1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

What changes would you like to see in your nation's political system?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Terxpahseyton, Oct 24, 2010.

?

In what area of your nation's political system to you see great need for change?

  1. Lobbyism/Donations

    38 vote(s)
    66.7%
  2. Electoral system

    38 vote(s)
    66.7%
  3. Activities of politicians in the private sector

    28 vote(s)
    49.1%
  4. Level of centralization

    17 vote(s)
    29.8%
  5. Organization of the Legislative

    23 vote(s)
    40.4%
  6. Organization of the Executive

    12 vote(s)
    21.1%
  7. Organization of the Judicial Branch

    14 vote(s)
    24.6%
  8. Plebiscites

    20 vote(s)
    35.1%
  9. Role of political parties

    33 vote(s)
    57.9%
  10. I want changes in an area not listed (elaboration appreciated)

    17 vote(s)
    29.8%
  11. I want a total overhaul / system-change

    11 vote(s)
    19.3%
  12. I think the system needs changes, but don't know where and how

    7 vote(s)
    12.3%
  13. I see no need for any major changes / think that the system is good the way it is

    4 vote(s)
    7.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Terxpahseyton

    Terxpahseyton One. And many.

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,437
    Gender:
    Male
    How the poll is supposed to work: Make a cross at the given fields of your nation's political system you have crucial reformations on your mind (also if only vaguely an idea of) and/or see an urgent need for change. This can go both ways.
    Example: You want more or less direct democracy, make a cross at the Plebiscite. You want restrictions on lobbyism or you want restrictions to be loosened, make a cross at lobbyism.

    On my mind:

    Lobbyism/Donations
    I would like to see the French model to be implemented in Germany. Donations can only be made during the election campaigns and are capped. I also would like that a website is set up where all donations to all parties / politicans are represented in a fashion that makes it as accessible and illustrative as possible.
    Another more drastic idea is that politicians may not be gifted any money for private use while in office.

    Electoral system
    I think the system where you rate all the candidates offers the best way to represent the voters will. Its introduction would be great.

    Activities of politicians in the private sector
    IMO politicians should not be allowed to make any money outside of their office salary. This could be accompanied by higher salaries.

    Level of centralization
    The German states need more control over the taxes they also get. It is no use if they depend on the federal government's choices in that regard (I believe in America this is well implemented)

    Organization of the Executive
    I would like to see a presidential system in Germany where the chief executive is directly elected. This makes him or her more independent of the legislative quarrels.

    Organization of the Judicial Branch
    State prosecutors need a higher level of independence, as for instances found in Italy. To only have independent judges is not enough.

    Plebiscites
    More direct democracy! (naturally not on tax levels and also other things). Right now there is no direct democracy on the federal level at all in Germany.

    Role of political parties
    I am not sure how exactly this should be accomplished, but a party's influence on its members needs to be decreased, individual choices in the legislative body encouraged. I am not sure how because it must not lead to a dysfunctional parliament where nothing can be done.
     
  2. Mansa Musa

    Mansa Musa Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    In Canada, I'd like to the Senate to be made up of elected members. That's all
     
  3. Deego3

    Deego3 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    326
    Location:
    Ireland
    I'd like to see politicians get their pension AFTER they retire, not while they're still in office.
     
  4. Cheetah

    Cheetah Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,010
    Location:
    the relative oasis of CFC
    I'd like to see 'one man, ten votes' instead of one man, one vote. That way it would be much easier to vote for the coalition of your choice, instead of having to vote for one party you find tolerable, not knowing which coalition they may end up forming.

    For instance, in the last election in Norway, I would have liked to give 4 of my votes to the Conservative party, and 6 of my votes to the Green party. As it happens, I only have one vote, and ended up putting 1 vote on the Conservative party, because I was afraid the Green party was going to get too few votes to matter in the coalition-discussions (and I definitely didn't want to socialist-coalition to be reelected). Turns out many Green party voters thought like me, and the Conservative party got a lot of votes (almost enough to form a more centrum-right coalition). The Green party on the other hand got so few votes they lost all their seats in parliament...
     
  5. Monsterzuma

    Monsterzuma the sly one

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,984
    I think it would also be good if voters were able to place a negative vote (voting "any party except X") so as to reduce the influence of extremism/populism in politics.
     
