Nonpartisan political forums. Political blogs. International news.

In place now we have certain checks and balances that are created to ensure that no single office take complete power. This is the fundamental pitfall of the pendulum democracy and so I address it first as to expose it to public forum and interpretation.

I propose then that instead of two candidates running on each party platform you have five. The office of vice president will be significantly reduced though his vote will stay as important if not more then it is today. The first of these five equally powerful candidates will be the president; who is a direct representative of the voice and will of the people. The second candidate will be the house leader, one elected official (elected through populous ballot voting) Who will be responsible for conveying the opinion and will of the house, though ultimately he stands as head of this office equipped formidably with veto power. The third resides as the leader of the Senate the fourth of the Judiciary branch and the Fifth elected Vice President whose sole purpose is to break a tie if the four previous offices should reach a stalemate. Both the senate judiciary and house elected representatives should act much like our electoral college today in which the representatives of each state are strongly encouraged but not bound to follow majority. In this way each member of each house still stands, elected by the people with the ability to vote though their vote may be over ridden. Furthermore every candidate runs on the same ticket so ultimately one party has five as opposed to the usual two on each ballot. They would serve a three-year term and are forbidden to serve more then two terms.

Why it may be said should there be any interest in creating such an oligarchic government? The simple answer is efficiency. Ideally and I use this word with great caution, with the same party controlling each branch the efficiency of the government would be overwhelming and passing laws would be significantly easier. The will of the people and their benifactors would no longer be stalemated for years on end. I understand that many would then think that this opens the floodgates of corruption but we aren't throwing our democracy out the door. The people can still recall and I do not believe that they would have too. With shorter terms each party is still dependent on populous vote so the initiatives they passed would be beneficial to everyone and likewise different party initiatives passed that had proven to be successful would obviously be kept as any challenger to the office would be bound by the voting populous to incorporate beneficial policies into their campaign platforms. In this way we can pass a plethora of laws, throw out the bad and keep the good.

In many ways this is simply and upgrade, in the earlier years of this country men created assembly lines and we marveled at how the efficiency of this idea led us into a new generation of power and prominence. It was an upgrade and that is exactly what is proposed now. We should not seek to throw democracy out the door rather we should advance it, bring it out of childhood and into adulthood. The world is changing and we in turn must change with it.

In proposing this change is understood that any such significant change would be spawned directly out of populous demand. People would need to get involved and only through them is significant change possible. For too long we have sat quietly by reacting only to gross infringement of rights but for the most part sat stagnant as laws are passed for us. Through the implementation of communism we saw the will and voice of the people come together to dismantle unfair institutions only to throw themselves back in the hands of tyranny.