Log in

View Full Version : what would be the name of this kind of political system?


danyboy27
26th January 2011, 18:05
Multiple political party, but no representatives are elected.

The executive (ministers) are elected by the people.

The executive power decide make the laws and the people can vote to accept or reppeal it.

how would such system be called?
Dimentio
26th January 2011, 18:11
It would be similar to the Swiss system. All the parties are a part of the government, and the people could take almost anything to referendum. It is a representative democracy with more traits of a direct democracy than usual.
RGacky3
26th January 2011, 18:11
Its representative democracy, except where the executive branch is also the legislative, also with direct democracy in the legislative process.
danyboy27
26th January 2011, 19:12
It would be similar to the Swiss system. All the parties are a part of the government, and the people could take almost anything to referendum. It is a representative democracy with more traits of a direct democracy than usual.

how come i never heard nothing about the swiss system before?

i doubt its perfect but it sure sound better than what we have right here in canada.
ComradeMan
26th January 2011, 20:38
Democracy?
:lol:
Dimentio
26th January 2011, 20:43
how come i never heard nothing about the swiss system before?

i doubt its perfect but it sure sound better than what we have right here in canada.

Because Switzerland has a restrictive immigration policy and prefers to keep it's profile low due to money laundering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Politics
danyboy27
26th January 2011, 20:49
Because Switzerland has a restrictive immigration policy and prefers to keep it's profile low due to money laundering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Politics

BUt still, their system sound pretty awsome.
Dimentio
26th January 2011, 20:56
Yes, don't contest that.

But few have heard of them because of above-mentioned reasons.

At the same time, they are a rogue state. Not imperialist like the USA, but they basically allow tax evaders and kleptocrats to hide their money inside the country, which has made them excessively wealthy.
Dean
26th January 2011, 21:10
Democracy?
:lol:

Good to see that you're being constructive in this thread, though.


The above Swiss & OP systems do sound like functioning democracies.
danyboy27
26th January 2011, 21:25
Good to see that you're being constructive in this thread, though.


The above Swiss & OP systems do sound like functioning democracies.

the question is, who created the base of their political system?
Dimentio
26th January 2011, 22:37
the question is, who created the base of their political system?

It kind of evolved after a tax revolt of the Swiss people against the Habsburgs in the late 13th century.
RGacky3
27th January 2011, 07:11
Honestly, most direct democracy systems and even representative democracy systems will work relatively well if you take money out of the issue.

California has a direct democracy of sorts, but considering its dependant on money, its really only a direct democracy for the rich.
Revolution starts with U
27th January 2011, 08:11
^ Purchasing power is tryanny in politics

alliteration is Billy D Williams cool :cool:
ComradeMan
27th January 2011, 09:08
Don't forget it was this same direct democracy that banned the building of new mosques in Switzerland.

The danger with direct democracy is, what if the raw majority hold a reactionary view on something?

I am sure if there were a direct democracy vote on some issues many minority groups or certain emotional issues would swing in a worrying direction- such as the death penalty for example. It's a dilemma I admit.
Revolution starts with U
27th January 2011, 09:10
Ya, that's why constitutions are cool. But they have their drawbacks as well.

The solution is in personal autonmy. The question is... how to arrive at that without statism.
Dimentio
27th January 2011, 10:28
Ya, that's why constitutions are cool. But they have their drawbacks as well.

The solution is in personal autonmy. The question is... how to arrive at that without statism.

Confederalism?
Revolution starts with U
27th January 2011, 10:37
Confederalism has it's advantages. But it suffers from a lack of stability. It cannot be the "peacekeeper of last resorts" that a state can.
RGacky3
27th January 2011, 11:01
Don't forget it was this same direct democracy that banned the buildning of new mosques in Switzerland.

The danger with direct democracy is, what if the raw majority hold a reactionary view on something?


That could be a problem, and there are ways around it, but its still less likely than autocracy giving into reactionary views.
spice756
2nd February 2011, 03:43
how come i never heard nothing about the swiss system before?

i doubt its perfect but it sure sound better than what we have right here in canada.

It may be better than US and Canada but who owns the media ? It not the poor?

What about the schools amd TV /movies you right the elite not the poor.
spice756
2nd February 2011, 03:52
Don't forget it was this same direct democracy that banned the building of new mosques in Switzerland.

The danger with direct democracy is, what if the raw majority hold a reactionary view on something?

I am sure if there were a direct democracy vote on some issues many minority groups or certain emotional issues would swing in a worrying direction- such as the death penalty for example. It's a dilemma I admit.

This is why people need to be educated has now most people in US and Canada no nothing about politics and economics.

Read this More Canadians want Senate abolished: Poll Read here http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/More+Canadians+want+Senate+abolished+Poll/4206050/story.html

Ya it crazy but people are not educate.

Read up on US and Canada politics it is so easy for one leader in Canada do make changes and have so much power the way it is set up.Well harder for one leader in US to make changes and have power the way it set up in US.Not saying US is best but harder to past bills and make changes .

We don't want leaders we want the working class.
RGacky3
2nd February 2011, 07:10
It not the poor?

What about the schools amd TV /movies you right the elite not the poor

Some of it is the state (everyone), some, the rich.


Read this More Canadians want Senate abolished: Poll Read here http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/...050/story.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/More+Canadians+want+Senate+abolished+Poll/4206050/story.html)


What would be wrong with abolishing the Senate? It sounds like a good idea, especially the way the Canadians have it (pretty much an aristocratic house, appointed by a representative of the monarchy), why the hell would anyone want to keep that?


Well harder for one leader in US to make changes and have power the way it set up in US.Not saying US is best but harder to past bills and make changes .


If you want to know anything about American politics you have to start with the money.