What Form Of Government Is Better Than A Constitutional Republic?

[cnm]

PR leads to a completely different make up of political parties, of politics of everything. The form is totally different.

I reside and vote in a PR system of elections. MMP to be precise.

 

[Batcat]

So it isn't really the best form of government.

It can be while it lasts. The problem is it doesn’t last.

 

[cnm]

I'm not really sure I understand the question.

The electoral system doesn't determine the form of government.

 

[cnm]

The problem is it doesn’t last.

So it isn't really the best form of government.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I reside and vote in a PR system of elections. MMP to be precise.

As in New Zealand?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The electoral system doesn't determine the form of government.

Well, the form of government is usually determined by wars.

However within democracies, I'd say the US and UK have a different form of government to Germany and Denmark. Simply because the make of their parliaments is different.
Yes, you have France and the US with Presidents and the UK, Germany and Denmark with Prime Ministers holding the executive. However the UK and the US are closer together in terms of how they actually operate, than the UK is with Germany and Denmark.

 

[cnm]

As in New Zealand?

Yes. I've voted in both MMP and FPTP electoral systems. Our system/form of government did not change as our electoral system changed.

 

[cnm]

However the UK and the US are closer together in terms of how they actually operate, than the UK is with Germany and Denmark.

No way. You can't get rid of your president like the UK PM can be dumped.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes. I've voted in both MMP and FPTP electoral systems. Our system/form of government did not change as our electoral system changed.

Well, let's have a look.
New Zealand got PR after 1993.

In 1990 there had been three parties, with Labour getting one seat, and the other two parties getting all the rest, with 82.96% of the vote and getting 99% of the seats.

In 1993 the main two parties didn't do so well, they lost three seats and 69.73% of the vote. The National Party got 35.05% of the vote, Labour 34.68%, with 50 and 48 seats respectively.
Alliance got 18.21% of the vote and 2 seats.
NZ First got 8.4% of the vote and 2 seats.
In other words that's 50.5% of the seats for 35.05% of the vote and 48.5% of the seats for 34.68% of the vote and 2% of the seats for 18.21% of the vote and 2% of the seats for 8.4% of the vote.

In 1996 with Proportional Representation New Zealand went from 4 parties to Six. That a doubling of parties in 6 years in parliament.
National got 44 seats instead of 50 and Labour got 26 seats instead of 48 seats. That's a loss of 28 seats, or about 28% of the seats.

NZ First went from 2 seats to 17 seats. They increased their vote by 5% and their seats by 15%.
Alliance went from 2 seats to 13 seats. They DECREASED their vote from 18% to 10% but increased their seats by 11%.
ACT was a new party formed and it also won seats and United NZ won a seat too.

Going to 2020 there are five political parties, with a 5% cut off like Germany's where there are also five to six political parties.

I don't know much about New Zealand and it's political climate, but I'm sure the main parties are far more focused on the people and the people have far more choice. It's obvious they do. Before they have two viable parties, now they have four to six.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No way. You can't get rid of your president like the UK PM can be dumped.

The US President can simply be ignored. Congress could make the President pointless. It's happened.

Yes, you can get rid of the PM, but ONLY if the main party decides to do it.
The Tories have got through five leaders in 12 1/4 years, and they've gone because of infighting within the party, not because that's what the people wanted.

The people have a viable choice of two parties in the US and the UK.

 

[cnm]

I don't know much about New Zealand and it's political climate, but I'm sure the main parties are far more focused on the people and the people have far more choice.

But the form of government hasn't changed. It's still a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. Like most of the freest and happiest nations in the world. The only thing that's changed is the way representatives are elected.

 

[Blues Man]

So why do you bother bloviating on a thread about the best form of government when you admit you are incapable of objectively discerning such a thing? Not that the rest of the slack jawed yokels do any better it must be said.

I'll comment in any ******* thread I want

 

[frigidweirdo]

But the form of government hasn't changed. It's still a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. Like most of the freest and happiest nations in the world. The only thing that's changed is the way representatives are elected.

The words haven't changed. The words are still "parliamentary constitutional monarchy". Everything else has changed.

So, we could look at reality, or we could look at the labels. I prefer to look at the reality, and that reality has a completely different system in place. New Zealand is a better place because of that.

No, far more has changed other than just the way representatives are elected.

I'd bet that the mentality of politicians has changed. I'm betting that before 1996 politicians in the main two parties were complacent. They could do whatever, and as long as they weren't kicked out of their main party, they knew they'd still get elected no matter what.
Now, the main parties have to be careful because they could lose their status with one bad election.
In Germany the AfD, founded in 2013, gained 90 seats in 2017 with 12.6% of the vote and absolutely scared the CDU/CSU who lost 65 seats, and 9% of the vote.
In the UK, UKIP, founded in the early 1990s, gained 1 seat in 2015 with 12.6% of the vote and the Tories carried on as normal. The corruption is immense and there isn't the oversight to stop it from happening, but in Germany the oversight is there.

