A Different Political System - Do you think it could work?
Sorry if I keep bringing (what I think are) thought provoking questions. I think this forum needs some variety, but maybe it's just me. I am also a big nerd.
Imagine the following undemocratic system: country has two parties, one left wing, one right wing. The president of the country, who will be a person nominated by the parties, has to give way to his opposition after 4 years (alternating is mandatory, no election process). There is a congress, comprised by 2 representatives from each state, or province, or whatever, one left, one right. For any law to pass, obviously, you need at least 50% + 1 vote.
Do you think a system like that could work? Advantages, disadvsantages, pitfalls, etc? Would it bring more continuity, and long term strategic thinking, instead of shorttermism, or would it just mean nothing will ever be accomplished due to constant stalemates? Why?
No, it would still be controlled by genocidal pedophile elites
How do you make sure the parties stay in their assigned lane?
You mean, right turning left, and/or left turning right? Haven't thought about that lol, maybe it should be in the constitution that the country will have a left wing and a right wing party, and they both HAVE to follow the left or right wing general ideals.
My hidden goal with the system, that I also have not mentioned yet, was forcing a system where neither party would ever be incentivised to depart too far from the center, because radical ideas will (in theory?) either never pass a congress that is 50/50, or they will be reversed (in theory?) soon after the next president take over, so attempting it is futile.
Why do I think the above is a good idea? I don't, not necessarily. I just think extreme polarization is terrible, and I am reflecting about a system where that would be impossible.
As I said in the OP, I was also looking for continuity and giving the best chance for long term projects to actually exist. Without having to resort to a dictatorship haha, I think my suggestion would sound better for the masses.
In truth, having a ruling class of genocidal pedophile elites (to use Victor's framing, which I dont necessarily agree with) is probably more a pre-requisite to a functional ruling class than an impediment.
Sorry if I keep bringing (what I think are) thought provoking questions. I think this forum needs some variety, but maybe it's just me. I am also a big nerd.Imagine the following undemocratic system: country has two parties, one left wing, one right wing. The president of the country, who will be a person nominated by the parties, has to give way to his opposition after 4 years
I think the process by which the two parties nominate their candidates would be important. Also think that it matters how population is distributed across states. part of the problem with the US today is that California & Wyoming have equal Senate representation while having a 50:1 population ratio. A system which claims it is dedicated to "the people" should reflect the will of the people.
I would like to see a process similar to the NCAA tournament. In a country as large as the USA, we could sort the country into 512 regional voting districts of equal population size.
Within each of those voting districts, you have ranked choice voting to select a member to go into the tournament. This means that the eventual winner has had to win favor at a local level.
Each subsequent round will be the result of a head to head debate process and vote among the party members in that region. The eventual winner has to win 10 rounds and become's the party's nominee in the general election.
I think the process by which the two parties nominate their candidates would be important. Also think that it matters how population is distributed across states. part of the problem with the US today is that California & Wyoming have equal Senate representation while having a 50:1 population ratio. A system which claims it is dedicated to "the people" should reflect the will o
One problem I see with voting in general, is how it ends up being just a competition. See how you used the word winner (and there will be a loser). So, in the end, a system like that makes no difference whether the winner won by just a few votes, or by a big difference. But the degree of legitimacy is totally different.
In my country, our current president got elected by a very marginal difference from his competitor. He saw how divided the country was, promised a government of "union". Do you think he ever did it? Ofc not, they never do. They always assume what you said. They won, so they are entitled to pursue their policies for the entire duration of their terms (subject to some restrictions, but still...) .
I can think of a way for this system to work, although I do not think it will ever be implemented. In very polarized elections, where the winner got elected by a small margin, he should be forced to form a government with the loser, 50/50, and pursue (trying to conciliate things, with a lot of talking hehe) 50/50 both policies. Only this way, the 50% - 1 losers in the general population will really calm down IMHO (or maybe not 😀 ).
How are the members of the Congress selected?
I think in this case it would have to be popular vote, for the thing to have some legitimacy. Probably a state level election where leftists choose the left representative, and rightists choose the right one. They can only vote for one party.
I don't see how this would work in practice. In a heavily GOP state, there would a huge movement to get a decent number of "rightists" to register as "leftists" and then elect a "leftist" candidate who in fact is a "rightist." In other words, what Didace said.
I don't think your proposed solution to require the representative to follow party "ideals" is a solution because (i) that would be hard to define and impossible to enforce; and (ii) it would defeat the whole purpose of your 50% plus one vote.
Sorry if I keep bringing (what I think are) thought provoking questions. I think this forum needs some variety, but maybe it's just me. I am also a big nerd.Imagine the following undemocratic system: country has two parties, one left wing, one right wing. The president of the country, who will be a person nominated by the parties, has to give way to his opposition after 4 years
I don’t like this idea for many reasons but a big one is that I just don’t find the concept of perfect compromise politics to be workable. I agree that you need compromises some of the time and that moderation is good, but at other times there just clearly is a party that’s for the moment and we don’t need for them to “give way” out of a sense of compromise.
