File: 1567953620967.gif (12.72 KB, 125x125, 1:1, clap.gif) ImgOps Google
So here's a question to pose to Townhall. You find yourself suddenly in charge of a nation, and it is your duty to implement a government. The only requirement is that your people will probably murder you if you do not at least maintain the illusion of democracy. Do you implement true universal suffrage, one person one vote on every matter? Enlightened despotism where real power lies with the head of state for the good of the people? A simple autocratic dictatorship?
Let's hear some ideas. As I said, it must be some form of democracy in at least name. No kingdoms, empires, or other blatant autocracy without pretense.
I'd say the US Constitution is a pretty good framework. It's good to have checks and balances to ensure that nothing hasty is done without majorities in multiple cross-sections of the population. And an independent judiciary to protect fundamental rights, like those found in the US Constitution Amendments 1--8 and the following rights mentioned in Article I, Section 9:
- The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
- No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
>>1599>your duty to implement a government
People tend to like what they know. If this country is used to autocracy, they will expect autocracy, and radical change will make you suspect as a leader. You mention the illusion of democracy, so I think you're thinking about a country like America.>implement true universal suffrage
Not right away, but is there any reason not to plan for it? So, sure.
I guess I basically believe the best form of government is a democracy of educated folks. Second best is a republic where leaders are at least sensible and educated. What I'd pick depends on where the country is -- I guess being in charge I get to pass judgement on what counts as sensible and educated. And that would determine whether to begin as a republic with more centralized power or a more direct democracy.
I think the US system works. Most I would change is to expand some states rights, and make sure states use a similar breakdown to the electoral college, so we don't get the problems of states that are basically run entirely by a city within it, completely ignoring the needs of everyone outside.
Something else I'd consider is requiring civil service in order to vote.
File: 1568116985884.gif (569.25 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Alastor.gif) ImgOps Google
OP here, I usually do not visit Town Hall, but just in case the name is determined by IP and that was changed in my absence, I'm just establishing that it's me! >>1604
Of everything, the rejection of Bills of Attainder are the one that gets the most respect from me. Such things are quite barbaric. >>1607
So the question there, how much of a margin of victory would be required for elections? Would it be a raw number game, where even one vote could decide the election? What about apolitical types who have the right to vote but little interest in participation? Maybe they decide to just sell their vote to the highest bidder, even if that bidder isn't a candidate but merely supports a candidate? This is illegal in many places, but it still happens, and likely always will.
If there needs to be a larger margin of victory, how large? Is it a static number or a number that varies depending on the total number of votes cast? >>1608
Don't be so certain. Autocracies have been overthrown for democracy, republics have died from autocrats asserting themselves within the existing system. The illusion of democracy need not be American
democracy either. Admittedly it is the system I live in, but democracy comes in many forms. Most constitutional monarchies in Europe for instance are in reality quite democratic. The Roman Republic is indisputably a form of democracy that still had very small suffrage. Regardless of suffrage, the requirement is simply elected participation in government. Who
can vote and who
can hold office can be quite restrictive and still maintain the illusion. >I guess being in charge I get to pass judgement on what counts as sensible and educated
Let's follow this, what are your requirements for sensible and educated? >>1611
You would fit in quite well with Latin American Federalists. Ignoring such concerns tore them apart quite badly. Some would argue it still is. >>1655
Hearkening back to the age of city-states? Or are you referring to something more modern in its conception?
No, I think there should still be a vetting process to who is running and who can be voted for. Probably not the exact same system we have now, but something that ensures only a handfull of people have a legitimate chance at the office.
After that, it would be exclusively decided by number of votes, though.
Imagine the US's system (but not exactly), but without the electoral college. Popular vote decides who is elected.
File: 1568161643116.png (274.72 KB, 500x500, 1:1, Hey now.png) ImgOps Google
In that regard, what sort of limits would you put in place to prevent such things? It's surprisingly easy and quick to fall into them, after all. Just look at the 180 Robespierre did in France at the time. >>1661
Again, I would ask what margin of victory would be. Or how you would clamp down on voters selling their votes out of apathy for governance but bathed in self-interest?
Someone pointed out there were educated Nazi's -- certainly there were technically competent ones -- so this isn't a certain cure, but I would create a system of education, especially in the humanities. I wouldn't normally judge the systems of political order human choose, but in this case, I'll say "evil" philosophies are challenged by wider knowledge, and perhaps I can push them to the fringes and make their mass adoption unlikely.
