Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grim Portent]

I've got two things I'd do, one's a reform, the other is an addition.

I'd change the electoral system so that one house is elected by a first past the post system and is allowed to suggest policy to benefit their constituents, the other house would be appointed by proportional representation with no constituencies, and would appoint the president by voting among themselves.

Any bill/policy proposed by the first house would need to pass a majority vote in the second house, the president would probably lose the veto power but remain head of state and continue to serve other legislative purposes.



As for the addition I'd make, I'd codify a system by which territory can join or secede from the nation democratically according to the will of the residents, determined by a referendum, because while such things don't happen often, there should be a system in place for people to leave a country they feel no longer serves their interests or aligns to their regional politics without resorting to rebellion or long term protests, especially in a Democracy. I'd probably limit the right to secede to territories that have a population that is at least that of say... Luxembourg for example, just so you don't get any random village seceding to avoid paying taxes.

[Antioch]

And how exactly would that work? Who registers and what constitutes a party? What happens to direct election of Senators?

Party structures would be like it is in Germany/France/Netherlands and most of Europe.

The current election of senators in the USA is a completely undemocratic process giving vastly more political power to citizens of certain states compared to others. I would also say the only real effect the US senate has currently is to block legislation and to make effective goverment extremely hard.

So either:
1. Abolish it entirely
2. also elect representatives with single transferable votes.

Personally I think the individual states hold too much power over national politics and that the national politics should be purely determined by a congress in which every citizen is represented proportionally.

[Antioch]

-double-

[BFEL]

As for the addition I'd make, I'd codify a system by which territory can join or secede from the nation democratically according to the will of the residents, determined by a referendum, because while such things don't happen often, there should be a system in place for people to leave a country they feel no longer serves their interests or aligns to their regional politics without resorting to rebellion or long term protests, especially in a Democracy. I'd probably limit the right to secede to territories that have a population that is at least that of say... Luxembourg for example, just so you don't get any random village seceding to avoid paying taxes.

OH GOD I'M HAVING CK2 FLASHBACKS!  NO HOLMNEIR, DON'T LET THEM CHANGE THE LAWS TO GAVELKIND!

[RedKing]

I've got two things I'd do, one's a reform, the other is an addition.

I'd change the electoral system so that one house is elected by a first past the post system and is allowed to suggest policy to benefit their constituents, the other house would be appointed by proportional representation with no constituencies, and would appoint the president by voting among themselves.

Any bill/policy proposed by the first house would need to pass a majority vote in the second house, the president would probably lose the veto power but remain head of state and continue to serve other legislative purposes.



As for the addition I'd make, I'd codify a system by which territory can join or secede from the nation democratically according to the will of the residents, determined by a referendum, because while such things don't happen often, there should be a system in place for people to leave a country they feel no longer serves their interests or aligns to their regional politics without resorting to rebellion or long term protests, especially in a Democracy. I'd probably limit the right to secede to territories that have a population that is at least that of say... Luxembourg for example, just so you don't get any random village seceding to avoid paying taxes.

inb4 the People's Republic of Bluelandia goes to war with Reddistan. Seriously, half the country would leave after any given Presidential election.

[Bohandas]

I would also say the only real effect the US senate has currently is to block legislation

That's the point! It's called checks-and-balances. If congress were suddenly able to pass laws all willy-nilly the country would rapidly degenerate into an authoritarian fascist or communist (depending on whether the republicans or democarts, respectively, were in power at the time) regime.

[Antioch]

I would also say the only real effect the US senate has currently is to block legislation

That's the point! It's called checks-and-balances. If congress were suddenly able to pass laws all willy-nilly the country would rapidly degenerate into an authoritarian fascist or communist (depending on whether the republicans or democarts, respectively, were in power at the time) regime.

except for the part where they can still do that if they have the required majority in both. It offers no protection whatsoever against the establishment of an authoritarian regime, it only blocks effect legislation half the time because control often differs between the 2 houses.

[Bohandas]

The idea is thst it potentially prevents as many bad things as good ones

[Grim Portent]

I've got two things I'd do, one's a reform, the other is an addition.