For instance, when Abe Lincoln was assassinated and his pro-South VP became president, he completely ruined the progress that was being built up until then and set our country back 100 years.
Or when FDR became president, imagine him having to abdicate for a Republican president who would have undid many of the reforms that he instituted.
Also just a more practical problem is that having two representatives from each state only without a proportionally representative legislative body will give way too much power to smaller states. It’s already like that right now but it will just become even more pronounced in those circumstances. Why should Rhode Island have vastly more power than Texas or California?
I don't see how this would work in practice. In a heavily GOP state, there would a huge movement to get a decent number of "rightists" to register as "leftists" and then elect a "leftist" candidate who in fact is a "rightist." In other words, what Didace said.I don't think your proposed solution to require the representative to follow party "ideals" is a solution because (i)
Sorry, the 50%+1 vote I mentioned was an example for what I consider to be the worst type of democracy. Humble opinion. The system I mentioned in the OP involves no elections for president, right and left have to alternate, always, after their terms end.
Your first paragraph is a problem, I admit. Open for inputs, if you and others are interested in thinking a way to make it work. My suggestion is people having to register beforehand, as left or right, and it having some sort of testing (no indoctrination, far from this please 😀 but they have to write a 1000+ text on their political ideas and how thwy relate to the left or right ideas of the country, demonstrating not only that they understand what the chosen party defends, but also that they can communicate clearly). Maybe in this world of AI, and my cynical self thinking something like this would already cut out a lot of potential voters, and it being done let's say no later than 2 years before the next elections, it looks doable in my mind.
I think this could solve, at least partially, the issue with a heavily right wing state. Last but not least, for the left party for example, the potential right wing spy would have to actually join his nemesis party, and hopefully this would not be so easy 😀
Btw, all of this is a speculation about this "new" proposed system.
Cheers
I don’t like this idea for many reasons but a big one is that I just don’t find the concept of perfect compromise politics to be workable. I agree that you need compromises some of the time and that moderation is good, but at other times there just clearly is a party that’s for the moment and we don’t need for them to “give way” out of a sens
The last part I 100% agree, and I have no solution.
You are right, but maybe if presidents know beforehand they will have to give way to their "counters" after the term ends, they will never veer so to the right, or left, or do anything so drastic that someone would undo it after they are gone. Other times, fine, it might be that you need drastic measures, like to try to solve a great depression. You still need the congress, and if it passes, the odds to me look pretty good that the next president will have a hard time undoing it and making it pass again.
Sorry, the 50%+1 vote I mentioned was an example for what I consider to be the worst type of democracy. Humble opinion. The system I mentioned in the OP involves no elections for president, right and left have to alternate, always, after their terms end.Your first paragraph is a problem, I admit. Open for inputs, if you and others are interested in thinking a way to make it wor
I am very much opposed to making 1000 words essays on political views a requirement in order for people to participate in deciding how they are governed.
Good question.
Another good question is how elections are financed. The problem we have in the US today is that candidates who don't appeal to the wealthy elite don't get competitive airtime and an opportunity to debate.
We are currently treated to a process by which millionaire candidates are ask questions by millionaire media personalities. There is almost no working class participation in the electoral process.
When there is a working class hero like Bernie Sanders who threatens to break through ..... how do the Democrats respond ?
They include an Asian progressive (Andrew Yang) with a niche left wing policy like UBI to siphon off votes from Bernie.
They include a fake progressive woman (Liz Warren) to siphon off progressive voters who want a woman. Despite her phony representation of policy simpatico with Bernie, she doesn't hesitate to try and create a false misogynist perception of him (his feminist credentials are far superior to hers) and refuses to shake his hand after a nationally televised debate.
They include a fake progressive gay man (Pete Buttigieg) to siphon off gay voters who would otherwise support Bernie.
They (Pelosi and co) schedule a bogus impeachment hearing to prevent Bernie from being able to participate in campaigning in the most critical period leading up to the Iowa caucuses.
They hire a bunch of ex-Clinton acolytes to be the vote tabulators for the Iowa caucus who purposely mislead the public about the outcome of those caucuses on election night. They don't even bother to hide their nefarious intentions ..... calling the group Shadow, Inc. LOL.
They use the most prominent black politicians (Obama & Clyburn) to urge black voters to support Biden, the senator arguably most responsible for the mass incarceration of black citizens. Obama calls Bernie "comrade" in an obvious attempt to invoke something akin to a red scare in the voting public.
