Something That You'd Change In The World...

Think of one concept that, if you had the power, you would like to change in the world. Of course you have to justify this with a why, or possibly how (if you have a plan in mind). Things such as capitalism, poverty, war, etc.

 

I would give the U.N. more money, scope and power to police the world, through force if necessary, but represented by a fair delegation from all the countries of the world and faiths of the world. Each nation could have 1 representative and a staff that are voted for by the residents of each nation. This governing body makes sure that no messed up stuff goes on, using force if necessary, but not also imposing their identity or their values onto the situation. In other words, I would make the U.N.'s army as powerful as the U.S. army. This would help to get rid of civil wars, atrocities, dictatorships, etc.... Let's face it, the Earth needs a government that governs the entire planet. The problem right now is that that government (the U.N.) does not have some of the military might that other countries, starting with the U.S., have..

On a national level, I would take get rid of political parties, and come up with a new form of government that is more democratic. Rather than voting for one president and having him pick all his staff, the public would be able to vote on each of the key members of staff, and they would not be affiliated to a particular party.

One more thing - I would have the public vote on many other things - I would introduce many small bills. For example, a bill that limits advertising... Right now advertising is Everywhere... and it can be annoying. The country was a lot more beautiful before all the billboards showed up. That's how I feel, but it should be a thing that gets voted on and see what others think. I think downtown areas that have billboards - maybe the owners of those buildings can only sell billboard space to non-profit groups or PSAs, etc....
Also, the public should be able to vote on other things, such as what the drinking age for the state should be, whether jaywalking is illegal, etc....

 

IMO, the best answer possible: anything negative. that covers all wrongdoings, violence, killings, poverty, weapons, war, etc etc etc. i couldnt think of just one thing, so i figured i'd go with that.

 

I would drastically reform or even eliminate the International Monetary Fund. The approach to helping developing countries needs to be changed, so that 3rd world countries aren't held hostage by organizations that hand out loans.

For simply a national level, I would change Canada's voting format to soft proportional representation (kind of like Germany).

 

i'd stop poverty. if you stop poverty everyone will be happy cause everyone will be able to eat, so a lot of things will be fixed

 

<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">For simply a national level, I would change Canada's voting format to soft proportional representation (kind of like Germany).</div>What is that? and why would you prefer it?

What would I change in the world if I had the power to do it?
Well a simple thing that I could definitely would like to see if I had the power to do it and would be willing to use my power in such a way (If I didn't use it for selfish reasons, enjoyment, etc), so ideally, would be to try to get food to those who need it, to get shelter to those who need it, and have people value and treat the worse treated people and least valued people well.

Although at this point in time I don't have a plan how to do it, I'm sure there are organizations that do such work.

 

<div class="quote_poster">thedude9990 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">i'd stop poverty. if you stop poverty everyone will be happy cause everyone will be able to eat, so a lot of things will be fixed</div>

true but how would you go about that?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Skiptomylue11:</div><div class="quote_post">What is that? and why would you prefer it?</div>
Its a more fair way of distributing seats in the House of Commons, IMO. Under the current system (single member plurality), seats are given according to the number of regions or ridings that are won by a party, not by the number of votes. So, a party could get 30% of Canada's votes, but lost the majority of the ridings by a very slim margin, and end up with very few seats in the House (what usually happens to the NDP). On the other hand, a party may only have around 10% of Canadian votes, but have like 30 or so seats, because they won all the ridings in a specific location (like how the Bloc does in Quebec). Proportional representation takes the the percentage of votes that a party gets across Canada, and gives out seats according to that percentage. I think its a better system for a diverse country like Canada because, since we're such a huge country, we have so many different cultural, economic, and social issues. The current system basically elects either the Liberals or the Conservatives and doesn't represent enough people. It also brings up the problem of the wasted vote (ie: when people consider a vote for the NDP to be a vote for the Conservatives, because its drawing support from the Liberal party.).

btw, don't consider my numbers to be straight facts. They guesses based on stuff I read a while ago.

 

<div class="quote_poster">hoops4life Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">IMO, the best answer possible: anything negative. that covers all wrongdoings, violence, killings, poverty, weapons, war, etc etc etc. i couldnt think of just one thing, so i figured i'd go with that.</div>

That is a pretty broad scope. Yeah poverty is negative but how far negative does it go?

Speeding? Swearing? Sneezing without saying God Bless You?

 

Get rid of AIDs forever in Africa.

