy. I was just attempting to 
joke about the issue of who elects the queen.  Oh well.  At least I thought I 
was funny.   

All is well. Really. It is. Thanks for the background and ...regards, todd

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 2, 2014, at 7:18 PM, doug <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
> Dougie.
>> 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> wrote:
>> Not in the UK. No one elects the Queen. 
>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 6:31 PM, doug <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: