| supporters | |||
| 92 | 1000 | ||
We are aiming at becoming a new nation, at the same time, we are striving to be the First Nation to colonize space. Why start out behind our current times with a Monarchy that's known to fall into corruption and power tripping manipulators?
While many of us agree that our Founding Father Igor should be our first Monarch, we should also instill that Monarchs should forever remain elected into office with a fair and equal opportunity voting system that's completely public for all Asgardians to vote in. Monarchs should remain between the ages of 30-65 years old, when accepted as a running candidate. No Monarch should have the power to change the constitution, decrees, policies, nor any other artifact/document that would affect and/or change the way the Asgardian Nation will run/work. Without a fair and equal voting system for the public (Asgardians) to decide, and all other forms of Government in agreance with majority vote. Any and all changes, no matter how big or small, must be publicly announced on all forms of social media, email, and any other paper or digital contact (excluding text and calls unless provided the opportunity to subscribe/unsubscribe). We also feel, with dire importance, that NO Monarch should be in office for more than 4 years, and may only be elected TWICE. Monarchs will remain open at all times to be impeached/de-throned after a fair, equal, and lawfully just trial. No suspensions, temporary leaves, or other options. If a Monarch is impeached, his family (Core, Step, Marriadle, Half, Legal, and all other forms) are FORBIDDEN to become a Monarch. If a Monarch is suspected of corruption by majority vote, a public investigation must take place. If another Governmental branch claims the Monarch is indeed corrupted after at least 30 days in their legally appointed position, a public investigation must take place.
More will come, more will change, for now. Let's make sure we are all fair, free, safe, healthy, and equal!
How about, instead of the monarch being a monarch for 4 years, instead gets "dethroned", once at least 40 % of the population votes for the monarchs dethronement?
How about, instead of the monarch being a monarch for 4 years, instead gets "dethroned", once at least 40 % of the population votes for the monarchs dethronement?
Aren't you just suggesting the American way of leadership (mostly)?
OUR HEAD OF THE NATION SHOULD BE LIFETIME ELECTED BECOUSE HE IS THE IDEEA OF THIS GREAT NATION HE MUST LEAD THE WAY AS FAR HE CAN DO IT
No one ever should be anything for lifetime. old age becomes dangerous when you have to deal with critical decisions . one must have a sharp mind to do so, especially when he-she has to lead a lot of people..... i guess elections are one way , 40% dethronement ...
No one ever should be anything for lifetime. old age becomes dangerous when you have to deal with critical decisions . one must have a sharp mind to do so, especially when he-she has to lead a lot of people..... i guess elections are one way , 40% dethronement voting is a bit harsh, but i would go with 50% . or maybe some sort of evaluation perhaps?......
While I agree that longevity allows the experienced official to maintain a steady course, I agree that the head of state should be limited. Although it's great to maintain an optimistic hope that all current and future Asgardians are and will forever be unbiased, lawful, and incorruptible, the potential ...
While I agree that longevity allows the experienced official to maintain a steady course, I agree that the head of state should be limited. Although it's great to maintain an optimistic hope that all current and future Asgardians are and will forever be unbiased, lawful, and incorruptible, the potential for corruption increases over time. It would be beneficial to change leadership. However every 4 - 8 may not be necessary or efficient. A 10 year term would allow for the experience of the head of state to be impactful without risking dictatorial type behavior. A two term limit would still be adviseable. The age limit is reasonable as suggested and with 2 ten year terms even the eldest elected official would be 85 by the end of their term. I think most will agree that 85 is plenty old enough to reties.
Also that should say "retire" my autocorrect chose the wrong word.
Oh no don't copy american way of leadership...
I feel that Ashurbeyli should remain as monarch (of whatever title he wishes) until a point in which he wishes to give up power. In my limited personal knowledge of him, I feel that he is a pragmatic man who will do so when the time is right, or ...
I feel that Ashurbeyli should remain as monarch (of whatever title he wishes) until a point in which he wishes to give up power. In my limited personal knowledge of him, I feel that he is a pragmatic man who will do so when the time is right, or at least when his skills decay to a point..
After this happens (or beforehand), a parliamentary system should be set up, with executive and legislative branches separate. This avoids potential issues of both a successor monarch or a president, both of which have many issues in regards to autocracy and corruption. This would be a parliamentary republic.
I don't agree with the 2 therm limit, why replace a good leader with one less so just because he's been doing a good job for a set number of years. If he's willing to keep going and the majority of the citizens wish to keep him/her in power ...
