AVN
Deity
@mitsho
You can add Rumania. It's Aphex_Twin's country.
You can add Rumania. It's Aphex_Twin's country.
Pros and Cons of your democracy?
- Thread starter mitsho
- Start date
Pro: No curruption
Pro: Many Parties
Pro: Parties make advertisments against other parties politics, not their leaders service records and such
Pro: Religion and politics is kept away from each other
Pro: Many people vote
Pro: Minorities are heard
Con: Not one party that is anywhere near my point of view
Con: Politicians is scared to follow their own beliefs, but often choose to act acording to what they think the people want this week.
Pro: Many Parties
Pro: Parties make advertisments against other parties politics, not their leaders service records and such
Pro: Religion and politics is kept away from each other
Pro: Many people vote
Pro: Minorities are heard
Con: Not one party that is anywhere near my point of view
Con: Politicians is scared to follow their own beliefs, but often choose to act acording to what they think the people want this week.
AVN
Deity
MattBrown said:
It seems both Reps and Dems only want pork projects.
If the American democratic system only is interested in them then I have lost my last trust in that system
Tycho Brahe
Emperor
storealex said:
I'll second that. Except the part about personal point of view. It seems i'm more mainstream.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
France :
Cons : the fact we are both a presidential and a partliamentary democracy. We elect directly the president, and in the same time it's the elected parliament which nominate the government.
As a result, if the President and the Government are from the same side (left wing/right wing), then the President is like a US President and the Prime Minister looks a bit like a US vice president (in the way of Dick Cheney). However, if the president and the government aren't from the same side, then the Prime Minister looks a bit like Tony Blair or Gehrardt Schröder, and the President is then the equivalent of the Queen of England.
Cons : the fact we are both a presidential and a partliamentary democracy. We elect directly the president, and in the same time it's the elected parliament which nominate the government.
As a result, if the President and the Government are from the same side (left wing/right wing), then the President is like a US President and the Prime Minister looks a bit like a US vice president (in the way of Dick Cheney). However, if the president and the government aren't from the same side, then the Prime Minister looks a bit like Tony Blair or Gehrardt Schröder, and the President is then the equivalent of the Queen of England.
samildanach
Necrophile
Adler17 said:To Britain: A constitution must be written. Otherwise it is too dangerous. However the Brits want to go their own way once again...
Adler
The British constitution is simply about good manners. Therefore it doesn't need to be written down. I can understand why foreigners need a written constitution as civility does not come naturally to them.
~Corsair#01~
Deity
By the sounds of that, the French government should be in a state of perpetual arguing, unless one party controls the whole thing...Marla_Singer said:France :
Cons : the fact we are both a presidential and a partliamentary democracy. We elect directly the president, and in the same time it's the elected parliament which nominate the government.
As a result, if the President and the Government are from the same side (left wing/right wing), then the President is like a US President and the Prime Minister looks a bit like a US vice president (in the way of Dick Cheney). However, if the president and the government aren't from the same side, then the Prime Minister looks a bit like Tony Blair or Gehrardt Schröder, and the President is then the equivalent of the Queen of England.
@adler17: I still don't understand how the referendums aren't working and it's far from every decision that are made by referendum. only the ones where a big part of the people think different than parliament. e.g last year we only had 11 decisions to make, the rest was done by parliament.
@mitsho: ah, now I understand what you mean (and I agree). btw, I'm not from berne (did I type slowly to give that impression? ), I'm propably living not far from you, I'm living in Baselland (Sissach to be exact 
).
@mitsho: ah, now I understand what you mean (and I agree). btw, I'm not from berne (did I type slowly to give that impression?
), I'm propably living not far from you, I'm living in Baselland (Sissach to be exact ).
Marla_Singer said:France :
Cons : the fact we are both a presidential and a partliamentary democracy. We elect directly the president, and in the same time it's the elected parliament which nominate the government.
As a result, if the President and the Government are from the same side (left wing/right wing), then the President is like a US President and the Prime Minister looks a bit like a US vice president (in the way of Dick Cheney). However, if the president and the government aren't from the same side, then the Prime Minister looks a bit like Tony Blair or Gehrardt Schröder, and the President is then the equivalent of the Queen of England.
I thought that the government (in the french sense of the word, ministers or administration in the U.S. sense) was always from the opposite party? E.g. Mitterand had Chirac as his PM. Doesn't Chirac have a non-republican PM?
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Käptn Ovi, sometimes the parliament HAS to rule AGAINST the population for the best of the country. That´s why they are elected. However some decisions should be given to the population, I admit. Nevertheless these decisions should be of fundamental nature.
Adler
Adler
The electoral college is outdated, and our politicians are more worried about keeping themselves in power than actually doing anything and most Americans accept that as a fact of life.
It is written down, it can just be unwritten at any time, a process synonymous with having freedoms. Incidentally, the British don't have rights, they have freedoms!Adler17 said:
As for the other part of your post, I think Britain went it's way long before the rest of today's democracies. The Unwritten Constitution dates back to the 13th Century - it was imposed on a king who abused his position.
The last big tiff was in the 17th Century when a king ignored the unwritten constitution, and he was beheaded for that. None have argued since
That's awfully simplified, but close enough for a thread not dedicated to the evolution of the British constitution.
That's the theory, but in reality it's slow and difficult to change a Written Constitution because when proposed changes are said to be unconstitutional, there are massive rants and little gets done.Hakim said:
The British Unwritten Constitution is many times older than it's American counterpart, and in that time we have seen Britain react to new issues almost instantly. It has paired with a democracy extremely well, and owes it's success to the fact that change is never unconstitutional.
Incidentally, the only text of the British constitution which remains original, are the introductory sentences.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Well, no, there's no argument since the government depends on the majority of the parliament. It's mostly who have the power which changes, etiher the President or the Prime Minister, depending on the majority at the Assembly.~Corsair#01~ said:
Actually, the problem is superficially solved. Indeed, now the mandate of the President last 5 years and is synchronized with the parliamentary elections. As such, we elect the president for 5 years, and two weeks after, we give him an assembly. However, the problem remains obvious... nothing guarantees that the electors will elect an assembly of which the majority would be always of the same party as the one of the President !
And actually, well, if it happens, we'll see... nothing is planned yet.
As I told you it sucks !
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
No. It's true that in last twenty years we were half of the time in what we call a "cohabitation", which means a situation where the administration and the assembly isn't of the same party as the one of the President. However, it hasn't been "always".Yom said:
That's the reason why the presidential mandate has been actually synchronized with the parliamentary elections... "hoping" that we will always vote for the same party at the presidential elections, and at the parliamentary elections...
It's crap !
Riesstiu IV
Deity
eyrei said:
So true... Neither Democrats or Republicans ever seem to focus on real issues like the mass influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico and the huge debt.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
The downside of democracy. If we didn't have the Democrats, there wouldn't be this, among many other problems.AVN said:
Similar threads
