What do y’all think of my idea for a governmental system?
Executive branch is a council of 9 or 11 members who are elected for a 9 or 11 year term (however many members there are). The elections are staggered so someone new is elected to this council every year, but since members are there for so long, there remains a lot of stability (so you can’t just have someone like Trump win 1 election and blow everything up). There is a main leader of this council (the president) and a vice president, who must be from a different party than the president.
The Executive council has quite a bit more power than the President in the US, but any overreach is countered by a strong judiciary and institutions.
The legislative branch is similar to the current U.S. Congress, except the House has less power and the Senate has more. The Senate requires a larger majority vote to get into (60% maybe) and you must be a member of the House before you can get into the Senate.
This fixes some of the major problems of liberal democracy, mainly partisan gridlock and extreme radicals taking an oversized share of power. It also should accelerate economic growth and stability, which democracy does not usually bring to developing countries. Also, this government has gold-backed currency, 0% inflation, and a balanced budget as core principles in the constitution.
comments
I’m doing US Politics next year for my a levels, and this sounds good. If the executive body had a 9-11 year term.. it’s going to be difficult to hold them to account? Sure it would produce a stable government that was cross-party but they would dominate, could easily just dictate similar to the ‘elective dictatorship’ in the UK? Why extend it to 11 years?
Yeah the reason I had such a long term is because it provides a lot more stability which is what developing countries need (a lot of poor developing countries just go in a cycle of trying democracy and then the military takes over again because the democracy was super weak).
And, if you want to implement really hard reforms (like what Javier Milei is doing in Argentina), you usually don’t have a lot of time to do those with a shorter term (something like 4 years isn’t long enough to fix an entire economy). So this gives a lot of time for people to do things like that. Also, you elect someone new each year, so if the government is doing something really unpopular or dominating it will get balanced out by someone new who will probably be from the other party (because no one likes the ruling party).
This system you suggest is pretty good; however there are flaws. Are you really willing to give longer terms to someone like Javier Milei? Is radical change a good thing? With 11 year terms there’s going to be huge jumps in how the government of the day is elected, rapid changes in the electoral system, and ‘bright new ideas’ which will see a dynamic but confusing environment seen under that of the Protestant and Catholic kings and queens of England.
If the vice president isn't in the same party as the president, wouldn't that cause a lot of arguments? Or do I not understand politics
Yeah but they would have to agree to get stuff done which means they couldn’t do wild stuff that nobody wants them to do
True- seems to work in Scotland under PR voting. Multi parties are good, it would also reduce the polarisation which is tearing apart the US, president and vice president publicly united, none partisan. And behind closed doors, compromise.