Democracy sucks ass.

the_move said:
Not here in Germany. Here they are not bound to any instructions
of their voters. Only to their own conscience! This is fixed
in the law.
Click to expand...

Actually, the law states Germany has elections, elections mean the constituency elects the body, this election is the "instruction". By choosing certain parties you're choosing their program, electing a certain path for the coming few years.

It's the only practical system

the_move said:
Yes! A lot of referendums. But the small parts regarding a
community should become a federal issue.
Click to expand...

Federal as in federal direct democracy?

If so, how do you think all these people could be kept informed on all relevant issues?

How do you think people would have time for so many referenda?

How would you finance it?

You need to think things through a bit
 
Kharn said:
...The difference between this and the American system, where no matter what the winner gets two seats in the Senate (for instance), should be obvious...
Click to expand...
Quick note on the 'American System':

There are three branches of government: The Executive, The Legislative, and the Judicial.

The Legislative is the one you're referring to when you mention the Senate.

(the below was copied and pasted from this site since it is easier than typing it all out)
__________________________________________
"There are 100 senators in the Senate, two from each state. Senators are elected by their states and serve six-year terms. The Vice President of the U.S. is considered the head of the Senate, but does not vote in the Senate unless there is a tie. The Senate approves nominations made by the President to the Cabinet, the Supreme Court, federal courts and other posts. The Senate must ratify all treaties by a two-thirds vote.

There are 435 representatives in the House of Representatives. The number of representatives each state gets is based on its population. For example, California has many more representatives than Rhode Island. When Census figures determine that the population of a state has changed significantly, the number of representatives in that state may shift proportionately. Representatives are elected by their states and serve two-year terms. The Speaker of the House, elected by the representatives, is considered the head of the House.

Both parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives elect leaders. The leader of the party that controls the house is called the majority leader. The other party leader is called the minority leader."
__________________________________________

Therefore, only the senate has equal representation for each state regardless of the population of each state. The House of Representatives is on the other end of the spectrum, allowing proportional representation based on population of each state.
 
Quaid said:
There are three branches of government: The Executive, The Legislative, and the Judicial.

The Legislative is the one you're referring to when you mention the Senate.
Click to expand...
master_of_the_obvious.jpg


You do realize that tripartition of power is such a basic and commonly known concept that pointing it out here is akin to explaining principles of operating a light switch to an electric engineer?
 
Quaid said:
Therefore, only the senate has equal representation for each state regardless of the population of each state. The House of Representatives is on the other end of the spectrum, allowing proportional representation based on population of each state.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The problem with Congress is that it has a limited number of seats and as such will never be able to have the same representation-per-number per state. Look at it this way:

Say you have 100 seats and 10000 people, divided over 4 states by 3910, 4090, 1000 and 1000.

Directly elected representation means each 100 people vote in 1 seat.

Congress system means you have 100 seats, which you could divide as such: 39 for state A, 41 for state B and 10 each for C and D. This means that State A is screwed out of 10 votes while state B gains 10 votes. Not by actually gaining voting power in total, but by increasing the voting power of constituents, which is 1 vote=less than one person for A and 1 vote=more than one person for B

This isn't that significant on the small scale, but it becomes very significant on a scale like the US

Even worse, because not all people vote a state that works to get its people interested in democracy and has more people that care about democracy and vote does not gain more seats. Seats are divided by populace, not by voting, just like in the EU. I would hardly call that just
 
Ratty said:
You do realize that tripartition of power is such a basic and commonly known concept that pointing it out here is akin to explaining principles of operating a light switch to an electric engineer?
Click to expand...
Lets see - I notice there are a number of people on these boards from other countries, and they may or may not know how the American system of government works - since many countries (including the US) put the most effort into teaching their own form of government.

Also, the statement I quoted implied that the 'American system' only had the Senate which has two seats for every state regardless of population, without mentioning that there is also a House of Representatives that has seats proportional to the state populations (which I've already stated). Perhaps he didn't mean it this way, but I decided to mention it for clarification.

Considering my post is both factual and on topic, I'm not sure why you give a fuck Mr. Mod?
 
Kharn said:
Actually, the law states Germany has elections, elections mean the constituency elects the body, this election is the "instruction". By choosing certain parties you're choosing their program, electing a certain path for the coming few years.
It's the only practical system
Click to expand...

Elections do not give instructions, as the political do not
keep the promises made in their "program". They forget about
it as soon as they have "claimed the power". Maybe they even
get lucky and get re-elected next time, since there are not much alternatives as mentioned earlier.
Sorry but in Germany elections do not instruct. In no way!
I have lived here for 29 years now. Believe me, I know
how things run here. And they do not run like they should do.
In fact they do not run at all.
 
Kharn said:
Meh, you're just upset because of Schröder-head. Don't worry, it'll pass
Click to expand...

Nah, it wasn´t Schroeder all the way. Kohl was before and Schmidt
even before that one, and they all were crap.
 
Kharn said:
It might help your viewpoint if you actually explained how your alternative could possibly work
Click to expand...

Well with "only" 80 million people instead of 300 million things
might be a little easier. Altough I am certain, that it will still
cause a huge problem. Therefor it should be done step by step.
A good and helpful step for Germany would be to adapt
the swiss handling of democracy at first, since this one is
nearer to direct democracy as our. They have referendums, but
they also have a parliament. Also - otherwise to our parliament -
this one is bound to instructions AFAIK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top