they force Canadian Indian Bands ro elect their chiefs, how come they don't elect their king?
2007-03-09 09:13:54 · 4 answers · asked by I AM=iam 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
that ro is supposed to be a to
2007-03-09 09:14:26 · update #1
i hate to say this but you are not making any sence
england hates you because HR Emperors were not hereditary...
and i drink beer wit ha straw cause plute is green
2007-03-09 09:24:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The practice of primogeniture (kings passing the crown to their sons) was based on inheritance laws rather than good government practices.
It may amaze you that in early England leaders were also elected and not inherited. The problem was only one candidate most of the time so it was a confirmation vote and not an election. This was replaced later with the swearing of fealty to the crown. That more or less served the same purpose since neither type of vote allowed for a secret ballot.
2007-03-09 17:43:15 · answer #2 · answered by loryntoo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Holy Roman emperors were elected much like in the US today. It was very dependent on who had the money. The votes were bought. This put the winners in great debt to which they often turned to war to finance, and this spiraled out of control.
2007-03-09 17:28:52 · answer #3 · answered by lyyman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We might if we could understand you.
They were elected but there was usually only one candidate so there wasn't a lot to choose from. When there was more than one candidate, a war always broke out. Great system.
2007-03-09 17:18:26 · answer #4 · answered by Elizabeth Howard 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