Imagine if there were no political partys. Voters would just vote for one of the candidates in their riding. Everyone who won would go to congress. Once there, they would debate and bring forward proposals and vote on them.
The voters could also vote for a President who would be the figure-head of the congress and break any ties on voting.
Crazy? One of the US founding fathers didn't think so.
Originally posted by uzlessThat was the original idea behind the US system of government.
Imagine if there were no political partys. Voters would just vote for one of the candidates in their riding. Everyone who won would go to congress. Once there, they would debate and bring forward proposals and vote on them.
The voters could also vote for a President who would be the figure-head of the congress and break any ties on voting.
Crazy? One of the US founding fathers didn't think so.
Originally posted by uzlesssounds too good to be true
Imagine if there were no political partys. Voters would just vote for one of the candidates in their riding. Everyone who won would go to congress. Once there, they would debate and bring forward proposals and vote on them.
The voters could also vote for a President who would be the figure-head of the congress and break any ties on voting.
Crazy? One of the US founding fathers didn't think so.
It's a laudable idea, but the alternative would be a loose collection of easily-corruptible factions of the type we had here in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The trade unions would probably lose influence while business would retain it. I imagine the political right would be strengthened considerably and consultancies would proliferate. I don't fancy another Long Parliament.
Originally posted by AmauroteAs it stands now, big corporations can just donate money to the "party" without having to fund individual candidates. This allows the party in power to then reward the corporation. Funding individual candidates would decrease power influence nationally unless the corporation were to fund a majority of the 500-odd congressmen.
It's a laudable idea, but the alternative would be a loose collection of easily-corruptible factions of the type we had here in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The trade unions would probably lose influence while business would retain it. I imagine the political right would be strengthened considerably and consultancies would proliferate.
In fact, all "special interest" groups powers would be diminished substantially from the over-influence they hold now. It's much harder to convince 500 congressmen than it is to convince one party.
Originally posted by uzlessThe problem there isn't political parties, it's the laws governing donations - here the problem is slightly different because donations (although not loans) are strictly limited. A better solution would be to outlaw anything but limited spending on purely informational campaigns or introduce state funding for political parties - corruption in the period before parties gained a foothold makes our own look like a walk in the park. I'm all for exploring alternatives to the present system, but I think you're more likely to find it in industrial democracy than in regressing to a pre-parliamentary state.
As it stands now, big corporations can just donate money to the "party" without having to fund individual candidates. This allows the party in power to then reward the corporation. Funding individual candidates would decrease power influence nationally unless the corporation were to fund a majority of the 500-odd congressmen.
In fact, all "special intere ...[text shortened]... y hold now. It's much harder to convince 500 congressmen than it is to convince one party.