JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
There isn't enough space on every forum and every server in the known universe to accommodate the number of LOLs I would like to arrange in a row per my response to that statement.
What changes would you like to see in your nation's political system?
- Thread starter Terxpahseyton
- Start date
There isn't enough space on every forum and every server in the known universe to accommodate the number of LOLs I would like to arrange in a row per my response to that statement.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
This, plus an upper house that is actually elected, in some form or another. (Seriously, it's 2010. What the hell?). Then maybe we can begin to call ourselves a "democracy" with a straight face. Perhaps through a bit more devolution in, too, using the nine regions of England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland as the equivalent of the provinces found in Canada, Australia, etc.
I was going to suggest that they need better names but then, we have a South Australia, a Northern Territory, a Western Australia and an Australian Capital Territory...
Mmm, that's the history, but the presence of the Bloc and NDP effectively mean that any one party faces higher hurdles to attain majority government unless the Libs or Tories can take their seats back - they don't just need to beat the other big party, they have to beat them by more seats than the Bloc and NDP (and, eventually, the Greens) hold.
Maybe that happens a lot, I dunno, but once you get 3rd and 4th parties holding like a quarter of the chamber, you do start to make minority governments quite likely.
(It's also interesting that every major Westminster democracy now has hung parliaments... perhaps there is a trend here)
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
True, minority governments might be the future (it's an idea I'm not opposed to, since I'm a pretty big NDP fan, and even the Bloc isn't so bad as long as they're not trying to secede that day), though even now the Tories are only 11 seats (out of 308) from an absolute majority. The Libs and Tories are quite capable of forming majorities just by attacking each other.
Personally I think it's only a matter of time before the Tories start to slip again. They've made most of their gains at the expense of unpopular Liberal PMs, but Harper is tough to stomach; he's a control freak, he's suspended Parliament twice when facing criticism, and he has a tendency to throw hissy fits on the world stage (did the UN thing make the news outside Canada?). Ignatieff has been doing a decent job of asserting himself lately, hopefully he can finally bring Harper down.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
What are those compared to each other? Asking because I can't think of a reason acceptable or unacceptable is better.
StittsvilleJame
Warlord
I think we should all gather on a hill and scratch our votes onto scraps of pottery.
And we should be allowed to hurl rotten vegetables at those who displease us.
And we should be allowed to hurl rotten vegetables at those who displease us.
1. Get rid of the 2 party system, it isn't working. Multi-party system would be preferable.
2. Equal TV coverage time and participation opportunities for all presidential candidates during televised debates.
3. Senators and HoR should be required to ask citizens what what their positions are on proposed bills, and do a better job of informing us what exactly is being proposed. Yes, we can write letters, but are they even considering what we say? Is it even reaching them, or is it their secretary?
2. Equal TV coverage time and participation opportunities for all presidential candidates during televised debates.
3. Senators and HoR should be required to ask citizens what what their positions are on proposed bills, and do a better job of informing us what exactly is being proposed. Yes, we can write letters, but are they even considering what we say? Is it even reaching them, or is it their secretary?
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
I definitely want to get rid of plurality voting, and change to range voting (or reweighted range voting for some offices).
I'd replace party labels on ballots with a space where candidates could summarize their platforms. I suppose party affiliations and endorsements could be included here as well.
I'd provide a space on ballots for individuals to include anonymous petitions to be officially filed in the library of congress. I might require congress to begin with a period in which the only bills that can be proposed are those coming from these petitions rather than the politicians' own ideas.
I'd seriously consider making the oath of office for most elected officials require them to not run for any office until their term is up. This includes running for reelection as well as using one office in order to gain the political clout to run for higher office.
I tend to think that state legislatures should have representation in congress, but the pre-17th amendment appointment of senators is probably not the best way to do that. I might suggest bringing back the Committee of the States, although not quite as it operated under the Articles of Confederation. Each state government could send as many or as few delegates to this third house of the legislature as it wishes, and could recall them at any time for any reason. They would each would control only a fraction of a single state vote and state laws would be able to override them. These delegates would receive no income or benefits from the federal government, only from the states.
