Different types of Government

[o1pickleboy]

Recently I have been thinking a lot about the United States and its form of Representative based democracy. The pros and cons and other forms of democracy. The only one I have heard of is a parliamentary form of democracy and i am not sure if that is one I would like for the U.S.

So does any one know of any other form of democracy that has been used or is use as a government?

How do you feel about the United States form of government? Do u think a parliamentary or another type of system would work better?

How do you believe the United States would be different if he had adopted a parliamentary system from day one?

For people from counties with Parliamentary styles governments how would you feel about the US system for you homeland?

[Michael P]

Well, there's direct democracy, but that's pretty impractical in a country of over 300 million.

[snarkbunny]

For people from counties with Parliamentary styles governments how would you feel about the US system for you homeland?

I wouldn't like it for Canada. Both the representative and parliamentary style have advantages and disadvantages, but I think the US has minimized some of the federal disadvantages by having much stronger states' rights than Canada does. Our founders deliberately chose a stronger federal system (having had the advantage of watching the States' system of goverment in effect for over 80 years and watching your civil war) and parlimentary system to both align closer to Britain and to minimize the chances of a dysfunctional government.

The american checks and balances in a way was designed to make federal governing difficult as an additional form of limiting power, and when you go into deadlock, it is a crisis but not nearly as damaging as the equivalent situation would be to the Canadian economy. Your states have more power and control which helps to keep pieces working even if the feds are not, and your private economy can take advantage of that.

As a smaller population and economy spread out over a bigger geographic area, the federal government is a critical part of our economic engine ( depending on private enterprise for our infrastructure would be either cost prohibitive or we would end up with an even bigger disparity than we have now.) A deadlock or shutdown like you had in the last government would cause so much disruption it would be insane. Hence we either allow the governing party to govern or an election is called.

That is also the reason I'm against fixed terms for Canada. Either they find a way to make it work or we pick again. Having a deadlocked situation would not be good.

[Kees_L]

Recently I have been thinking a lot about the United States and its form of Representative based democracy. The pros and cons and other forms of democracy. The only one I have heard of is a parliamentary form of democracy and i am not sure if that is one I would like for the U.S.

So does any one know of any other form of democracy that has been used or is use as a government?

How do you feel about the United States form of government? Do u think a parliamentary or another type of system would work better?

How do you believe the United States would be different if he had adopted a parliamentary system from day one?

For people from counties with Parliamentary styles governments how would you feel about the US system for you homeland?

As democratic systems would operate as by needing to seem to work both as meaning mostly compromize and relativity or pragmaticalness, my short answer would be:
I think there wouldn't be much difference or only over decades of time of things progressing from a unified starting-point.

Eventhough my country seems to pride itself on being fair or righteous both as prosperous, where the USA seems to pride itself as "best nation in the universe" which I guess would have to amount to how any Godfearing citizen could be to make it in America IF they'd be wanting it enough.

My country seems a good enough representative type of democratic system.
It has a parliamentary democracy "under a constitutional monarchy" - but the whole constitutional monarchy part is largely to be taken as being a monarchy merely for the sake of ceremony and tradition, which basically makes for but positive vibes and an extra holiday or two.

At first glance there seems a lot more variety to what to vote on for a country as modest-sized, but basically no more than 2.5 different parties will be playing a significant role most of the time.
But basically anywhere in the democratic and pretty much prosperous parts to the Western world it seems to me that mostly similar problems would be to exist, which would be confronting any parties or governments with particularly messy or risky problems to be to try and sort out, because:

a) the outcome of most trying for such might likely amount to failure in the eyes of what would be adversaries or competitors;
b) any pragmaticness or bold measures needed for sorting out problems (like wealth-dividing or keeping jobs / education available) would not prove easy to get agreement over.
Or to put it bluntly: there would likely be small yet powerful mini-factions wishing to become or remain more powerful or a buttload more privileged than others. Tenaciously. I'd guess this to be universal, but the *American Dream*-notion seems particularly fit for fencing with in order to be keeping certain divides between divides alive.

Which seems to tell me that voting wouldn't be the ghist of things, but more rather the keeping any and all citizens fully engaged onto anything a country could be to offer.
As yet I feel quite fortunate with the way my country handles legal aid and medical care and insurance and jobs or any social stuff basically - but at the same time, whining over anything being shitty would likely be as common as where you are I'd be to wager.

Stereotypical things would lead me to deem important for American society. Which on my part might well be a limited or even mis-informed or unbalanced perspective mind you.
Like for instance I'd personally think that my country couldn't mostly get over the sticking to guns as a citizen's legal right, primarily for the following reason:
if citizens wouldn't be to trust their government with utilizing a weapon-monopoly then how could any such citizens ever realistically come to terms with the compromize or pragmaticalness as needed for any democracy in the first place?
Such things will be having questions or comparisons like these prove hard more rather than easy. Which I just wanted to add for good measure.

[Paradox]

Benevolent despotry! Of course, it only works for as long as the despot lives, and for varying degrees of "benevolent".

[dupersuper]

I'm mostly happy with Canadas, except I wish we could vote for PM and provincially on separate tickets, rather than having to decide when the candidate you want in running locally isn't in the same party as the PM candidate you want.

[o1pickleboy]

I wouldn't like it for Canada. Both the representative and parliamentary style have advantages and disadvantages, but I think the US has minimized some of the federal disadvantages by having much stronger states' rights than Canada does. Our founders deliberately chose a stronger federal system (having had the advantage of watching the States' system of goverment in effect for over 80 years and watching your civil war) and parlimentary system to both align closer to Britain and to minimize the chances of a dysfunctional government.

