Taalnazi
Very thorough and great answer, I’m curious though – what’s a she-wee? Is that the tool for peeing standing up when one isn’t born with the sausage?
Also, that coworker sounds affirming, when he told he thought that it doesn’t count as going after women - that’s kind of oddly sweet?
I also have a lack of omnipresent(?) dysphoria, though do have a bit there and there. Mainly not having the right organ down there and having too much hair, but other than that, it’s pretty much alright.
Wel raar dat bij die peiling van wat als hij beter is, niet alle partijen gelabeld zijn.
Wel zonde dat je niet kunt kiezen hóéveel miljoen er per ministerie is. Want die worden niet alleen bìnnen ministeriën verdeeld, maar immers ook daartùssen.
Mixed member proportional is nice, but it suffers from overhang seats.
I have a different proposal, but that one is pretty extensive.
It goes as following:
1. Replace the presidential system with a parliamentary one. Separation of powers is still as strict as it is. But it goes further. Veto power of the president, judges, anyone, it’s gone.
2. The head of government is chosen by both popular vote and consensus. The candidate with the most votes and approval from most members in parliament wins. They can be removed from position by parliament or by referendum at any time.
3. Change FPTP to proportional representation. Specifically, it should be party-agnostic, and have a 4% threshold, below which a seat holder still can vote and speak, but has less speaking time. Seat apportion will be according to the Hamilton method, and there will be an additional spare vote, so that main votes to parties falling below the threshold, will go to the voter’s spare vote, which is one likely to gain a seat. Party members can recall parlementarians, and people can do so too through referenda.
4. Abolish electoral districts. Furthermore, no person earning more than 3* the median US income (stocks and other earnings overseas and tax evasions included) may contribute to or participate in the elections in any way.
5. Split up the Democratic and Republican Parties into their ideological caucuses. Caucuses may merge, but no caucus may be bigger than 16% of the total US House of Representatives amount of seats.
6. Abolish the Senate. It’s a slog that slows down and only helps bureaucracy. The work it does can also be done by having a strong constitution (that actually does guarantee people’s rights to civility, safety, and liberty), and parlementary comi
7. Increase the House’s size to 700 seats. This way, the work pressure is smaller and the parliament can be more representative, and lobbying becomes harder. States’ seats will be degressively proportional in a similae way to the EU’s seats.
8. Faithless electors are forbidden, age limit. No officeholder shall serve a term beyond 5/6th of the median life expectancy in their residential region at their birth date - rounded down to the nearest year. In the US, median life expectancy is 76 years, so that’d mean 63 years.
9. More voting booths. One voting booth per area of 1000 voters, distributed such that as many people as possible have one within 1 km of their home. Remote areas with fewer people than this, will have a mail-in as default.
10. The US. Supreme Court of Justice is not appointed by any leader. This also goes for lower level courts. The court shall be appointed apolitically through multiple random ballots, out of a pool of all federal judges, whereas the latter shall be appointed by the same method, through a pool of all in their area, who have passed juridicial examination, whose passing requirements are determined by a commission of judges without any economical and/or political ties to non-judge figures.
The court’s size is determined as C•0.075 3sqrt(US current populace + 2), where C is the court size in seats. This would mean that there’d be 54 judges in 2020.
Link for those not using TikTok
(at the end it features that vid)
Het is sowieso walgelijk dat er een voorstel tot een nieuw kiesstelsel komt. Dit kiesstelsel is prima, proportioneel en daar moet niets aan veranderen.
Met dit voorstel is het principe “één mens, één stem” effectief van de baan. Dat maakt het uitermate antidemocratisch, en daardoor juist lastiger voor boer, burger, en de billijke kiezer.
Dat van die regionale band is ook kul. In het Amerikaanse en Britse stelsel is er onderzoek naar gedaan en er blijkt totaal geen binding te zijn tussen gekozene en kiezer. Minder juist dan hier!
Wat kan ik doen om hier verandering in te brengen?
That doesn’t look like a million euro house at all…
