Emp.Napoleon
SUPER EMP!
storealex said:
In America, since we have only two major parties, it seams like our republic does not work, since if you do not conform to one of those two, you are not being represented.
Pros and Cons of your democracy?
- Thread starter mitsho
- Start date
In America, since we have only two major parties, it seams like our republic does not work, since if you do not conform to one of those two, you are not being represented.
Elgalad
Bully!
Pro: Separation of Powers
Pro: Checks and Balances
Pro: Executive Term Limits
Pro: Federalist system that retains most true domestic policies in the control of the states.
Pro: Voting franchise extended to all adult citizens who meet the requirements of their home state.
Pro: Electoral College national Presidential election rather than popular election.
Pro: Bill of Rights to limit government's authority.
Con: No system for National Initiative and Referendum.
Con: Legislative Branch has authority over government outlays including all governmental wages.
Con: Executive Orders too easily abused.
Con: No Presidential Line-Item Veto.
Con: Federal Judges serve life terms and are appointed, not elected. One or the other is fine, but not both.
Con: Judges abusing their Constitutional interpretation powers to rewrite laws.
Con: Incomprehensible (to the average citizen) government revenue program, and tax code including graduated income tax with numerous loopholes.
Con: Federal government uses federally confiscated tax dollars to bribe/blackmail states into accepting extraconstitutional laws, effectively circumventing States Rights' completely.
Con: No Legislative Term Limits.
-Elgalad
Pro: Checks and Balances
Pro: Executive Term Limits
Pro: Federalist system that retains most true domestic policies in the control of the states.
Pro: Voting franchise extended to all adult citizens who meet the requirements of their home state.
Pro: Electoral College national Presidential election rather than popular election.
Pro: Bill of Rights to limit government's authority.
Con: No system for National Initiative and Referendum.
Con: Legislative Branch has authority over government outlays including all governmental wages.
Con: Executive Orders too easily abused.
Con: No Presidential Line-Item Veto.
Con: Federal Judges serve life terms and are appointed, not elected. One or the other is fine, but not both.
Con: Judges abusing their Constitutional interpretation powers to rewrite laws.
Con: Incomprehensible (to the average citizen) government revenue program, and tax code including graduated income tax with numerous loopholes.
Con: Federal government uses federally confiscated tax dollars to bribe/blackmail states into accepting extraconstitutional laws, effectively circumventing States Rights' completely.
Con: No Legislative Term Limits.
-Elgalad
Hi!
I like : many parties (also if there are only 2 mayor (Socialists and Conservatives) and 2,5 minor (Green,Liberal and Ex-Kommunists) who have a chance to get more than 5%) , our parties all are concerned about the environment and radical parties are either forbidden or looked on VERY closely.
My biggest contra against our republic is the fact that due to our national history , there are no things like public referendums on vital political issues. And we do not vote our chancellor or president direct. And i cant stand all that corruption in the political parties , in all of them.
I like : many parties (also if there are only 2 mayor (Socialists and Conservatives) and 2,5 minor (Green,Liberal and Ex-Kommunists) who have a chance to get more than 5%) , our parties all are concerned about the environment and radical parties are either forbidden or looked on VERY closely.
My biggest contra against our republic is the fact that due to our national history , there are no things like public referendums on vital political issues. And we do not vote our chancellor or president direct. And i cant stand all that corruption in the political parties , in all of them.
Adler17 said:
I still don't agree
I can't think of a single issue where the people weren't capable of making a sensible decision, and what is the best for the country anyway. If people cannot be trusted to make the right decision, what makes you think that they can appoint the right representative? and why should he (being of the people himself) suddenly be able to make the "right" decision? If you believe this, why not do away with democracy once and for all?
Elgalad
Bully!
When issues of national defense and security (i.e. preventing foreign invasion) or when policies that might be unpopular are presented (Where do we bury the nuclear waste? Should we regulate food prices to make sure farmers are able to continue their livelyhoods? Where will the new highway go and who will benefit most from the tourist traffic it brings in?) a pure democracy might run into trouble. Sometimes the government is also the only force preventing what has been called the Tyranny of the Majority. That is a circumstance when 2 people decide to confiscate the property of a third person and since they have a clear majority, they do so.
The point isn't that people Cant make sensible and fair decisions. It's that they wont. Human nature prevents them.
-Elgalad
The point isn't that people Cant make sensible and fair decisions. It's that they wont. Human nature prevents them.
