Empire-like Stateform.

a empire is close to a perfect stateform, imho.

No President, no nothing on the top. Only the Imperator, and even he is only their when something goes fucking wrong in the country.

Basicly it's like this/should be like this:

No fucking Partys(forbidden).
People-->Directly elect Senat.
If their is a crisis-->Senat votes if their should be a election for a Imperator or not. If Yes-->People elect Imperator(Can be anybody except a Senator). Imperator stays on top of the state till he dies(NOT till the crisis is solved because this would cause trouble[Why? Well, because nobody can say when the crisis is over!].). Then the Senat has to revote if a new Imperator has to be elected.

When their is a Imperator election, people can chose to "Anti"-Vote. If their is a majority of Anti-Votes, their is no Imperator elected. This Anti-Vote should be available at every election.

oh, and i forgot:

murder has to be legal, but only when it happens durring a duell. for a duell to be legitim, someone from the state has to watch the duell, and both sides in have to agree to the duell. also, the imperator HAS to accept every duell.

also, everybody HAS to vote. everyone who won't vote would have to go into jail till the next election. then he can vote... or stay in prison.

>>23
>I automatically lose respect for someone talking big but using
>small language; poor diction, shotty grammar, spelling,
>punctuation, and capitalization. It makes things hard to
>comprehend and it lessens the desire to comprehend.

i want to notice that english isn't my primary language. So please send your complains to the english teachers in my country.  Being from another country, i can't take a U.S. History Class that easily, and i don't go to High School anymore(Well, i never did since there are no highschools here because we have a non-U.S. education system, but that doesn't belong here). I'm already trying my best to make my postings as readable as possible. And yes, i meant emperor. Although imperator is a suitable synonym just like >>7 said. About the Murders legal thing: I said only in duells to which both sites have to agree. Allmost nobody would be willing to agree. But the REALY stupid people would kill themself off. Not quite a bad thing. Befor complaining about something like my language, grammar etc., read exactly what i write.

>>22
well not completly. rome had - till the permanent use of a dictator - only in times of a crisis a emperor. then people got lazy.

>>21

banning partys prevents the build up of organisations that leave no chance at all for new ideas(Look at the U.S.. 2 Partys(well ok there are more, but they are so small that they have nothing to say at all.). Not much of choice that you have.). If you look at antic greece, it worked pretty well, even without partys. Also, the jailing shouldn't be till the next election that is from the same kind you got in jail for, but for ANY election. I think most people don't realize how many elections are held in every state, in every country, every single day. Also, don't come with freedome of speach to me. If there would be any true freedome of speech even a 2 year old could watch porn. That wouldn't be good for a child? Well so think about freedome of speech again then. Oh, and here we notice: If two dumbasses want to fight a battle of life and death(=duell) and we say "no you can't", wouldn't that be against freedome of speech(yes i know it says freedome of speech, but you know what i mean.) as well?

Also, i'd like to quote Winston Churchill, goes to all the "yeah democracy!!!11one"-guys(Nothing against democrazy[no, thats no a typo], its good and fine, but it has its errors. I dont say what is said is perfect. It's just something i'm working on. Thats why i posted it. To fix things in it.):

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

and:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter."