Democratic Proposal: Mutability of Build Queues

We are supposedly a game of democracy, where the will of the people reigns supreme. Yet, everywhere I look, I see flaws. Yes, I know we are a game, but within the limits of that game, should we not stress a certain allegiance to the principles that we claim as ours? We claim to be built upon democracy, but are we really? No, we are not. People may be elected with a simple plurality, even if the vast majority are against there election. That is undemocratic, but within the limits of the DG that is acceptable, as we are just that, limited. However, within those limits shouldn't we strive to be as democratic as possible? Of course.

Another flaw in our system is the supremacy of the power of the Governor. This illegitimate and unnaccountable body, subject only to periodic elections which are, as I've stated, unfair by neccessity, has immense power. Therefore, the will of the people can go unserved. I am not attacking any governor, but the system is flawed, and as such should be changed. Power not subject to checks or balances is by nature at risk to tyranny, and that must be changed. In a system designed for to protect liberty rather then for efficiency, no body, as a general principle rather then a rule, as there are always exceptions, should be able to completely do anything or stop anything, save for the people themselves, again subject to the autonomy and equality of the individual. That is, by principle, the spirit of liberal and social democracy.

So, if our system does not meet the standards of democracy and could do better, what are some ways in which to become more democratic? There are many, and this proposal is just one among several that Strider and I shall propose jointly. This one is that the power of the Governor is not absolute, and is subject to checks and balances and may, in certain instances, be over ridden by the people, and no one else. The specific examples I speak of are echoes of ancient powers of the Culture Minister and Military Advisor, there prerogatives as we all know to in certain instances over ride a build queue. However, we can not keep the old powers as they once were, for they too are unnaccountable and undemocratic. As I've stated, no body should be able to do something on its own without checks and balances, without challenges and being held to accountability. So, we can not have the old system. But, there is a new way, designed to serve the will of the people and defend their liberty.

This system is simple, in manners which relate to each particular office, Domestic, Military, Foreign Affairs, Trade, Science and, of course, Culture, the Minister should have the right to intervene in build queues in "emergency", again a principle rather then a rule. But, as I've stated, this intervention can not be final. So, the answer should be simple, let the people decide. If we are indeed a democracy, or aspire to be, then we should be willing to abandon these special privileges and tyrannical powers, in all instances. The specific Minister involved would initiate a poll, and vote in it, and this would be their sole power. The people would decide what to do, and it is their right alone. This is the most democratic solution, and meets all the criteria I've proposed, and passes all tests.

There will be challenges to this, I know, some of which shall be knee jerk and irrational. This is in no way a ressurection of ancient privilege, the model I've proposed is an echo of those, similar, but by no means the same. Those who will dismiss this as a power grab are right, it would be the people taking back what is theirs, their right to decide. It is an act to make us a democracy, as well as a game.

Strider and I jointly are putting forth several proposals, of which this is one. We each come up with the ideas, and one of us will author the proposal itself. Look forward to more, and respond as you see fit, but please, read it and think, don't respond ignorantly.

If someone doesn't like what the governor does, then don't re-elect him or hold a vote of no confidence. Overrides aren't democratic at all. Why are you trying to knock the position og governor down? If military or culture needs something, don't you think the governor would take their advice, seriously? Wouldn't you think a governor would like to see the cities in their province well protected both culturally and militarily? The only reason these proposals are coming up is to limit the governor's ability to make queue's, evben if a governor is willing to listen to the people.

The governor is a leader for crying out loud. You can't hold polls on queues. It is why I personally send queues ASAP, and let people say what they feel about it in the Zarnia's thread. I take people's suggestions seriously, but I am never offended by being asked to to change a queue. If the people elect a gov, they obviously want that person to control the queues. if you are really concerned about the governor not representing the people, maybe you should hold two electino rounds. The 1st will narrow down things to two people and the 2nd elects the most liked of the final two.

Zarn said:

If someone doesn't like what the governor does, then don't re-elect him or hold a vote of no confidence. Overrides aren't democratic at all. Why are you trying to knock the position og governor down? If military or culture needs something, don't you think the governor would take their advice, seriously? Wouldn't you think a governor would like to see the cities in their province well protected both culturally and militarily? The only reason these proposals are coming up is to limit the governor's ability to make queue's, evben if a governor is willing to listen to the people.

