Thread replies: 10
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
What if we designed our democracy as the following:
1. In any election, any number of parties with any number of members within them are allowed to compete for votes.
2. Every party which reaches above 18% of the total national amount of votes gets to join the parliamentary government.
3. Every partaker in the parliamentary government recieves a total of 20 seats, regardless of amount of votes (once in) and regardless of total amount of seats in the parliamentary government.
4. A further head of state (president or equivalent) is elected through popular vote alone, though possible to be vetoed by a overwhelming majority (>80% of the parliamentary government) with veto powers as well as formal assigning of ministers according to the elected president's wishes, from the parties with their seats in the parliamentary government.
Discuss
>>
1.) What shit country do you live in that doesn't allow this?
2.) lol >parliamentary systems
3.) Why even bother with voting if every registered party gets a seat? China does this basically. Form a large enough cadre and get a few seats in the Congress forever and ever.
4.) What does vetoing the President mean? Impeachment? Also, this is just a Prime Minister's position in a parliamentary republic.
The party system thing you want, for whatever reason, would inevitably collapse into ideological stringent minority parties and into transactional mega parties. If everyone gets equal representation regardless of public support, ideological fanatics will just work to get to the threshold for power (which at 18% is pretty fucking low, you can easily find 15% of people who believe literally anything). The fanatics won't help form coalitions necessary to keep the Parliament working.
In response to that and to keep the system going, megacoalitions will form, technically under various names but with minor political differences. These parties will be made up of people who are completely free of any ideological conviction and willing to go along with the coalition leadership in return for access to power, be that legal power or pure graft.
As I said, this is basically the Soviet/Maoist system. Multiparty system full of fanatics eventually gets purged, leaving only the unitary coalition who's differences are smoothed over by pure corruption and the threat of violence.
"I scratch your back..." politics takes total control without true democratic representation.
>>
>>2517110
Some of your points are indeed valid and I would like to change the percenteage from 18 to 23. Furthermore:
1. This is meant to be read in conjunction with the other points.
3. Not every party taking part in the elections would get seats, rather everyone reaching above the percentage does. In case I didn't state it clearly enough.
4. The president gets the power of vetoing anything and everything the parliamentary's concern do.
>>
File: trash2.jpg (18KB, 210x240px) Image search:
[Google]
18KB, 210x240px
>>2517064
>democracy
>>
A better idea: end democracy altogether.
>>
Just look at Germany's federal set up, it's clearly superior to anything else in the world.
>>
>>2517064
>1. In any election, any number of parties with any number of members within them are allowed to compete for votes.
Do you live in a communist country? Pretty much any free country has no limit on parties, the reason they don't make it to ballots is because their support is nonexistent. Which wouldn't change under this system. This rule is pointless.
>2. Every party which reaches above 18% of the total national amount of votes gets to join the parliamentary government.
That is a really, really low threshold to be given access to parliament considering your next rule completely levels the playing field for all parties regardless of popular support.
>3. Every partaker in the parliamentary government recieves a total of 20 seats, regardless of amount of votes (once in) and regardless of total amount of seats in the parliamentary government.
This seems like a great way to either go full Bolshevik or full Weimar Republic, depending on the social climate of your country. Either way you're going to be living in an oppressive totalitarian state within a generation. Good job.
>>
>>2517149
>The president gets the power of vetoing anything and everything the parliamentary's concern do
Yeah until eventually one of those mega parties he talked about backs a candidate who is in bed with them, spews propaganda everywhere to ensure he gets elected, and then you have no checks on their power at all.
>>
>>2517352
>Do you live in a communist country? Pretty much any free country has no limit on parties, the reason they don't make it to ballots is because their support is nonexistent. Which wouldn't change under this system. This rule is pointless.
This was supposed to be read in conjunction with the other points. Truth be told, I don't know why I wrote it but it felt important at the time of writing.
>That is a really, really low threshold to be given access to parliament considering your next rule completely levels the playing field for all parties regardless of popular support.
>This seems like a great way to either go full Bolshevik or full Weimar Republic, depending on the social climate of your country. Either way you're going to be living in an oppressive totalitarian state within a generation. Good job.
Fair enough, but forcing a multiplicity of parties into the goverment with no clear majority will allow for a control of the controling of any goverment. That being said, I see your point, and also agree the threshold probably should be higher than the originial given amount. The idea is to attempt to give no party any more control than the other in a parliament, thus allowing for increased discussion and multiple-party rule (a fundament of democracy) as well as giving smaller parties a larger chance to be heard and forcing cooperation rather than staunch extremism to any ideology.
>>
>>2517380
>his was supposed to be read in conjunction with the other points.
And I just said it doesn't matter even in conjunction with other points. It changes nothing.
>The idea is to attempt to give no party any more control than the other in a parliament
Your methods are misguided. When you split power to that degree the only way for anything to be accomplished is for party alliances to form which usually creates super majorities. And because your system has parties participating in congress instead of actual representatives they can flood legislation with fringe nuts.There's so many ways to abuse that system it's crazy.
I also think you don't understand how a two party system creates a climate of moderateness. See with two rival parties the transfer of power between them is virtually guaranteed, there's no chance of a super majority bloc taking over parliament and controlling legislation. Instead you have power being passed between two parties, and because they know they will get a turn they don't get desperate, politicians don't defect or try to form coalitions to stay in power, and are more willing to work with the opposition because it means they in turn will be willing to work with them when they have power. In American politics we often complain about how our party's legislation ends up "watered down" due to making necessary concessions with opposition to get it passed, but this ultimately results in more tempered, moderate approaches, and very little radical legislation getting passed. There are downsides to two parties, it results in a very slow democratic process where change comes in millimeters and must be accompanied by barrels of pork, but overall this is preferable to total deadlocks interrupted only by super majority coalitions.
Thread posts: 10
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3