I'd change the electoral system so that one house is elected by a first past the post system and is allowed to suggest policy to benefit their constituents, the other house would be appointed by proportional representation with no constituencies, and would appoint the president by voting among themselves.

Any bill/policy proposed by the first house would need to pass a majority vote in the second house, the president would probably lose the veto power but remain head of state and continue to serve other legislative purposes.



As for the addition I'd make, I'd codify a system by which territory can join or secede from the nation democratically according to the will of the residents, determined by a referendum, because while such things don't happen often, there should be a system in place for people to leave a country they feel no longer serves their interests or aligns to their regional politics without resorting to rebellion or long term protests, especially in a Democracy. I'd probably limit the right to secede to territories that have a population that is at least that of say... Luxembourg for example, just so you don't get any random village seceding to avoid paying taxes.

inb4 the People's Republic of Bluelandia goes to war with Reddistan. Seriously, half the country would leave after any given Presidential election.

I doubt that half the country would leave at once for something so frivolous if only because getting a 51% majority in any given region is highly unlikely without some proper grievances that can cross the political divide. Not to mention that the military assets of the splinter nations would likely be rather small compared to the mother nation unless they were entitled to keep all military assets in their territory and conveniently had a large number of military installations.

Thing is that when you have a nation founded on the basis of the will of the people being the driving force of governance, you need to acknowledge that sometimes the will of the people is to divide and make their own way and it's best to plan such things out far in advance to prevent unnecessary turmoil when the event actually arises. It's basically just applying the principle of self determination from post WW1 to discrete population centers rather than races.

To give a ludicrous example, if 68% of the populace of Texas wanted to become a theocratic monarchy ruled by a man in a cheeseburger costume and use a currency based on leather discs with hieroglyphics carved into them I can't really see a valid way to say they aren't justified in doing so without denying them their right to determine their own lives and how they should be led.

[Strife26]

I would also say the only real effect the US senate has currently is to block legislation

That's the point! It's called checks-and-balances. If congress were suddenly able to pass laws all willy-nilly the country would rapidly degenerate into an authoritarian fascist or communist (depending on whether the republicans or democarts, respectively, were in power at the time) regime.

except for the part where they can still do that if they have the required majority in both. It offers no protection whatsoever against the establishment of an authoritarian regime, it only blocks effect legislation half the time because control often differs between the 2 houses.

Yes. That is exactly how a divided government with checks and balances under the Constitution functions.

[RedKing]

To give a ludicrous example, if 68% of the populace of Texas wanted to become a theocratic monarchy ruled by a man in a cheeseburger costume and use a currency based on leather discs with hieroglyphics carved into them I can't really see a valid way to say they aren't justified in doing so without denying them their right to determine their own lives and how they should be led.

Let me give you a more realistic example: If 68% of the populace of Texas wanted to keep black people from voting and declare open hunting season on anyone without proper identification, should they be allowed to? Even if they seceded, there are certain things that state-level majorities of citizens might want that the remainder would be strongly opposed to. Those state-level majorities can very well be national-level minorities.

[wierd]

Logically, the answer is "Yes", Redking.

The answer "No" implies some kind of natural morality that would prohibit this.
Does nature tell the crocodiles that they cannot eat ducklings? No. It does not.

There is no natural morality. Morality itself is a construct of the social convention of the majority of the population of a society. If the majority of the society says it is OK to kill off a minority, then that is what will be considered morally acceptable.

The wishes and views of the minority only matter, when the majority decides that they do.  That is the bitter truth of it. That is exactly what progressivism is about-- Asserting that the wishes and views of the minorities matter, and getting the majority to hold this view.

Progressivism is not inherently right. No more than bloodthirsty xenophobia is, or raging nationalism is. There is no default mode to human morality.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

We go to war with Texas, because the Germany precedent.

[wierd]

Going to war with Texas, because of German precident, is just reminding Texas that it itself is a minority, in the greater, global social construct's convention.

It itself is the grand proof of the truth that what is considered by the majority is what really matters. If the rest of the world disagrees, the moral action is to silence the minority.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

nature's a dumbass who thought men should have nipples

i am leery of arguments that rest on the idea that if there's no natural precedent for something, that's the final word on the matter

we can do better