Amerika

[213374U]

[More of Volourn's gibberish about stuff he doesn't understand and/or he hasn't really thought about and more debating something that has already been established as a fact]

Go, Volo!

[Lucius]

How does Spain regard fascists today? I mean my knowledge of general Franco and his regime is rather limited, I don't know if he was a tyrant or not, is it a huge taboo like National Socialism is in Germany?

 

I know you said you were only a little fascist, but I'm curious.

[metadigital]

...

2. What do you get stuff for free? Voting is not something that is done for free. You do it for a price. Any laws made through voting (be it through politicians elected or through refenrdums) effects everybody. That's why everybody has the right to vote 'cause laws passed effect you whether you vote or not.

...

Voting is a right. It's a right as its one of the few ways outside of violence that one can keep their freedom, and have a say on how they will be governed. If someone CHOOSES not to vote that's one thing; but forcefully disallowing someone from voting is something dicators who don't care about the people would do. It also makes new groups called 'second class citizens' where one group will get all the benefits of society while the other side gets trashed and thrown in the gutter, and get leftovers f they're lucky.

 

Even the best of democratic/free countries have major problems when it comes to true freedom. Yoru type of proposal makes it much, much, much worse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are arguing about freedom in a debate about good governance.

 

Sure everyone has the right to vote, nay canvass to be elected, but that doesn't solve the problem of governance.

 

Good Governance requires making informed decisions that may be against your immediate personal interests. The biggest problem with a democracy is that people cannot be well informed of every issue (otherwise why do we need a special group of people to form a government; let's do it all ourselves).

 

The second biggest problem is that, even with the knowledge, people make decisions based on their own wallet. Sure, they'll give to charity, but only after they have rigged the lottery to pay out to their sister-in-law.

 

Arguing about disenfranchising the electorate is not the issue. I wouldn't mind being a part of a republican (small "r") society where I had no direct effect on the election of the government officials (just like you folks in the USA and your quaint "Electoral College" system ); I don't hear too many people complaining they can't be trash collectors, or astronauts.

 

We need to specialise; that's how effective businesses become even more effective. The biggest hurdle is counteracting the leading classes innate tendency to feather their own nests. Fix that, and we have a winner.

[213374U]

ELDAR EDIT:  Behave, Mr. numbers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What? Now I can't even flame Volourn? What's the world coming to?

 

 

How does Spain regard fascists today? I mean my knowledge of general Franco and his regime is rather limited, I don't know if he was a tyrant or not, is it a huge taboo like National Socialism is in Germany?

Fascists are regarded pretty poorly over here. Regardless of what people tell you, there is still a lot of resentment from the people that lost the war, or rather, their heirs. Funny that, because most of that resentment is fueled by ignorance.

 

Sure, Franco was a tyrant. He was a fascist dictator, after all, and one that came to power as the result of a civil war, to boot.

But he was nowhere near Mussolini, Pinochet, or obviously, Hitler. No purges, but there were some political prisoner executions. Unless you were part of an underground movement or engaged in illegal business, the police would leave you alone, though.

 

Bad, but definitely not as bad as some people claim he was.

[metadigital]

...

[V]oting is a right. You shouldn't have to 'prove' yourself to have a right. Lobbing up between those who heave earned' the right or not is a way to divide a voting populace even furtehr which helps no one. All you'd get is revolution after revolution.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What evidence do you have to support this claim? How do you know that addressing the electorate in different ways won't create better solutions?

 

For example, if we gave people who have eaten ice-cream regularly in the last five years two votes in the referrendum on new flavours, as opposed to everyone else getting one?

 

Sure, the next problem is how you divide up the electorate, and it isn't trivial, but your blanket generalisation is just supposition. And a stagnant society isn't going to improve.

[213374U]

What evidence do you have to support this claim? How do you know that addressing the electorate in different ways won't create better solutions?

 

For example, if we gave people who have eaten ice-cream regularly in the last five years two votes in the referrendum on new flavours, as opposed to everyone else getting one?

 

Sure, the next problem is how you divide up the electorate, and it isn't trivial, but your blanket generalisation is just supposition. And a stagnant society isn't going to improve.

Psst. That's Volo you're trying to argue with. He is Impervious to Logic. Any effort and time you put into disarming his feeble arguments and establishing yours is wasted as your points will be flat out ignored. I doubt he he can even understand the notion that there are different opinions than his own.

[Volourn]

"Go, Volo!"

 

R00fles!

