Arizal1 wrote:You seem to like the idea of randomly electing people.
Indeed. I believe that randomly elected non-partisan officials serve as an effective countermeasure against partisan politics and demagoguery.
Arizal1 wrote:Usually, what is checked by second chambers are the legislations which are about to be voted by the first one.
The Board of Regulators could be required to examine all legislation presented to the Parliament.
In such a case, the Board of Regulators would also be vested with the power to:
- Appoint boards of experts to assist it in determining the social, economic and political effects of legislation.
- Recommend changes to be made to pieces of legislation.
- Send legislation to the Supreme Court for examination.
Arizal1 wrote:What could happen however would be a relative strenghtening of its power over the time of its mandate, as people would know each other more and factions would arise... factions which could find common interest in curbing the president's power.
This could be prevented by limiting the power of the Board of Regulators to what is strictly necessary, imposing restrictions upon it's members aimed at preventing partisan and self-serving behaviour (e.g. they are not permitted to communicate outside of their sittings), and subjecting Votes of Approval to the consent of the Supreme Court (i.e. the Board of Regulators may call for a Vote of Approval, provided the Supreme Court consents thereto).
Arizal1 wrote:The problem with all those guarantees is that they are words. They can be interpreted, that is manipulated (whether intentionally or not) in order for them to adapt to the real situation.
What if the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution were legally binding and structurally protected? thus, such interpretations could only be changed by the Supreme Court with the consent of the Board of Regulators (i.e. the interpretation of a constitutional article or part thereof can only be changed if the Board of Regulators calls for the Supreme Court to re-examine it).
Arizal1 wrote:I am not sure of the effects, but I have some questions I have to ask in order to understand better your suggestion. Would the Parliement still consist of only one chamber, or of both chambers and how? If it consists of both chambers, then by which mechanism would the Praesidium be voted? I mean by that, would both chambers vote at the same time in a joint assembly, or should there be an agreement between them? Also, do you mean by that there would be no president nor ministers anymore, but a Praesidium which would exclusively manage the administration? Would the "president" and "ministers" function be already decided in the bill forming the praesidium, or would the praesidium get to choose which person would be president after being nominated?
Praesidium system:
1. The Praesidium would be two-tiered (President -> Council). The Council would consist of 25 individuals.
2. The Parliament would be unicameral. There are 867 seats in the Parliament; 680 proportional seats and 187 direct seats. It elects both the President and the members of the Council.
During elections, citizens cast 2 votes;
- For the proportional seats: The nation consists of 17 provinces, and each Province of the nation forms a single constituency with equal representation (there are 17 constituencies which each elect 40 MPs). Each citizen casts two sequential votes. They first cast a vote for the political party of their choice (party preference vote), then cast a vote for the party member of their choice (member preference vote). Within each Province, each party's members are ranked by the number of "member preference votes" they receive in order to rank them in order of popularity. Parliamentary proportional seats are then allocated to each party proportionally to the percentage of "party preference votes" each party has received (i.e. a party which has received 26% of votes in a Province will receive 10 seats from that Province), with members being given seats by order of their popularity (i.e. if a party wins 10 seats, it's 10 most popular members will each receive a seat). Seats which cannot be allocated will be left empty (thus blank vote = vote to remove seats). The party with the most votes (plurality of party preference votes) within a Province appoints the Governor of the Province in question. Only legally-recognized parties may participate in proportional seat elections.
- For the direct seats: The nation consists of 17 provinces, and each Province of the nation forms a single constituency with equal representation (there are 17 constituencies which each elect 11 direct seat MPs). Each citizen casts a single vote. Each province is divided into 11 districts, with each district electing a single MP by plurality. Only independents and legally-recognized political parties may participate in direct seat elections.
3. There will be a Board of Regulators. This Board of Regulators will have 187 members who are elected at random by a public ballot (11 members from each of the 17 Provinces) simultaneously to, and for the same term as, the Parliament. It would have the power to:
- Remove the President and Members of Council from office (with the consent of the Supreme Court).
- Examine legislation and recommend modifications thereto.
- Appoint boards of experts to assist in determining the consequences of legislation.
- Send legislation to the Supreme Court.
4. There are 10 Judges of the Supreme Court. Judges of the Supreme Court are elected every 10 years. They are elected at random by a public ballot, from amongst all the Nation's Judges aged 45 and over.
5. Only members of the Praesidium (President and Members of Council) can propose legislation. Only the Parliament can propose Constitutional Amendments. The Parliament debates and votes on all legislation. Laws can only be passed with the approval of at least half of the Parliament and a quorum of at least three-quarters of it's members, whilst Constitutional Amendments can only be passed with the approval of at least three-quarters of the Parliament and a quorum of at least nine-tenths of it's members. Legislation comes into effect once passed by the Parliament and promulgated by the President. The Supreme Court can declare a piece of legislation to be unconstitutional, effectively instantly repealing it.
Arizal1 wrote:Truthfully, I woul prefer to give the elected chamber the responsibility to nominate ministers and to demote them and to both chamber the possibility to nominate (and perhaps also demote or impeach) the president.
I agree that the Parliament should appoint the Ministers on grounds that it would somewhat mitigate corruption. However, this could increase the chance of the parliament forming unreasonable coalitions (e.g. Liberal / centre-right + Socialist / centre-left + Nationalist / right-wing) to preserve power.
Arizal1 wrote:I find that your system relies very much on randomness [...]
I believe that the randomness is a positive feature. One of the few advantages of monarchies is the chance of getting a good monarch who genuinely cares about his nation and it's people, and can make rational improvements free from the shackles of idealist opponents, partisan politics and demagoguery. This system would grant such an advantage to a republic.
Arizal1 wrote:I would also really remove the censorship, as those ideologies you don't seem to like can bring good ideas. Misinterpreting what they are could also lead to ideas you would find perfectly valid and interesting to be censored.
Such ideologies tend to do a lot more harm than good;
Religion has given us oppression, arbitrary discrimination, ritual child-abuse, opposition to modern science, terrorism, ...
Cultural Marxism has given us victim culture, "reverse racism", "reverse sexism", cultural relativism, political correctness, ...
Pseudoscience has given us homoeopathic medicine, "spiritism", ...
Discrimination on grounds of natural factors gave us oppression, genocide, slavery, ...
Violation of constitutional rights and liberties gave us the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, ...