NationStates Jolt Archive

What is the best form of representative democracy that could be used.

Currently most nations have a top down system with individuals
even whole areas(counties, states, whatever) feeling they have
no real control over the governments.

I think this could be improved by having power granted upwards
rather than reluctantly allowed downwards

as in small local assemblies granting powers to higher assemblies where
appropriate and with the ability to withdraw them if they were being abused.

I can see no problems with the way the UK does it actually. I wouldn't nessacarily have called it perfect, but if there are no problems I suppose there is.

The U.K system works perfectly well though maybe some work could be done with the house of lords…

I can see no problems with the way the UK does it actually. I wouldn't nessacarily have called it perfect, but if there are no problems I suppose there is.

You have no problem that in the current system
Where you can have a majority government with just over 30% of the vote?

(its not the only problem I would think people would notice but perhaps the most obvious)

The UK system encourages centre politics so at least its harder for extereme parties to be involved. The UK system also produces clear one party government, if you don't like it kick them out, accountable to the electorate. I'll admit that it isn't a fair system but id rather have it than proportional representation

You have no problem that in the current system
Where you can have a majority government with just over 30% of the vote?

sadly the alternative is proportional representation which has proven to be a very unstable creature

The UK system encourages centre politics so at least its harder for extereme parties to be involved. The UK system also produces clear one party government, if you don't like it kick them out, accountable to the electorate. I'll admit that it isn't a fair system but id rather have it than proportional representation

You might prefer it I suppose but having a majority government with only
30% of the vote doesn't suggest democracy all that much.
After all your getting a government that 70% of the people who voted
did not vote for.

Its stable but so is a strong dictator.

My understanding is that the 30% win effect is a "worst-case" scenario - the British system usually does a lot better than that.

I prefer the US system. It has it's problems, notably with the "redisticting" fights that are going on, but it basically shows the will of the people pretty well. It may also be time to get rid of the electoral college, but there are arguments on both sides for that.

You might prefer it I suppose but having a majority government with only
30% of the vote doesn't suggest democracy all that much.
After all your getting a government that 70% of the people who voted
did not vote for.

Its stable but so is a strong dictator.

right for a start the Labour party got 35.2% of the vote and got 55% of the seats in the HoC. Disproportionate? yes, and unfair on the minority parties. A majority of 65 is not huge so the cabinet won't be able to do what it wants.

The only thing I would change is the fact that scottish MP's vote on issues that will affect England Wales & NI but not them. If they hadn't have voted we wouldn't have student fees or foundation hospitals

Another thing I'd change is getting the NI assembly up and running before even thinking about the voting system

My understanding is that the 30% win effect is a "worst-case" scenario - the British system usually does a lot better than that.


Yes in Britain 30% would be a worst case scenario
the last election Labour got 36% of the vote on turnout of 61%
the last one I think they got 41% of the vote

The point here being I am not clear on how it is democratic to have a government of one group
when more people voted for anything other than that group.
I think the British have trouble seeing it as odd as they are so used to a first past the post system
that they are happy with more people voted for this particular party(doesn't matter which one)
than for any other individual party.


I prefer the US system. It has it's problems, notably with the "redisticting" fights that are going on, but it basically shows the will of the people pretty well. It may also be time to get rid of the electoral college, but there are arguments on both sides for that.

After the last few years and the presidency sweeping away many of the
checks and balances that should apply to it, perhaps a presidency without
executive powers might improve the situation there.

The Electoral College system is certainly a system remote in time from
when it was a good idea.

Its stable but so is a strong dictator.

dictatorships aren’t stable and my point is that though its not ideal its workable

The UK parliamentary system could do with a fully elected second chamber (House of Lords), a removal of powers of the Lord Chancellor (far too close a position to the PM, and one that breaks the boundaries between Executive, Legislative and Judiciary), and a proportional representative voting system.

Generally, a more representative, accountable and democratic system to the one we have now.

right for a start the Labour party got 35.2% of the vote and got 55% of the seats in the HoC. Disproportionate? yes, and unfair on the minority parties. A majority of 65 is not huge so the cabinet won't be able to do what it wants.