In the meantime, I'd limit democracy to answering simpler questions and start a republic, giving people basic rights that even a majority can not vote to remove.
I'm afraid I know little about them. Guess I ought to read up on that. From a quick glance at wikipedia, it looks sensible enough I guess. But, then, it only had a small section talking about that section, so it's hard to say>>1661
What would be the incentive for places and states with low populations, such as the midwest, to remain in the Union?
If it's all down to raw vote number, I can't imagine politicians wasting time on places with small amounts of people.
Whatever the original function of the electoral college was, it's become a broken system that awards disproportionate voting power to smaller groups of people. Every vote should be worth the same amount, regardless of where you live. >>1668
Are there any laws against people "selling" their votes now? I mean, politicians are already bought and sold under our current system, so I don't know if any system is perfect. But for the most part I think it's far more advantageous for people to try and actually persuade people to vote for them rather than spend money buying individual votes. Especially if you need the votes of the majority of people to win. It might get expensive to buy that many votes. >>1675
Because the government offers them the same things it offers all the other states? I'm not sure what you are asking. Why do any of the states stay in the union now? Because of government services and funding, right?
One person's vote should not be literally worth less than another person's vote just because of where they live. That is a broken system. All votes should be equal. Why should Carl from Buttfuck, Tennessee's vote be worth more than Carlos from New York's vote? There's no reason for that system to exist.
>>1680>Are there any laws against people "selling" their votes now?
I believe there are. I don't believe they are properly enforced. I'm not sure they realistically could be properly enforced. Though things like not being allowed to bring your phone into the voting booth could help, since without proof someone voted a certain way, like a photo, then you can't really enforce the voter's end of the deal.
It might be expensive, but i mean, any form of campaigning is.
>>1680>Because the government offers them the same things it offers all the other states?
Why would it?
Their vote doesn't matter, they have a microscopic population. So, the government can simply pass whatever bills and regulations they like, and completely ignore those areas.
Why bother giving them money or assistance, or consider their reaction to potential laws, or even bat an eye at potential difficulties due to tax burden?
They're far too small to matter. The government'd be far better off appeasing the cities, since the cities are who's votes matter. There's no reason not to start exploiting rural areas and states directly for the benefit of the cities, since so long as you appease the masses living in the cities, you can get anything you desire through the vote.>Why should Carl from Buttfuck, Tennessee's vote be worth more than Carlos from New York's vote? There's no reason for that system to exist.
Because otherwise, you get tyranny of the majority, who live far away from Carl's place, never knew anything about Carl's struggles, don't care in the slightest about Carl's concerns, and only see Carl as a potential tax import to help pay for the needs and desires of people in New York.
It's pretty much exactly why a full democracy never works out. You start to just work to appease the mob, and ignore the needs of anyone outside it. Suddenly, minorities are not a concern, rights of those who are not a part of the mob don't matter, all that's worth worrying about is maintaining the mob's happiness. You start to devolve into bread and circuses, because worrying about discontent isn't nearly as important as appeasing the masses.
And maybe Carl is a backwards idiot who blames foreigners and minorities for his problems and votes to elect a persuasive charlatan who claims he'll fix the problem by disenfranchising and infringing on those said groups that Carl hates, while not actually fixing anything and lining his own pockets.
Maybe the people in charge need to do what's best for the greatest number of people, and not cater to Carl's whims because he was arbitrarily granted more voting power.
Our current system grants the more voting power to the most under-educated and smallest portions of the population. And it's done nothing but allow certain groups to exploit Carl's ignorance for their own gain.
At least in my system Carl's vote is worth exactly the same as every other vote. Carl still gets a voice, the same voice, but doesn't get a disproportionate voice to talk about how wild hogs and negros are ruining his farm... Nor does he get to elect someone who is promising to take care of it who really only means to exploit the country.
It's entirely possible, but I'd doubt that's the case for every single person living in rural areas.
Regardless, you're still giving no good reasons for Carl to remain in your nation. You've, in fact, given extra reason for him to desire to leave. After all, you've expressed some extensive disdain and a clear lack of concern in regards to Carl. It seems to me he'd have ample reason to worry about what kind of a rule you'd want to place.
This is why I'm a big supporter of the right to secede, incidentally. If we're going to get people who so evidently don't care about the opinion of anyone outside the urbanite bubble, then it's important for the people who're going to be ignored to have a way out.
