3 ms·

> there isn't a single decision in my life I would pass off to the worst person I could think of This is actually the point though. You shouldn't have to giv

> there isn't a single decision in my life I would pass off to the worst person I could think of This is actually the point though. You shouldn't have to give power to an individual. If you're going to, you should give that power to a group of individuals who have to agree for the thing to move forward. And then have checks on that group as well. I live in South Carolina and one of the things I like about how this state works is that the governor is virtually powerless, so you never really have to worry about who is elected. There's certainly some degree of power outside of the veto, but for the most part the real power is with the state senate. There are pluses and minuses to it. On the plus side, it means that things are slower to change. On the minus side, it means that things are slower to change.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
The discussion was about giving power to an entire government, not an individual.
verve_rat 3y ago
Sounds like South Carolina follows a Westminster style government. Look at the UK, NZ, AU governments (and I assume Canada, don't know for sure): A King, or Governor-General, with the theoretical power to override parliament. A Head of State which can issue decrees and makes important decisions "on the advice of the Prime Minster". Basically a figure head and a bunch of legal fictions wrapped up in the concept of "The Crown". But the real power lies with the PM and their Cabinet. But the party in charge can change the PM whenever they want, and if it ever got bad enough Parliament can change the party in charge without waiting for an election. The PM is responsible to the Cabinet and to their party and to the rest of Parliament. It is all one big mess of ambitious people pointing guns at each other, constantly evaluating their position ahead of the next election.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Westminster system is not a particularly good example of checks and balances, though, given that whole parliamentary supremacy thing. A Westminster-style Parliament is essentially unanswerable to anyone but the voters; and even then it can unilaterally change election laws, so it can circumvent the voters as well. If the courts deem some act of Parliament unlawful, the latter can just pass another act explicitly declaring it lawful (the recent Safety of Rwanda Bill was a good example of just such an attempt).
  - verve_rat 3y ago
    Yeah, parliament is sovereign, the checks and balances are (meant to be) internal to parliament. That may break down a bit with modern parties and modern elections, I guess we will see if these systems still work in another couple of hundred years.
wolverine876 3y ago
> I live in South Carolina and one of the things I like about how this state works is that the governor is virtually powerless, so you never really have to worry about who is elected. There's certainly some degree of power outside of the veto, but for the most part the real power is with the state senate. Don't be reactive to the current successful tactic. The senate GOP has organized and wields their power effectively; the governor has not gathered and organized power. In a different scenario, with a different people, it could be the other way.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

The discussion was about giving power to an entire government, not an individual.

verve_rat 3y ago

Sounds like South Carolina follows a Westminster style government. Look at the UK, NZ, AU governments (and I assume Canada, don't know for sure): A King, or Governor-General, with the theoretical power to override parliament. A Head of State which can issue decrees and makes important decisions "on the advice of the Prime Minster". Basically a figure head and a bunch of legal fictions wrapped up in the concept of "The Crown". But the real power lies with the PM and their Cabinet. But the party in charge can change the PM whenever they want, and if it ever got bad enough Parliament can change the party in charge without waiting for an election. The PM is responsible to the Cabinet and to their party and to the rest of Parliament. It is all one big mess of ambitious people pointing guns at each other, constantly evaluating their position ahead of the next election.

int_19h 3y ago
Westminster system is not a particularly good example of checks and balances, though, given that whole parliamentary supremacy thing. A Westminster-style Parliament is essentially unanswerable to anyone but the voters; and even then it can unilaterally change election laws, so it can circumvent the voters as well. If the courts deem some act of Parliament unlawful, the latter can just pass another act explicitly declaring it lawful (the recent Safety of Rwanda Bill was a good example of just such an attempt).
- verve_rat 3y ago
  Yeah, parliament is sovereign, the checks and balances are (meant to be) internal to parliament. That may break down a bit with modern parties and modern elections, I guess we will see if these systems still work in another couple of hundred years.

wolverine876 3y ago

> I live in South Carolina and one of the things I like about how this state works is that the governor is virtually powerless, so you never really have to worry about who is elected. There's certainly some degree of power outside of the veto, but for the most part the real power is with the state senate. Don't be reactive to the current successful tactic. The senate GOP has organized and wields their power effectively; the governor has not gathered and organized power. In a different scenario, with a different people, it could be the other way.