Tuesday, September 25, 2012
The Constitution
It has been said, "The Constitution reflects a basic distrust of direct popular government." Suppose you had a chance to design a government. What sort would you design?
Which would you rather have?
1. A political system with the greatest possible political democracy-that is, one that translates popular demands into laws and policies as effectively as possible
or
A political system that gives elected officials considerable latitude to do what they want to or feel is best without having to worry too much about public opinion.
2. A political system that can make major changes quickly
or
A political system where major changes in policy are very hard to effect and happen.
Add at least two other designs that you would include in your government.
****Remember, you are to answer this blog and then come back to blog and respond to one of your classmates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
I would say the first one but, I would have the President mkae sure that each law is fair and constitutional. I would also, have an election day for laws that the citizens would like to be passed.
1. I would prefer a democracy in which popular demands would be effectively put into law, only if they are Constitutional and go through Congress. This would prevent potentially dangerous or radical ideas from being put into law.
2. I would want changes to happen quicker in government rather than how slowly they are passed now. The only way laws could be passed quicker would be by allowing one representative from each state to vote on the changes, instead of the large amount of votes needed for a change to be passed, now.There would be some problems with quick changes- needs in a country change quickly, and the change may be irrational. Therefore , in my government, I would require that the constitionality of the change would be reviewed before being presented to the public.
I agree with Jackie, however, for people to vote, and have more time to think about making these large decisions, Every legal voter would be able to vote once within a one month time period. Voting would be on the internet to save time and money.
I would prefer for the government to have the greatest possible political democracy in order to avoid corrupt leaders to come in and choose to make laws that only benefit themselves and their supporters. I would also choose a political system where major changes are very hard to effect and happen because this way, we know that government is taking their time to decide if the major change would benefit the country or not. If a decision was made quickly, it could be a bad decision that was not thought out correctly.
In my government, I would have the president serve for 6 terms in order for his/her policies to have time and I would allow people to directly vote on some major issues.
In my government, I would have the president serve for 6 terms in order for his/her policies to have time and I would allow people to directly vote on some major issues.
I would prefer a political system where elected officials own considerable latitude to do what they want because if the political system was too democratic where people's demands are made into laws, how many people would actually vote to pass or deny all these laws. A government with officials would be better because the official you elected would hold similar ideas about laws that you would hold. also, I would prefer a political system where major changes would be made quickly. I would rather this because the rate of change we have right now is too slow. If 4 years isnt enough time to make change then how long is it going to take. Therefore, I would want a system where changes happen quickly. 2 more aspects I would add to my political system would be to be capitalistic with little or no regulations on businesses. Also, my political system would have separation of powers so that the elected official wouldn't hold all the power he wanted.
I agree with Julian that if there was to be a vote people should have the option to do it online or not. If done online this would save lazy people from making a trip outside and more people would vote because they don't need to go outside their house to do it.
I would prefer the first one because its the people who know whats right for themselves as well as there state since they are living there. I would make the judiciary branch check to make sure the laws are constitutional. I would also give the mayor more power to help enforce as well make laws that are best fit for there town/city.
If I had a chance to design a government of my choice, I would choose a political system with the greatest possible political democracy. This system would translate popular demands into laws and policies as effectively as possible. After all, since all of the government's power is derived from the people, the people's voices should always be heard. If most people in the country believe in the right to abortion, it should remain legal. This political system would make the people more powerful. With power, however, comes responsibility. As Julian previously mentioned, a filter committee would be established to stop radical/dangerous ideas from becoming policy. Online polls would be administered to help determine public opinion on a number of topics once a month. As an incentive for voting, voters would receive slight tax breaks. Over time, these tax breaks would become substantial.
Although my system does sound like a shift from Representative Democracy to Aristotle's Direct Democracy, the system would still be run as a Representative Democracy. The polls are present to inform officials on what changes they need to make to satisfy the overall America sentiment.
In my new political system, I would desire to establish a countrywide, "universal" law code, such as The Code of Hammurabi. Law in every state would be the same. If the public is against the use of marijuana, it would be illegal in all 50 states.
I disagree with Brianna Fellner. I would not allow a president to run for 6 terms. That would mean a president can be head longer than some dictatorships have existed. Although I am in favor of increasing the amount of years in a term to 5 years, the term limit should remain at 2- 6 terms with 4 years each is simply too much.