 

 

"just like you folks in the USA and your quaint "Electoral College" system )"

 

Gah! I thought I posted this earlier in this thread: I'M NOT AMERIKAN! Don't blame for the silly EC.

 

 

Anyways, Meta, it's all good to find new ways to improve one's society. I just don't think having 'tests' or 'requirements' (other than very basic ones like being a citizen) should be one of them. Most people who don't keep up with certain issues probably don't care about their issues and aren't likely to vote on those issues nayways so it seems to me a waste of time to force someone NOT to vote.

 

People who wnat to vote likely have a basic knowledge of what their voting on. so good for them let them vote. those who don't want to vote let it be their choice. This way works for everyone, or at least should.

[metadigital]

What evidence do you have to support this claim? How do you know that addressing the electorate in different ways won't create better solutions?

 

For example, if we gave people who have eaten ice-cream regularly in the last five years two votes in the referrendum on new flavours, as opposed to everyone else getting one?

 

Sure, the next problem is how you divide up the electorate, and it isn't trivial, but your blanket generalisation is just supposition. And a stagnant society isn't going to improve.

Psst. That's Volo you're trying to argue with. He (it?) is Impervious to Logic. Any effort and time you put into disarming his feeble arguments and establishing yours is wasted as your points will be flat out ignored. I doubt he he (it?) can even understand the notion that there are different opinions than his (its?) own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(It's not just for his benefit; there are others that have nothing better to do than read this thread, too. )

[Lucius]

What? Now I can't even flame Volourn? What's the world coming to?

No flamy Volo?

 

Fascists are regarded pretty poorly over here. Regardless of what people tell you, there is still a lot of resentment from the people that lost the war, or rather, their heirs. Funny that, because most of that resentment is fueled by ignorance.

 

Sure, Franco was a tyrant. He was a fascist dictator, after all, and one that came to power as the result of a civil war, to boot.

But he was nowhere near Mussolini, Pinochet, or obviously, Hitler. No purges, but there were some political prisoner executions. Unless you were part of an underground movement or engaged in illegal business, the police would leave you alone, though.

 

Bad, but definitely not as bad as some people claim he was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see, well my interest was sparked when I read about the Spanish civil war back in HS, and I remember finding it odd for a dictator to be a monarchist (that's what I read anyway) as well, made him stand out from the others somewhat. But I never got to read about the years that followed.

I've been to Spain many times, once with my HS class a few years ago to Barcelona, and the teachers kept reminding us not to piss off the Guardia Civil, trying to scare us by saying that this force was a remnant of the Franco regime, and there would be hell to pay.

[metadigital]

"just like you folks in the USA and your quaint "Electoral College" system )"

Gah! I thought I posted this earlier in this thread: I'M NOT AMERIKAN! Don't blame for the silly EC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am almost tempted to search for one of your earlier posts where you equate "Kanada" with the USA, but I'm not that motivated. "

Anyways, Meta, it's all good to find new ways to improve one's society. I just don't think having 'tests' or 'requirements' (other than very basic ones like being a citizen) should be one of them. Most people who don't keep up with certain issues probably don't care about their issues and aren't likely to vote on those issues nayways so it seems to me a waste of time to force someone NOT to vote.

 

People who wnat to vote likely have a basic knowledge of what their voting on. so good for them let them vote. those who don't want to vote let it be their choice. This way works for everyone, or at least should.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What tests do you advocate for citizenship?

 

And the system seems to be very much not working now, so I think it's up for analysis and amendment.

[SteveThaiBinh]

If voting is a right, it cannot be lost (except in particular circumstances such as incarceration, in which case freedom is also lost). If voting is a privilege, then it can be withdrawn. The two definitions are central to the two points of view that are being argued. Neither has been established as fact.

You are arguing about freedom in a debate about good governance.

Are you sure they're separable? I don't think that good governance can be achieved by getting the right people at the top and giving them all the power and information. It tends to centralise power and put more power in the hands of the state - arguably a proven Bad Thing.

 

Good governance may be about the quality of the decisions leaders make, but there remains the issue of legitimacy. In a meritocracy, the legitimacy of the government would supposedly come from their efficiency and good decisions. How realistic or sustainable is this? How soon before the government screws up (people aren't perfect), and the disenfranchised start demanding a change? And without democracy, they'll have no way to effect a change other than through violence, and the government will have to suppress them through violent means. Bad outcomes all round.

[Volourn]

"What tests do you advocate for citizenship?"

 

1. None really other than being born in a country or being accepted in through the current means as it is. I believe there is already a test; but mine is much more reasonable.