The only thing I would change is the fact that scottish MP's vote on issues that will affect England Wales & NI but not them. If they hadn't have voted we wouldn't have student fees or foundation hospitals

Another thing I'd change is getting the NI assembly up and running before even thinking about the voting system

So is stable government or democracy of greater importance or is the question
irrelevant.

Of course the NI assembly uses a completely different voting system anyway

representative democracy encourages elite rule, particularly shallow political thinking on the part of the public, particularly cynical political thinking on the part of the ruling elite, an unnecessary system of grouped winners and losers, and easily leads to all sorts of abuses due to some combination of the above. a fairly bad idea all around.

The UK parliamentary system could do with a fully elected second chamber (House of Lords), a removal of powers of the Lord Chancellor (far too close a position to the PM, and one that breaks the boundaries between Executive, Legislative and Judiciary), and a proportional representative voting system.

Generally, a more representative, accountable and democratic system to the one we have now.

Um, the Westminster system doesn't have any separation between the legislative and executive branches. While theoretically the Queen is head of the executive, actually the PM is.

representative democracy encourages elite rule, particularly shallow political thinking on the part of the public, particularly cynical political thinking on the part of the ruling elite, an unnecessary system of grouped winners and losers, and easily leads to all sorts of abuses due to some combination of the above. a fairly bad idea all around.

and what you would do instead is ...?

Of course it can be improved!

Get rid of it and institute a pure republic where leaders must pass strict guidelines to be elected and they rule over the country.

Um, the Westminster system doesn’t have any separation between the legislative and executive branches. While theoretically the Queen is head of the executive, actually the PM is.
Technically there is some separation; the legislative parliament keeps check on the executive government. The executive is drawn from the legislative, and individuals can act in both instances (i.e., be Members of Parliament while also in the government), and this is supposedly a saftey barrier.

However, with such vast majorities in parliament, the legislative is powerless to stop executive pushing through legislation. Moreover, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs span executive, legislative and judiciary, while the House of Lords holds some judicial power as well.

I think for any representative democracy to really be democratic
PR is a must, simply due to the concept that the elected representatives
must be representative of the views of the electorate.

Ireland's PR system is a good one that way, though it did take them
about 60 years to really start thinking in the right terms to use it properly
and theres a way to go yet before they get fully to grips with it.

But even then we're back to the same old problem
that government wants to bring all power into itself including
what should be left to local levels and the tendency to act
in outright opposition to what the people want when they are in power.

As long as we're stuck with democracy, representative democracy does pretty well, I think. You're choosing leaders to govern on your behalf, and make decisions on your behalf.

Proportional representation hamstrings the government by preventing them from ever being willing to do unpopular things because it prevents majority control of the legislature. Also, it tends to lead to bigger govenrment (because the people are typically amenable to being bribed with their own money).

Direct democracy fails because most people don't have a sufficiently strong grasp of the issues in order to make intelligent decisions. Most voters have little or no understanding of macroeconomics, for example. Most voters have only anecdotal evidence of people's behaviour. Most voters are selfish gits who want to vote themselves benefits at the expense of others.

So, I would prefer each elected official represent a single electoral district (or constituency or riding or whatever they call it in your country), and that representative be chosen either by a single-transferrable vote (preferential ballot) or a first-past-the-post system (plurality wins).

The UK parliamentary system could do with a fully elected second chamber (House of Lords),
No. Electing the upper chamber will only legitimise it and cause government to grow. The US government ballooned when they started electing Senators.

You'd be better off abolishing the House of Lords (as I often advocate for the Canadian Senate).

We need to get rid of the Electoral College and have instant runoffs. Both would improve the American sytem. I also don't like the winner take all system. It should be proportional.

We need to get rid of the Electoral College and have instant runoffs. Both would improve the American sytem. I also don't like the winner take all system. It should be proportional.
Would you like to have a vastly larger and more leftist government? Because that's what proportional representation produces.

Would you like to have a vastly larger and more leftist government? Because that's what proportional representation produces.

If proportional representation gives a more leftist government
the only reason it would is that that would be more representative
of what the electorate want.

That would be what is called a democracy.


No reason it should particularly be larger government although
the more MPs Congressmen or whatever there are, as long
as some stupid list system is not being used,
the closer the relationship between the representative
and his/her constituency
which I believe would also be beneficial to democracy.

