Good you see the necessity of avoiding coalitions, but don't you think that the parliamentary procedures to avoid them are an utopia.
I don't expect to eliminate the formation of coalitions under multi-party systems, I'd merely hope to rule out the necessity to form coalitions, and reduce the power that any such coalitions would hold.
For example, a legislative body could use the same form of voting internally that I propose for public elections, with weighted choices and run-off votes. This way, committee appointments and other roles could be assigned without a majority party or coalition being required to decide who does what. There need be no paralysis waiting for fractured governments to reform into new coalitions.
Quote:
Be carefull, even if it's good that the judicial branch could overturn politicians willing to do a free ride, the judicial branch should not be above the political system.
Democratia is a story of representation, mostly indirect, because we are too big for direct democratia. The judicial branch is not truly representative.
I think it's good that this branch check if something is constitutional or not, but it should not go further : i am agaisnt the republic of the judges.
I'm not talking about a huge extension of judicial power. Judges already have the power to declare laws unconstitional in the US and other contries. I'm merely proposing that the requirement for focused legislation (no "riders", no hidden "pork" 750 pages into a 1000 page bill, etc.) be one of the criteria under which a judge can find a law to be unconstitutional.
I don't expect to eliminate the formation of coalitions under multi-party systems, I'd merely hope to rule out the necessity to form coalitions, and reduce the power that any such coalitions would hold.
For example, a legislative body could use the same form of voting internally that I propose for public elections, with weighted choices and run-off votes. This way, committee appointments and other roles could be assigned without a majority party or coalition being required to decide who does what. There need be no paralysis waiting for fractured governments to reform into new coalitions.
I'm not talking about a huge extension of judicial power. Judges already have the power to declare laws unconstitional in the US and other contries. I'm merely proposing that the requirement for focused legislation (no "riders", no hidden "pork" 750 pages into a 1000 page bill, etc.) be one of the criteria under which a judge can find a law to be unconstitutional.
1) when people belonging to a same party they generally decide how they will vote before the official vote. In a coaliton there is tractations to decide the way they vote. They can decide for example to vote agaisnt a law, just because an another law they dislike greatly have passed : " you did not respected our deal, by letting vote this law by an other party, i punish you".
What do you suggest in practice to do not let them do this ? : isolate them in cell seperately with no contact during the congress ?
2) Focused legislation : good idea, but how can a lawyer decide what it's focused and what is not focused ? I mean laws deals with life, there is a lot of interconnection, some part of bill may seem disconnected with the subject but the link can be effective. Deciding what is linked in the real life and what is not is the job of politicians, not judges.
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Good you see the necessity of avoiding coalitions, but don't you think that the parliamentary procedures to avoid them are an utopia.
I don't expect to eliminate the formation of coalitions under multi-party systems, I'd merely hope to rule out the necessity to form coalitions, and reduce the power that any such coalitions would hold.
For example, a legislative body could use the same form of voting internally that I propose for public elections, with weighted choices and run-off votes. This way, committee appointments and other roles could be assigned without a majority party or coalition being required to decide who does what. There need be no paralysis waiting for fractured governments to reform into new coalitions.
Be carefull, even if it's good that the judicial branch could overturn politicians willing to do a free ride, the judicial branch should not be above the political system.
Democratia is a story of representation, mostly indirect, because we are too big for direct democratia. The judicial branch is not truly representative.
I think it's good that this branch check if something is constitutional or not, but it should not go further : i am agaisnt the republic of the judges.
I'm not talking about a huge extension of judicial power. Judges already have the power to declare laws unconstitional in the US and other contries. I'm merely proposing that the requirement for focused legislation (no "riders", no hidden "pork" 750 pages into a 1000 page bill, etc.) be one of the criteria under which a judge can find a law to be unconstitutional.
Originally posted by shetline
I don't expect to eliminate the formation of coalitions under multi-party systems, I'd merely hope to rule out the necessity to form coalitions, and reduce the power that any such coalitions would hold.
For example, a legislative body could use the same form of voting internally that I propose for public elections, with weighted choices and run-off votes. This way, committee appointments and other roles could be assigned without a majority party or coalition being required to decide who does what. There need be no paralysis waiting for fractured governments to reform into new coalitions.
I'm not talking about a huge extension of judicial power. Judges already have the power to declare laws unconstitional in the US and other contries. I'm merely proposing that the requirement for focused legislation (no "riders", no hidden "pork" 750 pages into a 1000 page bill, etc.) be one of the criteria under which a judge can find a law to be unconstitutional.
1) when people belonging to a same party they generally decide how they will vote before the official vote. In a coaliton there is tractations to decide the way they vote. They can decide for example to vote agaisnt a law, just because an another law they dislike greatly have passed : " you did not respected our deal, by letting vote this law by an other party, i punish you".
What do you suggest in practice to do not let them do this ? : isolate them in cell seperately with no contact during the congress ?
2) Focused legislation : good idea, but how can a lawyer decide what it's focused and what is not focused ? I mean laws deals with life, there is a lot of interconnection, some part of bill may seem disconnected with the subject but the link can be effective. Deciding what is linked in the real life and what is not is the job of politicians, not judges.