Otherwise, rightly so, they get violent.>At least in my system Carl's vote is worth exactly the same as every other vote. Carl still gets a voice, the same voice, but doesn't get a disproportionate voice to talk about how wild hogs and negros are ruining his farm... Nor does he get to elect someone who is promising to take care of it who really only means to exploit the country.
Why would you care at all about Carl, or people like Carl?
He's out in the sticks. Diverting funds to help him feed his family doesn't assist your voting block, since that's all located in the cities.
Carl, and people like him, are completely unimportant, since they account for a small chunk of the population, that's much better exploited for the benefit of the masses.
Like I said; Bread and Circuses, after all.
File: 1568204201742.png (897.3 KB, 1280x921, 1280:921, And you're a bitch.png) ImgOps Google
Maintaining the humanities is a noble cause indeed! It's hard to do so when trying to make a budget at times, admittedly.
Would you make a distinction between civil and political rights perhaps?>>1675
It's quite a rabbit-hole to go down, but fascinating. Just know if you go into it that the Spanish did a truly horrible job managing their empire and they deserved to lose it all. >>1679
It'll never catch on. >>1680
There are! It still happens. You keep dodging the margin of victory question though and I must insist on asking it until I get an answer! It's quite important really. Especially because it directly ties into the question of people selling votes. If the margin of victory is a single vote in a country of sufficient size, well, that vote could become quite
valuable, wouldn't it?
As for the issue you take with the Electoral College and the effect on an individual level, I would instead point you to the larger state level. This is the true reason for the Electoral College after all. It's a consequence of federalism and the people of, say, Delaware enough of a say so they aren't completely
drowned out by Texas. The federalist structure is about joint sovereignty, after all. The states share sovereignty with the government in D.C., not other states. Or are you hoping for an increase in centralization?
File: 1568226366053.jpg (75.6 KB, 548x389, 548:389, howardmap.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Well you couldn't just ignore Carl for the reason you listed. Enough Carl's in one location can succeed from the Union. Besides, why ignore parts of the US with potential votes when literally one vote could change the outcome of the election. Our current system lends itself much more to ignoring huge swathes of people. We designate states Red or Blue even though the country is overall pretty Purple. If every votes matters... then every vote matters. Our current system every vote DOESN'T matter. The blue people of Oklahoma have no voice, as do the red people of California.>>1695
I feel like I have answered that. It would still be illegal to pay for votes, but like you said, it's illegal now and it apparently still happens. But I'm not sure where your line of questioning is going.
Yes, one vote could be all someone needs to win. But all the votes are tallied at the same time, so it would be impossible for someone to say "Say, I only need one vote to win. He's a bunch of money to vote for me." Because he wouldn't know he needed that one vote until after everyone was done voting. The only way paying for votes could be viable is if he paid tons and tons of people to vote for him, which is a crime and much more noticeable.
File: 1568229274247.png (696.24 KB, 1280x812, 320:203, United_States_presidential….png) ImgOps Google
>>1696>Besides, why ignore parts of the US with potential votes when literally one vote could change the outcome of the election
Because literally one vote isn't worth much, when in order to convince that one vote, I have to operate in a place with far fewer votes than other areas have.
If I can choose to campaign in a place with 100 voters, or a place with 1000 voters, I would be an idiot not to campaign in the place with 1000 voters.>Our current system lends itself much more to ignoring huge swathes of people.
I'd disagree. Population still accounts for something in our current system, so it's not as though people never campaign in states with high population densities. >The blue people of Oklahoma have no voice, as do the red people of California.
This is true to a degree, which is why I'd like to introduce the electoral college system more on a state level. I think that the way current state politics are run, it's pretty much entirely down to the major population centers, and those outside said centers get ignored a lot of the time on the state level.
Ideally, they'd be able to form their own state, if they can get enough votes, I say. A sort of mini secession.
I'd doubt it, given how much easier it is just to import 3rd world workers instead of having to worry about housing, clothing, and feeding slaves.
In any case, I think that's a minor risk, and well worth the benefits. At least when compared to the one vote one person system, where in everything is essentially dictated by the cities
Ok, when I said "re-instate slavery", what I actually meant was secede for racist and/or discriminatory reasons because the smaller parts of the country you are talking about tend to be the most under-educated and most bigoted places in the country. I should have been more clear with that instead of metaphorical.