Two words: Kalesic democracy (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Kalesic_Democracy)

Two words: Kalesic democracy (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Kalesic_Democracy)

If proportional representation gives a more leftist government the only reason it would is that that would be more representative of what the electorate want.
No, it's more representative of what the politicians can sell to the electorate.

The electorate doesn't actually know what decisions will lead to the government it wants, so asking the people repeatedly will just cause them to choose the most attractive short-term outcomes over and over again.
That would be what is called a democracy.
That's exactly what's wrong with democracy. The people are stupid.

Democracy shouldn't be an end in and of iteself. If democracy produces the sort of society you want, by all means support democracy. But democracy itself has no intrinsic value, so there's no point chasing democractic ideals without examining what results they produce.

as in small local assemblies granting powers to higher assemblies where
appropriate and with the ability to withdraw them if they were being abused.
Sounds a bit like what the Cuban system (in theory) is supposed to work.

No, it's more representative of what the politicians can sell to the electorate.

The electorate doesn't actually know what decisions will lead to the government it wants, so asking the people repeatedly will just cause them to choose the most attractive short-term outcomes over and over again.

As opposed to politicians choosing their own preferred short term solutions
without reference to the electorate.


That's exactly what's wrong with democracy. The people are stupid.

Unless you think politicians are by definition smarter than their electorates
and stick to your supposed stupidity of the people then you are merely
having one persons stupid views and will instead of the combination of many peoples thoughts (even if each individual is rather less than bright, chances are their decisions will be at least as good if not better)


Democracy shouldn't be an end in and of iteself. If democracy produces the sort of society you want, by all means support democracy. But democracy itself has no intrinsic value, so there's no point chasing democractic ideals without examining what results they produce.

Unless we are choosing to have a dictatorship or some other form of elite
rule, whether a theocracy or plutocracy or whatever
then having democracy is the least worst way of running a country
and if we are having a democracy, the type of democracy that accurately
reflects the views of the people should indeed be the aim.

That's exactly what's wrong with democracy. The people are stupid.

and the elite are evil. give me stupid over evil any day.

As opposed to politicians choosing their own preferred short term solutions without reference to the electorate.
We choose leaders based on what sort of solutions they prefer.
Unless you think politicians are by definition smarter than their electorates and stick to your supposed stupidity of the people then you are merely having one persons stupid views and will instead of the combination of many peoples thoughts (even if each individual is rather less than bright, chances are their decisions will be at least as good if not better)
Consensus is just a means for a bunch of people who are wrong to think they're right.

And while the politicians may not be smarter (though they might be - after all, they were chosen to lead for a reason), they're almost certainly better informed. Governing is ostensibly their full-time job. They have scads of experts advising them; you just have your buddy Tim down at the doughnut shop.
Unless we are choosing to have a dictatorship or some other form of elite rule, whether a theocracy or plutocracy or whatever then having democracy is the least worst way of running a country and if we are having a democracy, the type of democracy that accurately reflects the views of the people should indeed be the aim.
The aim should be to produce a govenrment which generates the preferred outcomes of the people. How they get there is immaterial.

and the elite are evil. give me stupid over evil any day.
I might choose evil.

But beyond that, I think you'd need to demonstrate the the elite are universally evil. Since in a democracy the majority rules, I only need to show that people are generally stupid.

I would totally and completly 100% eradicate parochial thinking from government. It does nothing but hold back progress.

and what you would do instead is ...?

something like this (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html).


at the very least we have to institute a more bottom-up system of political power. and if we must have representatives, let's have at least some of them be drawn by lottery from the entire population.

any move to make democracy more direct and localised and less representative and centralised is an improvement that is sorely needed.

If every government official was directly elected by the people, it would be an improvment in the sense that the people would be able to choose every position and it would be TRULY representative. As far as efficient and logical, that might be another story.

I might choose evil.

stupid can possibly be remedied. evil is just out to purposefully fuck you.