I don't agree with the 2 therm limit, why replace a good leader with one less so just because he's been doing a good job for a set number of years. If he's willing to keep going and the majority of the citizens wish to keep him/her in power the so be it. But there should be an annual vote and as soon as 51% of the population stops supporting him/her then the change should be immediate and this system should be applied to all government officials !
I don't agree with the 2 therm limit, why replace a good leader with one less so just because he's been doing a good job for a set number of years. If he's willing to keep going and the majority of the citizens wish to keep him/her in power ...
I don't agree with the 2 therm limit, why replace a good leader with one less so just because he's been doing a good job for a set number of years. If he's willing to keep going and the majority of the citizens wish to keep him/her in power the so be it. But there should be an annual vote and as soon as 51% of the population stops supporting him/her then the change should be immediate and this system should be applied to all government officials !
"...we are striving to be the First Nation to colonize space..." , "... monarh ..." Hmm
Rather than explicit term limits, I would propose a "Vote of Confidence/No Confidence" system, in which each Asgardian citizen can register their support (or lack thereof) of the current Head of State. If the number of citizens currently supporting the Head of State drops below a specified threshold (possible ...
Rather than explicit term limits, I would propose a "Vote of Confidence/No Confidence" system, in which each Asgardian citizen can register their support (or lack thereof) of the current Head of State. If the number of citizens currently supporting the Head of State drops below a specified threshold (possible 50%, but it may need adjustment), elections are held immediately.
Monarchy is not the right way to go biased share of power would be given to succesors. I suggest rather set amount of test for certain qualities for leaders that are to come. Mythological example would be King Arthur pulling the Excalibut out of stone. There was a prophecy ...
Monarchy is not the right way to go biased share of power would be given to succesors. I suggest rather set amount of test for certain qualities for leaders that are to come. Mythological example would be King Arthur pulling the Excalibut out of stone. There was a prophecy now one knew who it would be. And Arthur passed the test. I'm sure there was a stable reasoning behind that test. Our leaders should be tested before applying for the role of power and influence. Commiting to a heir or a man chosen by appeal is to risky. As time has shown Democracy is easely bendable. There supposed to be real wisdom to the assigned leader. Not just money, blood relationship or anility to sell yourself well.
Monarchy is not the right way to go biased share of power would be given to succesors. I suggest rather set amount of test for certain qualities for leaders that are to come. Mythological example would be King Arthur pulling the Excalibut out of stone. There was a prophecy ...
Monarchy is not the right way to go biased share of power would be given to succesors. I suggest rather set amount of test for certain qualities for leaders that are to come. Mythological example would be King Arthur pulling the Excalibut out of stone. There was a prophecy now one knew who it would be. And Arthur passed the test. I'm sure there was a stable reasoning behind that test. Our leaders should be tested before applying for the role of power and influence. Commiting to a heir or a man chosen by appeal is to risky. As time has shown Democracy is easely bendable. There supposed to be real wisdom to the assigned leader. Not just money, blood relationship or anility to sell yourself well.
Monarchy is not the right way to go biased share of power would be given to succesors. I suggest rather set amount of test for certain qualities for leaders that are to come. Mythological example would be King Arthur pulling the Excalibut out of stone. There was a prophecy ...
Monarchy is not the right way to go biased share of power would be given to succesors. I suggest rather set amount of test for certain qualities for leaders that are to come. Mythological example would be King Arthur pulling the Excalibut out of stone. There was a prophecy now one knew who it would be. And Arthur passed the test. I'm sure there was a stable reasoning behind that test. Our leaders should be tested before applying for the role of power and influence. Commiting to a heir or a man chosen by appeal is to risky. As time has shown Democracy is easely bendable. There supposed to be real wisdom to the assigned leader. Not just money, blood relationship or anility to sell yourself well.
Monarchy is not the right way to go biased share of power would be given to succesors. I suggest rather set amount of test for certain qualities for leaders that are to come. Mythological example would be King Arthur pulling the Excalibut out of stone. There was a prophecy ...
Monarchy is not the right way to go biased share of power would be given to succesors. I suggest rather set amount of test for certain qualities for leaders that are to come. Mythological example would be King Arthur pulling the Excalibut out of stone. There was a prophecy now one knew who it would be. And Arthur passed the test. I'm sure there was a stable reasoning behind that test. Our leaders should be tested before applying for the role of power and influence. Commiting to a heir or a man chosen by appeal is to risky. As time has shown Democracy is easely bendable. There supposed to be real wisdom to the assigned leader. Not just money, blood relationship or anility to sell yourself well.
your petition has to many object in it and is doomed to fail please shorten it to single subjects may I suggest starting with how long you feel a monarch should remain in power.