22-12-2002 01:22									#1
	Congress vs. Parliment Get a bigger avatar today!

Discuss...

	22-12-2002 01:30									#2
	Full PM-box? Change here!

not in all euro-countries, there is a percentage-wise representation. I like the German model the best. There are both nation-wide representatives, and state-wide majority elections.

	22-12-2002 01:53									#3
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I prefer a US style COngressional system because it is more favorable to seperation of powers- look at European countries and see how many times in Parliamentary systems the PM loses a vote on one of there bills or has a bill passed that the PM doesn't like. Periods in which one party dominates the House, Senate, and Presidency like we have now are rare.

	22-12-2002 01:56									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You're right, Shi. The pure parliamentary democracy is way too unstable. One can see it clearly in Israel for example.

	22-12-2002 02:04									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'd like a mixed system, with the seperation of powers we have, but with proportional representation in the legislature.

	22-12-2002 02:25									#6
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I prefer the Peoples Congress of Soviets, because it sounds MUCH better.

	22-12-2002 02:26									#7
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

One thing to note is that the congressional system is incredibly conservative. In essence, an idea has to have 60% or more support for it to be instituted. Or it has to trade horses for that kind of support. Few initiatives, much less radical initiatives, can gain that kind of support.

The US has been blessed with people who have negotiated in good faith for what they want. Hasn't always worked, such as in the Civil War.

	22-12-2002 02:56									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I prefer the Parlimentary sysetm since it is based on which party is most in tune with the people. Here in the US it seems people don't care about the issues, they vote for the people who speak up a storm and then do nothing in office.

	22-12-2002 03:14									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

the US system is fine, although I would reorganize the entire government altogether

	22-12-2002 03:31									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Odin, "in tune with it's people" isn't always right. The government should do what's best for the people not what the people want. I've always thought that this is why we elect them. So they can make more informed and thought over decisions.

	22-12-2002 03:56									#11
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Azazel The pure parliamentary democracy is way too unstable. One can see it clearly in Israel for example.

Surely you mean to say Italy or the Neatherlands instead?

	22-12-2002 04:01									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

they're great examples too. I am just speaking of the one more familiar to me. ( esp, lately. Elections every 2 years? )

Last edited by Az on 22-12-2002 at 04:19

	22-12-2002 11:27									#13
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Parliamentary, with the Head of State seperate from the Executive branch.

Personally, I would prefer it if political parties were banned and everybody had to run as an independent.

Then we could drop the polite fiction that parties actually have an 'ideology' and everyone could settle down to deal making for their constituents.

Also, parliamentary voting would actually mean something in majority governments.

Also, it would force people to actual research the policies of the people they vote for, or not vote.

I would rather someone not vote at all than vote for a guy representing your riding on a host of issues, while only basing on their decision on the fact that it says 'Lib' next to his name on the ballot...

Oh, and if government is really about letting people who know better than us make decisions for us, why don't you just bring the technocracy/oligarchy out into the open?

Get all the 'leading citizens' of banking, industry, media, and academia together, have them appoint a 'Senate', and then have that Senate appoint its replacements ever so often (8-10 years).

Now that I think about there might be advantages to such a system:
a) meritocracy: If you want a say, you've got to succeed.
b) Continuity: they can carry out long-term projects
c) No more private/public discord: the idea of a conflict between the 'Establishment' and the government would be absurd.
d) great for science!

This was kind of the system of the Venetian Republic, which lasted 1300 years.