Which type of Government System...

G_R

Apologies Mods if this has been discussed before but the search function is still down and the google one is annoying me...

What kind of government system would boardsies like to have and why:

A) Current Parlimentary System (Daíl + Virtualy Powerless Seanad and President)
Current Parlimentary System but with increased powers for the Seanad (Powers to block bills and force amendments etc) (President stays the same)
C) Presidential System (essentially US or French system - Directly elected President who actually gets involved in Politics, with ability to propose Bills and Block them at his/her own discretion. Dail and Seanad would both be able to amend bills and they would then recieve the final OK from the president
D) Another type, please list it



Personally, I would like to see a Presidential System, I feel that it would be better to have the person who represents us as a nation to be directly elected. Who is to say that Brian Cowen would have been elected if he was put to a popular vote, he is where he is now because he is popular in the Fianna Fail party. I also think that it is shamefull to have a President being paid upwards of €400,000/year who virtually does nothing, nothing of any signifigance anyway. And the same can be said for the Seanad.

So opinions, A B C or D...

any chance a mod could add a poll please, the option to add one seems to have disappeared

nesf

I'd prefer a full bicameral set-up with both the lower and upper houses required to pass bills combined with both houses being able to amend/change them. Combined with staggered elections similar to the US/Japanese system so mid term the people can undermine a Government they strongly disagree with. Also, I'd like to see the Whip abolished.

It definitely has its problems but I don't like our current set up much to be honest.

Kevster

None of these are the ideal system, and there is actually no ideal one in existence. However, if the ruler is genuinely selfless, then a monarchy is the best. Communism has good points about it, and I think that's it's the best of a bad bunch.

Pride Fighter

nesf wrote: »

I'd prefer a full bicameral set-up with both the lower and upper houses required to pass bills combined with both houses being able to amend/change them. Combined with staggered elections similar to the US/Japanese system so mid term the people can undermine a Government they strongly disagree with. Also, I'd like to see the Whip abolished.

It definitely has its problems but I don't like our current set up much to be honest.

I'll second this. Abolishing the whip will encourage bi-partizanship and constructive debate. Mid term elections would see FF out of office if they had them at the same time we had the local elections.

nesf

Kevster wrote: »

Communism has good points about it, and I think that's it's the best of a bad bunch.

It really really doesn't.

Boskowski

It's obvious that the current system which is capitalism under the umbrella of disguised or undisguised feudalism is not suited to advance humanity and societies and is built upon exploitation of others and exploitation of the planet and will ultimately lead into a 'cul de sac'. Any twelve year old can see that.

And I think we are already beginning to see the end of that road, we just have no idea (yet?) how to turn the vehicle around or even slow it down a bit.

After the failed communism experiment, which is no matter what people say the way to go if only we could, I'm wondering are we simply unable to advance/develop ourselves to rise beyond the current self-destructive system? I think there's a good chance we carry the seed of said self destruction in us all along and there's simply no way of stopping it.

daithicarr

presidential systems have the problem that its hard to remove them if public support went against them or the party they represent, if brian cowen did something which really got everyone angry, his party or coalition party's would desert him, either for the good of the nation or more likely to save their political skins.

If you get a bad president your in stuck with him, more so for a monarch and under communism you get a monarch in all but name

a parliamentary system with PR is the best way to reflect the interests of the public. it just needs reform and legislation to ensure their are more checks in place and that those in charge don't get to monitor their own activity's

Boskowski

daithicarr wrote: »

if brian cowen did something which really got everyone angry, his party or coalition party's would desert him, either for the good of the nation or more likely to save their political skins.

Mmmmh, what about NAMA? I think a lot of people are quite angry about that... Nobody can remove him tho.

daithicarr

think people are confused and want something done rather than constant dithering, at this stage a lot of people will take nama in the hope that it will work as company's are being starved of capital and they cant wait for new proposals to be debated and dragged out all over again.
They should have debated it on a cross party basis at the beginning, but that's for a completely different thread

maybe if they stayed in power 2 more years and continued to give pay rises to themselves and civil service, that sort of anger.

Boskowski

daithicarr wrote: »

think people are confused and want something done rather than constant dithering, at this stage a lot of people will take nama in the hope that it will work as company's are being starved of capital and they cant wait for new proposals to be debated and dragged out all over again.
They should have debated it on a cross party basis at the beginning, but that's for a completely different thread

maybe if they stayed in power 2 more years and continued to give pay rises to themselves and civil service, that sort of anger.

I don't buy this companies starved for capital bull at all.

Companies who are starved for capital because they're not doing well because the basis just ain't there anymore will still not get any. Companies who are fundamentally sound but are in a bit of a tight spot are gettin' the moneys already.

