Well, I know this is a post from another thread but I just want to see where this conversation goes and try not to spam the other one.
Anyway, yes, a two party system is efficient. At the same time, you are sacrificing equal representation.
A multiple party system offers equal representation, but at the same time, you are sacrificing efficiency.
There is a trade off between the two. Now, how do we make a system that is both efficient AND offers equal representation?
I believe Belgium has a Parliament where the Executive Branch is connected to the Legislative Branch. Whenever the coalition of parties holds the majority, the prime minister or president changes.
Now, in our system, it isn't. If the Republicans hold the majority, there could still be a Democratic president.
Now, to handle efficiency, there still is a problem. Now, I am not so sure why in Belgium it is so difficult to hold a majority of more than 50%, but there system will be a bit different. The coalitions need at least 50% of the parties to vote, now that will be difficult. If we have parties' interests included in the bill, and then we have each INDIVIDUAL delegator to vote on it, we might have a majority.
If there cannot be more than 60% in favour, and there is no compromise between each side, then what can be done is the Judicial Branch decides it. This is my "radical" solution to the problem. Of course there will have to be balancing act in this process. If the President determines that it will be impossible to get Congress to agree and pass the law, the Supreme Court may do that. The Supreme Court can turn the request down if it chooses to.
I know that the Supreme Court's only responsibility is to determine if a law is Constitutional, but if they have the ability to impeach, then they COULD have the job to settle Congress' disputes.
This could also be bad since it may not be what the people want, but if they vote for the president, and the president elects the Justices, then they are kind of choosing the Justices themselves but through a middle man, easing the pressures of the Justices for reelection.
Another "radical" idea is to have a change of Justices every sixteen years. That way somebody who has been on the seat since Nixon who still thinks he was innocent, wouldn't be a part of ideals of the current nation.
So to sum it up:
Congress will be divided into parties so that no single party can hold a majority, making equal representation more visible. If Congress cannot form a majority in favour of a bill, then the president may ask the Supreme Court (only once) to decide what the final decision on the bill will be. Justices only serve for sixteen years (four presidential terms). If the Supreme Court says no, then the decision is final UNTIL those four presidential terms are over (Justices cannot be elected more than once for the Supreme Court).
So that is how it would work. All three branches are relayed to make a law final. This would solve the problem of efficiency and equal representation in the lawmaking process, as well as having some positive side affects. It would help the Supreme Court reflect the more recent views on old cases.
Please keep the debate light. Just point any flaws there might be. I might change the idea so that it all fits, but still try and understand it as much as possible. Just skip to the last two paragraphs if you want to know the basics.
Instead of calling this spam and just try to get a +1 post, how about you actually talk about it? That is about an idea of having a more diverse Congress, this is about extending the powers of the Judicial and Executive branch concerning Congress. You didn't even have to read all of it, in the top I said I didn't want spam to enter the other thread.
Just write to the other thread - that's where the discussion is!
Well make your own post then. Don't copy/paste from another topic. The topic is "Radical ideas" but you don't even give us anywhere to start. The writing that you posted had nothing to do with "radical ideas" either. It was just describing different political systems.
Post something in one thread - leads to A Post the same thing in another thread - leads to ... B?
Create an original thread if you want to talk about something else.
Post in one thread - A Post in another thread - A
I'm trying to keep A of out of the thread that is about B (parties).
Well make your own post then. Don't copy/paste from another topic. The topic is "Radical ideas" but you don't even give us anywhere to start. The writing that you posted had nothing to do with "radical ideas" either. It was just describing different political systems.
Well, what I was hoping is you guys would see any flaws in it and I wanted to know what you think about it.
But "radical" sounds oh soo original. It's new - it's the same post reinvented itself!
I made the mistake of posting that in the other thread, but upon retrospection, I should've made it in here. The other thread was about Parties, not about adding powers to the Supreme Court. It is "radical" because I know many people will disagree because it is such a big change, and people don't like change.
A multiple party system offers equal representation, but at the same time, you are sacrificing efficiency.
I don't believe that government needs to adhere to standards of efficiency, so this seems irrelevant.
My "radical" idea is to have severe limitations on the power of government, limiting it to only military and possibly police force / fire department / stuff like that. Basically, a Night Watchman state. This is extremely "efficient" because government has only a limited circle of influence.
I don't believe that government needs to adhere to standards of efficiency, so this seems irrelevant.
What about in times of need? Don't you want a government that listens to you and can make your ideas happen?
My "radical" idea is to have severe limitations on the power of government, limiting it to only military and possibly police force / fire department / stuff like that. Basically, a Night Watchman state. This is extremely "efficient" because government has only a limited circle of influence.
That's cool. What I am talking about is efficiency and equal representation. The government could be Libertarian, Democratic, Republican, hell, even Communist, but what I am asking is for you to give me your opinion how government could be more efficient.
Yes, you said by having very limited power, they really only are concerned with fewer things, but what about things concerning the management of the police, army, and "stuff like that?" Do you think it is fine the way it is? What about times where we need the government to step in? What if Congress is too slow to solve the problem. We need an efficient government no matter what.
His age is irrelevant. It is actually not that clear what you're supposed to talk about, and also Kevin, both threads are about what the structure of government should be, and they are closely related.
What I am saying is that by judging from his posts, he is younger than what he says he is, or he is just really immature. I am 16, but I don't expect a 19 year old to call me retarded.
Kevin, both threads are about what the structure of government should be, and they are closely related.
Politics deals with government. Does that mean every thread about the government is the same? Death Penalty and Abortion are controversial, but are they the same? They are related.