But beyond that, I think you'd need to demonstrate the the elite are universally evil.

i can't claim universality, but i can claim that all the evidence to date has shown that
1) those attracted to power seem disproportionately likely to fuck over anyone and everything to get it - and those that actually attain it are just particularly good at the above
2) once they have power, they use it to their own advantage and the advantage of their friends and relatives first and foremost
3) the fucking over of people and things doesn't stop once they have achieved that power
4) and just generally, they don't give a fuck about you

I'm an American so I'm basing my suggestions for improving representative democracy on the American political system. I'd have a proportional voting system for the Senate and a first past the post, with tranferable votes, system for the House of Representatives. This way the Senate is accountable to the nation as a whole and the House is accountable to each representative's district. Redistricting would be under the control of an independent nonpartisan organization. The Presidential canidates would be chosen by Coalitions or single parties.

as far as regular old representative democracy goes, is there any particular reason why a tricameral legislature would automatically suck?

Bicameral parliaments are anachronisms, and lack of proportionality is ludicrous.

Thus both the UK and US systems suck (with the US one sucking more, not just because of the electoral college itself and lack of parliamentarianism, but also because the executive power is so concentrated to one person who is almost a monarch in spe; the sycophancy surrounding the office is testament to that). If the Irish system resembles them, it sucks as well.

I would say that out of all the voting systems in the world, the Irish one has got to take it. They have a transferable vote, so second preferances matter and extremists are punished, and they have multiple member constituencies, so representation is sort of proportional and there's still some degree of local representation.

The most ridiculous has got to be America's. Not only is there one house of government where people in some states have maybe 100 times the voting power of those in others, but there's no independent electoral commission to set constituency boundaries...all the fun of gerrymandering, and living in constituencies shaped like mutant doughnuts. It dosen't seem like people realise just how much of a joke that is.

stupid can possibly be remedied. evil is just out to purposefully fuck you.
But they're predictable.

Have you ever seen those surveys how how trustworthy the public considers various professions to be? Lawyers, politicians, and arms dealers always score really poorly, while teachers and the clergy score much better.

But I don't see why. I don't trust the clergy because I don't understand them. No reasonable person could possibly behave as they do. Alternately, politicians and arms dealers have very clearly defined objectives, so I consider them much more trustworthy.

any move to make democracy more direct and localised and less representative and centralised is an improvement that is sorely needed.
I'll approve a more direct democracy iff it's localised. On a national scale, I don't particularly want the people making any decisions at all.

And while the politicians may not be smarter (though they might be - after all, they were chosen to lead for a reason), they're almost certainly better informed. Governing is ostensibly their full-time job. They have scads of experts advising them; you just have your buddy Tim down at the doughnut shop.


George W Bush

I’ll approve a more direct democracy iff it’s localised. On a national scale, I don’t particularly want the people making any decisions at all.
What we need is more direct participation in democracy. I’ve been toying with the following for a while now, a sort of ‘layered democracy’:

If we had the country divided into manageable sections of the country (possibly similar to current council boundaries), voting directly for members of their section. Each section would have stronger control over local issues (road upkeep, dealing with local community, etc). At a higher level, people could vote, using either a proportional or STV system, on something like a county council, in charge of matters at a county level (schools and hospital upkeep perhaps?). Higher still, Regional executives (similar to the Scottish Executive), voted in using an STV or PR system would deal with regional issues. This leaves Westminster, again voted in using an STV or PR system, to deal with national issues, such as defence.

Individual voters could put forward propositions at certain levels, promoting accountability. If 55%+ of voters in a council section voted against the councils decision, the council would have to stop and reconsider the decision. Indeed, at this level decisions could even go to a direct vote, possible every time, possibly if 55%+ of the voters petitioned their non-support of an decision Similarly, individual voters could petition a council to vote against or complain against a county executive’s decision. If a majority of councils complained against a county executive’s decision, for example, it would force the county executive to halt legislation, or carry out a review or something similar.

This system could travel up all the way to Westminster, giving individuals representative government, yet one that was accountable and influenced by voters more than once every 5 years.

Thoughts? It is only a very rough idea, but whadd’ya think? Unwieldy? Scary? Wonderful?

Thoughts? It is only a very rough idea, but whadd’ya think? Unwieldy? Scary? Wonderful?

Well I quite like it.

What I would like to see is that all powers start off at the local level
and are bumped upwards as needed but can be called back if they are being
abused.