The governor is a leader for crying out loud. You can't hold polls on queues. It is why I personally send queues ASAP, and let people say what they feel about it in the Zarnia's thread. I take people's suggestions seriously, but I am never offended by being asked to to change a queue. If the people elect a gov, they obviously want that person to control the queues. if you are really concerned about the governor not representing the people, maybe you should hold two electino rounds. The 1st will narrow down things to two people and the 2nd elects the most liked of the final two.

Click to expand...

Zarn, you ignore a few things that I have stated. I was not attacking any specific governor, but the institution itself. You have done an outstanding job as Governor, which is why I have voted to keep you in that office. How are over rides not democratic? Assuming you're familiar with what democracy is, you should know full well that what I speak of. In the highly unlikely event that we have an incompetent governor, we need a way to circumvent them, in this case via a referenda of sorts. The manner of election is fine, as to change it would complicate things unneccessarily, etc. You are an outstanding governor, and I don't believe that anyone shall ever have to over ride your queues. I hope we can overcome this disagreement.

Curufinwe said:

Zarn, you ignore a few things that I have stated. I was not attacking any specific governor, but the institution itself. You have done an outstanding job as Governor, which is why I have voted to keep you in that office. How are over rides not democratic? Assuming you're familiar with what democracy is, you should know full well that what I speak of. In the highly unlikely event that we have an incompetent governor, we need a way to circumvent them, in this case via a referenda of sorts. The manner of election is fine, as to change it would complicate things unneccessarily, etc. You are an outstanding governor, and I don't believe that anyone shall ever have to over ride your queues. I hope we can overcome this disagreement.

Click to expand...

I just believe that an over ride is a slap in the face to the gov, who was in fact elected by the people.

Just to let mods (and everyone else) know, there is no 'fire' between Curu and I. We just REALLY disagree on this issue. We are going to talk later about this.

Curufinwe said:

This system is simple, in manners which relate to each particular office, Domestic, Military, Foreign Affairs, Trade, Science and, of course, Culture, the Minister should have the right to intervene in build queues in "emergency", again a principle rather then a rule. But, as I've stated, this intervention can not be final. So, the answer should be simple, let the people decide. If we are indeed a democracy, or aspire to be, then we should be willing to abandon these special privileges and tyrannical powers, in all instances. The specific Minister involved would initiate a poll, and vote in it, and this would be their sole power. The people would decide what to do, and it is their right alone. This is the most democratic solution, and meets all the criteria I've proposed, and passes all tests.

Click to expand...

I know I'm just an ignorant hick, curu, but I need to make what will probably look to you like a knee-jerk reaction. The system you describe above is already in place (sorry Zarn, but don't worry). Go ahead, curu, read it again. It was an eloquently written speech, but if you re-examine your words, you will find that your proposed "system" is already allowed. If someone disagrees with a Build Queue that the Governor has posted, they can try to get it changed. The SMART thing to do would be to go to the Governor's thread and try to change his mind on the BQ. The arrogant and divisive thing to do would be to immediately put up a poll. Lucky for us, the are no laws that make being arrogant and divisive or just plain troublemakers illegal. So right there, ANY CITIZEN has two paths to go by for changing a BQ. Let's say you didn't want to waste your time talking to the tyrannical and speacially privilaged Governor about how you felt in regards to his inferior BQ. You post a poll and vote in it, as it is not your right to determine what should be done, as a mere citizen. So everyone votes in your poll, and let's say the majority of the people sided with you. With the results of that poll, the Governor can see the WOTP plainly. But as the Constitution of Japanatica states the he is responsible for the care and well-being of the Province and the cities in it, he is not required to abide by those results. He can ignore the WOTP and do what he wants, as no citizen can determine what should be done, unless they have the Law backing him up. Can the Governor have a Citizen Complaint (CC) thrown at them? By all means, they did not plan and act according to the WOTP. Can the Governor be voted out next Term? By all means, if he doe not support the wishes of his constituency. This is how the game is played, Curufinwe.

Now you can try to get a system passed as Law that ALREADY exists in our society, but you will probably not have much luck. You can try to change the Law that would allow the said poll results to force the Governor to change his BQ, but you'd have to change a couple of Constitutional Articles before you could go that route. Again, you'll probably not have much luck.

