If you like nations taking political nosedives.B.Schuss wrote:
in that case, compulsory voting sounds like a good start.
How about this - instead of electing a party to govern you elect your individual representatives, as before, but in addition to electing a president you directly elect all of the offices beneath him or her - minister for finance, minister for health, minister for foreign affairs, minister for defence, which could presumably come from a hotchpotch of parties. It might even consign partisan politics to the dustbin too as politicians would have no option but to strike compromises.
This is nice idea since it would help reduce crony-ism.CameronPoe wrote:
How about this - instead of electing a party to govern you elect your individual representatives, as before, but in addition to electing a president you directly elect all of the offices beneath him or her - minister for finance, minister for health, minister for foreign affairs, minister for defence, which could presumably come from a hotchpotch of parties. It might even consign partisan politics to the dustbin too as politicians would have no option but to strike compromises.
a problem i see with it is that the public would have to become way more involved in voting and knowing about who they are voting for. with the exisitng system, we already get nearly a hundred page booklet of fine print detailing each candidate's position, pros-cons, etc. Also, we have tons of ballot measures to vote on at the state and local level (shall we build this bridge, levy a tax to help education costs, etc). Now if we expand it to what you are saying, it will be several hundred of pages to read and actually understand. legal-ese is not easy to understand (at least for me). reading those ballot measures is very hard language to understand. i guess education might be a way to remedy it as well as push by media to encourage participation. voter apathy here in US is kind of a problem.
i like the idea though.
More of a good idea than not. I think the number of positions that would have to be voted for would make a lot of people vote a straight party ballot, just to make things easier.CameronPoe wrote:
How about this - instead of electing a party to govern you elect your individual representatives, as before, but in addition to electing a president you directly elect all of the offices beneath him or her - minister for finance, minister for health, minister for foreign affairs, minister for defence, which could presumably come from a hotchpotch of parties. It might even consign partisan politics to the dustbin too as politicians would have no option but to strike compromises.
I've often thought we could replace the Senate with a system similar to what Cam is proposing. Instead of electing a second set of regional representatives, why not instead have Senators of subjects -- like defense, finance, and the environment?
Because instead of giving everyone a little power in a lot of areas, you're giving people a lot of power in a few areas. The second, while more productive, is a lot more risky. There is always a trade-off.Turquoise wrote:
I've often thought we could replace the Senate with a system similar to what Cam is proposing. Instead of electing a second set of regional representatives, why not instead have Senators of subjects -- like defense, finance, and the environment?
True, but I think several Senators (like Ted Stevens) have shown their ignorance on many topics. We need specialists for each topic that applies to legislation.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because instead of giving everyone a little power in a lot of areas, you're giving people a lot of power in a few areas. The second, while more productive, is a lot more risky. There is always a trade-off.Turquoise wrote:
I've often thought we could replace the Senate with a system similar to what Cam is proposing. Instead of electing a second set of regional representatives, why not instead have Senators of subjects -- like defense, finance, and the environment?
It could work like this... The Senator of Telecommunications could write a bill for net neutrality, and then he'd present it to the House. If it passed the House, then the President would be able to sign or veto it. It would simplify the legislative process and decrease the opportunities for adding pork to each bill.
BetterTurquoise wrote:
True, but I think several Senators (like Ted Stevens) have shown their ignorance on many topics. We need specialists for each topic that applies to legislation.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because instead of giving everyone a little power in a lot of areas, you're giving people a lot of power in a few areas. The second, while more productive, is a lot more risky. There is always a trade-off.Turquoise wrote:
I've often thought we could replace the Senate with a system similar to what Cam is proposing. Instead of electing a second set of regional representatives, why not instead have Senators of subjects -- like defense, finance, and the environment?
It could work like this... The Senator of Telecommunications could write a bill for net neutrality, and then he'd present it to the House. If it passed the House, then the President would be able to sign or veto it. It would simplify the legislative process and decrease the opportunities for adding pork to each bill.
Thanks
Another thing I was thinking of is that, depending on how many of these Senators there were, we could rotate their electoral cycles so that no more than say... 5 of them were up for election each year. This would allow people to research the candidates easier, and by holding elections for different Senators every year, the people would get into the swing of voting more often. There would be no true "mid-term" elections anymore, because every year would have important Senators up for election.
Another thing I was thinking of is that, depending on how many of these Senators there were, we could rotate their electoral cycles so that no more than say... 5 of them were up for election each year. This would allow people to research the candidates easier, and by holding elections for different Senators every year, the people would get into the swing of voting more often. There would be no true "mid-term" elections anymore, because every year would have important Senators up for election.
australia has had compulsory voting for decades, and seems to do just fine.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If you like nations taking political nosedives.B.Schuss wrote:
in that case, compulsory voting sounds like a good start.
The way I see it, it would force the citizens to at least participate in the democratic process on a minimal basis.
Just like in the original athenian democracy, I would make it a duty to vote.