1. In my government, I would rather have a direct democracy in which the people vote on laws directly than a government with representatives that selfishly make decisions based on their own desires. The government is for the people to protect their rights and to provide, as best as it can, for the people it governs over and not for the few select representatives that will dictate how things run. However, this is a difficult task due to the size of America's population. To assuage any problems, I would have the people elect a representative for each tri-state area to be the voice of the people and to follow majoritarian politics at all times. However, one may argue that it is not wise to have a direct democracy because the people are not well informed. To inform the people, I would create a television program that cancels out all channels for one hour and impartially informs the public of the new laws and all their positive and negative aspects so that the people are not influenced by anything but their own judgement.
2. In my government, I would want major changes in policy to be harder to obtain as opposed to being easier. If a a law is harder to pass, only the "good ones" will be passed through because if the government is willing to go through the arduous process to pass the law, it must be one worth having.
*I agree with Julian in that a direct democracy will prevent dangerous radical ideas from running the law but uninformed, capricious voters will also do the same in a sense, so we should inform the public of the laws and have a representative to epitomize the public's demands.
I would choose a direct democracy in which the people get to directly vote on laws. I believe it would be more efficient and benefit the president for example, because the majority of the population would have a say. Many people are against ObamaCare and therefore dislike Obama and will not be voting for him in the upcoming election. The people should be asked for their opinion, but I also think that the government should evaluate it peoples opinion. I do agree with Mari though. It would be difficult to decide on certain things because of America's large population and diverse classes.
I also believe that major changes should take some time to decide on because it must be evaluated very carefully and made sure that it will benefit Americans as a whole.
In my government, I would make the "people's voices heard". By this I mean that it would be easier for our ideas to be spread to the government. I would also have the government be more strict on the constitutionality of laws.
I would prefer a democracy in which popularly elected leaders have considerable power to do what they think is beneficial to the American people. Many American citizens simply do not have the time or patience to keep up with economic trends, political discussions or party conventions and thus many Americans view points on political, economic or social policies may be misrepresented if such policies were put into a popular vote. For this same reason, I believe that a successful government should have a system similar to the electoral college. With such a system, American citizens can rest assure that they are being spoken for by a representative with their well being in mind. Additionally, such a system makes politics more direct than any form of popular voting could. Take for instance a democratic state. Members of the state share similar views on the broad aspects of government but they do not have enough understanding of each candidate up for election, thus many of the citizens are ignorant of who they are putting in office. Through an electoral college, experienced and highly educated state electors are elected to the college through the people of a certain state. They spend countless hours listening to debates between the candidates and develop a good understanding of what each candidate has to offer. When it comes time for the election of the president, American citizens do not have to worry about making uneducated or misinformed choices because their state elector 1) shares common views and 2) has a keen understanding of what each candidate is offering. Life-changing Laws and Policy's need to be studied and analyzed for months by educated and experienced professionals before they are put into action. People are naturally easily swayed and are vulnerable to popular ideas that might seem great one day, but terrible on another. There are numerous reasons a policy should take a substantial amount of time to be passed. Firstly, with time comes reassurance that such a policy is actually important to the American people. Take for instance a news article that convinced thousands of Americans to reject abortion. While this topic will be brought up to congress, it will take months and maybe even years for a law to be put in action. By the time congress begins to give such a topic any real though, many of the original supporters of an anti-abortion law will have forgotten about it; meaning, anti-abortion was simply a stage and had no real backing in American society. Secondly, the said policy needs to be studied from past American History to see what effects it may bring. The same problem with popular voting is also relevant here. If people believe a law sounds good, they can automatically put it into power without the slightest understanding of what the law can mean for them in a long run.
To improve the current representative democracy, however, I would ensure that more elected state offices are created so that people can have a closer link to the government without directly enacting poorly thought out ideas. With an increase in representatives, Americans can clearly talk about and understand candidates current positions on different topics. Secondly, I would makes sure presidents have more time to enact their policies after being elected into office in case of opposing congressional views. This way, in case of a deadlock, a president has time afterwards to make up for his inability to pass policies.
I disagree with Jonathan Mui. in stating that the people should have direct participation because they know what is best for them. I disagree because i feel that many times people do not know what is best for themselves because they do not study political policies extensively. Many people would enact laws that they may regret enacting later on in their lives. The current process allows laws to be checked by the constitution and assured by numerous offices of government.
I would have a representative democracy in which political leaders chosen by the people make decisions as to which law to pass or not pass. Many Americans today do not affiliate themselves with the happenings or decisions of the government. Therefore I believe it is unwise to leave the government in the hands of those who have other priorities and do not understand the consequences of specific actions. However, if majority of the people do not support the decision of those elected then i believe the law should not be passed.
1. In my opinion, both options are too extreme. There should be a balance between the two choices: a government that allows popular demand policies to be CONSIDERED by elected officials who will make law decisions based on popular demands. In order to insure the mollification of people's problems, the citizens will have the direct power to vote for their representatives. In my government, elected representatives should have an outline or list of societal or economic problems they need to solve within their term. If they do not provide ANY resolutions to the citizens' problems (within say, two years), the citizens will have the right to vote that official out of office and replace him with a more efficient representative.
2. My government would consist of a political system that would make major changes quickly but also efficiently. Just because the process is quick does not mean any glitches should be overlooked. A political system which takes a long period of time to make changes would never keep up with the citizens' demands, resulting in a defective and undesired government. In my government, the citizens and representatives should hold meetings to see what changes are needed and vote on a reasonable time within which the law should be passed. Te government will then make it their best interest to fulfill these changes immaculately within the given time period. Therefore, citizens' demands will be quickly processed and the citizens will be satisfied with their government.
I agree with defg123 in not having a completely direct democracy because the common citizens are ultimately ignorant (no offense) about politics, and will tend to make rash decisions based on their own opinions if such power were to be put into their hands.
1- I would rather have a political system with the greatest possible political democracy. The political Government where people's demands can be put into laws. But, I would also, want a representative to take into consideration people's opinions and, choose what's best for the country.
2- I would want changes to happen faster so, that people would feel that their demands are being taken into consideration and, they would feel that the government is trying to do the best for them.I would also, have each state review the changes that needs to be done.
- I agree with Jonathan that peolpe know what's right for them but, some peolpe would think what's right for them in perspective of their own benefit not, for the welfare of others.
1. I would prefer a government with the greatest possible democracy. However, the government has to be smart about their decisions of which laws to pass. The laws they pass should still keep the country safe and benefit the most people possible since no one can possibly please everyone.
2. I think, ideally, a political system that makes fast changes would be best, but I don't think it can work that well. If changes are difficult to make happen, the people know that it took a lot of consideration. All of the pros and cons would have been weighed, and it took a long time to reach the decision, showing that they care about what effects this would have on the citizens.
I would also add the system of checks and balances to my government. I think it could work, not only in the federal government, but also in the state and local governments to prevent governors and mayors from doing something that the citizens dislike.
Also, direct voting should be used on a small scale. It shouldn't be used for major things like the presidency, but it can be used for things like whether to build a school or a park somewhere.
I agree with Jacqueline, but I think there should be multiple election days. They shouldn't be set up, they should be created whenever an issue becomes large enough to get the public involved. If the government thinks a law is a good idea, they should create an election soon after to see the public's opinion on it.
1- I would choose a political system with the greatest possible political democracy, that would translate popular demands into laws and policies as effectively as possible. Citizen's voice in the government would be the most important for the state of the union.
2- I would also choose a political system that can make major changes quickly. These changes, however, would be well thought out and checked by certain officials in the government. nevertheless, if the population demands change, the government would have to provide the change.
I would also make big business and wealthy people of the country to pay a slightly higher tax in order for the government to create more public works and benefits, so as to benefit the economy as well as the union. Furthermore, I would also ensure that the public is happy with the government by installing polls monthly to check the opinions of the citizens and to make sure the government is in the demands of the people.
I agree with julian that voting online would be much more efficient. Nowadays, many citizens do not take part in major polls, like the presidential election polling, because it is very time consuming. Easy access to such polls would be beneficial to the union. I also agree with Victoria that the government should be kept strict to the constitutionality of the law.
1. A government can meet the demands of more people by using a democratic system. In this system, a greater percentage of the public could benefit.
2. A government should be able to make changes quickly to mold to the never-ending needs of a society.
There should also be some form of a system of checks and balances. This would prevent any specific person or group from gaining too much power. Also, voters should be required to prove that they know who they are voting for. By eliminating voters who vote simply because of a candidates gender, name, or appearance, the public could be lead by the candidate who the most informed voters choose.
Im Mike Rotenberg and I approve this message.
I feel that a democracy where people would be able to have a say in government ideas, be able to vote for what they desire in the form of helping to improve their own lifestyles, avoid the corrupt leaders/dictators, and help the people to be safe. The government would off opportunities for the people and allow them to make smart decisions. The democracy would be in favor of popular demand and also help the society to improve for the better. If laws were to carefully go through all 3 branches of government and go through congress, all ideas and laws would be suitable for the governments needs and the peoples. By avoiding corrupt leaders, you are eliminating the idea of too much power. If the government is showing us that they can make beneficial changes for us , many people will vote more and get more involved with the politics.
- One design i would like to add to my government to improve the workings of a fast and effective government, is checks and balances. I feel that checks and balances is important in a government so we know that no specific individual is gaining more power over another or a group. By eliminating this factor, we can make sure that the government runs smoothly with each person in their own department - controlling their own policy, or problem
-Another design i might add to my government is direct voting for people in their community or area. I feel that people who live in communities or even states, know what they want and what they need. They know what would suit their housing environments best and what will ensure them to be happy and healthy. If people want schooling changed, buses, new stop lights, or any other idea that would ensure them a smoother life, should be voted on through direct votes. people would be able to improve lifestyles.
I agree with Mike because i feel his ideas of checks and balances is a great one. Checks and balances is very important in a large government like a democracy. Jonathan brings a good point that the people do know whats best for themselves and what they do or don't want. The government needs to be efficient but also make the people living under their control happy with what laws or policies were discussed.
1. I would prefer a democracy in which popular demands will be attended to. I would also want there will be no corrupt leaders. I would want laws that give equal rights to everybody.
2. I would changes in government to occur fast since with a slow process nothing ever gets done. These changes have to follow the constitutional and be chosen by popular vote.
I agree with jJulian since with a quick process current problems would be more important and would be able to taken care of quickly. I also like the idea of change that would be reviewed by the public.
If I were to design a government I would prefer one where people had a chance to give their opinions on major issues and are able to impact the result. However, there would have to be two major opinions in which a government official would then mediate the two so the majority are satisfied in some way. I would prefer a political system that has the most political democracy as possible, that way the citizens do have a say in government. However there still needs to be representation since many people are not trustworthy of a great amount of power. Therefore, there needs to be a system of checks and balances to make sure everybody is using their power correctly and making the best decisions for the majority.
I believe a government would work best with direct voting by the people in a local community such as a city and maybe even a state, since the majority of a specific area thinks alike and knows what they need for there area. However, the federal government would work best with representative democracy, as long as the laws being passed are constitutional and fair for all. In addition, all governments would need the system of checks and balances in order for equal powers and control. A government with efficiency and proper balance would work well in getting laws passed quickly and pleasing the majority of the population.
I agree with Julian and Anam in that there should be online voting since the internet has become widespread and convenient for most people. I believe it would get more of the population involved with the government and choices needed to be made.
If i designed a government i would have a system that would give most of the power to the representatives because in this country only a select amount of people actually pay attention to the politics and economic decisions that impact their lives so a representative would choose those hard decisions for us and best represent our country as a whole. I would also make changes easier to happen in government because the process of making things into law takes a very long time and if it is something that can greatly benefit our country it shouldn't be put on stand bye while another law is being disputed. As far as other changes i would allow an online forum for people to cast their opinions on laws currently up for debate so representatives can see the opinions of their community and changes to the amount of votes it takes to pass a law to prevent laws being shot down due to opposing political forces.
1. If I were to design a government that I'd believe to be effective, it would most definitely be a political system with the greatest possible political democracy, one that translates popular demands into laws and policies as effectively as possible. The founding fathers were against direct democracy, but I believe that it would be more effective. Although the people should have their own opinion and views and decisions about major issues, I agree with Mona that there should still be some representation, that the people should not be trusted with such a large amount of power. If everyone was able to give their direct opinion about issues, laws would be able to please the citizens.
2. I believe that a political system that has the ability to make changes quickly would be the most effective because the needs of the citizens will met sufficiently and quickly. I agree with Anam that these "changes" should go through the Government, (sort of like how a bill or law is made today) so that the citizens do not make radical unnecessary changes.
One change that I would add to my government would be that those who have more money, should be taxed more to stimulate the economy. Putting more taxes on the middle class will not do any good, but make the middle class lose more money, possibly putting people in debt. However, the upper class have the ability to spread their wealth, create more businesses thus creating more jobs, and stimulating the economy. Another change to my government would similar to Jackie's, that there should be a system of checks and balances so not one representative or participant of the government gets out of hand and mis-uses their power, upsetting the citizens.
1. I believe that a government which allows for the people to have a relatively large amount of power is important, but I do believe that educated and experienced individuals should also have power to monitor that minorities still have equal rights, and that fear and traumatic events do not manipulate the minds of the public and drive people to make radical and dangerous decisions.
2. Here, I agree with Jackie Hanna. It would be ideal for things to pass quickly, as the biggest complaint of congress right now is that nothing gets done. Minor changes I do think should be able to made quickly, but I think it would be better for process of making a drastic change to be slower so that all pros and cons have been weighed out and debated by the government and the people. Major changes should not be rushed.
-Online voting is definitely the way to go since most of the public does not seem to care enough to go out, register, and manually vote. (This shows the people's lack of appreciation for democracy, which one can lead one to questioning if the public really wants decisions to just be made for them.) In short, go with the online voting.
-I would want monthly statewide polls (online, of course) in which people can vote on issues and possible law changes being debated. The results of these polls should be taken seriously and heavily influence, but not completely decide the representatives vote (in case of drastic, dangerous and unconstitutional wishes).
A government should be a govt for the people that means it should apply to the demands of the poeple and i see that most of the poeple want to live peacefully but at the same time play a role in the government of their own country . But the problem is that not every one will have the same demands and not every one in our country is educated enough and maybe an individual's demand will negatively effect another individual.
1. i would go with the political system that gives elected officials the right to do what the people of the country want.Only if these oficials are rightly selected and not pass laws only for their own benefit . This is where the checks and balances comes to effect .
2.i would choose a A political system that can makes major changes quickly because if the government takes its time to pass the law the people would be suffering or if an oficial is malpraticing he must be imidiately removed .
I would ensure that the competion among repesentative's is fair and
that only educated individuals who would serve the people of their country are allowed to hold office.
I would also ensure that no malpractice is going around during the elections or after .
1. I would want a democracy where the ideas of the majority would be considered and potentially be made into laws if Congress passes them.
2. I would also want the president to serve for more than 2 terms, maybe 5 at most, so he/she has time for their policies to be put into effect.
I agree with Chris, however if businesses arent regulated than they have the potential to become monopolies and can potentially take control of the economy in a sense.
I believe that a government should listen to the majority of the public since that is who they govern. However, this does not mean that the government isn't allowed to regulate some laws based on what they find is needed. The public is not always right in what they do and at some times the government needs to come in and make a say. Laws should be difficulty to change and there should be a system of checks and balances to regulate laws. If one agrees there should be a minimum of 2 others who agree with the law and support it.
I would prefer a government where their is the greatest possible democracy, to decrease the chances of having corrupt leaders, and the corrupt leaders would pass laws to befit themselves which would create an unstoppable tyrant which would cause an uprising in the country.
I would rather have quickly changing laws so they can adapt to the rapidly moving society we have today.
In my government i would have the president serve 8 years so that they can have time to actually have time to create policies that would befit everyone
This is the best class ever i would never leave
1. I don't agree with either political systems. Having a direct democracy would cause complete chaos, and so would having no democracy. If we were to have a political system with the greatest possible political democracy, you would see people who are not educated about the government or politics making decisions on laws and policies. I can understand why people would think that a direct democracy could work, because maybe we feel that the representatives we have aren't doing their jobs properly. But how would this country become better if laws and policies were put into effect just because of popular demand? Sometimes what we want may not be good for this country, and I would rather have representatives who live and understand politics and economics to make that decision on whether or not a law or policy should pass. If we were to have a direct democracy right now, I feel as if this nation may have been split into two. The same goes for having no democracy at all. The representatives and the people would be at each other's throats at all times, because no representative is perfect, and he or she could force a law or policy to pass through that could negatively affect the country. If there was a perfect balance between the first political system and the second system (sort of like a democratic republic), that would be the form of government that I would have if I had the chance to design one.
2. I don't agree with either of these political systems either. If a government were to make major changes quickly, nobody can know what kind of affect it would have on the country. When the country has too many changes at once, it could be for the worst. But having a government where major changes would rarely occur isn't that great either. For example, if our country was in need of habeas corpus right away, it wouldn't happen because there would be such a slim chance of it going through. This could also negatively affect the country because if the country is in need of a major change, it would take forever for that occur. Once again, if there was a perfect balance between these two political systems, that is what I would want for my government. A political system where the government can make major changes only when it is urgent or necessary to help the country.
I would also want my government to have a separation of powers. I find that it's important to have a separation of powers because if one part of the government has more power than the other, it can cause huge problems for the country, such as having this one part overpowering the other parts of the government, causing an imbalance between the powers. I would have three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) just like the US government has today, to make sure that no part of the government is more powerful than another. This is needed to make sure that the government keeps running smoothly, and gets done what needs to get done.
Another aspect to my government would be using the internet to it's fullest potential. I agree with Julian, that there should be online voting. It would definitely bring in more voters, especially young voters, because they are more likely to use the internet to vote. I also agree with Michael, that there should be statewide polls where citizens can vote and show their opinion on an issue, or even help out with a decision on whether or not a law or policy should be passed. The internet could help the government in so many ways, and should be used more frequently than it is used today to reach out to the people, and let them know that their opinions are being heard.
