Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There would be an individual or small group of people who would have control in emergency situations and manage individual policies. However the people would elect a plan that would last five years, and then five years later they would elect another plan. And these plans would have a set of laws that the people wanted. For example there would be a conservative plan, a liberal plan, and citizens could create their own plans that can be voted on the same way they create a party, if they have a certain amount of people supporting it. Or alternatively people can vote for each policy individual once every five years.
Once the five years are up, all of the policies that were a part of that five-year-plan will become invalidated and a new plan will be voted on and put into place. This would allow for an, in theory, perfectly democratic system that would represent the people's wishes and change every few years to meet their every changing demands and ideals. What are your thoughts on this?
Wouldn't work, think of all the commotion caused by a complete overhaul of the government every 5 years.
Why just not less federal government and more states rights under our current system? This would essentially be the same, but allow 50+ simultaneous plans, there would be a state for everyone.
There would be an individual or small group of people who would have control in emergency situations and manage individual policies. However the people would elect a plan that would last five years, and then five years later they would elect another plan. And these plans would have a set of laws that the people wanted. For example there would be a conservative plan, a liberal plan, and citizens could create their own plans that can be voted on the same way they create a party, if they have a certain amount of people supporting it. Or alternatively people can vote for each policy individual once every five years.
Once the five years are up, all of the policies that were a part of that five-year-plan will become invalidated and a new plan will be voted on and put into place. This would allow for an, in theory, perfectly democratic system that would represent the people's wishes and change every few years to meet their every changing demands and ideals. What are your thoughts on this?
I think that when I see what you say that all of the 200+ million people who can vote will have to get together every 5 years and somehow that seems very unwieldy to me. Who is going to suggest all of the new laws for them to vote on?
We have been a democratic republic of states and a national government made up of elected representatives to do the passing of laws very successfully for a long time and I don't think your pure democracy would work well at all.
Now know that I am every bit as conservative as you are but I prefer the kind of government we have had all this time.
I think our government would be fine the way it's supposed to be (which is what I described), but I wouldn't say it's fine now. The federal government is way too powerful.
I think our government would be fine the way it's supposed to be (which is what I described), but I wouldn't say it's fine now. The federal government is way too powerful.
Seeing as how our government is a Republic not a Confederacy I think its fine.
Seeing as how our government is a Republic not a Confederacy I think its fine.
The system he described is like what we have now. A constant battle between the left and the right. We spend so much of our time going back and forth that nothing meaningful ever really gets done.
The vast majority of the issues we face today could be implemented differently in different states, rather than changed on a national level every 4-8 years, essentially accomplishing nothing.
The system he described is like what we have now. A constant battle between the left and the right. We spend so much of our time going back and forth that nothing meaningful ever really gets done.
The vast majority of the issues we face today could be implemented differently in different states, rather than changed on a national level every 4-8 years, essentially accomplishing nothing.
I see no MAJOR issues like what your describing...sure change in our system takes long but it always happens for the better.
States have showed time and time again their inability to respect the principles our nation was founded on.
I see no MAJOR issues like what your describing...sure change in our system takes long but it always happens for the better.
Not every change in our system is for the better. Would we not be better off with different states who could pursue their own policies on a smaller scale rather than cast them over the whole country and just hope for the best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDirector
States have showed time and time again their inability to respect the principles our nation was founded on.
What principles? Like the principles of state's rights? Lol.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
