Politics & Government

Simple enough debate topic. Which political and governmental system do you think works best?

Political systems:
No party - A political system in which no parties exist to influence government.
One-party - A political system in which only one political party exists that is often considered the voice of the government(Most common in dictatorships).
Two-party - A political system in which multiple political parties exist, but of which only two hold significant sway at any given time.
Multi-party - A political system in which multiple political parties exist all with roughly the same influence.

Government systems:
Theocracy - A system of government that centers around a deity and is run by people who claim communication to this deity.
Autocracy - A system of government that is run by one person with complete reign over the government, often either a forced dictatorship, or a monarchy.
Democracy - A system of government that acts on the will of the people, by the people in which all get an equal voice. This system may or may not have elected officials.
Republic - A system of government that runs by elected officials who represent political groups. The officials are nominated by their party, then elected by the general public, but otherwise the general public has little to do with the government instead choosing to let the officials elected to run it.

I dont see communism.

Communism is a specific not a general. In an ideal environment it falls under No party and democracy. In the corrupted world we live in it more commonly expresses as One-party and Autocracy.

Democratic Republic,

and, as of right now, a two party system

what i want to see, however, is a system that more loosely defines goals, such as socially conservative or fiscally liberal and allow candidates to express their own platform more freely, but still have a unifying theme, such as fically liberal/conservative or socially liberal/conservative so that we get an idea of it.

the problem then is funding though, for their own campaigns i suppose.

no political system to this day is perfect in the real world. there are perfect systems, and these systems, in their pure form, are perfect, but the structures and society needed to hold them is not. i ablige to democracy and controlled governments systems becuz they at least can contain the damage. the damage is still made, but its far worser to have a totalitarian system. that is why i tolerate democracy nowadays. ilmare....wake up. there is no totalitarian government that bides by the best of their people. the only reason they might give something of good to them is fear of rebellion probably. In Saudi Arabia and such, totalitarianism has been there for ages. And the leaders know what to do and what not to do to maintain their total power. Give JUST ENOUGH so that they cant have reasons to rebel. after that, it all depends in the good will of the leader.


And i dont trust in a man with power.

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely - George Orwell

Edit:

George Orwell wrote 1984 and Animal Farm

basically he was a forecaster of the horrible effects of Socialist/Communist/Totalitarian Governments due to human nature, but warning how they may end up controlling us, suppressing Humanities to gain power and stay in power.

wrong. Orwell never said that.

it belongs to Lord Acton.

"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

^And thats the correct quote.

BAH!

i remember reading it on the flap thingy of Animal Farm in 8th grade, 3 years ago i think?

so, i just penned it to Orwell XD, but it basically suits the theme proposed in the edit!

It is a common misconception.

rly?

IM NOT ALONE IN FAILURE!!

well, i think the idea is good, kind of like american style but with more emphasis on the executive branch,

problem with that, no one is perfect, and to assume someone is perfect, and keep him in power for a while, well, that, usually, end in corruption of some sort.

Kind of reminds me of the problem in Germany, when Hitler and the Nazis rose to power, who is to keep the one man from changing the rules of the game, when he supported from the one body that can stop him firmly, through politics. But germany isn't a very good example, considering how effectively the Nazis pulled the wool over the Germans' eyes.

I think that democracy is good and can suck. I apologize if any1 here is Republican, but George Bush really sucked. He started a war for ridiculous reasons, a war that tore apart families and spent lives like a housewife let loose with a million dollars. Indirectly, it's our fault for electing him. However, there are good leaders, such as people like Obama ( Im a fan...) or Winston Churchill (I think he was elected anyway...)

Multi-party Democratic Autocracy I think would work the best. One man elected by the people and responsible to the people, meaning the general public can pull him from office if he doesn't meet expectations. I don't know of one existing at the moment but in my mind it would work better then most.

As for Bush. He may not have done well, but he admitted it. Obama has done nothing I can see, so whatever he has done has little effect for people, yet he gets the Nobel Peace Prize. Not a fan of anyone until they actually DO something worth while.

Canada

Bush never admitted anything. Not that i heard. and if i didnt hear it, it means he either didnt say it or he worked hard for it not to be publicized.

Saw him in interviews and he openly admitted he was wrong on some things.

still, doesn't change what he did...and doesnt a multi-party autocracy render the autocracy part obsolete?

Canada.

In AMERICA you can go and fight and die for AMERICA, In CANADA you can go fight and die for AMERICA!

i think that about sums canada up... so sad.

also, if you didn't know, Obama got the nobel peace prize for encouraging world wide peace between leaders and for bringing world leaders together to encourage peace and stuff like that, in other words,

he has worked to bring international leaders together in the pursuit of peace between nations.

And it's resulted in exactly nothing so far. I do wonder why people kiss his ass when he's done nothing so far.

Anywho, you can make fun of Canada if you want, but I don't hear as much about their economy getting flushed down the toilet.

^ Canada just finds america entertaining, and you have guns(like, the only thing you guys have) so yeah. its sad thou that the most powerful nation(military) in the world needs any help when it comes to war...

I have to agree. I live in America but it really is becoming sad how people make fun of other countries when our own economy and government is failing so badly.

I remmeber one time in a speech Bush was talking about one of the biggest moments of his life, and he states that it was when he caught a *insert number here* pound fish in a pond or lake beside his house or the white house. If its at the white house he proboby had a pond made.

Even though Obama hasnt done much of anything(as far as peope might think) at least he hasnt done anything wrong yet(that i heard of).

Agree with Ardvark's view of the best Government: Multi-party Democratic Autocracy.


@ Jacen: Let me zap you for Dray.