Governmental Systems!!!

[Maxwell the Fool]

Okay, so I've been tossing about the idea of a sort of fictional country, with which we could theoretically work out different forms of government, different policies, and different sizes, and sort of..... apply the lessons learned via thought to our own ideals.

 

This thread is ONLY for political systems, NOT economic systems. If you want to debate those, head over to my other thread.

 

I would like a semi-detailed sort of thing... Not as detailed as the constitution, but more detailed then a few arbitrary buzz words. A version of the US constitution written this way would be like:

 

Three arms of government:

 

Executive: President: figurehead with power of veto (veto may be overturned by 2/3 major). May create "executive orders" which, essentially, can do anything. Term limits. Elected by people, but not through popular vote.

 

Legislative: House: Number of reps per province based on population. Require majority to pass legislation. Elected by popular vote within province.

Senate: 2 reps per province. Require majority to pass legislation.

Laws must pass both bodies!

 

Judicial: Supreme Court: Tasked with the ultimate judgement of law, through interpretation. Lifetime appointment, appointed by president, okayed by Congress.

 

Make sense? Okay..... I'm planning on playing the part of Devil's Advocate more than anything, but will throw out my own system after a while (which is VERY VERY VERY far from perfect...)\

 

Also, you can just spout off your random opinions about governmental systems, which can later be used for other people to build on for designs :)

 

Please note: This thread WILL wander, and so long as it remains on government, I ask that it not be forced back on track by me, or anyone else. In fact, it's already started to go, which, for this topic, is a good thing :)

 

Thanks for participating :)

[hoshi23]

may i say you sound like adolf hitler. also you in a state of trance.

[Vindekarr]

Im someone who is very cynical of politics, especialy democracy. I grew up in australia and the problem here isnt "lack of liberty" its too much liberty. The real issue is that here democracy has simply become a farce, the two party system no longer have the interests of the people at heart, they never come up with policy that advances the country or even seem to recognise the impending national disasters such as housing superinflation increasingly massive divides between rich and poor, and worst of all, the fact that indigenous australians have about half the life expectancy of whites and live in total squalor. All the government here does is fight with the opposition, its been well over a year since any major policy got put forward or let alone got passed. its pathetic, the whole idea of a government is to govern and administrate, yet all they do is fight eachother while the rest of the country goes to hell, this for me iis why I actualy preffer dictators and hardliners in charge-atleast they'll actualy take action

[Maxwell the Fool]

All governments are like that XD

[buddah]

may i say you sound like adolf hitler. also you in a state of trance.

 

Admin Note:

 

Seems that warnings, strikes and posting restrictions have not dissuaded you from personal attacks and looking for fights.

 

Your actions have defined you as a troll and a flamebaiter, so it is time for you to find another place to cause trouble.

 

Your time here is now at an end.

 

Buddah.

[myrmaad]

Im someone who is very cynical of politics, especialy democracy. I grew up in australia and the problem here isnt "lack of liberty" its too much liberty. The real issue is that here democracy has simply become a farce, the two party system no longer have the interests of the people at heart, they never come up with policy that advances the country or even seem to recognise the impending national disasters such as housing superinflation increasingly massive divides between rich and poor, and worst of all, the fact that indigenous australians have about half the life expectancy of whites and live in total squalor. All the government here does is fight with the opposition, its been well over a year since any major policy got put forward or let alone got passed. its pathetic, the whole idea of a government is to govern and administrate, yet all they do is fight eachother while the rest of the country goes to hell

 

Pretty good analysis.

[Aurielius]

First off, thank you Maxwell for the thread. I am very satisfied with the American tripodal distribution of power, it being closely modeled on the English Constitutional Monarchy but with adaptations that suit our national character. The question that I would like to put forward is the winner take all system of the Electoral College as viable as it could be?

 

I am in favor of deferred representation since the excesses of direct voting for the executive that have existed since the days of Athenian 'democracy' are something to be avoided. However the electoral system does not truly enfranchise the losing side in a very close election, it would seem to me that the Electoral votes should be split per state on a 'voted for' basis, this would prevent the excesses of post election gerrymandering that usually follows every election. It might also prevent episodes of protracted judicial review as in the presidential 2000 election in Florida.