I really don't think it's a good idea to let a country shrink itself at the whims of it's most under-educated and most bigoted portions of it's population. That sounds incredibly dangerous and sounds like it would lead to more in-fight and brain drain of those areas. The smart people would move away to still be part of America because they don't have the same issues as the bigoted majority of farmers and whatnot.
I don't see what's wrong with a one vote system. All the small cities combined still make up a large portion of the votes. And if it only takes one vote to win, then they still need to appeal to the small places. It just means they can't appeal to the small places exclusively
. They have to come up with policies and platforms that actually work for the largest number of people.
Ok, well. Would you mind telling who "your kind" is, and giving a general idea of what percentage of the population they are? Because I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that "humans" vastly outnumber... whatever you are.
Policy should be made with what helps the most people in mind. Whatever-you-ares shouldn't be trodden upon, but we also shouldn't put humans at a disadvantage over such a small group.
Okay. But, I think that viewpoint really demonstrates exactly why they should be allowed to secede, because it's clear elitist types like yourself won't bother listening to their concerns or problems, which will inevitably lead to them having to rise up against your oppression.
And, hell, I'd be right there with them. People like yourself never listen to them, they just dismiss them because they never have to deal with their issues, never have to interact with them, never have to listen to what they say.
You can just dismiss them as stupid hicks and bigots.
Because that's totally healthy.
You make a lot of assumptions about me and my life you couldn't possibly know. You assume I live in a big city. I do not. You assume I don't ever interact with these type of people. I do. In fact, it's BECAUSE I interact with them.
It's not "bigoted" to point out that large portions of the United States are racist, or at the very least, motivated by racist ideals. It's not bigoted to say that the most under-educated people tend to be the ones most swayed by racist rhetoric either. And I've already pointed out that not everyone who lives somewhere falls into these categories. Part of why we should do away with the current electoral college is BECAUSE of that. Blue people in Oklahoma have no voice, for example, because Oklahoma is a "red" state . Why should the under educated have all the sway in those places just because they are the majority? Oklahoma has intelligent people in it. All places do.
My problem is that I also interact with these people. I've dealt with these people throughout most of my life. Most of what you are saying does not reflect what I have experienced at all.
The people that I've talked to, they aren't stupid, they aren't racist, they just got different struggles, and value Independence a whole lot more.
I do not agree that large portions of the United States are racist. Perhaps this is where our disagreement stems from.
perhaps on what we need to do here is establish what you were actually talking about when you say racist items. Do you think that, for example, building the wall, or having a secure border is racist?>Part of why we should do away with the current electoral college is BECAUSE of that. Blue people in Oklahoma have no voice, for example, because Oklahoma is a "red" state . Why should the under educated have all the sway in those places just because they are the majority?
So, what, you want an oligarchy instead?
Should we have a system run by the elite, because they are the most educated?
because you don't seem to want what I was suggesting, in regards to these types of issues, which was applying the electoral college system at a state level. Which would fix that kind of issue you're talking about. Those people would have a say.
Is that somehow not enough?
is the problem that they aren't the majority of the population of the nation as a whole?
I'm afraid I do not get how you can cite exactly the kind of situation that I am talking about, in my defense of the electoral college, and desire for it to be applied further, as an argument against the electoral college.
>>1722>who "your kind" is
We like logic. We don't like wars very much. I don't know, we're just different.>that "humans" vastly outnumber
Probably.>what helps the most people in mind
Not always, it should be just. Sometimes that is justice.>shouldn't put humans at a disadvantage over such a small group
If allowing a community of my kind makes the humans feel they are put at a disadvantage, then they will have to feel so. I didn't give any properties of this community, just said it may exist.
But you haven't (or couldn't) even define who or what "your kind" is or who is included. So creating a "community" for them should be rather difficult.
Also, I think you fundamentally misunderstand humans and human behavior.>>1729>building the wall, or having a secure border is racist?
"The wall" in and of itself is not racist. It's an inanimate object. But the things that motivate the desire for the wall are racist in nature.
A wall on America's southern border will will not stop hinder illegal immigration. Most illegal immigrants that enter the country do so by overstaying work visas. People being smuggled into the US in ways that a wall would stop make up a small portion of illegal immigration. But people in rural areas have been convinced that the wall idea will keep people they don't like out, people they blame for taking their jobs and committing crimes. Which also isn't true. Immigrants, undocumented or otherwise, commit less crimes than native citizens. It's all motivated by bigotry, rather than fact or reason.
