Democratic Proposal: Mutability of Build Queues
- Thread starter Curufinwe
- Start date
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
I think, for now, I'll stray away from what seems to be my current preference to causing some sort of trouble.
This proposal deals with a lot of "what ifs." Most specifically, "What if we manage to elect an bad leader to the important job of governor?" So far as I can remember, we've only done so once, in the case of neutral leader, former Governor of Bohemia (link for some details). He resigned, though he would have been impeached had he waited for a few more days.
We have one excellent tool for keeping leaders accoutable in the form of the CC. Leaders fear it, and will most likely change their ways if one looks to be coming soon. Another alternative, if you think governors are too powerful, would be to shorten the terms for governors - keep everyone else at four weeks, but elect governors on a two week cycle. Beyond that, we begin to make governors accoutable to the Ministers in addition to the people, which is a very bad idea for a dual standard.
This proposal deals with a lot of "what ifs." Most specifically, "What if we manage to elect an bad leader to the important job of governor?" So far as I can remember, we've only done so once, in the case of neutral leader, former Governor of Bohemia (link for some details). He resigned, though he would have been impeached had he waited for a few more days.
We have one excellent tool for keeping leaders accoutable in the form of the CC. Leaders fear it, and will most likely change their ways if one looks to be coming soon. Another alternative, if you think governors are too powerful, would be to shorten the terms for governors - keep everyone else at four weeks, but elect governors on a two week cycle. Beyond that, we begin to make governors accoutable to the Ministers in addition to the people, which is a very bad idea for a dual standard.
Gregski
Mostly Harmless
Strider said:
Well not being a veteran of DGs, my view is simple:
I agree as it is the job of the elected officials in my view to keep us fully informed as the citizens cannot be expected to analyse the save file. Information that has been posted in the recent election nomination threads like "how do you sum up our current position" should be posted by the relevant ministers after each turnchat. Don't know about you, but I haven't seen too many detailed updates.
Naturally the citizens have the obvious right of checking up on the save at any time.
In RL, I don't check on every action performed by the local elected government due to lack of time, patience and because they are crooks I dislike. Note, the same does not apply to DG ministers!
blackheart
unenlightened
Civanator said:
Good idea
Epimethius
Wish I Hadn't Been Here
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Messages
- 770
I liked it before, when everyone liked the idea of a democracy and pacifism. Now we're filled with people who think the public is worthless and Babylon should be attacked before they can attack us.
One obvious way to make the people actually do this would be to have CCs against them if they don't. Simply as that. If a governor doesn't fill the quota, then he's out.
And the only check we need is the people's check on the power of leaders. Leaders definately do not need the reverse. By making the people approve the plan, and giving them the power to throw the leaders out, we have checks and balances. We don't need intra-executive checks and balances; all those would do is need to big battles over juristiction.
One obvious way to make the people actually do this would be to have CCs against them if they don't. Simply as that. If a governor doesn't fill the quota, then he's out.
And the only check we need is the people's check on the power of leaders. Leaders definately do not need the reverse. By making the people approve the plan, and giving them the power to throw the leaders out, we have checks and balances. We don't need intra-executive checks and balances; all those would do is need to big battles over juristiction.
If you want a pure democracy then why do we even elect Leaders. Why don't we just elimanate every single government position and have a true democracy? If that's what you want then you have to get rid of everything, and let citizens decide whcih citizen will play the save, and then certain citizens start discussions on everything we need, like worker instructions, build queues, unit movements, sliders, etc.
Civanator- It grows tiresome when people don't have the simplest idea what democracy is. Democracy involves two things, popular control and political equality. It can be direct, the idea that you discussed, indirect, like the system in New Zealand, or it can be participatory, various systems supported by various Green Parties. It does not need direct voting, simply popular control and political equality.
Epi- Hwo do the people check our leaders right now? There are a few direct votes, yes, but by and large power is overly concentrated and under little real checks or balances. That is what I'm trying to change.
Epi- Hwo do the people check our leaders right now? There are a few direct votes, yes, but by and large power is overly concentrated and under little real checks or balances. That is what I'm trying to change.
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
indirect democracy is more of a republicCurufinwe said:
Epimethius
Wish I Hadn't Been Here
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Messages
- 770
I also wish there had been some interest in a direct democracy game when I proposed it.
Citizens can check leaders mid-term with CCs. For some reason we haven't yet had one, but we certainly could.
Citizens can check leaders mid-term with CCs. For some reason we haven't yet had one, but we certainly could.
Black hole- A "republic" has many meanings. Some democracies are republics, such as the FRG, and some are undemocratic, such as the PROC. As well, another meaning exists referring to a representative but undemocratic system, such as that of the USA, the German Bundesrat, etc. called by one a mixture of "democracy and oligarchy". That is why I use the term democracy, to get over this confusion.
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
i dont think democracys can work in large nationsCurufinwe said:
the citizens cant vote on everything, democracies are really for small groups of people
blackheart
unenlightened
Black_Hole said:
Actually democracies are for the educated or well informed. You can't expect everyone in a very large nation to know about all the laws being passed, especially ones that affect an area 1000 miles away.
Black Hole- Once more, New Zealand is a democracy, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and a few other countries are democracies. Size is irrelevant. The EU is on its way to being democratic, though it's not their yet and it has over 400 million citizens.
blackheart
unenlightened
Let's look at Rome. They were democratic, but they became too large for the senate to rule. They were too spread out and the central government just couldn't decide all of the issues.
Let's look at America. America is a democracy, but it uses a federal republic form of government. Basically it is that we elect officials to run the government and pass laws for us. Most of the citizens only elect the officials and not pay attention to them unless they mess up. Most of them don't even vote.
Both of these were democracies, but Rome was too centralized and had provincial governors, but no provincial senates. Also not everyone in the Roman frontier territories was educated or informed.
This is represented by the governments ingame. You can rule a large empire better with communism than you can with democracy.
Let's look at America. America is a democracy, but it uses a federal republic form of government. Basically it is that we elect officials to run the government and pass laws for us. Most of the citizens only elect the officials and not pay attention to them unless they mess up. Most of them don't even vote.
Both of these were democracies, but Rome was too centralized and had provincial governors, but no provincial senates. Also not everyone in the Roman frontier territories was educated or informed.
This is represented by the governments ingame. You can rule a large empire better with communism than you can with democracy.
Blackheart, neither the USA nor ancient rome were democracies, as they fail both tests I list as central to democracy, popular control and political equality. No real democracy existed until proportional representation came into existence, and the vote was universal.
Dominik
And a '64 Impala
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives, that's a democracy, just to clarify. If we elect someone and they make a decision (ie. build queue), it's still a democracy.
TimBentley
Deity
Ministers have the right, as do any other citizen, to tell the governor that their queues are bad (or not to the level of perfection desired) and that they should change that temple to a samurai because we are at war and need more units (or change that samurai to a temple because we are at peace and we need culture in that city). They can hold a poll if the governor is unrealistic (which I have not personally seen). The problem with CCs is that they deal with the poor decisions after the damage has been done; however, with such strong players on Monarch level, that should not be a problem. I could analyze every save to see if cities have a chance of flipping (although the numbers would assume that the other civilization has greater local culture, but I'm smarter than Mapstat). Even without a utility, people could count (doesn't counting pixels on the culture graph sound fun? 
).
).
It is no secret I consider the Governor position as the least Democratic of all. It is up to the Governor how Democratic (s)he plays. He can discuss and poll every single buildqueue of every single city or he can keep the decision to himself.
The argument "the election-process will remove bad governors" is flawed. People forget. Only really big crises are remembered.
When I was President in term 1 of DG4 I was forced to make 1 clear rule; "Every elected office-holder who didn't post legal instructions will get a courtcase". Fortunately I only had to file a CC once. The result was that that unnamed office-holder posted excellent instructions since.
There is no objection to make a statement (call it threat, warning, promiss, aything you like) to elected officials that if an office is run undemocratically, you will file a courtcase. In term 1 I've only spotted 1 real (but minor and unimportant) situation which qualified. I promissed myself to remember it and if that office-holder does it again I will file a complaint.
Personally I think any buildqueue which hasn't been able to be discussed about for at least 36 hours (preferably more) is considered illegal. This does bring too much hassle to the instructions and the alternatives and who should decide on it if they are ruled illegal and isn't workable as a whole and brings an unpleasant atmosphere to the game. But it will make the Governor-position a democratic position.
This is not an attack on the current governor Zarn who ruled his province democratically enough to my liking.
The argument "the election-process will remove bad governors" is flawed. People forget. Only really big crises are remembered.
When I was President in term 1 of DG4 I was forced to make 1 clear rule; "Every elected office-holder who didn't post legal instructions will get a courtcase". Fortunately I only had to file a CC once. The result was that that unnamed office-holder posted excellent instructions since.
There is no objection to make a statement (call it threat, warning, promiss, aything you like) to elected officials that if an office is run undemocratically, you will file a courtcase. In term 1 I've only spotted 1 real (but minor and unimportant) situation which qualified. I promissed myself to remember it and if that office-holder does it again I will file a complaint.
Personally I think any buildqueue which hasn't been able to be discussed about for at least 36 hours (preferably more) is considered illegal. This does bring too much hassle to the instructions and the alternatives and who should decide on it if they are ruled illegal and isn't workable as a whole and brings an unpleasant atmosphere to the game. But it will make the Governor-position a democratic position.
This is not an attack on the current governor Zarn who ruled his province democratically enough to my liking.
Similar threads
- Locked