 

 

"And the system seems to be very much not working now, so I think it's up for analysis and amendment."

 

Why isn't it working? Because Bush is the Prez, and Kanada has a crook for PM? LOL It seems to be working. Sure, not perfectly, and there are ways to improve the system; but I still don't think taking away people's right to vote is the way to fix the problems we do have.

 

 

 

"I am almost tempted to search for one of your earlier posts where you equate "Kanada" with the USA, but I'm not that motivated"

 

Eh? I wish you were motivated because I'd like to see those posts. i know I am pro USA; but saying Kanada = USA? Hmmm... It's a pickle, indeed.

[213374U]

I see, well my interest was sparked when I read about the Spanish civil war back in HS, and I remember finding it odd for a dictator to be a monarchist (that's what I read anyway) as well, made him stand out from the others somewhat. But I never got to read about the years that followed.

Yeah, in fact he appointed our present king to be his successor. The king, however, thought (very sensibly might I add) that people would not stand for another dictator, so he arranged for change to a democratic government. He's a cool guy, our king.

 

This, in turn, pissed off a lot of fascists, and gave birth to a whole new generation of flat-headed, ignorant fascist whelps. Some of the people I have to deal with on a daily basis really nauseate me. <_<

 

 

I've been to Spain many times, once with my HS class a few years ago to Barcelona, and the teachers kept reminding us not to piss off the Guardia Civil, trying to scare us by saying that this force was a remnant of the Franco regime, and there would be hell to pay. 

LOL

 

In fact they aren't. They existed long before him, and they were in turn the evolution of a law enforcement body for the country from the XVI century. Their only peculiarity is that they are a police force, but with a military organization. They don't have tanks, though. But basically, yeah. If you piss 'em off, there will be hell to pay. "

 

EDIT: Yes, apparently I was arguing with myself. Nothing wrong with a bit of self-reflection, though. "

[Commissar]

The reason I said "no" to military service as a requirement for citizenship earlier, a la Heinlein, is because it comes much too close to resembling a conscript army, especially if the service requirement is only something like two years. I'm against two-year enlistments, period, but that's for different reasons.

 

I think everyone would agree that it's better to have a hard-charging, squared-away true volunteer force to do the dirty work rather than a bunch of guys who are just doing their time in order to run for President. Now, the obvious argument is that despite what we'd like, there are plenty of people in today's American armed forces that are neither hard-charging nor squared-away, and that there are plenty more who are just treading water until they can get back to the civilian world. That's profoundly true, but the ratio isn't as high as you'd think.

 

Besides, with only a two-year requirement, you'd barely have time to finish yer schoolin' (depending on the branch) before you were set free.

 

As for Volo's points about voting and whatnot being an unassailable right...yeah, it is. Right now. And I'm not entirely sure that it should be. I'd take a well-informed, highly-educated, very intelligent electorate over the mix of the best and the worst we've got today.

 

And not just because government policies would all of a sudden get a hell of a lot more liberal.

[Commissar]

I see, well my interest was sparked when I read about the Spanish civil war back in HS, and I remember finding it odd for a dictator to be a monarchist (that's what I read anyway) as well, made him stand out from the others somewhat. But I never got to read about the years that followed.

Yeah, in fact he appointed our present king to be his successor. The king, however, thought (very sensibly might I add) that people would not stand for another dictator, so he arranged for change to a democratic government. He's a cool guy, our king.

 

This, in turn, pissed off a lot of fascists, and gave birth to a whole new generation of flat-headed, ignorant fascist whelps. Some of the people I have to deal with on a daily basis really nauseate me. <_<

 

 

I've been to Spain many times, once with my HS class a few years ago to Barcelona, and the teachers kept reminding us not to piss off the Guardia Civil, trying to scare us by saying that this force was a remnant of the Franco regime, and there would be hell to pay. 

LOL

 

In fact they aren't. They existed long before him, and they were in turn the evolution of a law enforcement body for the country from the XVI century. Their only peculiarity is that they are a police force, but with a military organization. They don't have tanks, though. But basically, yeah. If you piss 'em off, there will be hell to pay. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you...are you arguing with yourself?

[metadigital]

If voting is a right, it cannot be lost (except in particular circumstances such as incarceration, in which case freedom is also lost).  If voting is a privilege, then it can be withdrawn.  The two definitions are central to the two points of view that are being argued.  Neither has been established as fact.

You are arguing about freedom in a debate about good governance.