I think the problem IS a fundamental disagreement on what is and isn't racist between us. Because if you support something, you're not going to be open to the idea that it is racist or racially motivated. You will just dismiss that notion out-right without considering whether it's true or not because of the stigma attached to racism. I've seen that attitude before. But it does no reflect reality. If nothing you believe can be racist, you're going to think there's no racists.
You ever hear of a little Nation called Israel?
They put up a wall once. Worked really well for them.
I'm sorry, but, I think the claim that a wall would not at all effects of illegal immigration is just plain nonsensical.
Further, the reasons I personally would like to see a wall have nothing to do with race. this may come as a shock to you, but, not all people who have entered this country illegally are brown, nor is a requirement for being a different race illegal entry into the country.
you are correct, that all this comes down to a disagreement on what is racist. Because frankly, I think that you just use a label in order to dismiss argumentation, and ignore criticism. I think that you it's easier for you to label people as evil, as immoral, as wrong, then it is for you to actually engage with their ideas.
I think this is why you oppose electoral college. Not because it actually has any effect that is unjust, or doesn't work properly, but rather, because you lost, and you don't like it, because the people that you've decided to label as horrible people won.
... What? The "wall" in Israel is built around
Palestine. A people they subjugate. It's not to keep people out, it's to keep Palestinians IN a confined space they control.
Look, if you want to discuss the potential merits of a wall between Mexico and America, this is not the place to do it. Start a new thread with that topic, but know that there is a poster here who actually works in immigration law and knows that the wall is a bad idea because I've spoken to him personally about it.
Getting back on topic, you are wrong. I DID just engage with their ideas. I explained why their idea was wrong and why it wouldn't work. It's not dismissing that to ALSO point out that it's motivated by racism.
As for being mad we "lost", we didn't. The person who got the most votes did not get elected. That is not a fair system. It's not because of WHO voted, but rather that some votes are worth more than others and that shouldn't be. I'd feel the same way if Obama won by electoral college I'd feel the same way. But he didn't.
Your main argument seemed to be that it was racist.
the only other thing you said is that it's somehow wouldn't work, which I just don't believe for one single second. We know for a fact that people cross the border through the vast sections of completely under monitored and unbarricaded empty land. There is not a single rational reason within my mind or the assumption that somehow, a physical barrier would not slow down the flow of people entering in illegally.
But, whatever, man. The main reason I'm annoyed here is that you dismissed people by labeling them a stupid and racist, because they think differently than you.
That's your prerogative. I can only hope that you never get power, and of course, in the event that you do, I will be personally leading a secessionist movement, as I don't really like that type of attitude when it comes to your own population.
Seems from my end you would actively work against my interests, and the interests of those out in the countryside, specifically because you think that they are all dumb racist hicks.
Fine. You do you, we'll see how you survive with no farms.
If you want to discuss the border wall, make a thread for it. I am not going to discuss it further here. If it helps you ego to think you "won" the argument, go ahead and think that. Otherwise I will continue this discussion in the thread you make.
Not all farmers are racists.
No, that's true, and is my position. Fact is, most people living out in the countryside aren't. unfortunately, you and I have very different standards for racism. I wouldn't be surprised if, by my standards, it turns out that you are racist yourself, funnily enough.
The problem is, farmers are going to want policies and actions that support their interests, and are going to oppose policies and actions that actively hurt them.
Unfortunately, with the policy of one person one vote, that farmer is very likely to be completely ignored by the cities, who simply do not care about his concerns or issues. Instead, those people would rather label him a stupid and bigoted hick. Which makes it all the easier to not only ignore, but outright exploit that farmer.
Why do you assume I'm white?
If a farmer is NOT a "stupid bigoted hick", then he should be able to network with other farmers to try and get legislation passed in their favor. The US has 3.2 million farmers in it. That's a pretty decent sized city, when counted collectively. And that's the the farmers, not even counting everyone living in rural areas working other jobs.
And you speak of "cities" as if they are hive-minds who all think alike. Millions of people live in cities, with millions of different personal views. All voting individually, not as one like it is now.
Instead of being grouped by geographical location, voters would be grouped by ideology and ideas. No one is being "ignored" in this situation, because if you get enough people on your side, then you can't be. Literally one vote is enough to sway an election.
