13-12-2010, 10:53 AM
ComradeMan
"For the purpose of retention of power the ruling political parties are forced to continually improve the own individual rating in a society. To do this they must earn points in the course of work and must enter into a interim coalitions with other parties"
Welcome to Italy....![[Image: laugh.gif]](http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif)
Welcome to chaos- as many governments in as many years since WWII!!!
"Party coalitions" sets alarm bells ringing for me, it seems you just swap one evil for another. Nothing ever gets done, they are in a constant state of "electioneering" and at the drop of the hat someone disagrees with a policy or someone resigns and the government collapses. It is not a good system in my opinion. The other risk is that minority and fringe parties get brought into government in order to bolster a majority, then the main parties have to implement their bullshit policies and ideas in order to stay in government. Politics can make strange bedfellows at the best of times, but I don't think your idea on this point is without problems. In theory it sounds good but in practice it is a nightmare.
Nicholas Popov
ComradeMan, I don't offer anarchy and Brownian movement. And it's not parliamentary "bla-bla-bla" of many voices. Idea SBalancing Power is rigidly organized scheme from 5 parties in which leadership remains behind 2 greatest parties, and 3 the least performs a stabilizing function because they are more vulnerable according to the scheme. But they have an opportunity a choice of the preferences.
In addition, this five are deprived possibility of the following election campaign. And behind "gate" other pretenders expects. Sympathies of voters can be earned only by means of good work.
Nicholas :lollypop:
ComradeMan
Well Comrade Popov, you have some interesting ideas...
But...
How would you guarantee the 5 party system would work and not split into infinite factions?
What would happen if the 2 main parties had 23 % each, but the other 3 parties had 18% each. Thus the 2 main parties had the biggest individual levels of support but the 3 others had the majority?
Nicholas Popov
I was inexact because of evening weariness. 5 leaders (5 persons) makes decisions; here are no fractions! This is not a parliament. This is the council of five leaders.
Compact "retinue" for each performs an advisory function only. By the way, the argumentation here demands highly skilled experts. :fight:
The traditional principle of personal attachments will be the loser.
Nothing prevents the party members re-elect their 'bad' leader. :damnmate:
"A minimum of participants and stages makes the decision-making process dynamic and manageable."
"For the purpose of retention of power the ruling political parties are forced to continually improve the own individual rating in a society. To do this they must earn points in the course of work and must enter into a interim coalitions with other parties"
Welcome to Italy....
Welcome to chaos- as many governments in as many years since WWII!!! "Party coalitions" sets alarm bells ringing for me, it seems you just swap one evil for another. Nothing ever gets done, they are in a constant state of "electioneering" and at the drop of the hat someone disagrees with a policy or someone resigns and the government collapses. It is not a good system in my opinion. The other risk is that minority and fringe parties get brought into government in order to bolster a majority, then the main parties have to implement their bullshit policies and ideas in order to stay in government. Politics can make strange bedfellows at the best of times, but I don't think your idea on this point is without problems. In theory it sounds good but in practice it is a nightmare.
Nicholas Popov
ComradeMan, I don't offer anarchy and Brownian movement. And it's not parliamentary "bla-bla-bla" of many voices. Idea SBalancing Power is rigidly organized scheme from 5 parties in which leadership remains behind 2 greatest parties, and 3 the least performs a stabilizing function because they are more vulnerable according to the scheme. But they have an opportunity a choice of the preferences.
In addition, this five are deprived possibility of the following election campaign. And behind "gate" other pretenders expects. Sympathies of voters can be earned only by means of good work.
Nicholas :lollypop:
ComradeMan
Well Comrade Popov, you have some interesting ideas...
But...
How would you guarantee the 5 party system would work and not split into infinite factions?
What would happen if the 2 main parties had 23 % each, but the other 3 parties had 18% each. Thus the 2 main parties had the biggest individual levels of support but the 3 others had the majority?
Nicholas Popov
I was inexact because of evening weariness. 5 leaders (5 persons) makes decisions; here are no fractions! This is not a parliament. This is the council of five leaders.
Compact "retinue" for each performs an advisory function only. By the way, the argumentation here demands highly skilled experts. :fight:
The traditional principle of personal attachments will be the loser.
Nothing prevents the party members re-elect their 'bad' leader. :damnmate:
"A minimum of participants and stages makes the decision-making process dynamic and manageable."