Oilà!
far we (have) been merely electoral systems to ensure governability.
summary, a system which I consider valid is the following:
-room in a one party must have a majority of seats;
-in 'other room ... do what you like (majority, proportional, mixed, etc.. etc...)
unicameral system de facto anti-reversal mechanism and implication. If we add that the party of the chamber shall be designated by two-round ... we have the top!
This, of course, would give its advantages only in a perfect bicameralism and a parliamentary republic. That is, in Italy.
now introduces the "presidential system" or the ability of voters to directly elect the president.
Under this hypothesis, and maintaining the perfect bicameralism, I introduce a new rule for the conduct of work Members:
any law or any government must have the approval of at least two of the three "pillars" on which the triangular system.
The triangular system I'm talking about is made by then three "entities" directly elected by the people:
-President of the Republic;
-room;
- the Senate.
Every law, to be valid, must be approved by at least two of the three hinges :
+ double-president;
+ senate president;
-camera + Senate.
At this point it would be helpful to use three different electoral systems to be more different. In my opinion:
-double shift for the president;
-proportional (with barrier) for the room;
-majority to a mere shift to the Senate.
Where is the stability? He's obviously in the fact that the President may propose laws or the governments they want, as long as you find at least one room that agree with him. The difference in the electoral systems in the two rooms has the aim to facilitate this mechanism. How
notes, also suggest that the variant has a single chamber may support alone a government or a law simply by using a qualified majority (eg two-thirds). The President and the chamber are in favor of a law? The Senate can block a vote against a two-thirds of its members!
await feedback.
triangular system ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment