Since democracies exist?... if you want, we can call them democracies and non-democratic governments? ... A democracy is like a contract, you try respect it or you break it... some, but not too many greys in the middle.
That's nonsense, anything that isn't a Democracy isn't automatically a Dictatorship though a lot of people in the modern world could do with learning the difference.
A Dictatorship is a country where it is ruled in absolute power, or by a Dictator, a Dictator being defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force. " Evidently this isn't applicable to all instances of non democratic government.
mmm... yes? Obviously, the vote isn’t enough, but for sure (until reading minds are tested and approved) is a needed steep for a democratic government... 'freedom' is a wonderful word, but it mean something distinct for every person, so, in the end, it don't have any real meaning.
I'm curious, if elections aren't the best way to represent people... what it's? and how it works?
That depends on what sort of representation you want, and there are a myriad of different types of representative government democratic and non democratic.
And how would people "remove their consent"? Wouldn't someone else running and being elected equate to people removing their consent, and it being granted to someone else?
As the people exist in open dialogue with their Monarch, and their Monarch answers to them, they have simply to cease providing their consent and Mendicant will abdicate as his coronation oath and fealty to the Commonwealth demands of him.
Well, yes, I see that he said that. But the whole system doesn't make sense. IMO it does the exact opposite of what he claims. It creates an exclusive old guard that is the only one that can ever win elections. Denying anyone else the opportunity to even run in an election is the most blatant example of it. How do people "remove consent"? Do 10 people have to stand up and say "go away mendicant"? 20? 30?
How does that even work? For a start you can see for a fact that anyone can win elections, and frequently do, and then you can look at other positions and titles in Aurvandil, where they are deliberately given to the new players. Which is the opposite of an Old Guard hoarding power and controlling elections.
We don't deny people the opportunity to run in elections per se, they instead step up and offer themselves for the position.
As for your question, well you have only to look to previous examples in history where King's have been dethroned by popular demand, as they would be accepted means of removing Mendicant I.C.
Other examples are the Noblesse could one day just turn around one day and lock Mendicant in his throne room till he starves to death, or drown him in a vat of wine, or Mendicant could attend a meeting of the Noblesse one day and they simply dismiss his presence. Mendicant could wake up one night to see his entire palace has been abandoned and he's forced to flee like Nero did. Hell, the Knight Hausos At Arms could walk into the Throne Room, hand Mendicant a sword and tell him to relieve us of his presence and save himself from being deposed. The Gentry could simply acclaim a new Monarch, or declare Mendicant's Monarchy invalid, the Gentry could dissolve the Commonwealth and that would strip Mendicant of his throne. The Noblesse could revoke Mendicant's rank as High Sovereign, keep him as King of the Orvandeax and declare a new High Sovereign.
Yes, these are deliberately roleplay heavy means of removing Mendicant, because the game doesn't really support many other forms (And I'll be a good sport about it and roleplay along, hell I'll help them write it, I went into this expecting Mendicant's deposition by roleplay). And when Mendicant is finally deposed, it'll be done through roleplay means most likely. A rebellion would be dreadfully boring and divisive after all. The Orvandeaux aren't like the Averothoi after all, who can only accept a new government through rebellion, we'd rather take exception to it (The royal "We" right there).
But to directly answer your question, the people have only to make it clear Mendicant is to pack his bags and he'll do so.
You say it maintains the old guard, but I just got elected as banker. As for the position of general if people WANTED to see allomere gone they would vote in a new general. Probably the marshal of the imperial guard, but allomere wins battles so they don't.
There is no one better for the position of Knight Hausos, so Allomere is maintained in that position by being the best, he's never lead us wrong yet.
Mmmm... banker. Can you *feel* the power in your hands?
No offense to you here, but NobleWhatsit (sorry, can't remember the spelling) already told us that you're just a faceless functionary who exists simply to carry out his orders.
And I still want to know how the nobility is supposed to remove consent from Mendicant so they can put someone else in place. Since you're the banker of Aurvandil, and thus one of the top four most powerful nobles in the realm (which is odd, because you're just a functionary), perhaps you could explain the procedure for removing your consent for him to rule? Surely you must be aware of the criteria and/or procedure...
Lanyon didn't run for banker to get "power", anyone who runs just for power won't last long in Aurvandil, we have ways of dealing with them... camps... mass sterilisations... exile to the Whaling Fleet.
People who "deserve" power get power in Aurvandil, through one means or another. Drage for example, doesn't find his power as Vice Marshal or Royal Purser, but through the influence and authority he has a proven loyal noble and valued asset of the Commonwealth, which in turn grants him... other titles and favour in the Noblesse.
Personally, I don't want Mendicant removed. Hireshmont want to compel his debasement and force gross indignities upon him. Then maybe force him to become a priest or something.
That's cute, but the Orvandeaux hold honour in high esteem, and they'd rather see their High Sovereign fall in battle than reduced or debased, and Mendicant is obliged to do so by his own chivalry. Mendicant will die before he allows such small men to impose themselves on him, so you needn't bother hoping on forcing surrender terms on Mendicant, the Orvandeaux stand and fight, never surrender and never flee.
I do not really understand a few things regarding the Aurvandil government.
Some positions are elected. These positions are limited to civil service. People can not campaign or any of that. Candidates should be voted for based on perceived performance. All makes sense so far. Here is the confusing part: Who is allowed to run for a position? At one point it sounded as if no one aside for the incumbent was allowed to run which breaks the whole system.
The ruler is elected once. They rule at the consent of the people and for the people. Or some such. Without a regular vote, I can imagine only two ways to withdraw consent. Refuse to follow the orders of the government or try to rebel against and overthrow the government. Both sound like they would be treasonous acts. As was asked before, how then, can the people remove consent and oust the ruler?
The ruler isn't elected, Mendicant just declared himself so.
Anyone is allowed to run for the position, so long as they are within the law. The laws state only a Cavalier may become High Sovereign (Anyone who runs and isn't a Cavalier has committed High Treason and an attempt to usurp the throne), and only a hero can become Knight Hausos (The Knight Hausos is expected, nay obligated to die and to do so in good time and fashion before their prolonged life becomes shameful to them, like Allomere) .
