How well would an elective feudal system work? I'm thinking

>>1620146
>serfs would elect their lords, lords would elect their barons,

Barons are already the lowest level of lord.

that's called constitutional monarchy

>>1620146
Check out the Icelandic system. It's all peasant, so missing a lot of what's normally associated with feudalism, but bondsmen could change which godi they followed once a year. Makes sense in an environment where permanent allegiance to an idiot could get you killed.

>>1620146
>serfs
>electing their lords
are you high m8?

So basically the United States; a representative republic.

The entire point of a monarchy is that economic and political power is hereditary through a dynasty, unless you're suggesting we give economic and political power to a certain segment of the population solely because they played the vagina lottery and won and then we get to vote on to whom we give MORE political and economic power to. IE, who do we want to be the presidential family, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Bushs, or the Rockefellers? But that's one of the very critiques of democracy, so I guess I'll ask you, what the fuck would it serve other than letting autists LARP as le ebin crusader kings characters?

You know what, just read this
http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/

>>1620157
Baronet

>>1620146
Because would it really be feudal at that point? A feudal system relies on the personal relationship of a ruler with his vassals, and in turn for being granted land and privileges the vassals would support the lord. If vassals elect a lord from among themselves, then they're not really beholden to that lord as they could just as well make their own bid for the position.

File: CVXaKyZVAAAjLtw.jpg (15KB, 480x489px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x489px

>>1620146
So, basically a representative democracy with more levels?

>>1620163
Yes

>>1620146
You just described a modern parliamentary democracy OP, hell you probably just described YOUR country's government,