In other words rather than central government doling out minimal powers
downwards the situation would be reversed
central government only getting any powers that can best be utilised at
that level and having to be accountable for how they use them.

Well I quite like it.

What I would like to see is that all powers start off at the local level
and are bumped upwards as needed but can be called back if they are being
abused.

In other words rather than central government doling out minimal powers
downwards the situation would be reversed
central government only getting any powers that can best be utilised at
that level and having to be accountable for how they use them.
Exactly. Bottom-up, accountable, representative government.

I think a system similar to the one I’ve suggested would also encourage much more political involvement and combat apathy. If they knew that their input had a big effect at local, regional and national levels, wouldn’t more folks get involved, or actually vote?

Exactly. Bottom-up, accountable, representative government.

I think a system similar to the one I’ve suggested would also encourage much more political involvement and combat apathy. If they knew that their input had a big effect at local, regional and national levels, wouldn’t more folks get involved, or actually vote?

Well it seems a reasonable theory but until such changes were made
we have no real way to know.
It is certain that many who don't vote do claim to hold the view that
their input makes no difference.

Which is infuriating because at the levels that non voters are at now
you could start a completely new party and if you could get the non
voters to vote for that party it would be straight into government, and
in the UK that would be with a pretty large majority too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Llewdor
That's exactly what's wrong with democracy. The people are stupid.

and the elite are evil. give me stupid over evil any day.

Not all the elite are evil, but many are stupid.

Evil and stupid
very much not a good thing.

Thoughts? It is only a very rough idea, but whadd’ya think? Unwieldy? Scary? Wonderful?
I like it.

I think schools probably belong at that lowest level.

i think its fine in ireland. the only problem is people voting for the wrong thing. the wrong thing is what i dont vote for.

as far as regular old representative democracy goes, is there any particular reason why a tricameral legislature would automatically suck?

serious question, btw

serious question, btw
Each elected body behaves in a vote-seeking manner. Vote-seeking leads to larger government. The more elected bodies you have, the greater the pressure on your government to grow.

Each elected body behaves in a vote-seeking manner. Vote-seeking leads to larger government. The more elected bodies you have, the greater the pressure on your government to grow.

how many elected bodies does sweden have compared to the united states?

Each elected body behaves in a vote-seeking manner. Vote-seeking leads to larger government. The more elected bodies you have, the greater the pressure on your government to grow.

Not having to get voter approval would seem to be an ideal model
for no democracy at all which is fine

for the one person who has the power

less fine for absolutely everyone else

Getting rid of the representatives would be a good start.

how many elected bodies does sweden have compared to the united states?
I have no idea.

The question is, did the size of their government change when the added or removed elected bodies?

I'm an American so I'm basing my suggestions for improving representative democracy on the American political system. I'd have a proportional voting system for the Senate and a first past the post, with tranferable votes, system for the House of Representatives. This way the Senate is accountable to the nation as a whole and the House is accountable to each representative's district. Redistricting would be under the control of an independent nonpartisan organization. The Presidential canidates would be chosen by Coalitions or single parties.

The function of the Senate was originally twofold:
1. It gave the states equal representation on the Federal level. When the constitution was being written, the smaller states were afraid that they would lose any importance and voice in the government, hence the reason why each State has two representatives and the House was proportional.

2. It served as a body that housed political experience. History has proven time and time again that the masses tend heavily to panic at the first sign of danger. The Senate, serving six-year terms and originally elected by the state legislatures, served as a check against that kind of mass panic, represented by the House with its Congressmen elected every other year (to allow for the constantly shifting opinion of the people). In the UK, the House of Lords serves this purpose as well. The Seventeenth Amendment, however, destroyed this purpose (the Progressives meant well, but they still screwed up).

Given human nature, non-partisan systems are extremely rare, and relatively weak, and easy to sway, and to have it independent gives control of the government away to an unelected group, which precursors all kinds of problems.

. . . because the executive power is so concentrated to one person who is almost a monarch in spe; the sycophancy surrounding the office is testament to that . . .

Which is wrong, of course, and needs to be corrected. First on the list is the removal of Executive Decisions. Next comes the removal of the President's authority to deploy troops to foreign soil without consent of Congress.