Curufinwe said:

How are over rides not democratic? Assuming you're familiar with what democracy is, you should know full well that what I speak.

Click to expand...

And you should know full well that this is not a perfect Democracy, Curufinwe. This is a representative form of government. Closer to a Republic. So this arguement just doesn't hold water.

Here's my proposal. As I remember, it was unofficially adopted but never used (because it wasn't necessary).

We settled on, I think at least, a system of "National Plans" (A system I would put into place as Domestic Minister), which was never used for this. Basically, rather than give the Military and Culture direct control, the Domestic Minister starts a thread where they can go and call for production changes. Any particularly large ones would have to pass by the people first, making them National Plans and compulsory. Even then, however, it would be up to the governors as to what cities did what. Here's how it would work:

-Military or Culture starts a discussion on changing build queues for national interest purposes.
-Discussion moves onto a poll to determine if they should have power to override the current queues in this instance.
-If the poll passes, the project becomes a "National Plan" the Military or Culture advisor posts a quota in the National Plan thread. Military, who would use this for mobilizing, would for example post how many samurai were needed. Culture would post the wonder wanted and its shield value. Both of these would have a prefered completion date.
-Then the governors would choose what cities to change the queues for. This way it would be up to them, rather than an advisor, to spread the burden around and fit it in best with their current plans.

I really don't see the problem with this. Military and Culture get what they want (it shouldn't matter where it comes from), the People have to approve it, and the Governor's get the power to work it into their plans. It might need some minor changes, but it seems fine on the whole to me.

Cyc, not every Citizen has the time to look at the save throughly after each turnchat. You basing your arguement on the fact that someone may just happen to decide to check the chance of culture flipping for every city in our nation. Now tell me, do you check all of our cities for culture flipping? Even in the past DG's? I safely bet that you don't, so the chance of a citizen randomly finding a city with a high chance of culturally flipping is VERY low. The only people who will likely check the Cultural Status of a city prepared to it's neighboring cities is the Culture Ministry.

Now as a citizen the Culture Minister could request the queue to be changed and show his reason, but that does not force the govonor to take action to prevent this and a poll may not have enough time to have any effect. Any "smart" govonor would likely change the queue, but we may stumble upon one who decides that something else is more important.

Also, you talk about it taking power away from the govonors. Tell me, how many cities have we found that were in danger of culture flipping in the DG's? If my memory serves me right 4 times, through out the 2 years or more the Demogame has been running, there has been 4 occurance's inwhich a queue might be over-rided. Does that diminish in anyway the power of a Govonor? No, it has almost no effect to the majority of the govonors in the game.

We need to overlap the departments more, for if we do get a bad leader another leader can atleast do part of the job and we don't get injured in game to badly. Currently, we could have one leader not post instructions and injure us greatly. We need a system of Checks and Balance's to soften the blow.

I'm not sure that I want uneducated citizens in charge of this government. It is the citizens' duty to analyze the save file and gather as much information as possible before performing decisions as a body.

MSTK said:

I'm not sure that I want uneducated citizens in charge of this government. It is the citizens' duty to analyze the save file and gather as much information as possible before performing decisions as a body.

Click to expand...

It is not the Citizens duty to analyze the save file, it is the leaders duty to give the citizens enough information. It has never been, and hopefully never will be the duty of a citizen to analyze the save after every turnchat.

Um...

This is a democracy game. The citizens, educated or not, should be running the government, and anything to the contrary should be halted immediately.

That said, I would like to once again draw attention to my idea...

And any good citizen should analyze the save himself, rather than depend on the leaders. Especially since most of our leaders don't actually update things, or post turn records....

If you are accusing His Excellency Supreme Potentate DaveShack of neglecting his duties...

Epimethius, your plan might work with some MAJOR changes:

First off, Culture can request a wonder and pass a poll, and then ther Govonor changes the queue on a crappy, low production city that is only producing 7-10 shields per turn. Or the same can happen with the the Samurai instance, changing the queue in a low-production city and thus slowing down our arms race.

And how would you plan to prevent that from happening without leaving the governor and people impotent and the president and leaders overpowerful?

