Both parties (in the US's case) would govern at the same time. Whatever party was elected in each individual state would be in political and financial control of that state. The GNP of the country (or whatever the huge amount of money is called the government 'has in the bank') would be divided up on as a percentage of the common vote.
If you voted D(emocratic), then you got your D President, D Senate, and D congress. All your tax money goes to your D government, while the R's have their own as well.
At the end of the 4 year term whichever government has done a better job wins the office for the next 4 years, and runs the whole country for the next term. The next is again an open vote and the two parties (or 3 etc) would start again.
Any large federal issues (healthcare, military, etc.)that could not be split between the two would be voted on just like they are now, between the two governments.
Regularly scheduled debates would keep the people talking and involved with the politics happening around them, so more people will vote.
And I guess the majority party's President will get to stay in the The White House, and The Beige Condo can be awarded to the runner up.-- Giblet, Jan 09 2005 Well, you abandoned democracy a while back. This mess can't be any more corrupt than your present system.-- ConsulFlaminicus, Jan 09 2005 It could be based more on county lines. A person should only have to travel thirty minutes to move from one system of government to the other in the state. I only say this after reading about the divisions in states during the last election there.-- mensmaximus, Jan 09 2005 [the huge amount of money is called the government 'has in the bank] That would be the huge amount of money the people put in the bank last century, that is now the huge debt?
[whichever government has done a better job wins the office ] Each party would claim to have done the better job, no difference there.
I do like the idea of if you are a voting [fill in the blank] you have that party's system benefits. This would cause some odd flow and ebb of programs. But it would be a strange caste system.
Sad, the system is so oriented towards power with no controls regarding performance. Would you hire an employee the same way we select political bosses?-- normzone, Jan 09 2005 Split each state in half, so that each half is a check on the other half. Each state decides what 'half' is defined as.-- mensmaximus, Jan 09 2005 Normzone: Fiscal reports would show who ran their portion of the money that they had better.
If we both have 20 bux, and in two days you have 50 and I have 10, who did a better job of managing that money? I can't claim I did a better job, cuz you have legitimately done a better job with yours.
Right now they promise, we vote and hope they geet elected and keep their promises.
You meantioned performance based. This way as well, a small party like the green party, could actually get a token sum of money to show what they can do with it.-- Giblet, Jan 09 2005 I don't see the magic words yet, Giblet. Proportional Representation. BC is an uneducated province, politically though, and only deserves a portion of democracy.-- mensmaximus, Jan 09 2005 I thought this was to be about "toe to toe" face-offs on hotly contested issues, a concept that has been proposed as formulated and legislated against (i.e., anti-duelling laws); but, this idea --- this is just too democratic to get close to.-- reensure, Jan 09 2005 [Giblet], I did mention performance. I guess what I was actually thinking was more along the lines of qualifications. Currently the guy who impresses the most people gets to be the boss. I'm trying to picture hiring an employee that way.
You have two applicants, one with a resume showing experience in the field, and one without. You choose your employee based on which one can get the most friends to call you. I was just wishing that there was a minimal amount of knowledge required, or a test to be passed. Oh well, life in America.
I'll vote +, if only because I advocate periodic experiments and course corrections.-- normzone, Jan 10 2005 We already have a similar system in the UK. We have an elected MP for each local area within a city and the MPs of all the different party's form the council (I think). The Council for a particular city is either Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat (I don't think any 'others' have gained a whole council).
We have both local and general elections, local ones happen more often and general ones are about every four years. At the General Election it gets very very complicated but basically whoever wins the most seats in parliament, meaning whoever wins the most councils, forms the Government.
For instance, Tony Blair was Prime Minister and the local MP for Sedgefield at the same time.
Mind you, we're a much smaller country and we've got a monarch so the whole thing's probably inworkable for a large country like, whichever one you're in, Canada or whatever.-- mecotterill, Feb 09 2008 random, halfbakery