If they weren't we could just build a state bank to give those companies credit. Problem solved and we're not sitting on a pile of sh1t at the same time.

Only goes to show that we need either a state reserve bank or else very, very strong regulation. We have neither of those and NAMA isn't even attempting to fix that. More proof that this is just just large scale white collar robbery. That's all.

Kevster

How can you guys know that communism wouldn't work? If applied corectly, then it should be the best government. CAn anyone honestly say that democracy - in any guise - works? In a democracy, it has been shown repeatedly at this stage that the wealth gap becomes larger, rates of depression/suicide rise, people become greedy, and - basically - it just can't work in the long term.

starbelgrade

I'd opt for a dictatorship, but only if I were in charge.

nesf

realcam wrote: »

I don't buy this companies starved for capital bull at all.

Companies who are starved for capital because they're not doing well because the basis just ain't there anymore will still not get any. Companies who are fundamentally sound but are in a bit of a tight spot are gettin' the moneys already.

You sound like you think it's possible to simply divide companies into good and bad ones in a recession and divide credit on that basis. Seriously, easy to tell at the extremes, extremely difficult to make sense of in the middle ground and that's where a lot of the credit is most needed. You also seem to not realise that companies routinely use short term credit services to stay liquid, especially smaller ones. Or that credit is needed to fun expansion etc et al.

nesf

Kevster wrote: »

How can you guys know that communism wouldn't work? If applied corectly, then it should be the best government.

It's an information problem. How do you know everything so you can allocate resources appropriately in order to maximise well being of your citizens? It's the crux of the fully planned economy problem, how does the planner know what to plan?

djk1000

I'd like to see some form of meritocracy. The people elect a government, but to be up for election a person would need to have demonstrated the skills for the job. Hypothetical example, someone wants to be minister of finance, they shouldn't be able to get there because they are a barrister with a famous dad.

Or do away with a lot of the power of the TD's, give the president the power to run the country. When the president runs for office, they have to name the people that they will appoint to the government departments (vote for me for president and Michael O'Leary has agreed to be my Secretary for Enterprise and Trade etc.)

No need to pick holes in this, I'm just musing, devising a fair system of meritocracy would take more time than I have right now...

starbelgrade

djk1000 wrote: »

No need to pick holes in this, I'm just musing, devising a fair system of meritocracy would take more time than I have right now...

Just let me rule the place. I've loads of time to think about it.. no need for you or anyone to worry. The world is safe in my hands.

Boskowski

djk1000 wrote: »

I'd like to see some form of meritocracy. The people elect a government, but to be up for election a person would need to have demonstrated the skills for the job. Hypothetical example, someone wants to be minister of finance, they shouldn't be able to get there because they are a barrister with a famous dad.

I think my signature sums it up pretty much...

KerranJast

We need:
1. Reduced Seanad with members who are fully independent. I want to see a 35-40 seat Seanad full of the likes of David Norris and Shane Ross not failed political party candidates who just want to get into the Dail.
2. Increased powers for the new Seanad. Oversight on important legislation etc. More participation in committees.
3. Reduction in the number of TDs so that there are max 4 and min 2 in each constituency. My own one is a very small area in population yet we have 3 TDs two of whom are just bodies to make up the vast bulk of FF & FG backbenchers respectively. The are glorified local councilors. The Dail needs to be primarily about legislating and important debate. EVERY TD should be present for at least 75% of the Dail term.
4. Reform of the committee system so it becomes a real place for concrete action. We need a replacement for the tribunals that won't be bogged down by legal challenges. If that means a referendum so be it. The US has a very effective committee system for dealing with issues of critical national importance. We need to borrow from that.
5. A beefed up local government system with very strict oversight to prevent abuses.

I actually think a generous reduction in TDs would solve a lot of problems. It means candidates would be elected for their legislative ideas/record rather than fixing potholes/attending funerals. It also would mean failed party candidates wouldn't be able to use the Seanad as a backup.

starbelgrade

realcam wrote: »

I think my signature sums it up pretty much...

I'd have to sign out to read it though.

Agent Smith

C. I'd like to see an american Style System, where the president Has Power

starbelgrade

Agent Smith wrote: »

C. I'd like to see an american Style System, where the president Has Power

At least you can see the strings!

electrogrimey

What about some kind of Jury Duty style Dail?
(bear with me this is a very rough idea)
A Dáil in which the public has more power. Maybe 75% elected TDs, and the rest rotated from some sort of register of people informed enough about politics to be eligible for the Dáil. Don't see the need for a president really, don't see why any one person should have direct power over a country, a president with more power could easily block any, for example, gay rights bills that come in if they had some sort of homophobia.