The governor, like all leaders, should do his job in constant fear of a CC should he screw up. That fear should be more than enough to make him do his job right, assuming he can. No governor would build a wonder in such a city, and if he built samurai there it would be only one of many, and could be rushed. By doing this we give the governor flexibility, but still require him to give the right amount by the right time.

And yes. Cyc has a whole list of neglected duties somewhere....

Strider said:

It is not the Citizens duty to analyze the save file, it is the leaders duty to give the citizens enough information. It has never been, and hopefully never will be the duty of a citizen to analyze the save after every turnchat.

Click to expand...

agreed
I really dont think we need to change too much

Epimethius said:

And how would you plan to prevent that from happening without leaving the governor and people impotent and the president and leaders overpowerful?

The governor, like all leaders, should do his job in constant fear of a CC should he screw up. That fear should be more than enough to make him do his job right, assuming he can. No governor would build a wonder in such a city, and if he built samurai there it would be only one of many, and could be rushed. By doing this we give the governor flexibility, but still require him to give the right amount by the right time.

And yes. Cyc has a whole list of neglected duties somewhere....

Click to expand...

The the full plan that we are creating, the leaders leech powers from the Govonors and the Govonors also leech powers from the leaders. If allow the powers to overlap it creates a natural Checks and Balance system, allowing one leader or even govonor to make up for the mistakes of another leader or govonor.

This is a waste...

Cyc- When I use democracy I use the appropriate meaning, any system of government whereby power is vested in the people, and a system of government that built upon the principles of popular control and political equality. This can exist both direct, representative and participatory.

As well, we should both be well aware of what happens when there are not things to force a person to do something. Do you not remember the crisis involving Donsig,shortly before I left. I and a few others posted a poll requesting his resignation, and an equivalent of our article J existed. Thus, he should have resigned, but, at least while I remained, he did not. We see what happens when there is not a manner in which to force a person to do something. In the real world we have examples, similar to that, such as the Constitutional Crisis of Australia in 1975, etc. If a system is poorly designed, it falls to risks such as those, and abuse. I needn't get into the fall of the Weimar Republic, but again, the same thing.

Zarn- Thanks for telling the moderators there's no fire between us. Hah!

Curufinwe said:

Cyc- When I use democracy I use the appropriate meaning, any system of government whereby power is vested in the people, and a system of government that built upon the principles of popular control and political equality. This can exist both direct, representative and participatory.

As well, we should both be well aware of what happens when there are not things to force a person to do something. Do you not remember the crisis involving Donsig,shortly before I left. I and a few others posted a poll requesting his resignation, and an equivalent of our article J existed. Thus, he should have resigned, but, at least while I remained, he did not. We see what happens when there is not a manner in which to force a person to do something. In the real world we have examples, similar to that, such as the Constitutional Crisis of Australia in 1975, etc. If a system is poorly designed, it falls to risks such as those, and abuse. I needn't get into the fall of the Weimar Republic, but again, the same thing.

Zarn- Thanks for telling the moderators there's no fire between us. Hah!

Click to expand...

I didn't want to see any unneeded bans like my own. I still disagree. You can't shift reponsibility like this. You must allow leaders to do certain things. I would still rather talk to Culture about cultural plans than just be ordered by Culture through a poll Culture sets up (not the gov).

Wee, one thread about this isn't enough - let's start another!

Same objections as in the other thread. This entire concept is a slap in the face to a Governor. It's a plan that encourages the military and cultural leaders to ignore the Governor. Hey - why bother to talk to them when you can simply override them! It's a plan that deliberately ignores the plans, goals and objectives of all other areas when that one area overrides the queue for their benefit.

Our leaders should cooperate, and work with each other. We give to our Governors complete control of their cities with the concept that they can most effectively balance the needs of all areas within their province. They can shift production around, if needed, to respond to needs of the various area.

Our national leaders set national goals, and national objectives. These goals and objectives are translated into specific actions by the Governors. This is the check on the power of National leaders that is overlooked here. Governors take those broad goals and determine how best to accomplish them, all of them, from all the areas, in their province.

This system has been in place for the past two DG's, and done extremely well. There has been no valid reason presented to change this, and no demonstrated benefit of changing it, except to allow national leaders to meddle with provincial matters.

Our current system work, and works well. There is no reason to change it.
-- Ravensfire