Thread: What form of government is the best?

One thing I think, in a democratic government a two-party system, such as the one found in the USA, does not always adequately respresent the beliefs of the people. It is the "winner take all" system, the problem is that each congressional voting district only elects one representative. So typically there are only two choices on the ballot, people are essentially forced to choose between the "better of the two evils". This has resulted in a split between "conservative" and "liberal" politics, and it become very difficult to make other political issues important. It is only rarely that a third candidate has enough support in a district to have any chance of winning, even when most of the voters would prefer to vote for independant parties.

There are lots of possibilities and most of the forms of democracy have their pluses and minuses. I used to think I was in favour of Direct Democracy but I have changed my mind. First because I certainly do not have sufficient knowledge on all subjects to give an informed opinion meaning that they likely would find the most radical would get the vote and also because I think in a democratic society it is necessary to have some safeguard for the rights of minorities which direct democracy does not always provide. Proportional Representation tends to allow more voices to be heard but often results in poor government - alliances sometimes being made to the more extreme. It probably is the best but needs to be based on a strong Constitution which includes human rights and the right to information. In addition I think it is best to give as much power as possible to local level as local level knows what is best needed there. Thatcher for instance by strangling the funds of local government massively reduced it's influence. Over important issues I am in favour of Referendums. However as they used to say people get the democracy they deserve so it is to be hoped that after the last 30 years or so of lack of interest in politics, certainly in the UK, people become more involved so that they can create the society they wish for them and their children. (I am sure this lack of interest in politics was a reflection of Thatcher's view taken from neo-con's in the States, that democracy was not a good thing!)

All subjective evaluations by definition are biased! Therefore, objective measures should be used to determine the answer. First, I would look at how long a country/government continuously exists under a singular governing document. Second, the ability and availability to peaceably modify the governing document, allowing for input from all citizenry). Third, the ability and availability to peaceably pass control to another set of leaders (allowing for input from all citizenry). And fourth, established mechanisms to provide a balance of government functions to prevent governmental control from encroaching upon individual daily decisions of citizens. Lastly, a government where law is applied fairly to all, regardless of political, social, or economic status within the system. This is just a start. There are those who will immediately tear this apart! But I humbly suggest one of the first and most important (subjective, yes, biased) considerations is to consider longevity as a VERY important feature when you consider children, grandchildren, and succeeding heirs!

Originally Posted by SFJEFF

Nazi's were and are scum.

... and financed by Republicans on Wall Street:


http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

Originally Posted by Mr_Truth

... and financed by Republicans on Wall Street:

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

Mr_Truth ...Your post is a rather biased accusation, based on subjective opinion without substantiation, is it not? Please post something pro or con with your reasoning and evidence relating to the subject matter or not at all (and not waste your time and ours)! Thank you!

Honestly I think my signature spoils it, but my answer to the question "What form of government is the best?" is none.

the best form of government is for the american people to have a revolution and get rid of the corrupt two party system of demopublicans and reprocrats.Its a ONE PARTY SYSTEM designed to look like two parties so the american sheople think they have a choice.We need to get rid of this corrupt two party system and get a third party president who is for the people in there and get all these corrupt congressmen out who take donations from the zionests and serve them and not them.arrest those people and every recent president alive is the BEST form of government.

Indeed, "That government is best which governs not at all." Unlike my so-called "anarcho-capitalist" (I prefer nonarchist, for these reasons) comrade Eaol, I do not think that a society based on "money decides" is fair at all, irrespective of the empty rhetoric declaring freedom and voluntary exchange.

We want freedom, not oppression. We want people to control their own lives.

Originally Posted by alexa

There are lots of possibilities and most of the forms of democracy have their pluses and minuses. I used to think I was in favour of Direct Democracy but I have changed my mind. First because I certainly do not have sufficient knowledge on all subjects to give an informed opinion meaning that they likely would find the most radical would get the vote and also because I think in a democratic society it is necessary to have some safeguard for the rights of minorities which direct democracy does not always provide.

Direct democracy over the state is an undesirable system, yes. But direct democracy over one's direct environment is not. At present, 90% of the decisions made in legislative institutions (parliament usually) is trying to solve the problems caused by capitalism. Solving unemployment, solving poverty, welfare, the crisis, distribution of wealth, ensuring access to healthcare, and so forth.

But direct democracy over decisions such as infrastructure is rather different. Moreover, when you have direct democracy over the state minorities are at risk (as you say). But that's because the state is a repressive organ. Giving the people direct control over such an organ is indeed a bad idea.

a scientific socialism is easily the most stable form of government but in todays world would have to be similar in proportions to soviet russia or the us in that its economy would have to be large, varied, and self-sustaining if it wished to survive

Originally Posted by alexa

There are lots of possibilities and most of the forms of democracy have their pluses and minuses. I used to think I was in favour of Direct Democracy but I have changed my mind. thing!)

Direct democracy is the out-of-date and primitive form of government today. "Father" Nestor Makhno wanted to enter direct democracy in Ukraine in 1917, but "Father" Nestor Makhno constructed government of bandits in practice.