Now That That's Behind Us!

Everything that might be happening in our world today, tomorrow, or yesterday.

Moderator:Æron

Ankaris
Posts:471
Joined:Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:20 am
Location:Locked In My Study

Postby Ankaris » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:26 am

Well, one phone call to concede, and Bush wins again.<br><br>This we know.<br><br>But, having witnessed the whole thing go down, how do you feel it went? The winner notwithstanding, did you think the election went smoothly, or is it far too close to call for your tastes?<br><br>With that question rumbling about your heads, I throw the floor open to...<br><br>The Great Overhaul Of The Democratic Process!<br><br>Let's gather some wisdom. If you have an idea about how to change the USA's, or any other country's, electoral process, post it! And it needn't be sensible <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--><br><br>If it's discussed by the rest of us, huzzah! If it simply gets lost in other posts, at least we've had the chance to read it.<br><br><!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--><br><br>For example, one thing that always irks me is the first past the post system that most tend to use.<br><br>It baffles me how anyone with a low majority can claim to represent their country. I mean, even with a 66 / 33% split, that's still one entire third of your country that didn't want you in there, let alone abstainers. But a third'd be about my limit. One interesting idea would be in the case of such a split, or lower, you take the top three candidates and have them share power in a coalition.
Oh dear lord sig is fubar. o_o

User avatar
Septimius Severus
Posts:308
Joined:Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:52 pm
Location:College Station, Texas
Contact:

Postby Septimius Severus » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:47 pm

On the Federal government:<br><br>It may be obvious that I have a fascination with Rome. This is partly because the Roman Republic lasted and remained stable for so long. I think a version of the Republic with changes to avoid elitism could serve the US well.<br><br>The civil service: no one need be elected. Hire people based on qualifications, and ensure competitive salaries so as to avoid ending up with morons running the bureaucracy.<br><br>The Presidency: In Rome, two senators were chosen every year to serve as the Consuls. In the Empire, the executive power was expanded and usurped by the Caesar. I like the idea of a dual executive, but to avoid deadlock, I think one should be subordinate to the other. I also believe that the president, liek the best emperors, should be an outsider, and so distanced from senatorial politics. So this is my idea-- the two most popular candidates become President and Vice president, with the most popular being president, and the second being VP. The Vice Presidency would be much more powerful than it is now. For example, the VP would have the power of veto. This would make it much more difficult to pass laws, which believe is a good thing. If the VP succeeded a dead President, however, there would be a great deal of assassination attempts. So on election, a President would name a successor should he die or otherwise be unable to hold office. This would require the approval of a majority of the Senate. This is similar in a way to Diocletian's tetrarchy, with two Augusti and two Caesari. This successor must not be currently in the Senate or a former Senator, though he may be in the House of Representatives. Presidents and Vice Presidents would not be allowed to persue consecutive terms, and no more than two terms in total.* <br><br>The Senate: The old guard. Senators would hold their positions for life, or until they retired or in the case of impeachment. Upon the death or retirement of a senator, the state legislature would choose a replacement according to state law. The State legistlatures would also hold the power to remove Senators from office with a 2/3 majority. Senators would be forbidden to own stock in public companies, or to run for any other office so long as they held their position. This would serve to at once distance them from the general population, and to make them a sort of keel-- senators would maintain some sort of constancy in the government, preventing wild swings to either side of the political spectrum.<br><br>The House of Representatives: The voice of the people. This is the branch I would change the least. All representatives would face reelection every two years, and would be free of the restrictions placed on Senators. They would serve as an answer to the senate, preventing what would necesarily become a very elite club from turning into an oligarchy.<br><br>The Supreme Court: Appointed with consensus between president and VP, and approved by 2/3 majority of senate. Same rules apply for them as now.<br><br>* Grover Cleveland did this.
¡Mueran todos los reyes!

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts:2271
Joined:Wed May 19, 2004 10:04 pm

Postby Steve the Pocket » Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:42 pm

<!--QuoteBegin-Septimius Severus+Nov 4 2004, 11:47 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Septimius Severus @ Nov 4 2004, 11:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> So this is my idea-- the two most popular candidates become President and Vice president, with the most popular being president, and the second being VP.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Originally this was how the electorate in the US worked. But they changed it because political parties made it so the top two candidates were completely opposed to each other. But that's not really a bad thing from my POV -- consider, after all, that our government seems to work best when the President's party has a minority in Congress, for instance. Perhaps if there were some provision to make sure that always happened...<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Septimius Severus+Nov 4 2004, 11:47 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Septimius Severus @ Nov 4 2004, 11:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Presidents and Vice Presidents would not be allowed to persue consecutive terms, and no more than two terms in total.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>That's a decent idea. I don't know many people here who would disagree with that...right now, anyway. <!--emo&:rolleyes:--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... lleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo--> <br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Septimius Severus+Nov 4 2004, 11:47 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Septimius Severus @ Nov 4 2004, 11:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Senators would hold their positions for life, or until they retired or in the case of impeachment. Upon the death or retirement of a senator, the state legislature would choose a replacement according to state law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>I'm not sure I like the idea of senators holding office for life. But the being-appointed-by-the-states thing was originally in the Constitution too. The idea was that while Representatives represent the people, Senators represent the states. I'm not really sure why they thought this was important.

User avatar
Septimius Severus
Posts:308
Joined:Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:52 pm
Location:College Station, Texas
Contact:

Postby Septimius Severus » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:16 pm

The purpose of having the Senators elected for life (or until they really screw up) is to ensure that they aren't controlled by the polls. The Senators would make decisions based on their good experience and extensive knowledge of the law and the constitution. They would also serve as a moderating influence, discouraging the radicalism that a system based purely on public opinion would suffer. They would also be a check on the sort of demagogues that dominated the direct democracy of Athens. <br><br>Of course, if only these Senators had power, it would eventually become a system by which the Senate did what was good for the Senate. That's why I'd like to see the House as a more populist organization. Perhaps even the House should be elected in a non-partisan way, such as how Senators are elected in Louisiana.<br><br>Basically, exaggerate the existing differences between the House and the Senate.
¡Mueran todos los reyes!

User avatar
Septimius Severus
Posts:308
Joined:Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:52 pm
Location:College Station, Texas
Contact:

Postby Septimius Severus » Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:29 pm

Well, <i>I</i> thought this was an interesting topic.
¡Mueran todos los reyes!

User avatar
Tavis
Moderator (retired)
Posts:2866
Joined:Mon Oct 13, 2003 5:10 pm
Location:Pasadena, TX
Contact:

Postby Tavis » Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:10 pm

Yes, it is quite fascinating. Unfortunately, I didn't think I had anything special to add here. You did give this a lot of thought though, and that alone has been great to see.


Return to “World Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests