UserWiki:Matteel/Sandbox

why are you looking here

penis penis penis penis

[[File:Republicanismpix.png]] Government Structure [[File:Republicanismpix.png]]
Mattism prefers a government that is built for the common good for the people, and thus, a a republic. Specifically, a liberal democracy. However, he prefers civil service reform in his country as well, and advocates for the public to have more of a say in decision making. Seeing a semi-direct democracy as the ultimate compromise between either a  representative democracy, and a  direct democracy. He seeks to abolish the electoral college, seeing it as nothing more than an relic of the past that is barely functioning the modern day, and is disproportionately effecting third parties ability to compete, contributing to the duopoly we have between the two major parties, and the further elitism within these parties. With more and more people not identifying with either democrats or republicans, he views this as a system that has to go. His first reform would to replace the electoral college vote with the popular vote. His other reforms would be to abolish the senate, seeing it as nothing more than upholding the elitism within the government, and preventing a lot of necessary reform. These reforms I would propose would, along with my other reforms, strengthen American democracy, prevent cronyism in our government, and give more people say in the government. As I believe our government shouldn't be for sale by massive corporations, it should be for the people.

In terms of how the bureaucracy is administered, he prefers local governance compared to a  unitary government, mainly due to how ineffective a unitary government would preform in the United States due to its size. Along with the fact that, federalism is inherently more democratic and less wasteful in terms of bureaucracy, the state's governments will know what their citizens know more than what the federal government will. But, states governments have to abide by the national laws, and the constitution.

With addition to all of this, he believes the government should actively protect its institutions from those who wish to do them harm, as we cannot give them the freedom to tear down our democracy. This would function like a defensive democracy. If your party actively poses a threat to democracy, it shouldn't be included in government. Believing that freedom of assembly and speech has its limits, and where they use their voices to silence the voices of other people is enough to warrant this.

I'm also against religion playing a role in government, or the government subsidizing religious organizations through tax exemption. Which is why I seek the complete separation of church and state. Seeing as religious organizations have historically used their influence to further their own needs over the people, I am vehemently opposed to them having any sort of political sway. I oppose any sort of forced secularism, or , and think that people who deny basic science based on their religious beliefs are very cringe, and only hold society back. Cults will not count as freedom of religion. And in this regard, he holds distrust of Islam, seeing as many third-world Islamic countries are riddled with reactionary leaders who use religion as a mean to further sentiment their rule. Not to say this doesn't apply to other religions, but Islam in the modern day is more relevant, but I still think they should be allowed to follow their beliefs.