>>1751>Why do you assume I'm white?
I don't think I said white?
In fact the only reference point I have for 'white' is your post here.
Do you think only white people can be racist?>If a farmer is NOT a "stupid bigoted hick", then he should be able to network with other farmers to try and get legislation passed in their favor.
Ah, yes, so everyone in the countryside must form a political party that stands completely together and doesn't worry about minor political differences, because the alternative is the complete eradication of any of their needs, interests, or rights.
That's totally a good thing.
Not like people in different areas have different feelings, different desires, and different needs. Or, hell ,different political beliefs. But, yeah, the choice between total eradication and a guy that isn't agreed with on most things is a pretty sensible choice.
And of course this is still leaving aside the issue that, even entirely together like this forced into homogeneity, they're still only the equivalent to a 'decently sized city'. >And you speak of "cities" as if they are hive-minds who all think alike.
Hardly. What I've expressed is that cities would be where people campaign, because there's no point in going anywhere else.
I've expressed that cities will vote for the interests of the people within the cities, because that's where those people are.
I've never said that they're a hive-mind of, say, democrats, or republicans, or libertarians, or whatever parties you desire. My stance is simply that they're going to vote for their own interests, and not concern themselves with the interests of, as you put it, stupid bigotted hicks.>Instead of being grouped by geographical location, voters would be grouped by ideology and ideas.
Why would I, as a prospective politician, worry about eroded farm roads, drought, blights, or foreign import crops? You're right, the ideology will be important when it comes to voting blocks, but when it comes to who I pass bills or tax breaks or tax burdens to, ideology stops mattering.
Funny thing is, when it comes to nations, ideology doesn't matter half as much.
You're American, aren't you?
Are you aware the entire revolutionary war was over taxes?
So, why should I remain in the union, when I've got, as the Founding Fathers put it, "taxation without representation"?
>>1751>The US has 3.2 million farmers in it. That's a pretty decent sized city, when counted collectively. And that's the the farmers, not even counting everyone living in rural areas working other jobs, and that's assuming they can all vote, that none are under voting age, and that they all do vote.
3.2 million is absolutely nothing on a nation-wide scale. Even networking. The united states population is about 329,524,838http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-states-population/
The voting population is 118,583,892http://www.electproject.org/2018g
Even if we're being generous and assuming every farmer in your example can and will vote, that's still a ratio of 1:37. Not a super compelling argument. A single major city could upend you easily.
New York City, NY. Population: 8,601,186. ...
Los Angeles, CA. Population: 4,057,841. ...
Chicago, IL. Population: 2,679,044. ...
Houston, TX. Population: 2,359,480. ...
Phoenix, AZ. Population: 1,711,356. ...
Philadelphia, PA. Population: 1,576,596. ...
San Antonio, TX. Population: 1,565,929. ...
San Diego, CA. Population: 1,453,775.
Dallas, TX. Population: 1,379,735
San Jose, CA Population: 1,033,519https://www.moving.com/tips/the-top-10-largest-us-cities-by-population/
So even all together, they'd only be a high/mid sized city. And the "we're not a hivemind" argument doesn't work well, because neither the farmer nor the city dwellers are a hivemind, so if you can't rely on city voters to vote as a unit, you can't rely on farmer voters to vote as a unit, yea? So it all largely evens out.
Also the electoral college system does effectively dismiss millions of voters, so the 1 vote can change everything thing i don't buy. A california republican or texas democrat might as well use their ballat to wipe their ass.
>>1754>Perhaps you have received a non-standard education.
That's a pretty rude thing to say to someone. You shouldn't insinuate other people are stupid.>>1753
But two of those big cities are in Texas... So you can't really argue that politicians wold ignore those parts of the country.
And yeah, that's my point. Cities aren't hive-minds either. There will be singular votes for conservatives AND progressives in big cities as well as rural areas. Politicians will no longer be lobbying toward collective places, but on the merits of their ideas to individuals.
>>1756>But two of those big cities are in Texas... So you can't really argue that politicians wold ignore those parts of the country.
The two big cities in Texas? Yeah. They won't ignore the two big cities in Texas.
Doesn't really help much. The point was they won't ignore cities, and will ignore those outside cities.>And yeah, that's my point. Cities aren't hive-minds either. There will be singular votes for conservatives AND progressives in big cities as well as rural areas. Politicians will no longer be lobbying toward collective places, but on the merits of their ideas to individuals.