 

I am not in favour of abolishing the Electoral College because like Jefferson I think that would replace the tyranny of the few with the tyranny of the many. I am aware that in the UK there was much debate about direct voting for the PM by the Liberal Dems, I think that given the proportion of actual voters that vote in the US it would not work here.

 

For any system to work it requires a sense of 'civitas' by it's citizens, those that don't vote have only themselves to blame if the outcome is not to their satisfaction. It's not very much of an effort to go to a polling station and cast your ballot, many men have died to preserve that option.

[SilverDNA]

Im someone who is very cynical of politics, especialy democracy. I grew up in australia and the problem here isnt "lack of liberty" its too much liberty. The real issue is that here democracy has simply become a farce, the two party system no longer have the interests of the people at heart,  they never come up with policy that advances the country or even seem to recognise the impending national disasters such as housing superinflation increasingly massive divides between rich and poor, and worst of all, the fact that indigenous australians have about half the life expectancy of whites and live in total squalor. All the government here does is fight with the opposition, its been well over a year since any major policy got put forward or let alone got passed. its pathetic, the whole idea of a government is to govern and administrate, yet all they do is fight eachother while the rest of the country goes to hell, this for me iis why I actualy preffer dictators and hardliners in charge-atleast they'll actualy take action

I agree with you, because I see the same things in my country. I only want to add my experiences, opinions and details to it a little further. In my country I see the weak minorities in the decline of support on various strong lobbyists fractions who work against even smaller minorities. A side result is, as an example, Affirmative actions are abused to oppress these smaller minorities not to be seen by all three arms of government, witch results in a hidden a violation against the most important laws of the constitutional laws in my country. If someone belongs to that smaller minority and and speak out what is wrong then it is very simple to say that this person is simply nuts because those Affirmative actions against smaller minorities are rightful and such abuse in flavor of the mightier lobbing fraction is simply thought of as an Impossible and against the democracy because the political fractions are depending on the lobbyists more strongly than on the small man who votes. A democratic government and society are judged by the way they treat the weakest parts of a society. In this case I think it is infinitely injustice to barre the weakest parts of a society out of the legal system.

 

 

 

 

 

I am not in favour of abolishing the Electoral College because like Jefferson I think that would replace the tyranny of the few with the tyranny of the many. 

 

For any system to work it requires a sense of 'civitas' by it's citizens, those that don't vote have only themselves to blame if the outcome is not to their satisfaction. It's not very much of an effort to go to a polling station and cast your ballot, many men have died to preserve that option.

 

I don't agree fully with your opinions in that, and I want to clarify what I, in my opinion, see in them as right and wrong.  (Maybe we could be even both right/wrong as there might be another opinion to this.) I'm simply not fully satisfied with your explanation. 

 

 

First to the Jefferson quote. I personalty think he was half right but at the same time half wrong with this quote. Hypothetical, if we see the government in a democracy and the people as opposing forces there must be a balance of power. If the balance is in flavor of one side the other side will be oppressed. Now I'm fully aware that it is nearly impossible to archive this, but in my opinion, it is worth our greatest efforts to try as best as we can to get even near that goal as possible.  I think that is an important part of doing democracy.  

 

I can do half a circle to express my opinion (based on my experiences and voting lawsuit in my country) on your 'civitas' opinion.  As long as it is not seen in a democratic country that it is a way to express that a person is displeased with the lawsuit of the voting procedure and makes use of his 'veto' right, as well with the way the political parties are making promise that can't be kept due to the actual and future situation that can be seen circumstances a state is in.  (Playing with hopes and fears in politics to catch votes isn't right ether, I think. Simple statement, basically translated in my country is the following "You voted for that party in the government? So you have no right to criticize it now!" the meaning behind it is simple the voter gave them permission to do that what they're now doing, even if it is against the per-election statements of that government party.) in my opinion every opinion (vote) on an election has to be counted in, not bordered out.) 

 

 A solution might be that the percentage of people that have given a vote in an election is the percentage of payment a politician receives, brought thus to an official office by an election. (I would like to see that because it would turn political parties away from lobbing and short sighted client politic decisions that produce financial damage and higher taxes than necessary in the end. Politicians would more be interested in working for the people as for the lobbyists.) ...or very simplified, "Every single vote (even a not given one) is seen or felt by the elected politicians and parties." How else you can make some one who doesn't vote, change his/her opinion on that? (So if someone has a better Idea that includes these people who aren't voting then I'm listening and interested to read them. 