The american checks and balances in a way was designed to make federal governing difficult as an additional form of limiting power, and when you go into deadlock, it is a crisis but not nearly as damaging as the equivalent situation would be to the Canadian economy. Your states have more power and control which helps to keep pieces working even if the feds are not, and your private economy can take advantage of that.

As a smaller population and economy spread out over a bigger geographic area, the federal government is a critical part of our economic engine ( depending on private enterprise for our infrastructure would be either cost prohibitive or we would end up with an even bigger disparity than we have now.) A deadlock or shutdown like you had in the last government would cause so much disruption it would be insane. Hence we either allow the governing party to govern or an election is called.

That is also the reason I'm against fixed terms for Canada. Either they find a way to make it work or we pick again. Having a deadlocked situation would not be good.

The deadlock is more caused by the political culture and the filibuster than our system. There is nothing constitutional about the filibuster and political culture is decided mostly by the voters.

[Iangould]

Benevolent despotry! Of course, it only works for as long as the despot lives, and for varying degrees of "benevolent".

Since we're talking specifically about democracy, the closest to that would be "Plebiscatory Dictatorship" which is how the political scientists refer to Napoleon the First's system where he ruled as a dictator but every few years held as plebiscite to prove he still had popular support.

That's a sort of democracy, just a really crappy one.

[Iangould]

Delegative democracy - I'd love to see this applied more widely.

Crucial to the understanding of delegate democracy is the theory's view of the meaning of "representative democracy." Representative democracy is seen as a form of governance whereby a single winner is determined for a predefined jurisdiction, with a change of delegation only occurring after the preset term length (or in some instances by a forced recall election if popular support warrants it). The possibility usually exists within representation that the "recalled" candidate can win the subsequent electoral challenge.

This is contrasted with most forms of governance referred to as "delegative." Delegates may not, but usually do, have specific limits on their "term" as delegates, nor do they represent specific jurisdictions. Some key differences include:

Optionality of term lengths.
Possibility for direct participation.
The delegate's power is decided in some measure by the voluntary association of members rather than an electoral victory in a predefined jurisdiction. (See also: Single Transferable Vote.)
Delegates remain re-callable at any time and in any proportion.
Often, the voters have the authority to refuse observance of a policy by way of popular referendum overriding delegate decisions or through nonobservance from the concerned members. This is not usually the case in representative democracy.
Possibility exists for differentiation between delegates in terms of what form of voting the member has delegated to them. (For example: "you are my delegate on matters of national security and farm subsidies.")

[svp]

Im sure everyone knows this and I am sure there are exceptions but for the uninitiated;
I believe America is run by a hegemony of industrialists. Executives from corporations
form think tanks on how to best run things. These meetings are held behind closed doors
and has top former military people on as advisories. It's not illegal nor is completely everywhere.

But it is the worst thing ever right now.
It's what circumvents democracy. Sends memos to Govenors and media it owns to
create a paradigms. Before you tell me my tin hat is crooked.
Its anachronym is ALEC

here is it's dummy website
http://www.alec.org/

I use dummy because *its not transparent. Its all washed and clean.
it lists the membership fees for legislative/private terms as high as $25,000.
A former member reported paying 50 million to sit in on a high end meeting.


Here is a watchdog's site
ALEC exposed


Represented as a kind of "dating" site matching corporations with money to
lonely lawmaker politicians. It's a new problem. It will require a new
all encompassing new solution, if anyone's got one.

Here is a cartoon

If I'm allowed to bend the thread:

There are West Point types in on the ALEC meetings and steering the decisions.
Not only in war situations but getting people distracted by throwing out crazy laws
(anti gay, abortion, take christ out of Christmas, guns. etc... debatable stuff like that cuz it's fundmental)
to mask the real crazy laws(destroy unions, corporations are people, no warrant spy tap, etc ...money and power grab
stuff that you know is wrong but they want to get-r-done anyway) that give them more power. The consolidation of power
is the their goal. IMO, the American spirit is the opposite, it more like, "lets use
the power we have to be productive". Tough parsing the grey areas.

I saw Conan tonight.
Rerun but it was from near the last election day. It was the memo that went around
to affiliate news rooms posing as reliable good feeling news showing the shape of the
pill they want you to swallow. clearly.

I picture 'them ' laughing at us when we argue, vote, occupy, pay electric bills, fill a gas tank,...

Hopefully this helps some understanding why it's so screwed up.
Americans aren't all bad but they aren't making the laws so much anymore.
Think of all the lobbyist pooling their money and the buying power they hold.
there is more and there is more give in take on the subject . It will take a few
ammendments to the constitution to stop them, but I am done here for a bit.

[MRP]

To quote Winston Churchill...

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

-M

[The Black Guardian]

There was Athenian Democracy (Demarchy). No elections. Random representatives.

[king mob]

To quote Winston Churchill...

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

-M

Churchill talked a lot of bollocks though, and missing out that we're a constitutional monarchy which essentially means we're not a fully representative democracy is misleading at best.

[Shikidum]

What do you call a democracy in which only preselected candidates have a shot?

[stelok]

the United States form of government has been a federal republic for more than 200 years since its birth.

But considering where the elected representatives have gone with the debts, foreign policy and immigration reform, perhaps it's time for the government to adopt the Klingon form of government based on the survival of the fittest laws, by which the strong and ambitious officials replace the weak and indecisive ones.