The Senate would be made up of representatives from the nation at large, with the whole county being a single multimember district. I'm thinking there would be a senatorial election each year, with the top 5 candidates earning a single 5 year term.
I'd probably allow laws to pass with the support of only 2 of the 3 houses, but require all to agree in order to override a veto.
I'd allow the president to propose bills directly, and make them become law immediately (without wasting time allowing for him to sign or veto them) if congress passes them unammended.
I'd allow a limited line-item veto.
I'd allow congress to overturn any executive order at any time.
I'd require all bills to include a justification stating what in the constitution gives the government the power to take such action.
I'd consider requiring bills to be passed in at least 3 languages, to hopefully minimize the risk of terms changing their meaning and obscuring the intent of the law.
I would create a limited federal level plebiscite. Congress would not be allowed to call any referendum, but enough petitions could automatically place initiatives on the ballot. I would probably not allow laws to be passed this way, as the format does not allow adequate negotiation. Instead, I would allow the public to use these (with a large enough supermajority) to strike down existing laws or executive orders (and maybe even judicial doctrines), as well as to remove any government official from office.
In general I'd want to move towards greater decentralization, but would rather move property taxes (or rather land value taxes) to be mostly at the federal level. I would ban unfunded mandates, and encourage the federal government to run its own programs rather than forcing states to run any.
I would probably get rid of the electoral college, but might consider giving it more power instead. If I took that approach then I would make it function somewhat like the system Lewis Carrol recommended, where electors would treat the votes for them like a resource with which to bargain. Rather than cast one ballot they could go through extensive negotiations before deciding not only on who should be president but on who should be the head of various federal departments. The college would reconvene in order to fill vacancies, rather than leaving this to the president or congress. If electors were retained then obviously we would need to make it so that each elector campaigns for himself and appears on the ballot separately rather than being in an anonymous list associated with one candidate.
I'd ban any official recognition of political parties. The right of free assembly/association allows parties to continue to exist, but there is no reason we ought to imbue them with any special powers. All elections would be non-partisan, and parties could play no role in deciding leadership in congress. Neither could seniority. Instead, congress would rely on range voting for choosing its own leaders too.
I am inclined to make judges rotate through the judicial system rather than staying for life in one district. Moving judges would help make the system more uniform, rather than leaving some circuits more progressive or conservative or business friendly than others.
I would give all members of juries the same rights as the attorneys for either side. They could cross examine any witness and even call in their own experts to testify. I might also require the attorneys to swear the same oath as witnesses, and charge them for perjury if they prevaricate. Jurors would be able to vote guilty, not guilty, or not proven. A not proven verdict would allow a retrial without violated double jeopardy protections, but only if more evidence was uncovered. Jurors would have a say in sentences instead of only deciding guilt or innocence and then leaving that up to the judge or overly specific statutes. Jury nullification would probably be allowed, possibly with limitations. When a jury decides that the law is unjust I might make it automatically place the law on the ballot for review by the populace. If the accused was found to have violated the law they try to nullify his status would depend on the outcome of the plebiscite.
I would at least try to minimize the importance of precedent, and encourage plain readings of the constitution.
I'd replace party labels on ballots with a space where candidates could summarize their platforms. I suppose party affiliations and endorsements could be included here as well.
I'd provide a space on ballots for individuals to include anonymous petitions to be officially filed in the library of congress. I might require congress to begin with a period in which the only bills that can be proposed are those coming from these petitions rather than the politicians' own ideas.
I'd seriously consider making the oath of office for most elected officials require them to not run for any office until their term is up. This includes running for reelection as well as using one office in order to gain the political clout to run for higher office.
I tend to think that state legislatures should have representation in congress, but the pre-17th amendment appointment of senators is probably not the best way to do that. I might suggest bringing back the Committee of the States, although not quite as it operated under the Articles of Confederation. Each state government could send as many or as few delegates to this third house of the legislature as it wishes, and could recall them at any time for any reason. They would each would control only a fraction of a single state vote and state laws would be able to override them. These delegates would receive no income or benefits from the federal government, only from the states.
