Touche...
>About consent, all the governments work based on consent of
>the governed, even the majority of dictatorships. It´s simply
>impossible to govern based only in coercion
But with a disarmed people, a lot of coercion will get you a very long way.
>How consent is expressed is another question. Take for instance my
>beloved president, elected in the first votation in 1998 with 53%
>of the votes (but 30% of people defaulted the election...). Well,
>this poor guy now has only 15% approval ratings....Only 20 months
>after his reelection. This is a indirect proof that elections don´t
>necessarily assure the legitimacy of a government. However, Mr.
>Cardoso remains on power, because here is the opposition is very
>weak and unable to offer the people an alternative policy. We
>can name this a kind of "negative consent". We hate them but,
>considering the absolute lack of options.....we (including me)
>won´t risk our lives to get rid from him.
Or rather say that the opposition is split...
I tend to favor (a) annual elections (to get rid of the Cardoso problem), (b) no term limits (so that legislators have a chance to build up real expertise), and (c) first-past-the-post single-member districts (so that the representatives who get elected are good at coalition building, rather than good at ideological posturing to gain the applause of their core constituencies). I am somewhat ambivalent about presidential vs. parliamentary executives (although I lean toward the presidential): presidential executives tend to produce gridlock as presidents fight their parliaments, but parliamentary executives can quickly turn into elective dictatorships (like that of Margaret Thatcher in Britain in the 1980s) or into the "waltz of the cabinets" of pre-WWII France or post-WWII Italy. I tend to be hostile toward referenda, as almost all good people to the left of center living in California are.
But these are very hard issues to resolve. How to achieve effective representation is a problem we have not solved.
>
>to ask you about some interesting aspects of your democracy.
>1-What are the conditions a presidential candidate must fulfill to
>have a place in the in the election balott?
Through petition: each minor-party candidate must assemble a petition with a certain number of signatures to get on the ballot in each state. ("Major parties" get automatic access to the ballot if their candidate received enough votes in the previous election.
>2-How is assured the access of small parties to the comunication
>means in the elections from your country?
None. Zero. None at all. They hope to amuse journalists enough that the journalists will write about them...
Of course, the "Reform" Party's nominee--Ross Perot--did well enough in the 1996 election that the Reform Party's nominee--Patrick Buchanan--will get some $13 million (if I recall correctly) of public money to spend on his campaign...
Brad DeLong