I would nationalize the bank and postal system again, putting the former back under the control of the Department of the Treasury, and restoring the position of Postmaster General to the Cabinet. All cabinet level positions would be reduced to State, Defense, Attorney General, Interior, and the aforementioned two. I'd also give the responsibility of Veteran Affairs to the Interior.

I'd repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, for the reasons stated above.

No opinion on the Electoral College; I don't understand it enough, nor the reasoning on why it was put there.

I'd take a page from the Anti-Federalists and remove from Congress the authority to vote its own pay and give it to whatever body the person represents. Senator? His State's legislature. Congressman? His district's residents. Don't like what the bastard's doing, knock down his pay and see how he likes earning twenty dollars a week. That'll whip him right back into shape in no time.

I'd make it a legal requirement to pass a test before voting. The contents of the test would be clearly defined in an amendment and pertain to the individual's knowledge about the structure of the Federal government (States can do whatever they want). A person would also have to either be eighteen, or legally emancipated by his guardian before he was eligible to take the test.

Maybe more later, when I think about it. (And a run off vote? Hell, no; I want my vote to go to the guy I want in office, not the runner-up.)

...
I'd make it a legal requirement to pass a test before voting. The contents of the test would be clearly defined in an amendment and pertain to the individual's knowledge about the structure of the Federal government (States can do whatever they want). A person would also have to either be eighteen, or legally emancipated by his guardian before he was eligible to take the test.


You don't think this might be open to abuse and used to deny groups
whether by religion, race , gender, orientation or heck even politicial persuasion
their right to vote?



Maybe more later, when I think about it. (And a run off vote? Hell, no; I want my vote to go to the guy I want in office, not the runner-up.)

But what if the guy you most wanted was out of the running and you
had one guy you liked a little less than the one you were supporting and
one who stood for everything you opposed.

Wouldn't you want to be able to choose between them or am I
misunderstanding what is meant by run off voting.

You don't think this might be open to abuse and used to deny groups whether by religion, race , gender, orientation or heck even politicial persuasion their right to vote?

I should have mentioned it; the only requirements would be that the person was eighteen, with no bias of any kind.

But what if the guy you most wanted was out of the running and you had one guy you liked a little less than the one you were supporting and one who stood for everything you opposed.

Wouldn't you want to be able to choose between them or am I misunderstanding what is meant by run off voting.

Then I wouldn't vote for either of them. Choosing the devil you know over the devil you don't is still choosing the devil. I'd actually like a "none of the above" slot.

Run off voting is, as I understand it, when you vote, you pick two candidates. If the first doesn't win, then your vote goes to the other guy. Note that I may be wrong, and if I am, I'd like a link that fully explains it so that I may understand it better.

How about giving the entire population of the country the chance to vote on every issue. Text Vote plus A B or C to this premium rate number. We could get rid of taxes and just use the money from the phone calls to run the country.

humm... i came up with a system somewhere along the way.

NZ has a unicaramel [or however it's spelled] parliment. in theory the monarch [or their representative in the form of the governer general] is ment to act as a limit on their stupidity, as all laws have to be signed off on by the monarch or GG [though that's their only imput on the law making process. parliment comes up with it, the monarch either signs it or doesn't.]

the exective is ment to be chosen, by the monarch, from amongst the legislature, putting the best elected representative in each slot. the monarch is ment to take advice from the prime minister [this is due to the King/Queen of NZ also being king/queen of britain, australia, canada, and a few other places] but it's still ment to be the monarch's decision.

the reality is that the governer general just signs off on whoever can get the backing of the majority of parliment as PM, then signs off on their decisions as to who fills what slot. they also just rubber stamp every bit of idiocy to go through parliment.

we use a slightly modified version of the german Mixed Memeber Proportional system to electe our members of parliment. the problem is that people you vote for in your electorate don't always win [obviously] while the people you effectivly voted AGAINST could well end up in parliment anyway by way of the lists.

on the other hand, unlike FPP, it is no longer possible to form a majority government with a minority of the public's votes [never quite so bad as the potentual in the british system, i belive, but not far off].

the major flaw in representative democracy is that it leads to actions by those in power in the persute of re-election, NOT in the persute of the good for te nation or common people.

unpopular or stupid ideas get rushed through parliment and made law in a day in the face of huge public oposition, while popular, nessicary, and outright Demanded changes to the law take years, the result is useually a jumbled mess....