The Senate would be made up of representatives from the nation at large, with the whole county being a single multimember district. I'm thinking there would be a senatorial election each year, with the top 5 candidates earning a single 5 year term.
I'd probably allow laws to pass with the support of only 2 of the 3 houses, but require all to agree in order to override a veto.
I'd allow the president to propose bills directly, and make them become law immediately (without wasting time allowing for him to sign or veto them) if congress passes them unammended.
I'd allow a limited line-item veto.
I'd allow congress to overturn any executive order at any time.
I'd require all bills to include a justification stating what in the constitution gives the government the power to take such action.
I'd consider requiring bills to be passed in at least 3 languages, to hopefully minimize the risk of terms changing their meaning and obscuring the intent of the law.
I would create a limited federal level plebiscite. Congress would not be allowed to call any referendum, but enough petitions could automatically place initiatives on the ballot. I would probably not allow laws to be passed this way, as the format does not allow adequate negotiation. Instead, I would allow the public to use these (with a large enough supermajority) to strike down existing laws or executive orders (and maybe even judicial doctrines), as well as to remove any government official from office.
In general I'd want to move towards greater decentralization, but would rather move property taxes (or rather land value taxes) to be mostly at the federal level. I would ban unfunded mandates, and encourage the federal government to run its own programs rather than forcing states to run any.
I would probably get rid of the electoral college, but might consider giving it more power instead. If I took that approach then I would make it function somewhat like the system Lewis Carrol recommended, where electors would treat the votes for them like a resource with which to bargain. Rather than cast one ballot they could go through extensive negotiations before deciding not only on who should be president but on who should be the head of various federal departments. The college would reconvene in order to fill vacancies, rather than leaving this to the president or congress. If electors were retained then obviously we would need to make it so that each elector campaigns for himself and appears on the ballot separately rather than being in an anonymous list associated with one candidate.
I'd ban any official recognition of political parties. The right of free assembly/association allows parties to continue to exist, but there is no reason we ought to imbue them with any special powers. All elections would be non-partisan, and parties could play no role in deciding leadership in congress. Neither could seniority. Instead, congress would rely on range voting for choosing its own leaders too.
I am inclined to make judges rotate through the judicial system rather than staying for life in one district. Moving judges would help make the system more uniform, rather than leaving some circuits more progressive or conservative or business friendly than others.
I would give all members of juries the same rights as the attorneys for either side. They could cross examine any witness and even call in their own experts to testify. I might also require the attorneys to swear the same oath as witnesses, and charge them for perjury if they prevaricate. Jurors would be able to vote guilty, not guilty, or not proven. A not proven verdict would allow a retrial without violated double jeopardy protections, but only if more evidence was uncovered. Jurors would have a say in sentences instead of only deciding guilt or innocence and then leaving that up to the judge or overly specific statutes. Jury nullification would probably be allowed, possibly with limitations. When a jury decides that the law is unjust I might make it automatically place the law on the ballot for review by the populace. If the accused was found to have violated the law they try to nullify his status would depend on the outcome of the plebiscite.
I would at least try to minimize the importance of precedent, and encourage plain readings of the constitution.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
I like our system the way it is.
You do remember why we don't have that, do you?
Anyway... I voted the first three options:
1. Campaign contributions have to be public (your idea about that web page is great) and should be limited to natural persons.
2. Negative vote weight due to overhang seats has to be fixed. Shouldn't they do that right now, btw? What deadline did the constitutional court give them?
(Oh, and Carstensen should just step down. And be ashamed. And have a diet. Or just kill himself.)
3. Additional income from private activities, contracts on income in the future should be public. See: 1.
I disagree with you about the states thing as well. The states and cities would be fine, if Merkel and Schäuble would stop their all out assault on them via their alleged "austerity".
Dictionary
Lying Crony Conservative to German
- austerity, noun
- stealing money from the states
- stealing money from the cities
- forging statistics
- distracting the media from the fact that you don't do any saving at all by having them cover your "jewish inheritances"
Our MPs do individual choices all the time. You should know that.