  6. Babbler

    Babbler Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    5,399
    Lobbyism/Donations: I vaguely remember on columnist (Andrew Coyne?) arguing for a donation limit on how much an individual can give per year, rather than limiting the amount politician can get per year. That could be an interesting

    Electoral system : I would change the electoral system for the House of Commons (and the provincial legislatures) to either MMP or STV. Municipal elections would be run on an IRV fashion.

    Organization of the Executive: I would abolish the monarchy and replace with a ceremonial presidency, either elected by electoral college or direction IRV vote.

    Organization of the Legistature
    : I reorganize the Senate as a directly elected but limited in powers body.
     
  7. Onionsoilder

    Onionsoilder Reaver

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,173
    Main two changes I would make would be:

    Lobbyism/Donations:

    Cap on political dotations + All donations archived and indexed on government-run website. Anonymous donations forbidden. Should go a long way towards reducing corruption.

    Role of political parties.
    Splitting Republican and Democratic parties up into 4-5 different parties. Two-party system is far too partisan.
     
  8. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    I agree that we need far more parties. But merely splitting up the Democrats and the Republicans is insufficient. We need strong parties all across the political spectrum, including the extreme left, the extreme right, strongly libertarian, and strongly authoritarian, and everything in between. We even need representation from the extremist Muslims and Christians. This would do much to eliminate the effect of people who will only vote for candidates from one political party, and parties which vote in a block on issues and vilify those in the party who don't do the same.
     
  9. Colonel

    Colonel Rule of Law

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,220
    Location:
    USA
    No changes to the American system. It is the closest thing to perfect government on the planet.
     
  10. uppi

    uppi Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,936
    While I agree with you, I do not think it is that problematic what happens during office, as the politician in question usually still cares about reelection so the rewards to his friends in the private sector cannot be too blatant.

    I am more concerned with what happens after they have left office. As private citizens there is no limit to potential rewards from the private sector for the things he has done. "You approve our pipeline and when you get out of office there is a nice cushy seat on the board of directors for you" - that's what I am worrying about. And i am not so sure how to prevent this. Forbidding anybody whoever held office to have any position in the private sector afterwards seems a bit strict and would lead to even more career politicians.
     
  11. Ayatollah So

    Ayatollah So the spoof'll set you free

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,389
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    Either that, or the system where you rate all candidates as acceptable or unacceptable. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Either would be far better than the first-past-the-post system prevalent in the USA.

    And either one would bring much-needed change to our two-party duopoly.

    Activities of politicians in the private sector
    are often a backdoor bribe. After doing a special interest's bidding, you get to go work for them for big bucks. This revolving door needs to be slammed shut, right on the foot of any salesman who wants to sell public policy to the highest bidder.
     
  12. gangleri2001

    gangleri2001 Garbage day!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    3,950
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Caldes de Montbui, Großkatalonien
    Other: SECESSION!!!
     
  13. Terxpahseyton

    Terxpahseyton One. And many.

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,437
    Gender:
    Male
    Agreed. This really is difficult to tackle, but sure as hell a major problem. The only effective measure I can think of is an independent commission which observes if a politician directly benefited from his policies in a financial way and than sanction this or something. But to create such a powerful apparatus carries its own worries. Not to mention all the resources this would consume, and the moral dubiousness of policing politicians.
    It most likely would also trigger distrust and suspicion among the politicians.

    Thinking about it a bit more. It isn't really an option I guess :/
     
  14. civver_764

    civver_764 Deity

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,436
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    I picked the top 11.
     
  15. Earthling

    Earthling Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,518
    Reducing the salary/payment/pensions of politicians would actually be a bad idea, at least in the United States. The intention would be to "deprive those rich politicans of extra money" but that wouldn't be the result at all - it would actually make it even more difficult or impossible for the average person to run for office, if they weren't going to be compensated and didn't have the money to afford everything without, y'know, a regular job. Assuming all other rules on bribery etc... in place though you could count travel expenses or whatever as covered - if a person wasn't paid decently for being a Congressperson, or in a state or local office that's a full-time job, and didn't already have money, it would take extreme difficulty and dedication to spend years of their life in the legislature and come out of it with nothing in return. Meanwhile, someone who is already rich won't really care or notice if salaries for the legislature etc... are abolished - and it would hardly prevent them from running for office.

    Lots of other things I voted for as well though, Electoral system, political parties, lobbyism reform - but the above was on the comments of other posters.
     
  16. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    19,145
    Location:
    Canberra
    Become a republic.

    Some form of prop rep in the Lower House - either multi-member districts or a supplementary list system like in New Zealand.

    A codified charter of rights.

    Some reforms to the way internal Territories are organised, bringing us closer to being treated like States: an end to the ability of the Government to overturn Territory legislation, electoral districts allocated by the Electoral Commission, not Parliament, maybe a couple more Senators.
     
  17. History_Buff

    History_Buff Knight of Cydonia

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    6,529
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta
    Lobbyism: What you described sounds good.

    Electoral Reform: Some sort of Proportional Representation would be awesome. I don't much care which method is chosen.

    Centralization: I'd like to see some select provincial powers transferred to the Federal and Municipal levels, with more powers going to the Fed.

    People often say that, but I've never understood why the Senate should be elected. The ideas as outlined by the Tories would basically turn it into a second House of Commons, which seems awfully redundant.

    If it's going to be elected, we need some rule in place to ensure they are above and removed from waves of populism. I personally think the key would be to make elected Senators have say, 5 year terms, to which you cannot be re-elected.
     
  18. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    19,145
    Location:
    Canberra
    Since you already have minority governments most of the time, the blocking function of a Senate with a different party makeup than the Commons would probably not be so important.

    However, if you had an elected Senate, with equal senators for each province, you could stop doing so much malapportionment in the Commons to try and get more representation for the small provinces, and let the equation be Commons = apportioned by population, Senate = provinces chamber. With such strong Provincial govts, weaker party discipline, and distinct provincial identities, it might even actually function as a proper provincial chamber.
     
  19. History_Buff

    History_Buff Knight of Cydonia

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    6,529
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta
    Interesting argument. Best I think I've ever heard sadly. Still, I'm not a fan of handing more powers to the provinces. We're too damned decentralized as it is.

    Though I should point out that Minority governments aren't really the norm here, it's just been the last few where we've been effectively deadlocked in the Commons, mostly due to the perceived personalities of the leaders. The usual political cycle goes 10+ years of Liberal Party governance, followed by a brief period (1-4 years) of Conservative Party governance, and then back to the Liberals, which the New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois fighting it out on the sidelines.
     
  20. Tani Coyote

    Tani Coyote Son of Huehuecoyotl

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    15,174
    Gender:
    Male
    We need multi-party democracy via the institution of PR.

    There should be one Senator per state elected via FPTP. The House should be reformed, with half the number of seats distributed via districting based on population(each state guaranteed one vote), with the remaining half determined by nationwide PR. This preserves the benefits of district interests but also provides a base for a government centered on national rather than any regional interest.

    That's the only change I feel strongly about. Some others are:

    1. Take some of the President's powers away and create a new head of government position - Chancellor since that's more awesome than PM. This Chancellor would be elected by the legislature, and the President by popular vote. The President would have supreme authority in all matters foreign and military, while the Chancellor would control things domestically. The President would also be able to veto any legislation subject to override. The President would need a longer term to compensate for the fact he's meant to be a beacon of stability.

    For the Judicial Branch, I'd like the power of judicial review to be specifically ingrained in the Constitution, but I'd also like it to be less prone to politics and have more checks on its power - the division of the Presidency strengthens the Judicial Branch. Perhaps the SCOTUS could be split into two Courts, one ruling on criminal cases and the other civil? With a third Court that could be constructed from the other two on occasion if differences had to be mended out.

    ---

    Politicians' and public servants' salaries should be tied somewhat to the economy. There's no reason that we should have to tighten our belts while they get a free ride off of us.

    ---

    Plebiscites: Direct democracy should be for the most part abolished, but the People should have two rights: 1. the right to choose how representatives are elected at their respective level(state population determines state elections, national pop determines nat'l elections, etc.), and 2. the right to, with the state governments, create a new government if there is displeasure with the current one.

    ---

    Centralisation: The federal government should primarily oversee interstate harmony such as transfers of cash from the well-off to the less fortunate, defense, and the highway system, and devolve policies - where it's deemed to be more efficient - to the lower levels of government.

    More power should be invested in state militias that are immune to federal nationalisation, unlike the National Guard.

    ---

    The Constitution needs clear reform simply so we can demolish all the current "x is unconstitutional since I don't like it!" arguments in clear text. It must also guarantee various social and economic rights and freedoms in addition to what it has now(i.e. gay rights, welfare that increases productivity, etc.).

    ---

    Lobbying: We need stronger laws against campaign finance by special interests, and also the abolition of all public finance favoring any oligarchy of parties. Lobbying once elected shouldn't be as much an issue since the politician doesn't need to be/can't be dependent on those lobbying them.
     

Share This Page