and it's all blamed on whoever was last in power.

we voted Labour in as the main party in government 3 terms in a row now. that's 9 years...

they're STILL trying to blame national for everything that's wrong, even with things that worked fine before theys tarted messing with it.

resulting conclusion: representative democracy is flawed without limiters and balances.

now, the westminster system is good at adjusting to the needs of governance... it's flaw, however, is that if a check remains unused for a time [due to lack of anyone trying to go aginst it, due to it's existance] it ceases to be effective, and then even to exist.


so, i propose this:

a unicaramel[sp] parliment, consisting of 110 elected representatives, 30 leaders [think nobels, but the exact workings are a bit different] and 10-20 minsters apointed by the monarch/presedent to run various departments [may not be the nobels, nor anyone who stood to be elected as a representative]

no elected representative or apointed minster may serve more than 1 consecutive term. [note that this means an elected representative is Ineligable to stand for a seat again for 4 years. he can't just stand for the next one in the cycle instead]

elected representatives represent a portion of the populations. leaders represent [variously] areas/states/tribes/duchies/counties/clans/other significant units of population.

all members have an equil vote.

elected reps serve a term of 4 years, and a quater of these seats are up for election every year [in a cycle, obviously]. minsters for 6. leaders serve for as long as they hold their position as lord/counciler/cheif/duke/count/whatever. weither this is for life, untill retirement, a fixed term, as long as they hold X % of stock, or whatever is relivant.

no formal parties exist.

there you have your representation of the wishes of the people, the needs of the land, and the government's capacity to carry it out.

seeking re-election becomes a non-issue, or at least a less significant one, as you Can't be re-elected imidialty. once your in, you'd best do a good job or pray like mad the other guy screws up, because you can't use the position to get Re-elected directly.

parliment would have to sign off on any new taxes, or changes to old ones, as well as any debts... how ever it would not have to sign off on expenditure.

this does require and active presedent/monarch/governer.

a speaker for the house would be apointed/elected from Outside of the legislature. the head of state would be required to sign off on all new laws. the ministers would have to sign off on new reuglations etc, and would be held responcible for them.

i also propose that a national government [including as it does executive, legislative, and judicial] has as it's role the following:

national level infrastructure.
national level infostructure.
forigen affaires
defence
legislation
law enforcement and the maintainance of order.

and that all else is the domain of the local government or the individual/entity in question. health and education Definatly land in the local area, and taxes and levies would be dependant on who needed money for what.

... there was more to this idea and it was better thought out than this, but i lost track.

in it's origional form, this idea was though up with NZ in mind, fufilling treaty obligations, giving fair representation to the people, encouraging sound governance, etc.

now, appart from the fact that it's disorginzied, any thoughs on this?

... it should be noticed that i have been called, variously [by the same person] just about everything from an anarchist to a facist... though oddly never a republican nor a communist. [personaly, i'm a monarchist.]

Getting rid of the representatives would be a good start.

What he said.

Keeping to the limitations of representative democracy, the best systems would include:

1. Making the executive branch servile to the legislature.
2. Proportional representation.
3. Bicameralism.
4. Decentralization.
5. Short terms.
6. No term limits, but lots of opportunities for recall.

Then I wouldn't vote for either of them. Choosing the devil you know over the devil you don't is still choosing the devil. I'd actually like a "none of the above" slot.

Run off voting is, as I understand it, when you vote, you pick two candidates. If the first doesn't win, then your vote goes to the other guy. Note that I may be wrong, and if I am, I'd like a link that fully explains it so that I may understand it better.

Try this
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/muppets/muppets.htm

Try this
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/muppets/muppets.htm

Dead link, and one that insults my intelligence.

Dead link, and one that insults my intelligence.

Works fine for me in IE what browser are you using?

It seems to do what you requested in providing an explanation of run off voting
I am not sure how that insults your intelligence but apologise wholeheartedly in any case.

I think that giving direct power to the people should, at least, remove corruption, but putting the independent genius and village idiot, who can be easily swayed, could turn out to be a problem (destroying corruption doesn't stop its source, if, for example, some evil multinational company would want people to vote for their good, they would try to change people opinion through mass media). But, still it might work out, through education and laws.

