The next ruler is elected by the people from among the current King’s sons & daughters

Full unrestricted no-qualms democracy, I 100% agree with. Universal sufferage is not a bad idea on principle though, there just needs to be harsh guidelines. The problem comes down to who has the right to actually decide those restrictions, as most leaders would probably set it up so they will reliably get re-elected continuously until death.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep, but who arms him? The wolves? And what's to stop him dictating the wolves' decisions entirely?
Politics is bloody complex, there are no right answers, and we should all move to mars to establish an anarcho-communist syndicate of 200 people.

They're just gonna all try and kill each other. Neat idea though.

Castle Town Dandelion

So pretty much just like real life?

Just like any other ruler, they will likely get in the way of the free market and get away with things normal citizens don’t.

Does it make any difference?

Depends on the citizenry. Smaller populations with a slower pace of life would be immune to modern political manoeuvres, if there's nothing to do in your country but mill grain, swing swords and gossip about royalty people will know a lot more about the people they're electing. Since the princes and princesses would have been in public life from birth their deeds would be common knowledge, they would all have proven characters. It's fairly easy for a 30 year old with an anonymous background to go around manipulating people and telling them what they want to hear, but when the public has watched you arbitrate disputes and ration grain supplies from the age of 10 it's a lot harder to present a facade.

>the territories owned by and housing one sons personal army vote for him so their wives aren’t taken away in the middle of the night and their children’s heads aren’t left on their doorstep
No i see no possible way of this going wrong. Democracy doesn’t work so well in a time period where law was really more of a suggestion.

Considering that every sibling would be an obstacle to the throne instead of just the oldest male, I can see way more assassinations happening.

>Electing children
>Not choosing between his brothers and cousins, all of whom are old enough to actually rule
>Not having the elector of each family be the head of their respective household
It's like you want to be mired in regencies and interregnums.

That "in medieval times people knew more about people in the public eye than we do now" is a blisteringly hot take, user.

Immediate civil war, because the system is still ultimately top-down and feudal, leading to the very state itself separating.

>letting a bunch of uneducated peasants choose who is more fit to rule

It's wrong by design, it's still monarchy.

>daughters
Yes it can very easily

I'm talking about a fantasy setting, not medieval times. The two are often conflated but are not the same. In medieval times princes and princesses didn't perform middle class administrative duties alongside their people, they trained in seclusion to become kings, queens or dukes and duchesses.

If you want to discuss a setting where the nobility worked in the mid level administration from a young age Rome would be a better analogy. I don't know much about the periods the Roman Empire covered but we can learn together if you want to continue.

>The next ruler is elected by the people from among the current King’s sons
its a shitty idea
>& daughters
its a really shitty idea

Yes.

I wouldn't call a guy responsible for brutal murder of many children a great source.

>what is tanistry

That pic understates my favourite legionaire.

He was assassinated before he could even participate in world war 2.

A bad idea

And? Do suicide bombers stop killing people just because they will usually die before them?

Yes.
It's a microcosm of a problem with democracy, in that it will create adversarial competition in what should be a cooperative, somewhat hierarchical relationship.

I accept your line of thinking it is the main initiator who is guilty of everything afterward. Now lets round up those fucking jews and bolsheviks and en this infernal circle they initiated.

You're forgetting that Rome's best emperors were all elected.

What if the king has no offspring?

Being chosen by the former emperor on his dying bed barely counts as "elected".

>My political organization followed my will and committed many atrocities against innocent people
>Therefore these people I was chimping out against are at fault here
Neither being a communist nor jewish makes you evil

>Neither being a communist nor jewish makes you evil

>Albert Camus was evil

Who counts as the king's offspring is also democratically elected.

They were chosen by the Senate, actually. The emperor adopting them was merely a formality. Although election by senators technically is not directly by the people, so i may have talked myself out of this argument. ..

>No offspring
>Retarded offspring
>Only one offspring
>Criminal offspring
>Do illegitimates count?

Yes it can go wrong in many ways. There is no point trying to mesh democracy and heraldry like that as it only gives the illusion of choice. In fact it would probably be doomed to failure because it gets the population used to the idea of making choices and its literally one step away from "Why do we just vote on anyone?" Then when one of the inherent problems comes up they will get mad because it feels like they were forced to pick the wrong answer rather than someone else picking the wrong answer or an unseen force picking the wrong answer which will rile up the population more and faster.

He was too tragic to be harmful. His general apathy at everything might be considered degenerate for the nation mental health though.

There's a reason Ireland hasn't been unified for quite a long while. I won't say it's tanistry, but I won't say that Irelan wouldn't have prospered from an absolute monarch to unite it.

Democracy is a meme.

A certain form of "Behetria lordship" could work.
In a "Behetria" there are two levels of Lordship, the first one is shared all the lordings whose name varied, "divisero" was a common one-
Chief among the rights was a tribute they got from the subjects, often called"tasa divisera".
Over them, there was the actual lord who was elected by the subjects.
"Behetrias" could be "closed" or "open", meaning that they could be property of a single lineage/family or of many.

Everything is a meme.

They'd pick the taller one if the podiums didn't have carefully measured platforms behind them.

Pros.
>Keeps dynasties intact.
>Avoids the traps of primogeniture.
>Fewer choices than a presidential election makes it easier to groom an heir.
>Will often result in strongest (nastiest, roughest, meanest, but best-spoken) candidate winning the election.

Cons.
>Commoners are stupid.
>If all the potential heirs are idiots, you're doomed.
>If there are nobles, wealthy merchants, powerful guilds, or an advisory council, or anyone else with a lot of power the election will be compromised. The one to be elected will be the most pliable by those who are really in power.
>Will often result in the nastiest, roughest, meanest, but best-spoken candidate winning the election.

Probably not very good if your kingdom has a human mindset.

>social upheaval as prospective monarchs campaign harder and harder in goblin town

Yeah, clearly. Republicanism on the other hand is not.

This is tanistry.