 

[Blues Man]

Lol

So how does that statement prove I despise government?

My mother failed me and I don't despise her. It's only you people that are ruled by your emotions that believe everyone must also be.

 

[Blues Man]

Yet you can't address the metric of human freedom as a measure of the performance of a form of government.

Oh well.

I'm smart enough to know the folly of such a comparison

“When you ask what is absolutely the best government you have asked an indeterminable and an unanswerable question.”.... Jean Jacques Rousseau.


I'm sure Rousseau was a whole **** of a lot smarter than you will ever be.

 

[SaxonJackson]

How do you measure its performance?

Not to speak for others, but I measure the performance of any government by the prosperity, happiness, health, strength, and freedom of its populace.

 

[Blues Man]

Not to speak for others, but I measure the performance of any government by the prosperity, happiness, health, strength, and freedom of its populace.

And how do you quantify any of those things in an non-subjective and scientific manner?

I suppose we could use weightlifting as a measure of strength but isn;t freedom also the freedom to be unhealthy? It seems most Americans choose to be unhealthy so do freedom and health cancel each other out?

 

[SaxonJackson]

And how do you quantify any of those things in an non-subjective and scientific manner?

I suppose we could use weightlifting as a measure of strength but isn;t freedom also the freedom to be unhealthy? It seems most Americans choose to be unhealthy so do freedom and health cancel each other out?

I view things through my own worldview (as any one of us do). The two most significant influences of my world view is my Christian faith and the history of the Founding of the USA (founded by a majority of Christian men). I cannot see things through the lens of an atheist or a Muslim or a Jew or a Buddhist or a secularist. So my conclusions will most certainly be rejected by the majority of the world.

That said ... I believe that men are born with certain innate, unalienable, God-given rights. He's happiest when those rights aren't molested by power-mad, greedy, or evil men. When a person is free to earn money; keep his earnings; buy and own property; afford healthy foods and necessary goods; worship God in peace; live with like-minded neighbors in a culturally similar town -- then he's living the best life a person can live. When those basic freedoms are systematically dismantled, then life becomes more burdensome and stressful and far less joyful.

No ... there's no scientific method for determining a perfect society because men aren't perfect. But we can use our senses, good judgment, and personal situation to gauge (basically & generally) what is good and what isn't based on our own life experiences and the experiences of family, friends, and neighbors.

 

[Blues Man]

I view things through my own worldview (as any one of us do). The two most significant influences of my world view is my Christian faith and the history of the Founding of the USA (founded by a majority of Christian men). I cannot see things through the lens of an atheist or a Muslim or a Jew or a Buddhist or a secularist. So my conclusions will most certainly be rejected by the majority of the world.

That said ... I believe that men are born with certain innate, unalienable, God-given rights. He's happiest when those rights aren't molested by power-mad, greedy, or evil men. When a person is free to earn money; keep his earnings; buy and own property; afford healthy foods and necessary goods; worship God in peace; live with like-minded neighbors in a culturally similar town -- then he's living the best life a person can live. When those basic freedoms are systematically dismantled, then life becomes more burdensome and stressful and far less joyful.

No ... there's no scientific method for determining a perfect society because men aren't perfect. But we can use our senses, good judgment, and personal situation to gauge (basically & generally) what is good and what isn't based on our own life experiences and the experiences of family, friends, and neighbors.

And this is the reason I don't buy into these types of subjective evaluations.

People in the UK are obviously happy with a government that will arrest them for reading the "wrong" books or that tells them they can't carry a multitool on their belt because it has a locking blade.

I could never be happy living under that kind of government.

it's just too subjective which is why I posted that quote by Rousseau.

 

[SaxonJackson]

And this is the reason I don't buy into these types of subjective evaluations.

People in the UK are obviously happy with a government that will arrest them for reading the "wrong" books or that tells them they can't carry a multitool on their belt because it has a locking blade.

I could never be happy living under that kind of government.

it's just too subjective which is why I posted that quote by Rousseau.

I must have missed your quote.

But here's a quote that, for me, has a profound meaning, but only because I believe in the Bible. Others will fervently disagree.

2 Chronicles 7:14, "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

"... Called by my name," for me, indicates Christians. If there was such a nation that literally called itself "Christian" and set its laws, standards, and customs around biblical principles ... I move there in a real hurry. The closest thing the world has ever seen as a "Christian" nation was the USA in its earliest days of existence.