1. A political system with the greatest possible political democracy in order to ensure that the people's rights and opinions have impacts on the society they live in
2. A political system that can make major changes quickly in order to ensure that changes that need to be in effect quickly can be, and more time and thought can be put into decisions that are not immediately needed
Two changes that I would also put into my government would be a completely equal representation in the legislative branch for each state, and an attempt to get technology to impact our government on a larger scale. Things such as online voting as Julian previously said, and mobile Apps to keep people up to date on the government's decisions
1) I would prefer a political system with the greatest possible democracy that translates popular demands into laws as effectively as possible because the government is supposed to be run for the people, by the people. I agree with Jackie where an election day for laws to be passed would create a fair environment for all. Although, I believe this government would also be effective if Congress were to check if each law was constitutional.
2) I would rather have a political system that can make major changes quickly because society is always changing, and the government should be able to keep up with the needs of its people.
1. I would choose a political system with the greatest possible political democracy because it ensures that the peoples needs are addressed as efficiently as possible. And since the people are the foundation of a nation, the nation would be more stable.
2. I would choose a political system where major changes in policy are hard to effect and happen because major decision cannot be made quickly, or else they may be ineffective.
I agree with Julian in that a system that allows people to vote online would be more efficient, however, another system would have to be implemented in order to prevent hackers from tampering with the votes.
I would want a government in which leaders are elected to represent a state as a while. However i would also want a government that is more open minded and unbias.i beleieve thatbtodays government tries to influence our opinions too much but i also feel they get alot done thats why i like the government that we have today and changing it would ruin the balance of things and how the US works.
If i had to design my own governemnt i would want leaders to be of multipe diversities aswell as multipe religions and cultures. This way one religious beliefe could not over power anoher in the case of gay rights and abortion.and also because this nation is a melting pot of many belifes and i feel that evey beliefe should be represented equaly.
I agree with MT102795 point that presidents should have 8 year terms because as they said 4years in not enough to accomplish many goals especially of you walk onto a presidancy that was already failing.
1. I would want a political system with the greatest possible political democracy. I feel that it is best for the people to be able to decide for themselves what the policies should be, since it is the people as a whole that must live with the consequences of the chosen policies. If only a small group of political authority figures decides for everyone, it will not only be affecting that small group of people. Everyone will have to live off of the decisions of a small group of people.
2. I also believe that a political system that can make major changes quickly is best. Sometimes changes must be made quickly due to unexpected circumstances. The beauty of having a political system which can make rapid changes is that the changes can just as easily and quickly be changed back to the way they were.
In my political system, I would also allow for constant revisions to be made to the current policies. As times change, policies must also change in order to keep up with the developing country. Therefore, I would allow for constant input on how the policies could be changed to better the nation.
I would also agree with Michael Lyons with the idea of online voting. I feel that many citizens do not have enough interest in politics to go out and register to vote. If online voting were implemented, then perhaps more people would vote due to the easy access of the internet.
1. I would use a democratic republic like we have in the United States. Although giving politicians power could cause corruption, their terms would not be long enough to cause serious damage. If they were not doing a good job, they would not get voted into office the next term. The will of the majority would come through policy anyway because the politicians will want to stay in favor with the voters.
2. I would want change to happen quickly within a government. The better a country is at adapting to change the better. The danger of rapid change would be the fact that even though great good would be able to be done is short amounts of time, great harm could also be done.A system of checks and balances would be present in my government as to make sure no single group would become to powerful. In order to ensure this i would have different branches of government.
I agree with Mike Rotenberg also. I would want to make sure those who were voting were not just voting for the name that they have heard most often. They would have to know the stances each politician had on certain subjects as to prove they were voting for them for the right reasons
If I had to design a political system, I would prefer a democracy that translates popular demands into laws in order to avoid selfish leaders making laws that only benefit themselves or their supporters. After all, the government's power is derived from the people and the government was made for the people and to protect their rights.
I would want changes to happen quicker in government rather than how slowly they are passed now. Today, even if we want to make major changes in policy, it is hard to put in effect and it is time consuming, which can make issues larger. Surely, there could be some problems with quick changes, because some decisions can be irrational and narrow-minded; however, we can fix it just as fast as we created the problem because of the ability to make changes quickly.
