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.
Now thanks for not proving your point about how they are identical.
I should have clarified: ideal structure of government. Politics can refer to both the ideal structure of government and the ideal policy that government should have.
I should have clarified: ideal structure of government. Politics can refer to both the ideal structure of government and the ideal policy that government should have.
Stop focusing on that. I don't care.
Just prove that extending the powers of the Judicial Branch over the Legislative Branch is identical to having more parties and more point of views in Congress identical.
I am 21 spank you kindly Kevin, I just have a very low tolerance for stupid people like yourself.
Either way, your immaturity is very surprising. It actually makes it worse that you are 21 and act like you are still in High School. You have done nothing to contribute to this thread and the only thing you have confronted me on is your age.
Now, you still have not proven that this thread and parties are identical, so I must assume you cannot support it. Now stop spamming this thread since you have explicitly implied that you cannot and will not support your statements.
hey, we just had this in school, in dutch, subtopic fallacies. it's called a personal attack, and reknowed for not being connributing to a discussion!
An ad hominem argument is fallacious because it uses the personal attribute of the arguer as a way to try and invalidate the argument - IE "E1337's arguments are invalid because he does not act his age". Kevin's confronting him on acting immature, not using this alleged immaturity as a way to try to invalidate E1337's arguments. Either way, it doesn't contribute to the discussion, but it's not quite a personal attack fallacy.
[quote]Yes. A personal attack is a personal attack is a personal attack. However, there's a difference between a personal attack and an ad hominem argument.
Of course he mentioned :
A personal attack is a personal attack. However, there's a difference between a personal attack a hominem argument.
I agree. As you should know, you may not insult someone on the forums. I supose u should read the rules and guidelines again ( or in ur case I think for the first time).