-Elgalad
You write a new one. The French system is the 5th republic, (the 5th constitution)Mise said:
That's not right. The president nominate the prime minister, who in turn create a government by selecting the ministers (with the president agreement).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.
The prime minister is usually from the parti wich is the most represented in the parliament, but nothing in the constitution makes it mandatory.
Initially, the president was supposed to resigned if he was disawoved in a legislative election. For instance, De Gaulle resigned 10 minutes after the results of his last referendum were known, and against what he wanted.
But in 1986, Miterrand went against the custom, and stayed in power with a right wing prime minister.
Before, it was really a problem, because the president mandate was 7 years, and the parliament 5 years. Now, the president and parliament are both 5 years, and happen the same year. So it's more likely to have a president and a prime minister of the same side.
The president in France has much power. He decides, and the government applies. The president can dissolve the parliament when he wants (but it doesn't always work...). The parliament can impeach the government, but he has almost no power against the president.
The president can be trialed only for treason.
Mise
isle of lucy
Then your "written" constitution is not so different to our "unwritten" one. My real objection is to "inalienable rights" and the like, which can't be changed by definition.Steph said:
Norlamand
Procrastinator Rex
Pros: Everyone gets to vote
Cons:Everyone gets to vote
Cons:Everyone gets to vote
Norlamand said:
I'll second that. Imagine a pure democracy in Iraq. There would be no such thing as discussion on whether gay marraige should be allowed simply because all the gays would be stoned to death because it violates some religion's laws.
Sweeney Todd
Warlord
earth said:
I can instantly add a few cons to that:
1. Nobody has a clue what true equality is.
2. Nobody has a clue what true freedom is.
mitsho
Deity
@KaeptnOvo you're right. That's pretty near to me. I'm living in the 35th biggest 'city' of Switzerland, curious if you find this out.
Hmm, this thread has grown big, good.
Someone asked why more parties are a good thing? When there are only few parties, few people are truly representated by them. More parties also means that it's unlikely that one will gain majority. That leads to a need for teamwork and you do have to make concessions to the other party. This way, the politics stay roughly the same over the years (and are not totally changed each time the president changes as it happens in the U.S.) and the politics represent what the people want!
But to my opinion, parties aren't a really good things. Either many parties or none of them.
mfG mitsho
Hmm, this thread has grown big, good.
Someone asked why more parties are a good thing? When there are only few parties, few people are truly representated by them. More parties also means that it's unlikely that one will gain majority. That leads to a need for teamwork and you do have to make concessions to the other party. This way, the politics stay roughly the same over the years (and are not totally changed each time the president changes as it happens in the U.S.) and the politics represent what the people want!
But to my opinion, parties aren't a really good things. Either many parties or none of them.
mfG mitsho
In France, we have two turns elections.
At the first turn, every party is represented (I think we had 18 for the latest presidential election, that was a record).
But on the second turn, only the two best parties are present (for presidential election, for other elections we can have 3 if their scores were close).
This way, you can have a very diverse choice for the first turn, and can vote "with your heart", and on the second turn you vote more with your mind.
I mean, the first turn can be used to send message to the government : if the green get a lot of vote, it may be a signal the government does not do enough for environment.
But for the second turn, things are clearer.
At the first turn, every party is represented (I think we had 18 for the latest presidential election, that was a record).
But on the second turn, only the two best parties are present (for presidential election, for other elections we can have 3 if their scores were close).
This way, you can have a very diverse choice for the first turn, and can vote "with your heart", and on the second turn you vote more with your mind.
I mean, the first turn can be used to send message to the government : if the green get a lot of vote, it may be a signal the government does not do enough for environment.
But for the second turn, things are clearer.
expeliarmus
Chieftain
Hello, I am Spanish, and we have Parliamentary Monarchy.
I would like Spain to be as other countries like France, Italy, or Portugal, they had Kings, but now they have evolutioned and they are a Republic. I think a King is ok for middle ages, but for nowadays...
Well, this forum is to say the pros and cons of each democracy, and i am going to say:
pros(of the Spanish democracy): like in other democracies, the power is the power of the people.
Although there are 2 major parties, also there are other parties very voted, and when they make a coalition, they can be powerful.
The power of the government party is limited by the oposition party.
Each autonom community (the division of the territory) has a lot of freedom, and can govern itself.
cons: when the goverment decides to do something, like a law or something, if the oposition agrees, although most of the people don't like, government can do it in most of cases.
