OlivierK wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:We are not going to get on the same page here. No worries.

As I said from the first, let me know when the people with their direct vote voted to give the 1% (monarch) a free ride.

One thing that might not be clear to you is that I, and many of the people posting in this thread who are living under a constitutional monarchy, are actually republicans. I'm certainly not arguing that a hereditary monarchy is a democratic system, but if you look at the role of the monarch, it is apolitical. Even here in Thailand where the monarch is revered almost as a deity, the King cannot involve himself in politics. He's a figurehead, a ceremonial tool used to lend traditional gravitas to occasions.

Yep. I'm a republican, too, but that's no bar to knowing how constitutional monarchies work.

In Australia, we last confirmed our status as a constitutional monarchy in a 1999 referendum. I voted for the minimalist move to a republic put forward (president to have current powers of Governer General and be appointed by 2/3 majority of parliament, rather than just PM as at present) but the vote went down on the strength of No votes from pro-republicans favouring popular presidential election.

Nicko wrote:I think Thomas was talking to Jerome.

Steve wrote:I am reading a Michigan Republican has proposed that Michigan's electoral votes be split proportionately based on how many congressional districts they won. The example I saw cited Ohio in 2012 where Obama won all 18 electoral votes as he got 50.67% votes in the state as a whole. However he only won a majority in 4 of the 16 congressional districts, so under this Republican plan he would have got 6 electoral votes and Mitt Romney would have won 12.

The Republicans are not done with their gerrymandering by a long shot.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

Where did they go?