I had an idea over the perfect system of government. I was thinking, well, democracy has a "worry free guarantee" sort of thing (yes i ripped it off the commercial) but it isn't efficient So I was thinking: how do you get the efficiency of absolute states with the "wfg" of democracies? Here: Firstly, each province in the nation elects two individuals to be their representatives. There will be elections held for this "council" every so few years, to ensure that the counsilors do their job The council would be all the representatives under one house, sort of like the Senate, which each pair of reps responsible for their corresponding provinces but also of course able to discuss national issues The council would be one part, and the leader the other The leader would have absolute power over the state, and originally would be elected and examined (and would need to be approved) by the council to be benevolent, wise, etc i.e, not corrupt or stupid However, the council by majority vote can override him or put another in his place if he abuses his power, and if a decision is called to question by the people or council, it can be examined and overrided However, if the leader is kept for longer than ten years (i.e, he's a good leader), he stays and he trains another from birth to replace him. This can be a near guarantee of another benevolent leader This eliminates the risk with Monarchies (where while one king may be good his son may be bad) and the instability in dictatorships when the leader dies The council would ensure that the needs of the people are addressed, and the leader would ensure that they are attended. On top of that, there would be a national forum. I mean, citizens can register and formally address their concerns, complaints, needs, ideas, etc, directly with the council and leader Of course it'd have to be mass-scale petitions or hearings otherwise they can't bother with each individual person obviously The leader would choose cabinet members under each aspect of the nation (economy, civil affairs, military, etc)to do their jobs as a department (not just them alone obviously).However the leader can override them (but in turn can be overrided by the council if it's a corrupt move) There would also be certain basic rights and liberties The court system would be established democratically, in which candidates are nominated and then elected by the council, with elections every few years. The court would be responsible for finding guilty or not guilty. The executive decides the punishment. The people could call for reelection in the case of corrupt judges. Now I think this is a good system for two reasons 1) You gain the efficiency of supreme power states 2) You have the reassurance of something against corruption What say you? Edit: This would be constitutionalized to ensure the system stays in place and can be amended, but not abused, where amendments would require the unanymous council vote, but can be suggested by either the leader or a majority population vote OR the council itself. However, the additional amendments would not be able to override the original election laws, etc, so there isn't corruption in amending it in stupid ways
If this poll included the option of "outlaw the Spice Girls", or "state religion to be based on Tom Jones worship" I'd have gone for it.
This easily ends it for me. Not only do I not trust any one person or body of people to have total control, but I also do not trust that panel of elected officials can hold enough competence to put the best man or women into such a position of power. However, I am for a system in which executive power is not absolute (nor anywhere near) and that only a body of elected officials may choose this person. With this, power rests more with the people as they spend more of their time and effort keeping their elected representatives in line rather than worrying about what one man is doing.
I notice you're always sarcastic in every thread. It's annoying, so please stop. But the panel is elected by the people, and can override the leader I even said there would be ways to keep the man in line
All you said is that this panel can override him. How can a man with absolute power be overridden by a simple vote? If I were to fake my way to office and I am given absolute power, I would command the armies to take over all media outlets and then to do away with the representatives. Override that.
Constitutionalized. OK, the man would have NEAR absolute power, but the council represents an additional authority to counter corruption So they can override any one of his moves BEFORE it goes into action if they see fit Think of the council as a sort of Supreme Court and Senate combo
You'd be better off being more subtle and start a campaign of propaganda through all the government controlled media. People like for you to kiss the backs of their necks when you fuck them in the ass. With absolute power, it would be pretty easy to kiss the backs of their necks.
There would be certain basic liberties, like freedom of speech (not necessarily freedom of expression) So the leader CAN be questioned and criticized, and there would also be non government media
Let me ask you, would you trust the current Senate to choose a non-corrupt and intelligent ruler? I wouldn't. What about the senate from 2000 that was overwhelmingly one-sided? Create a political cabal and give them the power to appoint an overlord and you have a recipe for disaster and abuse.
The senate would have to, because they'd be elected so they'd have to do well to stay in office and the leader can be overrrided, perhaps even directly by the people
Like there are in the US now? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! When you tighten up the power like you described, what civil liberties we have now would be all but eradicated as a matter of course. Concentrating absolute power in the back pockets of a select few individuals.
No they wouldn't they'd be constitutionalized and thus untouchable (the liberties I mean) because they would be superficial When you tigten up the power you gain efficiency. It's only a matter of weeding out corruption.
To do well, to stay in office, because they are ELECTED. The populace in a vast majority vote could also call for re-election if they sense corruption, as a basic and untouchable right
Executive- the leader himself, chosen by the council. He has control over the state UNLESS the constitution states otherwise (so not over liberties and basic rights), and can be removed from office by unanymous council vote. Successor is chosen by the leader himself. Council- elected representatives to each of their respective provinces. Main responsibility is to represent the people and keep the leader in balance. -Has the power to override any decision of the leader before or after effect (in the case of laws) by unanymous vote - Has the power to remove the leader from office by unanymous vote, in which case they choose a new one -does not directly govern the state -is elected every five years The citizens can call for-re-lection, in which case as a basic right if the majority do, there is another election Cabinet- Assists the leader in governing the state, each with own department. Can be overrided by executive (which can then be overrided by the council, in which case power goes back to the cabinet) Advisor- vice executive. No power but elected directly by the people to advise the executive. Cannot be removed from office except directly by the people (voted out). No regular elections, but the people can call for one
Because they would be superficial? Please explain that. How does the constitution get ammended? Not by the senate or god-man in power?
