Theory: New Sstem of Politics

[Al Caponeoni]

Well, you may flame away at my "ignorance" or "lack of political knowledge", but I'm just tossing this idea out there.

 

The system is untitled, for now. It would resemble something like this.

 

- - - - - - -

 

The governing body would consist of a group elected by the people entitled (for now) A Body. This party would would consist of 500 elected representatives.

 

This body would have to meet the requirements of electing a certain number of canidates according to their political alliance, or opinion. These parties will be name (for now) the Rights, Lefts, and Neutrals. ( Original, isn't it? ) Body A would consist of:

 

 

• 150 Lefts
  
• 150 Rights
  
• 200 Neutrals
  

 

 

The role of Body A would be to govern. Another sect ( Election ), would be assigned by the first Body A elected to watch over future nominees and approve them. It would take a majority vote of Body A (80%) to veto any canidate elected by the people.

 

Body A would govern following an outlined constitution that must be approved by 95% of Body A, and would then pass bills and amendmants that would be lobbyed by the members of the Body.

 

Body A would meet once every 3 months, unless an emergency meeting is called. During these meetings (which would last a maximum of 12 days) they would discuss the lobbyed bills. It would take 80% of Body A to pass a bill.

 

Body A would also be monitored by Body B (50 nominees), whose job is to watch and make sure Body A would be following constitutional standards. In order to ammend the constitution, both Body A and B must be AGREE COMPLETELY.

 

Members of Body B would be elected by Body A and the Internal Board. (In order to appoint an Election member, Body A and the current Election sect must agree completely)

 

There would also be two other comitees appointed by the ENTIRETY of both Body Aand the Body B, the External Board and the Internal Board. The External Board would consist of 100 members appointed by Body A and B, and they would watch over foreign affairs, primarily foreign relations and trade. The Internal Board would deal with local governments and state governments, and inform Body A of all internal affairs.

 

- - - - -

 

War can only be declared if 85% of Body A approves the declaration and 90% of Body B did, as well. Before the 'voting' process, the External Board would present their case to both Bodies A and B.

 

- - - - -

 

More to come, maybe.

 

Now, don't be to harsh with your criticism, but constructive criticism is welcome.

 

[ecoli]

This body would have to meet the requirements of electing a certain number of canidates according to their political alliance' date=' or opinion. These parties will be name (for now) the [i']Rights, Lefts, and Neutrals[/i]. ( Original, isn't it? ) Body A would consist of:

• 150 Lefts
  
• 150 Rights
  
• 200 Neutrals
  

 

The major problem I see with this system is that you've created a rigid ruling body. It doesn't change to meet the views of the people. What if the people, for whatever reason, become more right. You still have the same number of leftist lawmakers representing a population who don't share the same point of view. Your system doesn't take into consideration what the people want. This is of course, not necessarily a bad thing. You may have designed it that way on purpose. Personally, I wouldn't like it that the majorities veiws may not be represented, even though it may work as a system.

[budullewraagh]

ah but do the people know what is best for them?

[ecoli]

Do politicians know what's best for them?

[budullewraagh]

there needs to be a sort of balence. the people of the US currently do not know what is best for them, sadly

[ecoli]

That's true. The politicians they vote for don't know whats best for the country either. I say they should bring back poll tests. You can't vote unless you pass a test.

[Al Caponeoni]

The major problem I see with this system is that you've created a rigid ruling body. It doesn't change to meet the views of the people. What if the people, for whatever reason, become more right. You still have the same number of leftist lawmakers representing a population who don't share the same point of view. Your system doesn't take into consideration what the people want. This is of course, not necessarily a bad thing. You may have designed it that way on purpose. Personally, I wouldn't like it that the majorities veiws may not be represented, even though it may work as a system.

 

Well, that was actually one of my goals. I think that rigid rule is the only true form of effective political leadership.

 

I also believe that the people should have choice in who leads them, but they can only choose once. And then they must live with their mistakes.

 

And it is also the primary goal of the Neutrals to moderate the extremists in the groups. That's why the primary group is that of Neutral.

 

And I don't think the people truly know what's good for them. The majority of them, anyway.

 

Can anyone pitch some temp. titles, I'm lacking inspiration lately.

[JaKiri]

How would you define 'Left', 'Right' and 'Neutral'? How can you have people who personify this? How in any way is this possible?

[Al Caponeoni]

How would you define 'Left', 'Right' and 'Neutral'? How can you have people who personify this? How in any way is this possible?

 

The Leftis would hold a similiar political stance as modern-day Democrats. The Rights would hold a similiar political stance as mondern-day Republicans. And the Nuetrals would represent the undecided public, or even some of them would hold the 'Green party' stance.

 

As a canidate runs their mini-campaigns (statewide or county-wide), they must state their political alliance. There stance would also be reflected by their morals and what values they advocate.

 

As for your third question, did the above explanation suffice?

[Macroscopic]

One problem is that there is to many people. It would be even harder than it is now to make decisions.