Well, do we actually pay for the monarch?
I recall a stat that NZers pay less than NZ$1 a year each to maintain the monarchy and GG too. When you consider that the cost of the Queen is spread across the UK, Canada, Aussie, NZ, Jamaica, and other countries, it’s far cheaper for all of us.
Here (Canada), we pay for the Monarch when she comes to visit or do stuff related to Canada as such.
Ahh, of course, though it’s quite rare, once every few years. Nevertheless, it’s a negative cost, as the Queen doesn’t do the same job as a President would on an outward trip.
One of the things I seem to notice, is that when the Queen comes here, all the oposition groups tend to shut up, and everyone spends a few days going “Yay! Queen!”. Even the (tiny) Republican movement either shuts up or is drowned out (probably latter) by the explosion of monarchist patriotism. It seems like the few times we are ever completely unifed, probably becuase opposing views aren’t heard, but it’s a nice feeling.
Lol
Here, we just don’t care. Actually, when she does come around, we hear more talks about how much this costs us than anything else
Then again, I am in Quebec, the most anti-Monarchy province in the country
yeah, when she comes here she blocks traffic, opens a building, and then hightails it out of here. Costs a little each visit, but quite a few people seem to like it. So as anachronistic as it is maybe a few generations down the track would be a less divisive time to remove the monarch, rather than right now
Sometimes I wish the Queen would use some of that power of hers… Of course, as has been said, she’s in that position of Neutrality.
What I do admire about her however, is the fact she maintains that Neutrality with a leaning towards the people… So she’s not seen out of touch unlike some of the other members of her family.
Forcing people to vote is undemocratic in my opinion, if people are dissatisfied by the way politics is being conducted, they should be able to protest by declining to vote, it would tell the politicians in charge that the people are dissatisfied and so they do not have the mandate of the people. On the other hand, not voting probably leads to power in the hands of those who you disagree with, but then again, if everyone refuses to vote, then nobody gets elected and so the politicians have to ask the people, why are they so dissatisfied? Although, they could always have one or two votes, but then their legitimacy would be so poor, so as to be laughable. Compulsory voting can lead to garbage votes and non-compulsory voting can allow essentially oligarchical rule. The best solution would probably be some sort of semi-direct democracy. Politicians submit legislation for voting to the people, and whatever legislation the people the people cannot vote on with a quorum gets sent back to the representatives for a vote. Possibly to be voted on by a referendum through petition, with a lower threshold than 50,000 signatures (maybe 1000?).