Are you sure they're separable? I don't think that good governance can be achieved by getting the right people at the top and giving them all the power and information. It tends to centralise power and put more power in the hands of the state - arguably a proven Bad Thing.

 

Good governance may be about the quality of the decisions leaders make, but there remains the issue of legitimacy. In a meritocracy, the legitimacy of the government would supposedly come from their efficiency and good decisions. How realistic or sustainable is this? How soon before the government screws up (people aren't perfect), and the disenfranchised start demanding a change? And without democracy, they'll have no way to effect a change other than through violence, and the government will have to suppress them through violent means. Bad outcomes all round.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John Stuart Mill, in his treatise On Liberty, said:

...

But I believe that the practical principle in which safety resides, the ideal to be kept in view, the standard by which to test all arrangements intended for overcoming the difficulty, may be conveyed in these words: the greatest dissemination of power consistent with efficiency; but the greatest possible centralization of information, and diffusion of it from the centre.

...

This central organ should have a right to know all that is done, and its special duty should be that of making the knowledge acquired in one place available for others. Emancipated from the petty prejudices and narrow views of a locality by its elevated position and comprehensive sphere of observation, its advice would naturally carry much authority; but its actual power, as a permanent institution, should, I conceive, be limited to compelling the local officers to obey the laws laid down for their guidance. In all things not provided for by general rules, those officers should be left to their own judgment, under responsibility to their constituents. For the violation of rules, they should be responsible to law, and the rules themselves should be laid down by the legislature; the central administrative authority only watching over their execution, and if they were not properly carried into effect, appealing, according to the nature of the case, to the tribunals to enforce the law, or to the constituencies to dismiss the functionaries who had not executed it according to its spirit.

...

 

We still haven't built the best democracy / republic that we can, even though Mill published this almost 150 years ago.

 

What's more, with the state of info tech today, it is eminently possible to implement, with large scale anonymity to the individuals, so that their private affairs are not in any jeopardy, unless and until they break the laws of the land.

 

Some other thoughts, from Chapter IV:

...

Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists first, in not injuring the interests of one another; [edit: in other words, the golden rule] or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person's bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing at all costs to those who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person's conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.

...

[Lucius]

Yeah, in fact he appointed our present king to be his successor. The king, however, thought (very sensibly might I add) that people would not stand for another dictator, so he arranged for change to a democratic government. He's a cool guy, our king.

 

This, in turn, pissed off a lot of fascists, and gave birth to a whole new generation of flat-headed, ignorant fascist whelps. Some of the people I have to deal with on a daily basis really nauseate me.  <_<

It's always nice when a monarchy grants democracy to its people without the need for bloodshed, ours was created the same way (this was in 1848) when the nation became a constitutional monarchy. This gave the king much luv, and the right to not lose his head.

Still, to this day, the monarchy has huge public support.

 

How is it that you work with fascists on a daily basis?

 

LOL

 

In fact they aren't. They existed long before him, and they were in turn the evolution of a law enforcement body for the country from the XVI century. Their only peculiarity is that they are a police force, but with a military organization. They don't have tanks, though. But basically, yeah. If you piss 'em off, there will be hell to pay.  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clearly my teachers was misinformed then, or just tried to make us behave while we were there. I did have a small encounter with one of these guards at the airport on the way home, though, I'd forgotten about a butter knife I had in my bag and the guard seemed somewhat puzzled about why I wanted to bring it onto the plane, and his english was so poor (combined with my rotten Spanish) that I had to communicate with my hands instead. No help from my Spanish teacher in this most awkward situation, noooooo sir.

I must admit that he really was a nice fellar, though he could easily have been saying stuff about my mum without me noticing. :ph34r:

[Cantousent]

Sorry, guys, I've been a bit busy today. At any rate, it doesn't seem like there are actual flames running rampant. I know that emotions are running high. Please be respectful of other people. I haven't had a chance to go through the whole thread, but don't do stupid things like call each other names or bypass the language filter. I would rather not put any of you on moderated.

 

Vol, I know emotions are running high, but you've endured a lot worse comments from me, for crying out loud. ...And given some grief as well. Let's try to keep the thread open.

[SteveThaiBinh]

In the quote, Mills is quite careful to separate power and information - so that the central authority responsible for gathering and disseminating information has little or no power. Is this realistic?

Emancipated from the petty prejudices and narrow views of a locality by its elevated position and comprehensive sphere of observation...

