NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I feel like the political spectrum can be best represented by two axes: social and economics. That creates four different categories for parties: authoritarian/capitalist (Republican), authoritarian/socialist (unfortunately the only examples I can think of are Nazi Germany and the USSR, even if they are extreme) libertarian/capitalist (Libertarian), and libertarian/socialist (I don't think Democrats qualify as this, because recently they've become more centrist over the years).

There would be four main parties instead of two. That way, there would be a four-way check of the parties' powers instead of being checked by just the other party.

Anyways, under my system electoral college would be abolished. Instead, we'd have a 'top preferences' the voter would choose for president (here's an example of mine)

1) Badnarik/Campagna (Libertarian)
2) Kerry/Edwards (Democrat)
3) Bush/Cheney (Republican)
4) Nader/Camejo (Independant)
5) etc
6) etc

Each candidate would get x number of points according to their ranking (1st pref. gets 1 pt, the 2nd gets 2, etc). The candidate with the least number of points wins.

In the event of a tie, the presidential decision would go to Congress, with the Senate choosing the President and the House choosing VP.

What do you all think of this?

Ok, I feel like the political spectrum can be best represented by two axes: social and economics. That creates four different categories for parties: authoritarian/capitalist (Republican), authoritarian/socialist (unfortunately the only examples I can think of are Nazi Germany and the USSR, even if they are extreme) libertarian/capitalist (Libertarian), and libertarian/socialist (I don't think Democrats qualify as this, because recently they've become more centrist over the years).

There would be four main parties instead of two. That way, there would be a four-way check of the parties' powers instead of being checked by just the other party.

Anyways, under my system electoral college would be abolished. Instead, we'd have a 'top preferences' the voter would choose for president (here's an example of mine)

1) Badnarik/Campagna (Libertarian)
2) Kerry/Edwards (Democrat)
3) Bush/Cheney (Republican)
4) Nader/Camejo (Independant)
5) etc
6) etc

Each candidate would get x number of points according to their ranking (1st pref. gets 1 pt, the 2nd gets 2, etc). The candidate with the least number of points wins.

In the event of a tie, the presidential decision would go to Congress, with the Senate choosing the President and the House choosing VP.

What do you all think of this?

I think you're insane.

But clever..! :D

For next week's assignment, get a group of 100 people to agree with you.

There will be NO pop quizzes between now and then.

Class dismissed.

I think that we have enough trouble with the current system already. Although I'd like to see the 4 major party (or 5 if you include a centrist one) idea surface.

Ok, I feel like the political spectrum can be best represented by two axes: social and economics. That creates four different categories for parties: authoritarian/capitalist (Republican), authoritarian/socialist (unfortunately the only examples I can think of are Nazi Germany and the USSR, even if they are extreme) libertarian/capitalist (Libertarian), and libertarian/socialist (I don't think Democrats qualify as this, because recently they've become more centrist over the years).

There would be four main parties instead of two. That way, there would be a four-way check of the parties' powers instead of being checked by just the other party.

Anyways, under my system electoral college would be abolished. Instead, we'd have a 'top preferences' the voter would choose for president (here's an example of mine)

1) Badnarik/Campagna (Libertarian)
2) Kerry/Edwards (Democrat)
3) Bush/Cheney (Republican)
4) Nader/Camejo (Independant)
5) etc
6) etc

Each candidate would get x number of points according to their ranking (1st pref. gets 1 pt, the 2nd gets 2, etc). The candidate with the least number of points wins.

In the event of a tie, the presidential decision would go to Congress, with the Senate choosing the President and the House choosing VP.

What do you all think of this?

I thought of a similar idea. The only difference being that it makes more sense, in my opinion, for the favourites to get more points, and the one with the most to win.

The advantage of the system mentioned, is that you will get a candidate that most people are OK with, rather than one that half love and half hate.

I didn't think Nazi Germany was very socialist at all, I may be mistaken.

But yes, I've seen this layout, particularly on www.politicalcompass.org (http://www.politicalcompass.org)

However, you really don't get that many authoritarian socialists nowadays. As well, the Libertarians are quite a minority. People tend to go for authoritarian capitalist or libertarian socialist. And there is no way 4 main parties could exist...2 of them would join to take power, than the other two would join to keep the balance...you can't fight it. Libertarians go back and forth between Republicans and Democrats, depending on whether they value social or economic freedoms more. Than you have the fringe groups (Greens, Constitutions...)

The only practical party method is what we have now.

And I think a pure popular vote is more than enough.

Nazi Germany was economically centrist, apparently.

I think the site is http://www.politicalcompass.org

Hi!

Seeing as I'm not from the US I'd just like to add that I think putting the "Democrats" in the role as libertarian socialists is indeed somewhat choking.
I'm from Sweden, a country which I believe to be a good example of a libertarian socialism, but here our "capitalist party" is much more liberal than the "Democrats" in the US. Therefore it seems to me as your view is quite twisted when looking at politics in an international perspective.

And putting Nazi Germany as socialist is also wrong as thier foundation was equal rights to all who wer 6" tall, blonde and blue eyed. They have more of a floating role, not really matching any of the criterias, though an authoritarian state is true. Their economical role I will not go into as I have no particular knowledge in that area, but to say that it is not socialist.

Our system is ok for what it is.

Probably something I would change on the EC would be the vote distribution.

I would probably do away with the all or nothing approach and probably give it away to percentages.

Bardy and Liberts are the answer. They are just another version of what's in place.

I think their main problem is the majority is not buying their message. Never mind the fact that Bardy can't smooth talk. You can't get votes if you tell people they are stupid.