They organize the simultaneous exodus of candidates and communal endorsement of Biden while a billionairess (Jurvetson) pumps tens of millions of dollars into Liz Warren's campaign to keep her campaign afloat and siphon off voters from Bernie on Super Tuesday.
So the question is ..... how do we create a process which isn't so easily and transparently corrupted by money ??
My suggestion is people having to register beforehand, as left or right, and it having some sort of testing (no indoctrination, far from this please 😀 but they have to write a 1000+ text on their political ideas and how thwy relate to the left or right ideas of the country, demonstrating not only that they understand what the chosen party defends, but also that they can commun
I think the most charitable interpretation of this is that it is really just telling people to pick a team and write why you love it. Which is horrendously dangerous as we see it happening now.
Then you're adding in the meritocracy aspect of it by violating voting rights by not meeting a desired set of standards that you created? Why do you get to do that? And who judges these 1000 word essays? Do they work for your team or your opponents? Nut Nut, this sounds like its right up your alley.
Besides this likely becoming a gateway to some serious authoritarian corruption and manipulation, imagine if we had something like this in place for healthcare, where you had to write a 1000 word story about who you avoid all of the dangerous foods that could lead to diabetes in order to receive treatment. What would those essays look like and does it matter that my diet changes over the years or my living conditions change?
I think the most charitable interpretation of this is that it is really just telling people to pick a team and write why you love it. Which is horrendously dangerous as we see it happening now. Then you're adding in the meritocracy aspect of it by violating voting rights by not meeting a desired set of standards that you created? Why do you get to do that? And who judges th
It's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize formula72.
Much harder to stand up and declare how you would have the world be run were it up to you.
As far as your comment about "a gateway to some serious authoritarian corruption and manipulation" ...... I have a reflection on that ....
It seems you are referring to those things as future outcomes with the implication that we have not always lived under those conditions. I'm wondering if you can point to a moment in history which was free of authoritarian corruption and manipulation ?? Are we not living in that paradigm on a perpetual basis ?
It's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize formula72. Much harder to stand up and declare how you would have the world be run were it up to you. As far as your comment about "a gateway to some serious authoritarian corruption and manipulation" ...... I have a reflection on that ....It seems you are referring to those things as future outcomes with the implication that we h
I don’t believe the world should be run by any one person or ideology. No single individual or governing entity is capable enough or wise enough to speak on behalf of everyone, everywhere.
Yes, corruption exists now, and yes, history is riddled with it. But let’s not pretend just yet that we’re already at the worst point possible. What we have today, flawed as it is, is still far less corrupt than a system where people are required to submit 1,000 word political essays just to satisfy the ideological curiosity of self appointed gatekeepers like Peace@Love and Nut Nut. That kind of demand isn’t any kind of path to understanding, it's a thinly veiled tool of coercion which opens the door to shaming, censoring, blacklisting, and punishing people for not thinking “correctly.” That’s not dialogue, it’s ideological profiling.
. What we have today, flawed as it is, is still far less corrupt than a system where people are required to submit 1,000 word political essays just to satisfy the ideological curiosity of self appointed gatekeepers like Peace@Love and Nut Nut..
Is there any way to appeal to the moderators here when participants take the liberty to make accusations of other participants without a shred of evidence ???
Do I encourage a requirement that people who wish to serve in government must sign an oath that they are not dedicated to the realization of apocalyptic prophecy that entails life on Earth being destroyed ? Absolutely. I would stand up on a very visible platform and dare anyone to argue against that requirement. I don't want those people lurking in the shadows. I want the public to have an earnest debate about the value of such beliefs in a public servant.
But that's not a 1,000 word essay. It's a yes or no question.
And I dare you to make an argument about the reasons such a requirement might be unwise. The floor is yours formula72 ...... be the spokesperson for the privacy rights of the intentional planet destroyers.
Do I encourage a requirement that people who wish to serve in government must sign an oath that they are not dedicated to the realization of apocalyptic prophecy that entails life on Earth being destroyed ? Absolutely. I would stand up on a very visible platform and dare anyone to argue against that requirement.
Well you might find yourself facing about 7 billion people willing to challenge that "very visible platform" that you're so eager to stand on.
If your political vision starts by dividing people into acceptable and unacceptable thinkers before a single policy is even discussed, that’s not strength, it’s control. And the moment we begin policing private belief as a condition for public participation, we’ve already abandoned the democracy you've previously claimed to defend.
Why don't you share your suggestions on what should be done to the people who disagree with your stated goals?
When there is a working class hero like Bernie Sanders who threatens to break through ..... how do the Democrats respond ? They include an Asian progressive (Andrew Yang) with a niche left wing policy like UBI to siphon off votes from Bernie.They include a fake progressive woman (Liz Warren) to siphon off progressive voters who want a woman. Despite her phony representation of
There is a whole lot of delusion in what you wrote above.