This doesn't work for me. Information isn't neutral, and gathering and disseminating it cannot be a neutral activity. Plurality of sources rather than a single central 'authority' is more likely to work. A free press and the internet help a lot. An outside view can be useful, but decisions affecting local people are best taken locally.

 

I absolutely agree that democracy is a work in progress. I hope that people are willing to try to make it better rather than abandoning it for some 'meritocratic' dystopia.

 

The golden rule seems clear enough. So you'll agree that if a band of above-average intelligence citizens get together and decide that political rights should be withdrawn from those less intelligent than themselves, this would constitute a breach of the golden rule because it does harm to the disenfranchised.

[Reveilled]

Um, I was merely making the point that people

[213374U]

It's always nice when a monarchy grants democracy to its people without the need for bloodshed, ours was created the same way (this was in 1848) when the nation became a constitutional monarchy. This gave the king much luv, and the right to not lose his head. 

Still, to this day, the monarchy has huge public support.

 

How is it that you work with fascists on a daily basis?

Yeah, it's always nice to be allowed to keep your head.

 

And I work with fascists every day because lots of them believe the army to be the flag worshipping wankfest of their dreams, so many try to join.

 

 

I must admit that he really was a nice fellar, though he could easily have been saying stuff about my mum without me noticing.  :ph34r:

Yeah, it's a sad fact, the state of foreign languages literacy of the average Spanish. Another leftover from the isolationist dictatorship period, I guess.

 

No matter though, because, at the present rate, soon everyone will be speaking Spanish again. TEE HEE

[metadigital]

In the quote, Mills is quite careful to separate power and information - so that the central authority responsible for gathering and disseminating information has little or no power.  Is this realistic?

Emancipated from the petty prejudices and narrow views of a locality by its elevated position and comprehensive sphere of observation...

This doesn't work for me. Information isn't neutral, and gathering and disseminating it cannot be a neutral activity. Plurality of sources rather than a single central 'authority' is more likely to work. A free press and the internet help a lot. An outside view can be useful, but decisions affecting local people are best taken locally.

 

I absolutely agree that democracy is a work in progress. I hope that people are willing to try to make it better rather than abandoning it for some 'meritocratic' dystopia.

 

The golden rule seems clear enough. So you'll agree that if a band of above-average intelligence citizens get together and decide that political rights should be withdrawn from those less intelligent than themselves, this would constitute a breach of the golden rule because it does harm to the disenfranchised.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It IS possible to provide information (mutiple sources) without granting power to the information providers, especially with the info tech we have already in place. It requires that the providers are prevented from corrupting their roles.

 

I all for abandoning it for a meritocratic utopia.

 

Only if the disenfranchised are negatively effected by their disenfranchisement. Would you argue that the mentally ill and criminal elements of society are unjustly disenfranchised? I can see the lawyers for the defence making their briefs now: "My client would be more inclined to follow the laws of this country if he could participate in their legislation, so he wants to be elected for President."

 

"

[metadigital]

Okay, the Lower chamber, which I'm going to randomly designate the Senate, is a chamber which is elected through a party system of Proportional Representation.  Everyone votes for the party they wish to represent them in the Senate.  The leader of the largest party in the Senate becomes the head of Government, which I will title the First Minister.  The First Minister, on the basis of his or her party's manifesto, as well as on the basis of the individual exectutives' platforms formulates a budget, as well as the laws.  When this budget passes the Senate, it passes to the Upper Chamber, the Agora.  The Agora should vote to reflect either public opinion or their constituency's best interests, depending on the nature of the issue (so a vote on going to war would be for public opinion, while a vote on education will be on the basis of the constituency's best interests).  In this sense, the Agora acts as a body that approves legislation drafted by the Senate.  The only time the Agora is involved in actually creating legislation is in Private Members' Bills, which are assigned to Agora members by lot, which are approved or rejected in draft form by the Agora (effectvely like a first reading in the present system), after which it passes back down to the Senate if approved, and from there simply becomes like any other piece of legislation, with the Senate voting on its final form before being passed back up to the Agora for approval.

