I'm not sure where I want to go with this issue, but I been hit with this idea from a bunch of different soures and wanted to see if people were up for discussing it. Now I'm an ardent critic of the American two-party political climate who finds it a betrayal of the principles of populism, so be aware that's the perspective I'm coming from.
When we talk about democracy in this country, I think we just assume that it's a case where even the barest majority wins. What if that wasn't the case? To be honest, I haven't been following the Iraqi government situation but I've heard that they are leaning towards having a higher number needed, so as to enforce a need for coalitions and thus encourage the distinct factions to work together and put a check on the tyranny of one majority faction.
Why should we accept laws that theoretically 49% of the country could have a major problem with? In a case like that, I think we're almost missing the point of the legitimacy of the government coming from the consent of the governed in favor of some sort of allegiance to the rules of the game. Shouldn't we try to have a government that pretty much has to pay attention to many of the differing factions?
In that same vein, shouldn't it be easier to prevent the government from doing something than getting it to do something? How about if we keep 50.0001% as a way to pass soemthing but give the legislature the ability to veto with 40% or 30% or some other percentage?
What if we split those to groups up? One group propses and passes things but there's another legislative (or rather anti-legislative) body who hsa to be convinced not to veto? I think that'd put a big crimp into the influence peddling and the vote for mine and I'll vote for yours that goes on now.
Now we'd probably need to keep the >50% for elections (although maybe not) but are elections the way we do them the only choice? How about a petition system? Like, if you can get enough people (and limiting it somehow so that the same people can't keep petitioning people in) to say that you should be in congress, you get to congress? Maybe for a term or a capacity limited by what the people petitioned you for (subject to constitutionally set upper bound limits)?
I don't know, the way I look at things now, the whole system is out of order and we need some major reconsideration of the possibilties. Why not think outside the box on this one?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
We hav that situation right now...it was called the Presidential election.
I am not Bush bashing here, I swear....it was just a good example of this situation.
What good would allowing something to pass at 50.1% be if the rest could veto it. It would be the same as if you needed a higher percentage.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I was watching a couple of Senators argue about the filibustering and stuff. One said something about parties and the constitution that about made me choke. I'm sure I could find it, it was on News Hour, last night I think. But the constitution wasn't designed to administer a two party system.
[ February 17, 2005, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I think what would be nice, is to have some sort of voting system where the individual citizen could vote from their home and then have every law congress passed be vetoable by the general population if some percentage of them voted against it. Maybe it 40% of the voting population all voted against a piece of legistlation that had passed congress and the president they could veto it. That would give the people another way to keep the government in check. Then again maybe the percentage would need to be higher, more like 45% (considering that we only have something like that percentage of people voting in elections, thats a pretty high percentage).
It could be done over the net, using social security numbers or something like that. It would have to be a valid social security number for the vote to be accepted and it would have to match the persons name. Then the computer would simply tally the votes and if enough people voted against it, then its vetoed, same as by presidential veto. People would maybe have something like a week after the bill passed and signed into law by the president to get online and vote against it. And maybe there could also be a system of calling in the votes, using the same information, for those who don't have the net yet.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Kwea, Yeah, that was sort of a confused miss-mash of having separate proposal/veto houses and the idea that didn't make it because I found it unworkable that we have more options than yea/nay voting.
How do you find the Presidential election to be an example of what I'm talking about? Is it because you don't actually need 50% of the vote to win? I guess I was regarding that as a special case of the simple majoity wins situation. The idea of a separate run-off election between the two top candidates was a little too in the box for me.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No, I was thinking about two things..first you don;t need a majority of the popular vote to win. Second, even though Bush won almost half the country voted against him....yet I have heard the "mandate" word more than once.
I don't consider 51% a mandate for anything but trouble, regardless of who has the final 2% edge, which is why I wanted to make sure everyone knew this really isn't about Bush at all, not in this thread. It is a problem with how things ended up, regardless of who because President...I would disagree if Kerry said it, had he won by the same percent.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Alcon, the problems with fraud wouldbe enourmous. Plus, our SS# isn't intended to be an ID number for that sort of thing, which is why most states are pulling them off licences these days.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh yeah, and fillibustering and other minority tricks to prevent passage of a bill that a majority wants. Err...that was about a minority having a veto vote.
edit: Yeah, Kwea, but what if it were workable? Say with biometric scanning or something. There's plenty of practical objections to any scheme (there's plenty of practical objects to the current status quo), but what about the principles? We can quite possibly get around or at least minimize the practical problems if we decide a principle is important enough.
[ February 18, 2005, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
MrSquicky, I'd think something like that is a good idea only if most government programs had expiration dates, so that a super majority (or veto-proof majority) wasn't necessary to get rid of a government program. Otherwise, the system would act as a ratchet to entrench government agencies and programs.
Edit: Mind you, that was the objection that leapt out at me - I haven't had time to fully process the idea.
[ February 18, 2005, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am still thinking about it, to be honest. I think a multi-party system makes sense, but Idon;t see it happening any time soon here in the US. Too many people have too much to lose to allow it to happen easily.
As far as removing the fraud issues, at the current rate of tech, I don;t think it would be feasabe from a cost/benifit ratio standpoint yet, although it may become possible eventually.
Keep in mind thuogh...just because a majority agreees on something doesn;t mean that it is right. There are some things that are guarenteed to all people, regardless of the "will of the people", and many famous things have failed the test of the majority vote.....everything from Smae sex marriages to slavery.
I am not necessarily equating the two, mind you, just mentioning two prominate examples off the top of my head.
Kwea
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Democracy is messy, but the imposition of 50.0001 percent on the rest is better than monarchy still, IMHO.
And I believe the abolition of slavery was supported by the majority nationwide. Certainly when one included the slaves.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Having lived in a country (Italy) that suffers from an overabundance of political parties, I don't see the attraction.
Having more political entities does not make for more political cooperation.
[ February 18, 2005, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's a good example of the problem with two parties. It is impossible to be a member of a major party in this country that supports banning abortion and increasing funding for social programs to help expectant mothers.
I don't know that multi-party systems' flaws don't outweigh their benefits. But this is a serious flaw in the two-party system.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Agreed, Dagonee. That was another thing I was up in the night stewing about. Belonging to a party invariably means you are already dumbed down before you arrive in the voting booth for futher dilution. That's why in pooktopia....
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)