Works fine for me in IE what browser are you using?

It seems to do what you requested in providing an explanation of run off voting
I am not sure how that insults your intelligence but apologise wholeheartedly in any case.

Firefox. I only use IE for Windows Updates.

The thing about I found insulting was that it appears to be explained by the Muppets. I am not eight. I am an adult in every legal sense.

No opinion on the Electoral College; I don't understand it enough, nor the reasoning on why it was put there.
Same reason as for the Senators. The President was not supposed to be elected by the people, but by the states' legislatures, thus avoiding costly campaigns full of accusations and emotional manipulation of the electorate.

Run off voting is, as I understand it, when you vote, you pick two candidates. If the first doesn't win, then your vote goes to the other guy. Note that I may be wrong, and if I am, I'd like a link that fully explains it so that I may understand it better.
No, that's not how it works in most places. When no candidate gets a majority of the votes, the top two contenders face each other again. The votes are cleared and you get to vote again for the lesser of two evils, or not vote if you don't want to.

How about giving the entire population of the country the chance to vote on every issue. Text Vote plus A B or C to this premium rate number. We could get rid of taxes and just use the money from the phone calls to run the country.

The problem that would create is lack of real constructive aurgument on the issue, as well as an influx in contradictory laws. It woulld be difficult to classify anything as firmly decided.

Same reason as for the Senators. The President was not supposed to be elected by the people, but by the states' legislatures, thus avoiding costly campaigns full of accusations and emotional manipulation of the electorate.

Nah, that can't be it. The Senators were elected by the states legislatures. The people directly elect the Electorate. In the case of a tie in the College, the House gets to decide who becomes the President, then followed by the Senate if there's a tie. It would be the other way around if what you're saying were true.

No, that's not how it works in most places. When no candidate gets a majority of the votes, the top two contenders face each other again. The votes are cleared and you get to vote again for the lesser of two evils, or not vote if you don't want to.

Sounds expensive and time consuming, not to mention that it's unconstitutional and the process I mentioned above would have to be axed.

Nah, that can't be it. The Senators were elected by the states legislatures. The people directly elect the Electorate. In the case of a tie in the College, the House gets to decide who becomes the President, then followed by the Senate if there's a tie. It would be the other way around if what you're saying were true.

Back then it was the legislatures that elected their representatives to the College, just like they elected their representatives to the Senate.

Sounds expensive and time consuming, not to mention that it's unconstitutional and the process I mentioned above would have to be axed.
It is. The US system is different to most other countries that have direct voting instead, so a run off vote is not necessarily a good idea. On the other hand, because so much power has gone from the States to the people and the original system has changed so much, one wonders if the old process is still necessary, including the Electoral College.

Back then it was the legislatures that elected their representatives to the College, just like they elected their representatives to the Senate.

The President and Vice President are chosen by Electors chosen as the state legislatures direct. The Constitution does not limit how a state may choose its electors, but in practice, at least since 1824, all states have chosen electors by popular vote. Each state may choose as many Electors as it has Representatives and Senators representing it in Congress. (Under the Twenty-third Amendment, the District of Columbia may also choose Electors.) No Senators, Representatives or federal officers may become Electors.

Turns out we're both right. Well that makes things difficult.

It is. The US system is different to most other countries that have direct voting instead, so a run off vote is not necessarily a good idea. On the other hand, because so much power has gone from the States to the people and the original system has changed so much, one wonders if the old process is still necessary, including the Electoral College.

Which is why I advocate returning powers to the states that was originally theirs, first of them being election of Senators.

Firefox. I only use IE for Windows Updates.

The thing about I found insulting was that it appears to be explained by the Muppets. I am not eight. I am an adult in every legal sense.

I probably shouldn't comment and believe me I mean no offense
but who cares if the muppets are used as an example.
I thought it was only the very young who feel insecure enough to
be offended by things they believe to be too young for them.

My own preference would be to not have political parties as I believe
they exert an antidemocratic influence.
as in when for example in the British or Irish system the party whips
basically cajole or pressurise, threaten, lets face it; bully,
party members into supporting something
that the representative him or herself does not support even when
the people he or she represents do not support the proposition either.