See >>1752>"You're right, the ideology will be important when it comes to voting blocks, but when it comes to who I pass bills or tax breaks or tax burdens to, ideology stops mattering."
It's a bit of an odd thing that I never understood why people don't understand.
Ideology is irrelevant, when it comes to this issue.
Like, the American revolutionary war wasn't really about 'freedom' as the popular propaganda goes. It was literally over taxes. People were pissed off that they were getting the tax burden of the English.
File: 1568533751011.png (2.55 MB, 1600x1421, 1600:1421, 763138.png) ImgOps Google
The way I see it popular acceptance is the major hazard for a burgeoning government. So there comes the issue of creating less of a government and more of the framework for the people to create a government. Which comes into the second problem of excessive permissiveness. Going for too well of a fit will make people expect that, and having such a thing universally is impossible. The entire system would rip itself apart to unreasonable expectations. Some sort of popular system would be necessary however I couldn't say how they'd be selected.
I like how the US handled this. The drafters divide into administrative units, and at the outset they agree that when a certain number of administrative units vote in favor then all of them will adopt that agreement**. This may require a skeleton-work and guiding principles which are unanimous to prevent dying in committee. If the representatives are too indifferent to the idea of nation to come to a consensus then that is valuable as well and there is no point wasting everybody's time on blind ambition.
As for the structure, the matter of corruption is one of the first things to come to mind. Both power and authority are necessary to fulfill the goals of a state, and unfortunately these must be manifest through either individuals or collections of individuals. Such concentrations attract people who desire such things. When it's in individuals you get corruption and when it's in bodies you get factions. When there is an often necessary hybrid of both you get parties. One rather beautiful but inelegant solution was rather than confronting the demand of power confronting the supply. Most solutions would involve isolating power in a single incorruptible person, but that simply ends up being the trappings of power and the corruption flourishes in hard to influence places. The solution I liked was the Venetian solution where there were more council seats than eligible people willing to fulfill council obligations. Power is so watered down that there's no point in jockeying or forming parties†. Local governments need to be the most agile and sensitive to local demands to fulfill their functions so I think this approach is ideal at that level.
At the next administrative level municipalities and local governments group together to pool resources to better compete in the world. This division falls into what I mentioned about permissiveness. For shorthand we'll call this unit a "state" since I am from the US tradition. Balance forces conflict, but sometimes conflict is good, as this body's will is absolute*. While the local council seats are theoretically infinite, two people from each council are selected to represent on the state council. All sorts of hodickery are the norm these days, so to wave that off I bring back an old rule. The two selected are the #1 and the #2 of the election. No tickets, no divvying up the local councils. While the authority of the state is absolute, that is only in so far as it represents the local councils, therefore it's authority to interfere in council matters unilaterally is hamstrung (but not completely absent). At this level is where the bulk of the actual organization happens.
At the final tier, which I'll refer to as the federation, larger decisions are made. It is understood that any member of the federation may operate from within any other member of the federation as if they were originally from there and commerce occurs within the federation without interruption or duties. Greater fiscal affairs, diplomacy, and matters of war. Because back to permissiveness, the federation is a unit, and this is absolute. Where questions of allegiance arise they are immediately resolved. Consequently the body is vast and elected existing in multiple quarreling chambers that struggle to pass anything that doesn't have broad support by design. Among them they select small councils regularly tasked with duties like corruption hunting, coordination, and a council of presidents who oversee executive function‡. I think three chief executives is a good number, with how inherently unstable that number is in politics. It produces a diabolically agile executive committee while leaving enough room for infighting as to prevent stagnation.
To this regard. I feel the most important rights are a fair court system and the right to dissent. Other values may be seen as largely cultural, but those two are required to safeguard the federation, and the nation is absolute.‖
*besides the limitations imposed by the founding contracts whatever was agreed upon for ratification
**further elements must exist for modification of the founding contracts, typically in line with the requirements for universal adoption
†I am of course omitting positions like the Council of 10 and the Doge of Venice. The body I've described is purely legislative and executive bodies are I'm afraid beyond the scope of this document at this moment, though if there is interest I may include a continuation
‡I include this one executive detail, perhaps with future modification
‖With agreed upon principles in the founding contracts. Breach of these contracts is an annulment of authority
File: 1568552378193.gif (1.13 MB, 500x278, 250:139, Goodness gracious.gif) ImgOps Google
>>1858>Some sort of popular system would be necessary however I couldn't say how they'd be selected.