In my government, I would extend the president’s serving time just like Brianna Fellner. The president would have enough time to carry out his policies and test out his ideas. I also think that all states should have the same laws. Having different laws for different states can engender more arguments, and it doesn’t make sense how some states permit, for example, abortion and gay marriages while others still doesn’t approve of them.
I support apstudent’s idea of allowing constant revisions to be made to current policies. The needs of the people and nations are always changing and I believe that changes must be made in policies. To meet the needs of the people, policies must change and times change.
I agree Jonathan Mui. He and I both have the same ideas. It would be good with a mayor for the city/state so then he/she would have control of the choices made and make sure everything is fair and equal.
I would have a government based upon the current standing of the country, without drifting towards either of the two polar opposites of extreme capitalism or communism. I do not favor majoritarian politics in terms of each citizen having a say in every single decision, besides elections. In this scenario, candidates would have to just appeal to the lowest common denominator of voters who will align with them as they promise beneficial edicts for their situation. So even though my government would have a form of a republic, there would be a greater power in the governmental control each member of the branches holds, to prevent filabusters crowding up congress and leading to no political movement. So, the ideal President elected would be one like F.D.R who goes against the grain, but still helps the country. And of course, if said President is abusing his power, there would be a system of judicial review to deal with said problems that arise.
I agree with Michelle K's view on things. We have to realize political power must be somewhat held by educated people who do not act on a bias like citizens do. In some way also, I feel too much change is not directly linked to a good political system. In some way, you want the government to be a big disorganized mess, as if it actually held too much power or control it would lead to an Orwellian dystopian or something of a less severe measure
1. I would prefer a government with the greatest possible democracy. That would help avoid any corrupt leaders to make decisions that would benefit themselves and their supporters.
2. I would choose a political system that can make changes rather quickly. These changes should be checked over first before being presented to the public. If change is neccessary, the government should make those changes.
-My government would have a system of checks and balances to prevent uneven distribution on power and I would allow direct voting on certain issues.
-I agree with Juilian that voting should be done online. Technology is advancing today and online voting would save time and money.
i agree with victoria about how the government ought to make it's changes fast and efficient as the world is advancing so our government must keep up as well.
The first option. I would prefer a government where the government creates the laws, in order for there to be general wellness throughout the nation. There are too many conflicting demands of the people of a nation so large. However, there should definitely be a firm balance of power, so that the president cannot just choose to pass any law he desires. I think that order and justice is very important in order for society to survive. However freedom is just as important and I don't think the government should get involved to an extreme level, such as communism. I would also make everyone getting assisted by the government (welfare checks, food stamps, etc) be drug tested. If someone needs to be drug tested in order to earn that money, they should get tested in order to receive it. That would help curb the drug problem in the country. I would allow all persons, no matter what gender, sexual orientation to be married. If it is stated that all people are equal and have the same rights, then gay people should have the same right to marriage. We've gotten past slavery and I think it's about time this was nationally accepted.
In response to Victoria, I think that a direct democracy would be too difficult to manage in such a large country. Also there are too many conflicting views and needs. Majority wins.
I am in 100% accordance with Michelle on this matter. A balanced government is necessary to run at a high efficiency. A government should also have a balanced number of changes. Changes that occur too quickly, or too slowly, often have negative effects upon society.
I highly disagree with ohheytheretville. A presidential term should not be 8 years a piece- 16 years with the same president is too much. New blood- a fresh administration- would pump life back into the government.
I agree with Anam on the highly liberal view of taxing the rich and large corporations. This new tax money would create more public works and benefits, so as to benefit the economy as well as the union.
Although I find "cowboysandkittens" statement valid, and quite humorous -
(I would also make everyone getting assisted by the government (welfare checks, food stamps, etc) be drug tested. If someone needs to be drug tested in order to earn that money, they should get tested in order to receive it. That would help curb the drug problem in the country.) I think that this would be quite unconstitutional. although it is unfortunate sometimes welfare money goes to drug and alcohol instead of food and rent, the people on welfare must be responsible with their money.
I agree with Slenderman. I want a democracy that helps the people, ensuring their needs are met.
I would choose a system that if a change is made, it affects the system slowly, so as to allow for changes to be made to the change and for people to adjust.
I agree with Justina Assad about how the government should put laws into action as quick as possible. If things are needed to make the place better, its better that it be done quicker instead of it being 10 years later and that law would be soon not needed
I would prefer a democracy that translates popular demands into laws. This would prevent power hungry leaders or factions from making laws with only themselves or their supporters in mind. It would ensure that the rights of the people are still protected and that the government’s power is derived from the citizens.