 

And please remember the victims of tyrannic injustice as well...

 

Personally, it all, on democratic systems, comes down on to that quote from Cicero for me:

 

"jus civile neque inflecti gratia, neque perfringi potentia, neque adulterari pecunia debet"

 

"the law ought neither to be warped by favor, nor shattered by power, nor corrupted by money."

 

 

and the People in an democratic state have not only the right to fight this but an obligation to force a state to a democracy justice system and to equality of individuals.  That's doing democracy! People who not just receive their rights but who fight every day for them in some kind of 'civil war' without a political party at there backs. Gandhi, Galileo, Martin Luther King jr. and Nelson Mandela could be generally good role models of that. 

 

Sorry English is not my primary language, so please,  forgive me gently :biggrin: (and plenty, hopefully :blush: ) about mistakes in the use of the language and miss interpretations.  (I don't like mistakes, they make me doing things like this -> :wallbash: ...and I don't do this for the personal fun of any one.)

 

...as always I hope I could help in some way.

 

 

 

 

 

[Aurielius]

For any system to work it requires a sense of 'civitas' by it's citizens, those that don't vote have only themselves to blame if the outcome is not to their satisfaction.

I was not referring to someone who wanted to participate but was disenfranchised but rather those that hold the right but fail to exercise it. In a recent census of voting trends or lack there of it was found that 94% of non participating voters claimed work or school priorities superseded their civic duty. As for those that claim civic boredom as the underlying cause for a lack of participation, they get what they deserve...someone else's choice. Every effort should be made by representative governments to include all who are entitled to vote, to be able to exercise that right.

 

"Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except The American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting."

Franklin D. Roosevelt

[SilverDNA]

I want to compare notes on that from the other side of the Atlantic, from my country and differences of democratic systems.

 

There are three main groups of nonvoters in my country primary.

 

1.  35% to 40% state that they are displeased with the 5 greatest political parties and the way the elections are used only for nodding those politicians to power.  the difference from your country is that the US is having a direct democratic system in my country it is a representative democratic system. The nonvoters primary think it would be a good idea to change to a direct democratic system. (Some would say... well. the grass over the Atlantic always seems greener than it is here.) 

 

2.  25% to 30% State that they don't vote because they're not interested in politics or/and have non idea who's in what political party and even are unable to distinguish a soccer player from a politician. ( I think that the majority of Nonvoters in the US. ) 

 

3.  5% to 20% (very Variable) State the don't vote because of the weather (be it either good or bad). (I think G. K. Chesterton wrote something similar in some of his Farther Brown Stories about the collection on Sunday in church.)  

 

This last opinion makes me fell either  :sick: or  :mad: or  :wallbash: or all a the same time.

 

there also 3 main groups of voters opposing them. Wanna know what they say?

 

1.  30% to 35% say they vote always the same political party, because they have always supported that political party. But when ask about the current campaign promises of that particular political party only 30% to 40 % could give at least one campaign promises back as an answer.  The of the remaining others replied about 20% that they like the looks of a particular prominent politician of that party.

 

2.  10% to 20% say they go voting because the don't want to see the wrong parity elected by not going to an election. Additional a lot of them they complain they can only chose between the minor evil and the devil. (it's related back to the Buridan's ass paradox.)

 

3.  20% to 30% say that they vote a particular political party because their parents voted the same. So they say tradition as motive to vote some political party. (Hereditary of political parties from generation to generation? No way I say!) 

 

Again I fell the same as above. 

 

"Policy, which is the sanctuary, where crimes that would otherwise be prison or death, the inevitable result, where betrayals that called otherwise fiery indignation, which lies, drowned but in general derision, to be preserved not only for this otherwise natural consequences , but usually where all these crimes, betrayals and lies as quite natural, if not praiseworthy confirmations of human nature are viewed."

Arthur Schnitzler (used Google translator)

 

 

-The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.- (I don't know who said that because too many claimed that sentence for themselves.) In a democratic system the first thing you loose, if you aren't vigilant enough, is the truth, then next the democratic system it self. You lose the overview by to many opinions in a democratic system witch endangers the truth.  (in reminisce of reading about Friedrich Nietzsche's "the ugliest man" in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra")

 

...as all ways the 'trying to be helpful' SilverDNA of your neighborhood.