The positives and negatives of our political system.

[The Gribbler]

I have a class in 5 minutes so I will keep this as simple as possible.

Do you think the process of electing leaders (In both Australia, England and America) is productive or counter productive to positivley effecting changes in a nation.

To simplify that some what I really want to know is this:

In a nation where leaders can change every 3-4 years (Don't know a whole lot about politics and I have never yet taken part in a national election at age 19) does it counteract positive changes one leader makes when they are voted out and another leader replaces them?

As each leader has significant ideologies and beliefs and also has significant pull over all facets of the government they can have almost any plan implimented by a former leader changed or revoked to suit what they believe.

Do you think this is a fatal flaw in our system?

Or is it the shining light that a corrupt leader could be outed?

Opinions?

P.S. If this is too confusing, im sorry but I didn't have time before my class to type anything clearer and I knew I would forget my question if I waited until later.

 

[Tastycles]

It's finding a balance. If you have long periods between elections, then you could end up with bad government, which could even stop even attempting to redeem itself if after three years its too unpopular to be reelected, which obviously isn't a good thing. On the other hand, you don't have enough time to do anything if you aren't in office very long. I think the policy of 4-5 years per regime change is pretty perfect. In Britain, every party has had at least six years at the helm apart from during turbulant times in the 70s and 20s since the 19th Century. The same goes for US presidents, Jimmy Carter's presidency was the only period when a party had only one term in office since 1897. If you aren't failing, you generally get reelected at least once, and I think that aspect of the system works well.

 

[Razor]

I look at it like I do the set up for my chapter of APO.

We have chapter elections every semester. That means that every semester we have a new set of people on Exec.

That's all good, because one of our major principles is to promote Leadership amongst our Brothers. However, there is a flaw.

Our censure-ship and Impeachment process takes at the very least 2 months to implement. So if we elect a fucking horrible treasurer (like we did for this past Fall semester) then we're basically stuck with the horrible treasurer for the rest of the semester. It just isn't time effective to impeach someone when there are literally 2 weeks left in a semester.

It's the same thing here. 4 years is a good amount of time for a good set of people to get stuff done, but not so long as to give them too much power in office. If you have it much longer, they wield too much power. If you have it any shorter, they don't have much time to get things done.

The flip side is also true. 4 years of an awful president sucks, but think of it they were there longer? Or, say the American Impeachment Process took 2 years to implement? By the time we realize the president is worthy of impeachment, it just wouldn't be worth it to impeach anymore.

Sure it gives 4 years for one especially strong minded individual to completely change things. But that's why you theoretically have a counterparty that will work with the president to check his overzealous policies but still work with him to get something done.

I say this, then you look at America and we have two parties completely bickering and getting nothing done. The Republicans are whining about getting nothing done, but they are completely lowballing Congress and deadlocking the procedures. The Democrats are whining about no one working with them, but they are quite honestly not taking any advice. Obama took 3 ideas from the Republicans. Okay, maybe 4. But out of a 5,000 page bill? Really?

What I'm saying is that the pitfall you propose wouldn't exist in a perfect world. But America is far from perfect.

 

[Baller]

I think our government has it's benefits and flaws as do most governments.

Benefits:

1. Checks and Balances - The way our government is set up doesn't allow the President to get total domination and completely corrupt the country, due to the Senators and House of Representatives being able to veto what they feel is unreasonable and not best for our country.

2. The length of term allows bad reigns to end - When the people feel that a reign did not go as good as the President said it was going to be, we the people have a right to get rid of him after a 4 year reign, however on the plus side, if we feel the job is almost done, and he is doing an adequate job then we get to keep him for another 4 years, and 8 years is enough time in control of the head of the country.

Flaws (Or inverses of the benefits):


1. The President can't get his full plan into action unless the Senators and House are of same party as him. - When a President has a plan to fix our country, and as President he deserves the right to get his plan as President to be put in full effect, and that can be prevented if the Senate and House are Republican based and the President is a Democrat.

As you can see, the U.S. government is good and bad, and is the same as every government, there are benefits and flaws, no matter which way you look at it.