xon wrote:Well, the term is an "oligarchy".
More exactly, "a benevolent oligarchy."
There was the French Triumvirate, and wasn't there also some similar thing in the Roman Empire at one time, immediately after Caesar's murder?
I think this would be a good idea. But the five need to be elected for life, much like the supreme court justices.
primitive wrote:I think history displays that mankind is a power hungary race. It is our nature. If someone was in charge of, lets say, trade. They could use their power to their advantage and possibly gain more power over the other 4.
I know there's no perfect system, but ours is in dire need of some changes
klewlis wrote:... a group of five co-equal leaders, each with a specific area of responsibility (finance, international trade, etc) in which they had to be specially qualified. These leaders would be elected individually (so they wouldn't be all of one party).
Democritus wrote:klewlis wrote:... a group of five co-equal leaders, each with a specific area of responsibility (finance, international trade, etc) in which they had to be specially qualified. These leaders would be elected individually (so they wouldn't be all of one party).
It's not exactly what you have in mind, but in California many of the department heads are elected individually, and not appointed by the executive, as the are on the U.S. federal level. So we have a Republican governor but a Democratic attorney general.
Also, many U.S. counties are governed by "commissions," which are small committes that make executive decisions.
klewlis wrote:Canadian politics frustrates me for the very reasons you mentioned--we never feel like anything we do can make a difference. There is so little practical difference between the "liberals" and "conservatives" that it doesn't matter which we vote for... they are both going to screw us; they are both going to push through bills that we don't want. ick.
klewlis wrote:does it work?
Democritus wrote:klewlis wrote:does it work?
Honestly, I don't know. I think most of California's troubles can be squarely blamed on the Legislature. I don't think even a competent set of executives can rescue this state. But you know, in a democracy, ultimate blame always rests with the voters. It doesn't matter what democratic system you create, the voters can use it irresponsibly if they want.
But who says that what they like is good for the country?
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests