Senate The Political Science Thread

A thread to talk about politics from an academic perspective, on a worldwide scale, without partisan flaming.

Which is a fairer system, a pure democracy or a democratic republic such as the United States?

I think a democratic republic is fairer because it is designed to protect minority interests from the majority. History has shown that the majority doesn't always have the rest of societies interests at heart.

 

It's just a starting point, if someone wants to approach a different political subject they are welcome to it.

 

The roman republic example is an interesting one, I was just watching "Gladiator" yesterday.

I'm sure it was one of the best political systems of it's time, obviously it ended up being to expansionist for it's own good. I wonder what the Roman Empire would be like in modern times, or what the United States would be like in Roman times.

 

Well, to be fair the United States has ceased it's military expansionism, but we are a former colony of one of the most powerful empires of the Imperial Age. I don't think American intention was ever to be a small isolated nation.

Which brings another question as to weather the ends of war ever justify the means.

 

All of Bernie Sanders supporters probably think we should go by pure popular vote.

 

I bet Al Gore supporters in 00 thought the same thing.

 

I did not!

 

To get a little more academic, I think a unicameral (population-based) legislative branch, and a unitary (instead of federal or confederate) national government might be better.

And I'm always going back-and-forth on whether a parliamentary system would be better or not.


Unicameral=one house (not a House and a Senate, Nebraska is one state example)
Unitary=no states' rights (Canada and the UK are unitary)
Parliamentary=legislature chooses the chief executive, less separation of powers (again, like the UK)

 

So you don't think there should be any state or local governments?

 

Fairness has little part to play in this; I for one reject any notion that a non-paristan democracy of the people is the answer. I'm fine with a government of intellectual elites on both sides, because governance is not something you trust your average tradesperson with. This is not a new idea either, but it should stick - just because you think you have opinions about what ought be done doesn't mean you should be empowered to realise them.

Also no serious political scientist would ever consider the US' system of government the best in the world, just saying.

 

Canada has provinces. But their national government has the final say on everything.

Right now states in the US are the same way. If, say, Rhode Island wanted to abolish all its local city/town governments and have everything run by the state government, they could do that. Same with any state in the U.S. The state has the final say over cities and towns.

I just think the national government should have final say over states. Federal laws are considered the supreme law of the land now, but constitutional limits still establish states' rights.

I still think states should be allowed to innovate and be laboratories of democracy, but just let the national government be able to have the final say.

 

It is under one definition, but not obviously the "everyone participates in all decision-making" one.

 

Eh, few few places have somewhere that has the kinds of barriers to entry that stop certain people getting elected but let Trump through to be a serious contender.

 

I don't necessarily think the US system is "the best in the world", but I think it's one of the most consistant and most stable democracies in the world.

 

So you want unitary United States not a federal government?

 

Socialist systems work better in Europe because they are smaller countries and easier to govern. Large countries like the US and China would be much harder to impliment a socialist system in.

 

If only the United States were divided into 50 smaller entities that were a bit more manageable.

 

The problem is not all 50 states are as liberal as other states.

 

I think it's an idea worth looking into. It would probably never happen under current political conditions, but right now I'm leaning for it than against it. If the national government wanted to give more power to the provinces in some areas, it could, and it could also take some duties out of their responsibility. It's so much more flexible and consistent.

Unitary has nothing to do with socialism/capitalism or any ideology, it's about political structure.

 

Canada is federal.

No, there is the same separation of powers. In fact in the parliamentary system the Head of Government and Head of State are separate. The executive is just formed from the legislative.

a) European countries aren't really 'socialist'
b) China used to be socialist
c) The USSR was a big country

 

I said less separation of powers, not none. And you can still have one person as head of state and government in a parliamentary system.

You're right about Canada, I misremembered that. But there are a lot of successful unitary governments in the world was my point (see blue in this map), including but not limited to the UK.