 

reduce taxes, eliminate military, solve problem to poverty by first legalizing drugs, then providing more help for the homeless with perminent homes with a workforce in some sort of program where you are paid to help homeless people and poor people find better situations (rather than having volentary foundations where few people voenteer to help). reduce cost of housing universally, create green power throughout the world, eliminate "religous bonuses" as i call it, this is where if your a christian you are providing with something that maybe a muslim isnt provided with, create diversity in america by letting more immagrants in to live within middle america, but still controling the population, have better corectional fascilities, improve medical system, provide every home with broadband internet, put a limit on the amount of advertisement on tv and radio, improve sport facilities in australia (especially basketball) change education system dramitically, lower school fees considerably, eliminate costs for university students (free uni). thats all i could think of right now, but mainly i would make changes in education, income, poverty and the medical system.

 

<div class="quote_poster">I-Miss-MJ Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">That is a pretty broad scope. Yeah poverty is negative but how far negative does it go?

Speeding? Swearing? Sneezing without saying God Bless You?</div>

ANYTHING negative. no matter how big or how small. what could be wrong with the world then? nothing.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Its a more fair way of distributing seats in the House of Commons, IMO. Under the current system (single member plurality), seats are given according to the number of regions or ridings that are won by a party, not by the number of votes. So, a party could get 30% of Canada's votes, but lost the majority of the ridings by a very slim margin, and end up with very few seats in the House (what usually happens to the NDP). On the other hand, a party may only have around 10% of Canadian votes, but have like 30 or so seats, because they won all the ridings in a specific location (like how the Bloc does in Quebec). Proportional representation takes the the percentage of votes that a party gets across Canada, and gives out seats according to that percentage. I think its a better system for a diverse country like Canada because, since we're such a huge country, we have so many different cultural, economic, and social issues. The current system basically elects either the Liberals or the Conservatives and doesn't represent enough people. It also brings up the problem of the wasted vote (ie: when people consider a vote for the NDP to be a vote for the Conservatives, because its drawing support from the Liberal party.).

btw, don't consider my numbers to be straight facts. They guesses based on stuff I read a while ago.</div>Yea, that was a good explanation, its understandable that your guesses may be off, but you got the point across.

One question is, how is it determined where the German representatives are chosen?

Lets say a hypothetical province with 10 seats had 5 seats with 100% conservative, and the remaining 5 seats got 60% Liberal and 40% NDP.

Would the Conservatives keep their 5 seats, however the Liberals would only get 3 of their 5, and the NDP would get 2? and how would it be decided which seats?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Skiptomylue11 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Yea, that was a good explanation, its understandable that your guesses may be off, but you got the point across.

One question is, how is it determined where the German representatives are chosen?

Lets say a hypothetical province with 10 seats had 5 seats with 100% conservative, and the remaining 5 seats got 60% Liberal and 40% NDP.

Would the Conservatives keep their 5 seats, however the Liberals would only get 3 of their 5, and the NDP would get 2? and how would it be decided which seats?</div>
Well, there's varying degrees. The common theme with proportional representation is that individual candidates and ridings are not as important as the national vote (some places just get rid of separate regions altogether). Germany has a system in place that isn't as extreme, which is the reason I chose it as an example. What they do is make people vote twice: once for the candidates in their ridings and once for an actual party. Then the candidates are given seats according to the number of votes that the party got as a whole. Usually there's some differences (ie: a party getting more votes than candidates or the other way around), but in general that's not been a huge problem. Countries usually create extra seats for those occasions and it doesn't number very much.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. There's less emphasis on local issues with prop. representation (although its not as big a problem in the German system) and governments usually have to form coalitions, because majorities are rare. But I still prefer that system. The coalitions are usually not as dysfunctional as the Canadian ones, because the parties often have more in common. The main thing is that there is more variety for voters. I mean, right now we basically have a choice between Liberals and Conservatives and both of them tend to try their best to aim for that middle ground. The worst case scenario is America, where there's barely any difference between the two candidates.

Anyways, sorry for the thread hijack.

 

Decrease the high gas prices lol, i would put an end to all wars and terrorism

 

I wouldn't change anything in the world. I'd change myself. I can't change the world when I myself am distraught. It's a simple concept. Free yourself, and the world changes for you.

 

I wouldn't change anything, because I believe everything happens (and has happened) for a reason....and I believe it's our duty as human beings to learn from these things.

 

yes you should change, but that change should come natural....the question is kind of like asking me to play God for a day....I don't know maybe I'm just looking too deeply into it, lol.