Maybe a large voting pool but certain requirements are needed to run in the first place for the initial assembly?>he body I've described is purely legislative and executive bodies are I'm afraid beyond the scope of this document at this moment, though if there is interest I may include a continuation
Please do, though you seem to have later on in the choosing of executives from within the legislative body, but what about matters such as judges?>The two selected are the #1 and the #2 of the election
Considering you're discussing local and relatively small elections, perhaps use a ranked vote system? This can get cumbersome, but a few rounds of a ranked election in a municipality could probably be wrapped up within a week and the winners sent off. >I think three chief executives is a good number, with how inherently unstable that number is in politics. It produces a diabolically agile executive committee while leaving enough room for infighting as to prevent stagnation.
A triumvirate is certainly a valid method, less prone to absolutism as a single executive, less prone to personal enmity or lockup as a dual co-executive arrangement, and less prone of falling prey to the lockup encouraged in the legislature through executive committee. That, and running wars by committee is terrible in almost all cases. >I feel the most important rights are a fair court system and the right to dissent
I would agree, at least if we are to deal with the convention that in modern times we may take for granted. That the nation is the people, not the land they occupy.
File: 1568562973486.jpeg (395.2 KB, 2560x2076, 640:519, 2142381.jpeg) ImgOps Google
As long as it aligns with the culture and expectations. Otherwise I feel like meritocratic voter pools are particularly prone to external toying with.>choosing of executives from within the legislative body
Strictly at the highest level! I haven't decided what to do with city aldermen and the like. Judges are often in the most crucial positions and I'm a big fan of supremacy of the law so those need to be well insulated from political hobnobery. I'm still thinking on that one but would appreciate input. But for the strict code of laws lifting an existing code would probably be best. It doesn't really matter which one.>local and relatively small elections
Ranked voting may be appropriate for the alderman. I worry a little about such systems because they can be pretty opaque for people looking from outside. Encouraging compromise too much is a hazard in and of itself. Passion is a key element in the system. It's certainly the fairest. Sometimes people need a mechanism to get things that they don't deserve to stay engaged.
Besides. I think the popular 1 and 2 makes the inevitable partisanship more interesting, considering that they're going into a pool of legislators rather than having actual power themselves.
A triumvirate offers a degree of flexibility that an individual would lack. When the institution itself comes under assault the three would unify, and would otherwise be disparate representing maligned interests. How much partisaning should be allowed at this level... I am unsure. It's ideal for disparate factions to have a vested interest but minimal influence, but that's a balancing act.>That the nation is the people, not the land they occupy
Unless the executive chose to own and rent all of the land. Such systems aren't entirely without merit but become increasingly cumbersome to administer.
File: 1568771606270.png (672.12 KB, 960x1252, 240:313, Ladies and gentlemen.png) ImgOps Google
>>1861>Otherwise I feel like meritocratic voter pools are particularly prone to external toying with.
This is true. >Judges are often in the most crucial positions and I'm a big fan of supremacy of the law so those need to be well insulated from political hobnobery.
So would they be their own independent branch perhaps? Well, mostly independent. They wouldn't be the ones passing legislation after all. >Ranked voting may be appropriate for the alderman. I worry a little about such systems because they can be pretty opaque for people looking from outside.
Maybe some leeway for the aldermen to be chosen with a system dependent on the community? Within reason of course. >When the institution itself comes under assault the three would unify
Well, hopefully. Unfortunately such things are not guaranteed. Not the concurrent triumvirate, but I'd be worried about The Year of Julius and Caesar repeating itself because one or two of the triumvirate decide to invite outside attack on the third. If that sort of disunity could be at least culturally distasteful it could work. That would take a lot of entrenching. >Unless the executive chose to own and rent all of the land.
I think that would be a bit too much!
File: 1568862681216.jpeg (340.76 KB, 2560x1920, 4:3, 2137788.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>1936>I think that would be a bit too much!
And I think that this is my
An independent judiciary is crucial, yes. Perhaps combine it with the military arm.
Not too much leeway. We don't want local fiefs happening without consent.
Good. As long as constitutionally the triumvirate emerges as a triumvirate after the upheaval. A little instability is good for progress. We do want things getting done despite resistance if they have *that* kind of strength behind them.