 

After the Budget is approved by both chambers, the money passes to the respective ministers of the executive.  Said ministers are directly elected and can be partisan or non-partisan.  The midlands problem should not arise as the executives are elected on the basis of how much funding they want for the state running of their departments as well as their spending plans, but it is the Senate that decides how that funding is provided (thus, no one directly votes for lower taxes, but for the way in which funds are spent, so even if one votes in a tax-and-spend Education minister, it will be the Lower chamber that decides whether the taxes he spends comes from present taxes or new ones).  In this sense, the executives function almost exactly like the present cabinet, except that they are actually a full blown-executive instead of an executive hiding in a legislature as they are now.  The ministers are given the money the budget allocated to them, and are to spend it accordingly.  The leader of the Executive, whom I'll call the Chief Executive (On the other hand, "Prince" has a nice ring to it), has four functions. First, he is the figurehead leader of the state, doing all the flying about and shaking hands and stuff.  Second, he is the mediator between the different branches of the government and the individual departments of the executive.  So if, for example, the Education minister needs to meet the Health minister to discuss getting more nurses for schools, the Chief Executive chairs these discussions and ultimately makes a final decision if the two groups are unable to compromise.  Third, he is the national Investigative Journalist.  The Chief Executive should act as the ultimate check against corruption, and should give regular briefings to the populace on what is happening in the government, and give reports on anything suspicious he sees as happening within the government, such as the First Minister meeting less and less with the Executive Ministers.  Finally, the Chief executive has the same "In case of Emergency, break seal" powers as the monarch,  ones that should only be used in extreme situations.  These powers could be an extremely powerful veto that forces a particular piece of legislation to a referendum, or the power to call a General Election.  The penalty for using these emergency powers would probably be lifelong disbarrment from Public Office.  This penalty might be liftable on a 2/3 or even 3/4 vote in favour of it in the Agora.

 

After a Law is approved, it passes to the Judiciary body who make sure the law is consitutional and does not conflict either with any present laws (unless the law is intended that way) or international treaties signed by the country on human rights.  The exact manner in which the Judiciary does this is not hugely important.  Judges on the Supreme Court could be appointed by the Chief Executive, the First Minister, the Agora, other Judges, or direct election.  There can be however many the framers of the specifics of the government decide is necessary, and they can decide constitutionality either on the basis of express allowance by the constitution, or on the basis of express forbiddance by the constitution, though the method used should be listed in said constitution.

 

So, starting from the Senate, its voting on national interest is checked by the Agora's voting on public opinion and local interest.  The power of the First Minister is balanced by the powers of the Executive Branch, as while the First Minister, his party and the Senate as a whole decide how much money each section of government gets, the executives decide how to spend it.  The Judiciary also provides a check against unconstitutional legislation. 

The Agora's voting on local interests and public opinion is checked by their not being able to make legislation, thus preventing public opinion from becoming a mob mentality, as they can only obstruct unpopular policies, not force new ones in.  This in turn is balanced through private members' bills, which are assigned to a few members of the Agora by lot, which the chamber representing public opinion can use to push the government in the direction they want it to go.  However, these bills are still subject to approval by the Senate, so if the bills are contrary to how the government needs to be run in the eyes of the Senate, they can be defeated in there. 

The powers of the Executive are balanced by the Senate in that they still need to get the money from the budget the Senate puts together to be able to put their policies into practice. 

The Chief Executive, having little paractical power other than a casting vote in executive disputes, has no checks or balances against him, and instead works as a blance against everyone else. 

The Judiciary's ability to decide on the legitimacy of laws is balanced by it not being able to make them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right, well that explains my initial confusion: calling the legislature the senate!

 

The biggest issue I see with your proposed neo-Iraq is that you have created a de-facto dictator. Sure, the Chief Executive (Princess) doesn't wield unilateral power, but she has the casting vote in everything AS WELL AS BEING IN CHARGE OF INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION!

 

QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES?

 

You are setting the poor folks up for a reaming. At the very least you need to have a whole department that investigates the CE. And then you need someone else to investigate them, e.g. the legisalture. Basically you need someone outside the power loop to check on the power loop, then you need the checkers to be generally at the mercy of the legislation like everyone else, and you need to police the boundaries fiercely.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I all for abandoning it for a meritocratic utopia.

You wouldn't get my vote (assuming I still had one).

Only if the disenfranchised are negatively effected by their disenfranchisement. Would you argue that the mentally ill and criminal elements of society are unjustly disenfranchised? I can see the lawyers for the defence making their briefs now: "My client would be more inclined to follow the laws of this country if he could participate in their legislation, so he wants to be elected for President."

Odd argument. How can the disenfranchised not be affected by being disenfranchised?

 

Criminals lose their vote and their freedom simultaneously because of their actions. They recover their full rights (or should do) when they have served their sentences. As for the mentally ill, they should indeed be allowed to vote - nothing controversial there, I think: Link.

[Judge Hades]

I got pickles in my pants! (w00t)