I would want change to be made more quickly within government. It is very beneficial for a country to adapt well to changes; especially if the country is in the midst of an economic or political crisis. A system of checks and balances among different branches of government would be present to ensure that no single individual or party would become too powerful. This would also make sure that no harmful changes would be made too quickly.
I agree with Michael Lyons that online polls should be held where citizens are able to show their opinions on issues or even vote to assist in the decision making process of a law or policy. The government should definitely use the Internet to reach out to people more often. More Americans would get involved if they had easier more efficient ways of expressing their opinions and desires when it comes to politics. This might help speed up the process of making effective changes in government.
I agree mostly with michelles criticisms of these systems and how there are no true winning philosphies that are completely right however there are compromises that could bridge all well ideas
If I could create my own government, I would make a republic. Those elected would have to be very responsive to the people's will. My elected officials would be responsive to the population's will so they would not make laws for their own benefit but for the citizens’. The elected would not be entirely subject to the immediate will of the people though. I believe that from time to time there are situations, the complexity of which, exceed the ability of the average citizen to fully grasp and so the representatives must be empowered to act while still ultimately with the consent of the people, to some extent independently. There should be impediments to the speed of the legislative process. The people engaging themselves in an amendment to their social contract should have adequate time to consider it. People may realize that some laws are bad ideas only after thinking about them for a long time. The less time it takes to pass legislation, the quicker damage can be done to the nation. To keep the system democratic, anyone who is twenty or older would be mandated to vote or pay a fine. Some groups of people may vote more than others (e.g. whites, democrats, or males). By having the entire adult population vote, the representatives will get a better idea of what everybody wants. Also it will cause many people to become better informed, and they will therefore make better decisions. Another way I would cause the population to make better political decisions is by abolishing political parties. Many voters tend to vote "down the line" and not consider all of a candidate's views. Without political parties, people will be forced to learn about every candidate. Also, more than two candidates can be in an election this way, which can eliminate people's idea of having to vote for "the lesser of two evils" and so make them like government more. In my government, the Supreme Court justices would not serve life terms. They are too susceptible to becoming corrupt in this situation because they have no one to answer to. They should, instead, be elected for ten years by Congress. This way the people will have more influence than if justices were elected by the president and new justices can be chosen if the ones in office have made many bad decisions. My government would solve many of the problems in America's current government system.
I disagree with Mike Rotenberg's idea that decisions and laws should be made as quickly as possible. Time should be taken to carefully consider every law we make and every side of the arguments. Rushing this process can lead to rash decision making
I think the elected officials should have the most say in what laws are passed because those are the people who voted in as officials in the first place. it would be too difficult to take into account every persons opinions because there are just too many people. also, no two people have the exact same ideas in mind so there would be too many variations of the law to vote on, therefore, the only people who should have law making power are the officials.
its should take a long process to enact laws because if it was too easy to pass them, there would be so many ridiculous laws that would further limit the rights of the people. there cannot be too many laws, and they must be thought through in depth in order to have the most effective legal system.
I would prefer a system with the greatest possible democracy. A democracy that translates popular demands into laws. This would help the people get what they want/need and stop the leaders from creating laws that only give them more power or help them.
I would want change to be made more quickly within government.Sometimes, changes need to be made right away depending on the situation the country is in.
I would also have a system of checks and balances among different branches of government be present o that no single individual or branch of government would become too powerful.
I agree with Julian that voting should be on the internet because most Americans use the internet and it would be a quicker process. Many people don't like doing things that take more than a few minutes so this could encourage more people to vote.
If I were to design a government, I'd choose the options that "A political system with the greatest possible political democracy-that is, one that translates popular demands into laws and policies as effectively as possible" and "A political system where major changes in policy are very hard to effect and happen".
More additions include not having my form of government get involved in education and business (maybe a little depending on the situation), and not be basis towards over governments.
1. I would prefer the first when where popular demands would be made into laws and policies as effectively as possible. I believe this because this would put the countries best interests into effect. The country should have a president or someone else who is fairly in charge to make sure the majorities ideas are not too radical.
2.I think it would be better for the political changes to be made slowly rather than quickly because if they are done too quickly the route for them to come to be might be too easy. This can allow ideas that are not in the best interest of the country to pass.
In my government i think it would better for a president to serve a longer term to ensure his/ ideas are put into place but i also believe once elected they should not have the ability to become president again
I disagree with TottenvilleBlogger12, even though a president could be kept into office for 6 terms doesnt mean he can have the ability to become a dictator. There is still the system of checks and balances to keep him/her in place. Also the president doesnt have alot of power towards many things
Post a Comment