NationStates Jolt Archive

What if...

1. The majority needed to pass legislation was diffrent from the majority needed to form a government. IE to form a government you would need a clear majority of the seats (over 50%) but to pass legislation you would need a more qualified majority (60% for instance).

2. The ability to put forward a bill in the house was widened so that it was relevent to your majority in the house (If party A holds 60% of the seats it may put forward 60% of the bills, if party B holds 30% it puts forward 30% of the bills etc). The only problem with this currently is I cannot see how to divey up the legislation, the only practical way I can see of doing it is in time.

I don't see the point for any of those.

Why?

The first one because it means that you cannot just have an ellected dictatorship, where if everyone toes the party line you get what you want. It means you have to include more discussion

The second makes government more repesntative, and enables those who dont vote for the governing party to have their views represented

The first one because it means that you cannot just have an ellected dictatorship, where if everyone toes the party line you get what you want. It means you have to include more discussion

The second makes government more repesntative, and enables those who dont vote for the governing party to have their views represented

What if I have a party that gets 80% of the seats? Then I can get whatever I want passed as legislation, right?

Just sounds like something to slow government down

Just sounds like something to slow government down

But would that be a bad thing? Half the time elected governments change things just to be seen to be doing something. If it takes longer to make legislation maybe there wouldn't be as much "filler".