The Lesson of Israel

I find the country of Israel incredibly complex. It's parliamentary system is very representative of its people, and its multi-party system is something of envy. It complements Israels extreme diversity among ideological, cultural, and ethnic lines. The United States is as much, if not more so, diverse as Israel, yet it only has two political parties that appeal little to the moderates in the middle. Some could argue that the Knesset is fractious governing body based on unstable coalitions, but unfortunately we can hardly criticize. Our government is incredibly divided between only the two parties, Democrats and Republicans, and so this congress has accomplished very little. But in measures of representation, the Knesset is much more representative then the US Congress. Congressmen tend to vote on party lines, and with only two parties to choose from, there are many American's that can't find a candidate that can fully represent their beliefs and ideas.

Israel also has a much more efficient voting system. It is simple, straightforward and not very tedious where as ours, according to the literature, is the complete opposite. Our system results in low voter turnout, and somewhat meaningless, or less meaningful elections.

Elected Judges: Extremely Bad Idea

I just got done reading The Appeal by John Grisham. I hate to spoil it but it brings up a great point about our state judicial system. In the book, a corporation gets sued for basically dumping in a river harmful waste that causes a cancer epidemic. They get sued and loose, but they then appeal, and when elections come along they rig it to get a judge elected that will hand the court case over to corporation. The novel shows that with elected judges (combined with an endless appeal system) courts can be corrupted by the people and loose its ability to be impartial and independent.

With elected judges, they now have to bend to the will of people or reflect the opinions of their constituents which destroys objectivity in the courtroom. This practice is still being used today in some form in 39 states. It is especially prevalent in rural areas. I strongly argue for Federalist 78. Right now records are being broken in money spent on judicial elections. This is especially becoming more prevalent in a 2002 Supreme Court decision allowing judges to speak more freely about their beliefs. There is even correlation between Jim Crow and prejudice being the norm in courts, and elected Judges. I would like to point to another John Grisham book, A Time to Kill. In that book the Judge is influenced by an ambitious district attorney into giving him the upper hand in the court case, in order to give a quasi innocent Black father no chance in a capital murder case.

I know I use Grisham a little to much in establishing a point, but he isn't a best selling author for nothing.

Traditions of Rule

It is interesting on how cultural traditions of rule seem to correlate with present day governments, especially in executive branches and the power that they hold. Latin America for instance has a tradition of rule by caudillos who are powerful individual rulers, and this correlates with governments in the region in adopting policies that could allow a president to expand his influence and power. Japan had a long history of central ruling, and therefore we see a strong central government, not a federalist government like the one seen in America. The arabic world has a saying that states, "better to live in tyranny then to live in anarchy" enabling them to accept the tradition of dictatorship, and royal monarchies as seen in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Qatar, Oman, ect. History it seams continually shapes and affects government, but it effects the executive much more. Legislative government is comparatively a newer form of government.

Lack of Checks and Balances for Traditional Parliaments

After reading the fourth chapter, I have came to my own conclusion that, in one point of view, the prime minister wields to much power. In general practice, if a majority government or a coalition government is in place, then the Prime Minister can present a bill with little or no adequate objection to stop its passage. The opposition can only voice it but would not have the power to stop it. There is, typically, no judicial review that would even be able to object to a bill or its passage, and in some parliaments they are free to override the courts as they see fit. The other houses of the legislature cannot override the upper house, and also members in the same dominant party cannot exactly risk to go against the Prime Minister (experience and prestige is required). In many cases, the states/provinces/ect cannot even stop measures from happening.

This doesn't show the same degree of checks and balances as you see within American Federalism. Also, there is a lack of separation of government branches. The Prime Minister leads the upper house of the legislature, which successfully combines the role of legislature and executive through the Prime Minister, giving the Prime Minister an uneven hand in power. However, to be fair parliamentary government when being led by majority, or coalition is very similar to unified governments in the states.

Run-off Elections and Political Parties

I believe that run-off elections would be a perfect way to settle disputes in all democratic republics, especially on votes deciding who heads the executive. It would be the most democratic way of electing presidents, by making certain that the candidate elected has some degree of legitimacy. If you look at the 2000 elections, many people were upset at the outcome because they saw the election as being illegitimate. Democrats cried foul at Ralph Nader since he took away crucial votes that would have definitely put Gore ahead of Bush, and how mess in Florida was handled.

The only problem is that we, as American's might not ever have to see a run-off election due to our deeply ingrained two party system.

The two party system is very undemocratic. What the Democrats and Republicans have accomplished is an increasingly bipolar political climate that successfully blocks the advancement of third parties. It is undemocratic because it isn't fully representative of the wide range of political attitudes, and ideology that can be found in America. I, for example, have an increasingly tough time voting because I'm not a clear cut Republican or Democrat.

The Federalist Papers

I find it interesting that in the Federalist Papers there is a lot of emphasis on natural rights. This is very John Locke. It seams that the founding fathers didn't try too hard to hide the fact that much of the ideology that shaped, and continues to shape, the US is based off Lockean principles. Personally I find the idea of natural rights to be little strong, because human beings have always been social creatures, and much of our behavior is socially constructed. We were never alone and in a natural state as Locke proposed.

Which Countries Are Democratic?

I looked at the PDF which was used in classifying the level of democracy in each country. For the most part, they have developed an okay system for measuring democracy in countries, but it's problems are similar to suffered from all statistical analysis. The proxies used tend to rely of subjective input more then mathematical input, which could profoundly shape a study. Despite this the questions for determining the score of each category are well thought up. Their problem is that they value the questions either at 1 or 0 and there is little in between, which can skew results.

Is a Supermajority Democratic?

Personally I find that no matter how you configure the system, you will find arguments both for and against. One could argue that democracy involves everyone, and everyone agreeing. In that case a supermajority is democratic. If one's take on democracy believes in majority vote, and that small blocks in government shouldn't have the power to stop a majority vote, then a supermajority is very undemocratic. It all depends on ones view of Democracy.

Personally I feel that supermajorities are just inefficient. The founding fathers set them up in order to make change difficult, and in order to ensure that stability and tranquility exist on after an amendment is made. Succession is more likely if you have a larger group going against any amendment. But the problem is how can changes be made when it requires such a large vote making so that most of America must be ready to accept it. It's great for that reason, and it keeps partisan politics from turning into hostilities.

Introduction

I'm Alex, and my first impression of the first class that this might actually be somewhat enjoyable since I enjoy discussions. However, I must contend my dislike for politics. In fact I absolutely detest the modern day politics.

The first reading did give me a sense of comparison. Unlike other constitutions, ours doesn't mention any social or economic protections. For instance, many constitutions around the world garuntee everyone opportunity to good health, which is normally accompanied by some kind of health care system that is accessible to all of its citizens. Perhaps this could explain why our country lags behind so many others in welfare, even though we are the richest nation in the world, and why we have greater levels of income inequality. However, this shouldn't be surprising because our country was founded under the political-economic ideology of republicanism.

There are also some issues I have with the book. For instance it assumed that the immigrants entering into the US were welcomed, which is a falsehood. It also made a couple of comparisons between the US and Poland, which I found not accurate.