Alternatively:
http://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/abstimmungen-991-0.html
I have to add, that your failure to recognise this may be founded in your antipathy for the Greens who happen to have more dissent from the party line in actual voting than any other party.
I congratulate you on your excellent humor.
And rightly so. You have implemented some very smart and interesting compromises.
I voted for:
Role of political parties (I think their role should be somehow limited so as to allow for a more independent approach by MPs, thus reducing hackery).
I want changes in an area not listed (an elected head of state would be nice. Changing from constitutional monarchy to republic is a must in the long run).
I have no great issues with the mechanisms of governance as they are. What I do have an issue with is the attitude in the system, but I'm not entirely sure how fiddling with the system itself would help fix that.
Role of political parties (I think their role should be somehow limited so as to allow for a more independent approach by MPs, thus reducing hackery).
I want changes in an area not listed (an elected head of state would be nice. Changing from constitutional monarchy to republic is a must in the long run).
I have no great issues with the mechanisms of governance as they are. What I do have an issue with is the attitude in the system, but I'm not entirely sure how fiddling with the system itself would help fix that.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Yes. And at the time the decision to not go presidential was perfectly understandable. But now we actually have a majored, liberal and stable democracy and a population supporting it from conviction. Both for the first time in German history. I think this warrants a market of ideas not crippled by the fear of another Hitler.
Good question, I totally lost sight of that one.
Well I don't now about a diet, but he did step down.
Wow, that looks like a definition right out of the party book of the SED
Regarding austerity I am excited about the UK going through with it. It is like they volunteered for a giant social and economical experiment we all may benefit from.
What makes me really mad about the German efforts to reduce debt is that the coalition seriously wants to increase tobacco taxes - again
I feel like the cow of the republic.I do know that it happens. But I also do know that the Federal Constitutional Court deemed it constitutional if parties sanction members who deviate, that the public nature of most votes makes it easy to apply pressure by the party on the legislative body (which naturally also is done) and that many decisions which are supposed to be decided in parliament are actually decide in small and powerful circles inside of the parties.
Hence why our democracy is also called a party-democracy.
Good side, added to my favorites.
As much as I don't like them - I applaud this.
Ah, of course!
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
But isn't it rather important to be able to find out who voted how?
Coincidentally...
The great problem is that there is nothing that can really be done within the processes of parliament to prevent highly domineering parties, short of draconian or idiotic measures. Changing the electoral system would perhaps have an effect, if it weakened the ALP and Libs, but other than that I can't think of anything.
Spoiler :
It's how they do their preselections, it's the high degree of control Liberal and Labor head offices exercise on local branches (Nationals and Greens, not so much), and in Labor's case there's some specific historical reasons for the rigid caucus discipline. MPs in comparable countries are a lot more rebellious.
Hmm...having a demented Predsident is bad even if he does not appoint Hitler.
As state party chief. But he's still prime minister, isn't he?
We will definitly benefit from that. The British people won't though. It's probably the most ill advised thing conservatives in Europe have tried for decades.
It's like having a root canal when you don't need one. Just for fun.
Hey, we have found some common ground. I'm a non-smoker and yet i agree with you. Tobacco tax is completely unwarrented by the alleged cost of the effects of smoking (if anything they should give you your smokes for free) and nothing but a majority stealing from a minority under some educational pretense.What makes me really mad about the German efforts to reduce debt is that the coalition seriously wants to increase tobacco taxes - again
It's the best example for anyone trying to claim taxes in general are bad.
Well, as for the legality of sanctions: I didn't knew that and would have to read up on that first. I guess there is some point to it for MPs who are seated via party lists. It's obviously just plain wrong for those who directly won their district. But i can't imagine how a party could effectively punish them anyways.
Well it's understandable with the big parties. Most of their MPs represent the political centre of their respective districts. So it's no surprise that they agree oftentimes.
What's disappointing is that the market liberals and the Left both have two (at the very least) distinctly different wings of their party platform seated in parliament and in both parties that very rarely shows in actual voting.
