Presidentialism vs Parliamentarism vs Semipersidentialism

Also monarchy x republic x whatever else ther is
Which one do you support pol?

Other urls found in this thread:

ecpr.eu/Events/PaperDetails.aspx?PaperID=30190&EventID=95
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I'm a monarchist.

god save the queen

absolute, westminster, other parliamentary, parliamentary with executive king, which one?

absolute
constitutional monarchy is pointless, crown has no real power, it's just a half measure. IMO Britain should change hey royal family, bunch of left wing germans

we are all Commonwealth meaning that we are all Westminster

No it actually means that all of you commonly suck Britain's nutsack

I mean there are other kinds of parliamentary monarchy, not just westminster
what about being like liecthenstein or Monaco or (although quite different) morocco? a "semi-constitutional monarchy" as defined here ecpr.eu/Events/PaperDetails.aspx?PaperID=30190&EventID=95 (although I think this is a poor name ot to give)

ultimately an institution assuming power without election provides more practical leadership. I'm not adequately informed on Morocco or Liechtenstein (although i know the Prince in L has the country by the balls, also only gave women the vote by a 1% majority in the 80s) but a monarch fearing revolution makes better decisions than an MP fearing elections

they're basically parliamentary (morocco being less democratic and serious) monarchies, but instead of having a merely decorative monarch they're more like the monarchist version of semiparliamentary republics, and the kings have actual executive power

they should stop fucking around and pick one, it's like being bisexual or agnostic

Parliamentary monarchy is fine
Parliamentary republic is fine too
Relying on one person to rule your state is dum dum

The best absolute ruler will always be better than the best parliament, congress, etc.

But the worst absolute ruler is a thousand times worse than the worst republic.

I'm an absolute monarchist too

My choice would be a Constitutional Monarchy where the monarch has clearly defined executive powers.

Essentially it would give us a president unburdened by politicking and elections.

this
have the legislature draft law, which is reflective of public opinion


but have exec confirm law, reflective of objective reasoning and not pandering to party base

>no government
>libya
Fuck Hillary and fuck Obama.

I'm for a cicero style republic. Maybe change the presidency from a vote every 4 years to a single vote for a 10 year term with the senate able to remove him (supermajority) after 4 years. Also change it so house/senate has less electoral cycles to make up for the whole "constantly campaigning.lobbying" element.

I'm good with constitutional monarchies and with regards to the British sympathize with royalists over republicans. Not for creating a constitutional monarchy where there was none because I hope you enjoy king Barrack obama or King Yeb lord of the Guac because that is what you would get in America. Don't be a fool and think you'd get King trump - Kingmakers are always the aristocracy and elites, not average shmucks. And guess who Wall street, Silicon Valley and the washington elite would choose for a king?

And I'd be the first to lynch Absolute monarchists from lamp-posts or throw them under the guillotine. You want authoritarianism you go fascism, you don't go antiquated and anachronistic and downright idiotic monarchy.

>I'm for an absolute monarchy
>I don't want our royal family to have absolute powers, only for the new monarch to have it after they are thrown out and a new one takes office who represents my views fully and is my perfect ideal infallible fantasy.

"Absolute Monarchy whenever the monarch is someone who mirrors my views 100%, revolution against a Monarch who doesn't mirror my views".

So you're not for an absolute monarchy you fucking nigger, you're for a utopian dream-team fantasy. The system doesn't matter to you, just this infantile 'ideas guy' grade bullshit of having your head in the clouds thinking about some idyllic scenario where the perfect fairytale philosopher king takes his thrown.

Reminds me of the communists who preach about how their perfect infallible never-been-tried system works because of how it appears on paper.

Supreme leader constrained by politically awakened populace participating in frequent referenda.

Parliamentarism is the best.

so semipresidentialism gets no love?

Direct democracy, like in my country. It's the best model, no discussion (unless you find some wise man to lead your state, but I doubt such a man exists). Parliamentarism is corrupt shit. Representative democracy is no democracy, it's institutionalized oligarchy.

how does your system compare to lietchenstein's, and would you agree direct democracy should be more local than federal (especially in giant countries)? I see many benefits to DD, but sometimes it can be negative (i've been told californias love to give themselves benefits but don't like to pay for them, for ex)

posted this before

monarchy, when done well is the best government system in my opinion

>what's monarchy done well?

A king that actually seeks to do good by his people

A monarchy that allows people to take the role of advisers to keep their king informed

A monarchy that allows people to form local ruler-ships in order to act as representatives

A monarchy that does not pass rule by bloodline, but by who is most like the current monarch in ideals

there is simply no other government that can compete in terms of acting as quickly, and with it's peoples' good in mind, and be so difficult to corrupt

republics - too slow and they often are un informed on issues

democracies - made up of the people and the people are fools whom can be swayed by dangling goods before them

communism - simply impractical, it'd be usurped quickly

socialism - runs itself into the ground

feudalism - only good when you want to make sure your local rulers aren't exploiting people and when you need a strong military quickly

an-cap - just devolves very quickly into any other-government system

btw how does ur executive with 7 guys work? do you think this could be replicated in other countries?

>Tzarism

The thing is that direct democracy is the Maserati of political systems: decisions take longer to be discussed, but once a decision is taken, all those who took part in the voting process, for or against a decision, will accept it and support it. In other words, direct democracy unites people, and prevents internal dissensions created by (((globalism))). So once the people are united, they will do what's best for the team, yes.

Lethargic systems and highly corruptible systems like representative democracy or other formes of "democracy" cannot compete with it. Unless you have some kind of good, wise ruler, which hardly ever happens (could be the case with Trump though). Which is why non-democratic entities often frown upon direct democracy. They know they'd lose power.

It should be local, certainly, but it has to be global (i.e. at the national level) too. In Switzerland, local, supra-local and federal levels are thoroughly distinguished, in terms of power, and it seems to me that you can't be democratic locally while having (((big government))) at the federal level. Makes no sense.

Yes, absolutely.

even in the US where consensus is not expected at all or where they might be in a situation of war and need more swift decision making? Might you explain pros and cons of your executive system, how it might difer in one country to another, etc? I'll probably not be able to answer back but I'll read, thanks based rolex

also do you think in a state that is already a welfare state or were people are known to vote for big government (i.e. california if what americans tell me is right, about welfare proposals there getting voted with some frequency by the people) it might have deletery effects?
when i said federal x local I was thinking of welfare for example, where trust and caring about expenses in a local community is probably higher than in a big country where people from one coast might not give a single f*** about spending other people's money, for example, and also when it comes to big changes that might increase government power like the ones in Venezuela, etc where the government basically gives people bread and circuses in exchange of more power, so maybe swiss culture is more adequate to it, and it might backfire in other places, methinks, although I must concede I've seen more positive than negative results when it comes to dd around the world, but maybe we should already start with it and implementing it later on when you have a population used to welfare, a large part of which are net recipients of government money (47% in the US, even more here, depending on the state, IIRC) and wouldn't care about raising taxes and such

Fuck constitutional monarchy. We have a symbolic king but the royal family costs millions of wasted taxpayer money. We need to get rid of them asap.

The king easily brings in more money then he costs
His presence on foreign trade missions alone increases the amount of interest in the meeting enormously
And then there is there tourists