Government Reform

Pellaken

The one and only.
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
1,407
Location
Charlottetown PEI, Canada
Pellaken's government reform package:

Section A-the economey
There are a number of economic improving buildings. I will first talk about the ones that increase $$$
we should build these buildings only when they are needed and useful for example, say our rate is at 550 (T5-S5-L0) then lets say our city in quesion makes 2 trade a turn. if we build a marketplace, at a cost of 1 {mainanance} then we will have +0 increase in money, for the cost of 1$ meaning, we are now loosing money. a bank costs $3. lets say we are again at 550, and out city has a marketplace and has 4 trade. if we build the bank we will have a total of $5, a $2 increase from the original with just the markeplace. so again, we are loosing money. therefore suggest that we do not build any $$$ improving buildings unless we have equal or more money comeing in. that means that after we build a bank, maretplace, or anyhting that will make us get more money, that we ensure we will make money off of it, not loose money.
I also suggest we use the same calcuations when it comes to luxeries. lets assume our rate is currentley 550. lets also assume we are spending $50 on "happy buildings" to keep the masses content. now, if we set luzeries to 20, we will then have 352. IF this will make us loose $51 in taxes, then this is a bad thing. if, however, this will only cause a loss of $49, then we should do it. I take this same approach on WLPD's. if they will get in more money than we are using to pay the luzeries level, then it should be done. Same goes for cities with 21 pop or more. taxmen and entertainers should be interchanged in the same way, in general. so hencem, Tax and Lux rates are one in the same. as for the Lux/Tax and Science balance, that will have to be decided on our current plans and techonolgical level

Section B-the democracy
This one you may not like, but I will say it anyways. The current state of our democracy is too democratic. we need LESS democracy. MUCH less. We should have an elected council. A Senate, if you will. Any member who wants in should be allowed in. Anyone in the senate can post polls, threads, etc. all non-senators, cannot. senators dont do much else, but only senators can run for office. this will help seperate the "regulars" from non "regulars" I'd also suggest that each minister can do whaytever they think is best. currentley, all they do is post polls. why elect someone, other then for the fact that they can post polls? I mean what is there to run on in elections, other then who you like or dont like. its just a popularity contest, and Thunderfall said himself, he dosent like popularity contests. unless government members get real powers, theier role is a nothing but a joke. It has also become apperant that govoners will be needed. more and more powerful ones. the city planner's job should then therefore be to resulve govoner conflicts, and make new provinces, appoint gov's untill election time, etc. as for Science and Trade, both just reqire some thought. trade for instance can be solved by a sheet of paper and a pencil write dwn each city, what it makes, what it needs, and then connect the dots.

Section C-elections reform
Right now, we have few members, as that number grows, we will run into problems. there was a suggestion to have primaries, but these are, IMHO, stupid. will we place all candaties in one large pot then pits off a few? when things get like this we should have political parties. CMaster claims that this will make things confusing, but I dont see how in the name of the devil he can think that. it will make things easier, sicne only one party member can run for any one office at any one time. this would make things rather easy infact. as for now, before then, we need more members to run. we should have deputies for each department, if need be, by begging. we should post threads in this foum and ask other members to rise to the challenge, and fill open positions.

Sections D-Information reform
We need newer and better ways of getting info to those that need it. I suggest sending the saved game to those that need to make city polls, gov's etc... and sending screenshots to those that need them of areas, and ONLY POSTING A EMPIRE MAP in the game info thread.



Additions:
I say that we should all propose new forms of governments in the event that we start a new game. here is my idea: The Canadian System
We create a game, and create 3 parties to start. People will join at random, or perhaps we will dole out numbers, etc.. the party names will be
Party A
Party 2
Party III
the party names WILL be changed at the party convention, which is held 1 week before the general elections. As the game advances, certain parties will come to stand certain things. for example, lets say that each party has 10 people in it. lets say that 6 people from party A dont like the idea of making many small cities, while 4 do. but in party 2, 6 like small cities, and 4 dont. these 8 members that dont agree with thier party, should then switch parties, so that they ocupy the party that agrees with them. New parties can be created at any time, and "alliances" can be formed between parties. why alliances instead of parties joining togethor? heres why:
at election time, people will not vote for a person, but for a party. at the last party convention, a leader will be chosen. how, is up to the parties constitution. some parties may require 50%+1 and run-off votes. others, may just have 1 vote with the person with the most votes winning. when you go to vote in the election, you then vote for the party. after its over, a house of 10000 members in convened {all invisible, BTW} then the % {eg, 34.62 will = 3462 seats} of the votes recuived will equal seats in this house. The party leader will then vote with those ammount of seats behind him. 50%+1 is all that is needed in order to get anything done. this means that the leader of a party which got 50.01% of the vote or more, is virtual dictator of the nation for a while. there are no term limits. A party's constitution may also prohibit leadership votes if the current leader is the national leader, the Prime Minister. In the event that there are many opposition parties, and the governing party keeps getting elected, your nation can have an effectual one-party state. this will ensure that the opposition parties must work togethor in order to achive anything. Alliances are formed so that the party will run as a single party at election time, but when certain key issues are up, that party will abstain from voting, or vote this or that way. as the real power, that resides in the cabinet. the same cabinet we have today, only without the vice president. Each minister is responsible for thier departement, totally. they need not post any polls, but some are certainley suggested. each opposition party also scelects a "shadow cabinet" that member then shadows the elected minster and ctirizes his actions. the main job of the opposition party is to make the people want to vote for them. only party members can become cabniet members. A member of this game, need not be a party member. they can just go and vote for whoever will do what they want done. At any time, a motion of non-confadince can be called. if 50%+1 of the house votes against the government, then elections are called within 48 hours, enough time to have a quick party convention. all members of all parties will be pubically knowen. If members of a party votes differentley than his leader, his vote will be counted as so. if more then half party members fote agains thier leader, the party is then recoded as voted the way they did, not the way the leader did. All of this is calculated by the Speaker. the Speaker is a non-partisan person who recives these votes, and does not reveal who voted for what. the Speaker is chosen by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Oppisition {leader of the 2nd most power party in the house} only when the 2 agree is a speaker selected. if they dont agree, the current speaker remains untill they do.
so in short, you go to vote for the leader of the party, who appoints the ministers, who run the nation. Any ministeral decision, however, can be countered by an opposition party which can call for a house vote. simpaly, all party leadrs will PM the speaker with thier vote. if its defeated, the minister then must act as the house wants. he can always not, in which event his decision is made, and done, and carried out. once revealed, however, the government collapses, and an election is called. chances are, the people wont be too happy, and wont vote the party back in.

These are just the basics of my gov. if you are interested, question it, and I'll respond. its just an idea, I am not trying to force it on anyone.

also, Moderators, I know thre may be parts of this message you dont like, but please dont delete or close all of it. these are all suggesitons on how "I" think we can make the system better. no one has to accept them, and I wil not be mad if no one wants to accpet them. they are all part of the package, so please, I beg of you, just leave this thread the way it is. Its full of opinions, not what we need to do. and just a side note, I specifically said, political parties should be made later, not now.
 

Ohwell

Deity
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
5,586
Location
Bringing enlightenment to you
Originally posted by Pellaken
Pellaken's government reform package:



Section B-the democracy
This one you may not like, but I will say it anyways. The current state of our democracy is too democratic. we need LESS democracy. MUCH less. We should have an elected council. A Senate, if you will. Any member who wants in should be allowed in. Anyone in the senate can post polls, threads, etc. all non-senators, cannot. senators dont do much else, but only senators can run for office. this will help seperate the "regulars" from non "regulars" I'd also suggest that each minister can do whaytever they think is best. currentley, all they do is post polls. why elect someone, other then for the fact that they can post polls? I mean what is there to run on in elections, other then who you like or dont like. its just a popularity contest, and Thunderfall said himself, he dosent like popularity contests. unless government members get real powers, theier role is a nothing but a joke. It has also become apperant that govoners will be needed. more and more powerful ones. the city planner's job should then therefore be to resulve govoner conflicts, and make new provinces, appoint gov's untill election time, etc. as for Science and Trade, both just reqire some thought. trade for instance can be solved by a sheet of paper and a pencil write dwn each city, what it makes, what it needs, and then connect the dots.

Section C-elections reform
Right now, we have few members, as that number grows, we will run into problems. there was a suggestion to have primaries, but these are, IMHO, stupid. will we place all candaties in one large pot then pits off a few? when things get like this we should have political parties. CMaster claims that this will make things confusing, but I dont see how in the name of the devil he can think that. it will make things easier, sicne only one party member can run for any one office at any one time. this would make things rather easy infact. as for now, before then, we need more members to run. we should have deputies for each department, if need be, by begging. we should post threads in this foum and ask other members to rise to the challenge, and fill open positions.


I like these two. But I already thought ministers could override a poll, to choose their best interests. The President can also do that.

Parties would be impractical right now, but they would help if we have alot of players.
 

CornMaster

Romulan Commander
Retired Moderator
Joined
Nov 19, 2000
Messages
3,760
Location
Cloaked Warbird in the Neutral Zone
Your part A is only smart Civing. But you can't just say do this....and it will happen. It depends on how the polls go, and what info is given when we vote (so far...not too much)

Part B. I really see no need. The idea was to run a true democracy. That was the WHOLE POINT. Not some stupid republic!
unless government members get real powers, theier role is a nothing but a joke.
Then why did you run for two positions. ;)

Part C. The reason that I'm against Political Parties is because it embodies everything that is non-democratic about this world. You have one party trying to undermind another party. And ultimately we would get bi- or tri-partisian politics. This in my opinion is evil and is why governments are soooooo ineffective today. Because they can't stop arguing over things. When everyone is an independent, while they all may have a different agenda, in the long run, everyone will balance out. And the government will REALLY run on majority rule, instead of party rule. Also we have less work to take care of. We you have parties you need someone to maintain an offical list of the parties, their members, and their goals. Then this will always be changing. (You wonder why I don't update the citizen registry much anymore?!?!? Because its's too much work!) Then when Election time comes around.....we have to remember who is in what party, make sure there are no conflicts, or multi-party people. Then once the election is over...I not only have to close all the polls and post the winners, but I'll also have to draw up a list of the parties too, and which party is majority leader.

It could be fun, but I think it would turn more into flame wars, and A LOT more work for me. Because no one else would take care of it.

That's why I'm against Political Parties.....and I know there are others too....why not hear some of their reasons.
 

Apollo

Emperor
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
1,016
Location
Seattle
Originally posted by Pellaken
Section A-the economey

This is just playing the game with the goal of doing well. We don't really need to add it to the rules, unless you also want to add to not move the defensive units out of our cities when the enemy approaches, to pursue science, to not build settlers when the city has zero growth and no food stored, etc.

Section B-the democracy

Umm, the whole idea of this game is that its a true democracy. You're proposing something completely different. In your system all you would need would be the cabinet members, each one completely controlling their part of the game without needing to consult the public, and then maybe a bunch of people who sit there waiting for their chance to get elected and to vote in those elections. If the ministers could override the polls and make decisions of their own then this would no longer be a democracy.

Section C-elections reform

I don't think it will ever come to the point where we have too many people running for positions. Even as we get more and more people joining the game, many of those are just going to forget about it and never participate. If it becomes a problem and we have dozens of people running for each position, then we can come up with a solution at that time, but for now we should stick to the system we have and not introduce partisan bickering and politics. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Sections D-Information reform

There has already been a discussion thread and now a poll on this. If you haven't voted yet the poll is still open.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15447
 

Pellaken

The one and only.
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
1,407
Location
Charlottetown PEI, Canada
"Part C. The reason that I'm against Political Parties is because it embodies everything that is non-democratic about this world. You have one party trying to undermind another party. And ultimately we would get bi- or tri-partisian politics. This in my opinion is evil and is why governments are soooooo ineffective today. Because they can't stop arguing over things. When everyone is an independent, while they all may have a different agenda, in the long run, everyone will balance out. And the government will REALLY run on majority rule, instead of party rule.*1* Also we have less work to take care of. We you have parties you need someone to maintain an offical list of the parties, their members, and their goals.*2* Then this will always be changing. (You wonder why I don't update the citizen registry much anymore?!?!? Because its's too much work!) Then when Election time comes around.....we have to remember who is in what party, make sure there are no conflicts, or multi-party people.*2* Then once the election is over...I not only have to close all the polls and post the winners, but I'll also have to draw up a list of the parties too, and which party is majority leader.*3* "
1-thats a bad bad thing.... majority rule. lets assume a fote is 51-49. that measn 49 dont get what they want. under a party system, even though it takes a while and its ugly, they do tend to compromise... no one gets exactley what they want, but everyone is content at minimum... in theory anyways... then again, in theory, communisim works :)
2-these would be the jobs of the individual parties
3-no you wouldent. why would you?
 

Stormbringer

The Brick and The Rose
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
5,315
Location
USA
A is not a reform of government, but rather the way we play the game

B ....I don't like what you proposed. Everyone should be allowed to post,but a senate would be nice and only senators should be alowed to run for office.

C let's deal with problems when we get them ok?
 

TheDuckOfFlanders

the fish collecter
Joined
May 21, 2001
Messages
2,247
Location
pond 59
That's why I'm against Political Parties.....and I know there are others too....why not hear some of their reasons.

;)

I totaly agree with the hounerable hard & working vice and mod liason on this matter ,for the reason's he pointed out.
it would lead to little elitist group's bickering for power and outsider's withought a chance to get into a position.And eventualy it would distract the attention from the hard working leader's working behind the screens managing the empire to the people in party's.

our empire need's not much change in it's system of playing ,but rather in how leader's communicate with eachother and how they structurize their work so that not to much work is givven to one person ,rather spread out amongst the leader's.

I'm beginning to think that our mod liason could use a deputy to.But what work would he give to a deputy mod liason? (thus outside the mod power needing job's)
Holding election's?Other stuff?
Well ,if he feel's like he needs somebody ofcourse..
 

Mr Spice

Emperor
Joined
Oct 17, 2001
Messages
1,250
Location
Sweden
Section- B the democracy

As far as I can understand the net result of Pellakens suggestions would be that government officials take most decisions and play the game, members of the senate participate in the discussions and the rest, supposedly the ones Pellaken calls "non-regulars", would have to settle for voting for the senate and then stand back watching the others having all the fun.

Why anyone would stand for this is beyond my imagination.

Edit: Insertion of a ",".
 

Pellaken

The one and only.
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
1,407
Location
Charlottetown PEI, Canada
well... yes. my system will give most of the power to the representitives. it will ensure that section A can be carried though. the many voters may not sclect to do A, so, in short, we should force them. remember, I'm left wing, I see nothing wrong with the government forcing something good on people. but I'm also open minded, so I like compromise best. so far, there have been no problems. should they arise, then we will deal with them then.

as our system currnetley stands, everyone has power in this democracy. under our CURRENT system, political parties would do more harm then good. should our system change, however, then we would need to re-examine all, not just parts, of our past policies.


no one has any thoughts on my "canadian" system of government? ya gotta admit, its at least realistic :)
 

CornMaster

Romulan Commander
Retired Moderator
Joined
Nov 19, 2000
Messages
3,760
Location
Cloaked Warbird in the Neutral Zone
Originally posted by Pellaken
well... yes. my system will give most of the power to the representitives. it will ensure that section A can be carried though. the many voters may not sclect to do A, so, in short, we should force them.

You just shot yourself in the political foot there. ;)

You can't agree with someone that your suggestions will make the game less active for regular citizens!!!

Bad move.

Your system would work great if we had taken the 2nd approach to the Democracy game. In which every participant is a member of government....and the game is played out like that. I still wouldn't like political parites...but they would be easier to manage in that situation.

But we didn't take that approach, we decided on truly democratic system, where the citizens vote on EVERYTHING. Much more effective in my opinion.
 

Mr Spice

Emperor
Joined
Oct 17, 2001
Messages
1,250
Location
Sweden
Originally posted by CornMaster


You just shot yourself in the political foot there. ;)

You can't agree with someone that your suggestions will make the game less active for regular citizens!!!

Bad move.

Well, at least Pellaken was being honest and didn´t try to explain away the obvious. For that I respect him. :)
 

Pellaken

The one and only.
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
1,407
Location
Charlottetown PEI, Canada
well one thing about me is that I have an open mind. I always said if I ever met Hitler, I'd sit down and chat with him, then say "well, those are your opinions, I dont agree, but that dosent mean you are wrong" infact, I'd say that 99.99% of the world would also think that Hitler is wrong, but no opinion, however nuts, is wrong. its an opinion, and everyone is free to have one, perhaps not act out on it, but have one at minimum. here, we have all expressed our opinions, and although I disagree with you, I see your point, and where you are coming from. therefore, I will work with you to keep our democracy politics free and stable


man... I feel real "good" inside :D

anyways, this system, despite its drawbacks, does max participation and fun by all {except those in office, who must post poll after poll} so its not THAT bad. if, however, we do ever start other games, I'd like to sign up for the nation that will follow my gov't proposal. we can have another with this gov, and another with CMaster's gov, and any others people come up with.... who knows....

anyways, now I'm just babbling....
 

Mr Spice

Emperor
Joined
Oct 17, 2001
Messages
1,250
Location
Sweden
And the different nations could play mp against each other. We only need a *few* more people, but it would sure be great!

(Sorry for going off topic.)
 
Top Bottom