• Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • Dawn, Gloria, Juliana, or Summer - which Pokémon protagonist is your favorite? Let us know by voting in our poll!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

The PCNation

What about ranked voting? You rank the parties/candidates in order, and if your first choice doesn't win a majority, then your vote goes to your second choice. That way you decide where your vote goes even if your preferred candidate doesn't win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sun
Kanzler said:
What about ranked voting? You rank the parties/candidates in order, and if your first choice doesn't win a majority, then your vote goes to your second choice. That way you decide where your vote goes even if your preferred candidate doesn't win.
Click to expand...

That sounds good, I'd be okay with that.
 
gimmepie said:
That sounds good, I'd be okay with that.
Click to expand...

I like that as well.

i dont like the American system because you do not need a majority of people to win an election- only a certain majority in a few states. If i recall exactly, I think you can win the presidency with only 17% of the popular vote.
 
As long as it isn't that electoral college **** I'm fine. Romney should've won last election since the populous had a higher percentage in votes, but be lost because Obama had a higher percentage of votes by electoral college.
 
Last edited:
That's not true. Obama carried the popular vote with 66 million, while Romney got 61. Not sure which numbers you're using.
 
Kanzler said:
That's not true. Obama carried the popular vote with 66 million, while Romney got 61. Not sure which numbers you're using.
Click to expand...

I was pretty sure it was Romney. Anyways, let us do away with no electoral college stuff.
 
Thepowaofhax said:
I was pretty sure it was Romney. Anyways, let us do away with no electoral college stuff.
Click to expand...
You sure you're not thinking of the Bush-Gore election?

But yeah, no electoral college please.
 
So let's get back to talking about PC's nation Parliament. I think we should a wide range of parties, and there should be two houses like the UK and American one.
 
Well, we can have a unelected house that is made up of experts who look at the elected houses legislation, and decide if it's really right for the country.
 
Steel Master said:
Well, we can have a unelected house that is made up of experts who look at the elected houses legislation, and decide if it's really right for the country.
Click to expand...

Yes, I like this. Sort of like a board of advisers? For example, prominent people in the military or former statesmen could advise. The issue I have with the board of advisors is giving a former elected member too much power, so maybe the board of advisers can be voted upon, as well as the elected houses legislation? Or am I completely misunderstanding you lol?
 
Honestly, we should just have a Senate with people elected as the representative of that state. That way, every state or province will have equal representation.
 
Steel Master said:
Well, we can have a unelected house that is made up of experts who look at the elected houses legislation, and decide if it's really right for the country.
Click to expand...

Doesn't an unelected house like that kind of defeat the purpose of having a democracy in the first place? The government's chief concern should be representing the will of the people and an unelected upper house can't do that.

Now, for those who seem confused, the point of an upper house is to provide another level of scrutiny for any bills that are being pushed through parliament. The idea is that the upper house can go through bills passed by the lower and reject them/point out flaws to produce better quality laws. Whilst I can certainly see the benefit of this, I've seen a lot of stonewalling and political games played through the upper house here and I'm sure that a lot of places have similar issues. With that said, I'd be perfectly okay with a single house.
 
gimmepie said:
Doesn't an unelected house like that kind of defeat the purpose of having a democracy in the first place? The government's chief concern should be representing the will of the people and an unelected upper house can't do that.

Now, for those who seem confused, the point of an upper house is to provide another level of scrutiny for any bills that are being pushed through parliament. The idea is that the upper house can go through bills passed by the lower and reject them/point out flaws to produce better quality laws. Whilst I can certainly see the benefit of this, I've seen a lot of stonewalling and political games played through the upper house here and I'm sure that a lot of places have similar issues. With that said, I'd be perfectly okay with a single house.
Click to expand...

I like the upper house because it does provide more checks and balances, despite it being more inefficient.
 
BadSheep said:
I like the upper house because it does provide more checks and balances, despite it being more inefficient.
Click to expand...

In theory I love the upper house, it's only in practice that I'm less fond of the idea.
Not to mention it would be a bit hard to actually implement a two-house government in this event.
 
gimmepie said:
In theory I love the upper house, it's only in practice that I'm less fond of the idea.
Not to mention it would be a bit hard to actually implement a two-house government in this event.
Click to expand...

Then how can we guarantee the quality of laws, and if they are constitutional and not limiting freedom? Now we are putting more authority on a small group of people. Its better than a single ruler, but still not optimal.

It may be a bit more difficult. :)
 
The problem is efficiency over quality. I say that we might need a strong Judicial branch to check our one house parliament so we do have quality laws if we go to a one house parliament.
 
An upper house made of unelected advisors might be a good idea if the scope of their power is contained. For example, they are only allowed to suggest non-binding amendments to legislation. This satisfies two needs: 1) their suggestions are non-binding so we don't have a unelected body that can make binding decisions, which also leads to less of an incentive to ply the upper house with partisan members and 2) it would still be effective because if the lower house ignores expert advice it makes them look overly political and self-interested.

The way a bill becomes law might look like this given the above example:

Bill gets introduced in lower house. It gets debated. It comes under a vote. If it passes, the bill gets to the upper house. It gets debated. The upper house decides on amendments to the bill. It gets back to the lower house. It gets debated again, this time with consideration of the amendments suggested by the upper house. The lower house debates the virtues of the amendments, votes on which amendments to apply, and then the bill is finalized. It comes under a final vote. If it passes, it becomes law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top