Each autonom community, has too much freedom, until the point that Spain is the less centralized government in Europe.
Also, because of this, some communities want even more independence, to get almost to be another state independent.
And, the laws late a lot of time, since the government proposes it, until the law gets approved by the other organs.
Although all of this, i think ours is not a bad democracy, because the most important in any kind of democracy, is the freedom, and the sovereignity of the people.
I would like Spain to be as other countries like France, Italy, or Portugal, they had Kings, but now they have evolutioned and they are a Republic. I think a King is ok for middle ages, but for nowadays...
Well, this forum is to say the pros and cons of each democracy, and i am going to say:
pros(of the Spanish democracy): like in other democracies, the power is the power of the people.
Although there are 2 major parties, also there are other parties very voted, and when they make a coalition, they can be powerful.
The power of the government party is limited by the oposition party.
Each autonom community (the division of the territory) has a lot of freedom, and can govern itself.
cons: when the goverment decides to do something, like a law or something, if the oposition agrees, although most of the people don't like, government can do it in most of cases.
Each autonom community, has too much freedom, until the point that Spain is the less centralized government in Europe.
Also, because of this, some communities want even more independence, to get almost to be another state independent.
And, the laws late a lot of time, since the government proposes it, until the law gets approved by the other organs.
Although all of this, i think ours is not a bad democracy, because the most important in any kind of democracy, is the freedom, and the sovereignity of the people.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Absolutely true. However, there is a common argument against that, also being given here by Adler:KaeptnOvi said:
This is clearly an argument against Democracy in general. In a (representative) Democracy representatives are elected to, as they name says, represent their electorate.
They are supposed to act out the will of those who voted for them, not to be little dictators for four years.
Unless of course you say that people are just too stupid to decide on their own (not that I'd completely disagree...
) but that clearly means that Democracy is nothing positive.
My personnal opinion is people in the streets don't have the training, or the knowledge of the different parameters, that give them the capacity to rule a country. They are to focused on their immediate environment.
Therefore, I'm against a full democracy.
People should elect people they can trust to protect the general interest, and that share the same general ideas about the main topics.
But then, once the representative are elected, let them do their job.
I'm against perpetual whinning. Currently, in France, anytime the government propose a reform, many call for a strike even before starting to negociate or even try to know what would be the reform.
I strongly dislike it. Government is elected for a specific length of time. Let them do their job. At the end, if it did not work, vote for someone else if you want.
How can a government accomplish anything, if every time they try to do something they must back up after a few weeks because some people don't like it?
How can you conduct a policy that change every 6 months?
Therefore, I'm against a full democracy.
People should elect people they can trust to protect the general interest, and that share the same general ideas about the main topics.
But then, once the representative are elected, let them do their job.
I'm against perpetual whinning. Currently, in France, anytime the government propose a reform, many call for a strike even before starting to negociate or even try to know what would be the reform.
I strongly dislike it. Government is elected for a specific length of time. Let them do their job. At the end, if it did not work, vote for someone else if you want.
How can a government accomplish anything, if every time they try to do something they must back up after a few weeks because some people don't like it?
How can you conduct a policy that change every 6 months?
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Well said Steph. Also it is good to have more than two parties. Smaller parties regulate the system as radical politics have no chance. Also the election system is important. Both big systems how to elect MoP have their pros and cons. The direct way is the more democratic while the chance to get someone in who is an expert in some things but not a good candidate for a direct vote is little. That´s why also a list must be used. This also grants the chance for the small parties to come in. However too many parties leads to too much confusion and a parliament unable to work. Look at Weimar, Israel or Italy. That´s why Germany has a 5 % hurdle. This excluded many times radical parties and is IMO the best way to grant the work of the parliament.
Adler
Adler
In France, each deputy (member of the parliament) is elected in his local area. And there is only one for each area, with a two turns elections.
It means smaller parties are very unlikely to be elected.
It also means some partis with a good percentageof voter can have no deputy in the parliament, or very few, because their vote in spread over the whole country, without enough "concentration" to win somewhere.
That's what happen to the extrem right.
It means smaller parties are very unlikely to be elected.
It also means some partis with a good percentageof voter can have no deputy in the parliament, or very few, because their vote in spread over the whole country, without enough "concentration" to win somewhere.
That's what happen to the extrem right.
Similar threads
