Constitutional Monarchy

[Idolater]

The selection process would yield a small group of candidates (i.e. at least two, and possibly as many as five, perhaps more) from which the final choice would be made by some form of random selection, essentially by casting lots. This entire process would be carried out locally by the residents of the area affected by the selection, since they would have a vested interest in ensuring it was done properly.

Just so I know I'm following you.

There would be a nomination process (selection process but not an election), and then the confirmation would be made by a randomizer.

So long as the nomination process is not democratic in any way, then this would not be a democracy.

OK. Now I can read your post with the right definition of your terms.

 

[Clete]

Just so I know I'm following you.

There would be a nomination process (selection process but not an election), and then the confirmation would be made by a randomizer.

So long as the nomination process is not democratic in any way, then this would not be a democracy.

OK. Now I can read your post with the right definition of your terms.

"‘Not democratic in any way’ is probably an overstatement.

I'm not allergic to groups of people making certain decisions. For instance, the Apostles selected two candidates whom they deemed qualified to replace Judas, and then cast lots to determine the final choice. The term ‘democratic’ might loosely apply to that initial selection process, but certainly not in the broader political or governmental sense in which we usually use the word.

In practical terms, once the initial group of judges is appointed, any future candidates to replace a judge, (i.e. due to resignation, death, or some other cause), might be selected the sitting judges who have jurisdiction in that region. In some cases, one of the current judges might himself be a suitable candidate, potentially triggering a chain of subsequent appointments.

The key principle, though, is that the final decision is not left to the general population but to God, or at least it is meant to be, in principle if not always in actual fact. That is, God would not need to supernaturally control every roll of the dice to determine the outcome. He may approve of any among the qualified candidates and allow chance to determine the selection. Yet the people involved would have no way of knowing whether He had actively intervened, and so from their perspective, the decision would still be entrusted to Him.

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1928831768557216225

Before it gets lost...

@Clete, something like this is why I'm generally against there being any means of removing a sitting king.

Trump was elected. He won multiple different ways.

Yet some people with the power to do so are calling to exercise their power to remove a sitting president, and they're not afraid to bear false witness regarding why he should be removed.

Yes, granted, we live under a very corrupt government. But that's the whole crux of the matter, isn't it. How do you remove the corrupt ones from power who have the power to remove the leader who is just?

Do you add another way to remove them as well? At what level do you stop adding the means to do so?

 

[Clete]

Before it gets lost...

@Clete, something like this is why I'm generally against there being any means of removing a sitting king.

Trump was elected. He won multiple different ways.

Yet some people with the power to do so are calling to exercise their power to remove a sitting president, and they're not afraid to bear false witness regarding why he should be removed.

Yes, granted, we live under a very corrupt government. But that's the whole crux of the matter, isn't it. How do you remove the corrupt ones from power who have the power to remove the leader who is just?

Do you add another way to remove them as well? At what level do you stop adding the means to do so?

Well, this is sort of a error of logic isn't it?

You touch on it when you mention that we live with a corrupt government but it's more than that. Our government isn't merely corrupt, it is systemically run by politicians. There wouldn't be politicians in the proposed government and so you're making a kind of category error here.

Remember that judges in the proposed system are to be held accountable for their decisions. There is a process by which that accountability would be enforced. This, along with the fact that they are not elected, would go very far indeed towards ensuring that corruption of the sort you are worried about couldn't take root. All I am proposing is that this process aught not stop before it gets to the highest judge because then the king would not enjoy the same inoculating effects against corruption that the other judges benefit from.