h a l f b a k e r ySuperficial Intelligence
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
One way to do it would be to make the loser the "Head
of
Congress" and give his party fifty temporary seats to give
it some additional power to represent its constituent's
ideals.
This 10% boost to that party's power base in congress
would be gathered from the losers of close congressional
elections. 40 temp seats would go to the House, 10 to
the Senate.
While one party would run the executive branch the
other one
would get a slight power boost in the legislative branch.
The new office of "Head of Congress" would give the
runner up a platform with which to address the concerns
of that 40% of the population who, it seems to me, still
have a right to be represented.
This would only happen in very close elections obviously. If
the loser won say, 35% or less of the vote they'd just go
home.
It seems a shame to have 40 to 45% of the voters
disenfranchised every single election. The idea of a
"booby
prize" seat in congress kind of makes sense.
Runners up were initially slated to be vice Presidents
https://en.wikipedi...f_the_United_States
[theircompetitor, Jul 26 2015]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Why is there only one president? If there was a board of, say, ten of them, it would be more representative. |
|
| |
There's only one president so you can have leadership
in the executive branch that can act as only a single
point of leadership can. You would lose that with ten
presidents all acting from different points of view,
which is why the idea is not to have multiple
presidents, rather to give some measure of power,
and some voice to ALL
the people who actually got out and voted. |
|
| |
Assigning the runner up to Congress with a 10% boost
to his party's base would retain the three branch
distribution of power while assigning a legislative
branch counterbalance to the newly elected
executive branch. |
|
| |
The idea pocmloc is to make the republic more
representative of its people and to address in some
way the inevitable bitterness among about half the
population that you have after every election. |
|
| |
If I
was on the losing side in an election I'd certainly like
it, and if I was on the winning side I would hope I
wouldn't' be such a dick as to revel in the other side
having absolutely no power at all. If almost half the
citizens voted for that person it seems they should be
assigned at least some power. The way we do it now
seems more like a sport than a way of keeping
everybody happy, which last I checked, is the whole
point of having a government, no? |
|
| |
Wow! No kidding? Thanks for that post theircompetitor, I
didn't know that. (See link) |
|
| |
Third party candidates should also get something. |
|
| |
Maybe a part time job in the paperwork reduction office. |
|
| |
As a Libertarian (the party that nobody likes) I would agree,
but it starts getting complicated pretty quickly. Can't make
everybody happy. What would the debate shows talk about? |
|
| |
Ah yes, the perpetual party of victimhood. |
|
| |
I might be wrong, but isn't this roughly what a coalition government is, though I'm not sure whether it's possible on your side of the big watery place. |
|
| |
Coalition? We can't even get one party to agree with itself
on this side anymore. |
|
| |
The runners-up should be sent overseas to become
presidents of smaller countries. |
|
| |
Or if we are going to keep it as it is, I say go all in: there should be a song glorifying the new president that each citizen must sing by heart or be deported. And I mean sing it with feeling, and spirit. From the diaphragm. All 8 verses. |
|
| |
What if anyone else takes Donald Trump seriously? |
|
| |
//Ah yes, the perpetual party of victimhood.// |
|
| |
Words are more fun when you ascribe some kind of
meaning to them. Takes a little practice but you
might
want to give it a shot. |
|
| |
For starters I think you meant to say "the party of
perpetual victimhood", unless you were describing
the longevity of the party and then saying "and
they're victimy". Beyond that, what you were trying
to say is anybody's guess. |
|
| |
Well if we are quantifying the fun I think a perpetual party sounds like more fun than perpetual victimhood. Perpetual party of petulance is more alliterative if that helps the fun in any way. |
|
| |
I'm starting the People's Party of Perpetual
Pusillanimous Petulance. |
|
| |
1- We preach love of all humankind except those pigs
who aren't in our party. |
|
| |
2- We support equality for everybody except people
we don't like. |
|
| |
3- We devote ourselves to the promotion of social
justice to each and every person on Earth except
people who obviously don't deserve it. (We all know
who those people are) |
|
| |
4- We preach solidarity of all races, creeds and colors
as we work towards the dream of coming together
and getting rid of people who don't agree with us. |
|
| |
5- We support the rights of people to have different
points of view as long as they those points of view
aren't any different from ours. |
|
| |
6- We support an open and free media except for
news outlets that might disagree with us which
should immediately be shut down. |
|
| |