Representation and Universal Suffrage

GONdorman

ROCK´N ROLL PEOPLE!!!!
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
89
Location
Argentina, South America
Arent they the same thing in real life? I mean, in most modern nations, people choose representatives by means of universal suffrage, so I dont see the point in having them as separate civics... Of course, I might be wrong, but I doubt I am...:crazyeye:

BTW, Representation (Civ-wise) FTW :D !!
 
No, you can have representation without universal suffrage (women weren't allowed to vote, only landowners can vote, etc.).
 
Although the two can be intertwined on occasions. Think of it as the distinction between the 15th century British system and the 21st century American system.
 
AFAIK, Universal Suffrage is closer to what happens in countries like Switzerland where they have popular votes regarding nearly all important decisions. It's not that big in the US, where it also happens, but in a lower scale. I'd say the US are closer to Rep than US. Remember Al Gore vs Dubya?
 
I'm pretty sure that Universal Suffrage would pertain to just that- universal suffrage, i.e. the system in most Western nations today. Sure, a multitude of referendums can be an extension of that, but the base meaning is just that everyone gets a vote- which is the case in the USA, and most other systems.

Take as evidence the respective messages 'We Love the Prime Minister Day' and 'We Love the President Day'. The first is indicative of some sort of higher executive power in government, whilst the second is indicative of the direct election of the executive power. Now, you can have a President without US and a Prime Minister with US, but the historical implications of such terms lend themselves to the qualifications I described previously.
 
Universal suffrage is a method of choosing the electorate, Representation is the method of how the electorate's votes are translated into government actions. The United States is a Representative Republic/Democratic Republic/Representative Democracy depending on how you define the word Democracy. Decisions are made by elected representatives versus direct vote so we are a not a true Democracy although we have near universal suffrage. Ancient Athens considered itself a Democracy even though it had severe limitations on the electorate because all decisions were made by a vote of the electorate, or a subset of the electorate.
 
The ancient Greeks had a form of Representation, even though they had slaves and women weren't allowed to take part. Universal Sufferage simply means that all members of a society have an equal standing within the society.
 
I just now realized that universal suffrage = the right for all to vote. For some odd reason I was thinking it had something to do with working.

I feel dumb now.
 
Every Civics category has some peculiar set up. Can't you have Free Speech and a Bureaucracy (like, oh, pretty much every country in the West)? The dominant religion of a Theocracy isn't Organized now? It's a limitation of the system, and of the language.
 
In Britain, we have a constitutional monarchy. This is a form of Represenation. Though both men and women have the vote, we choose representatives for the house of commons but do not vote for our head of state.
 
Well, Universal suffrege does not necessarily means "democracy" or "freedom". In the old USSR anyone could vote, so the suffrage was universal. And she was one of the first countries in the world to allow women to vote. It was a pity that they could just choose between two candidates of the same party...
On the contrary, Switzerland allowed women to vote just a few years ago, but they were much more democratic than most countries in the world.
Maybe I am a nostalgic, but I prefere the CIV III system of civics: democracy/republic/monarchy/communism/despotism. Maybe I would add "theocracy" but in general it seemed to me a balanced system.
In the CIV IV one, you could have a country with free speech AND a police state which to me is a nonsense. How could you say what you really want to when there is always a policeman pointing a gun at you?
 
Total freedom of speech is impossible if society is to remain civilised.

Besides, just because you can say what you like doesn't automatically mean you can do what you like. It means the press is free to publish newstories accurately. It doesn't mean that the state won't seek to influence what is actually published.

Perhaps a different name for the civic would be good?
 
Well, Universal suffrege does not necessarily means "democracy" or "freedom". In the old USSR anyone could vote, so the suffrage was universal. And she was one of the first countries in the world to allow women to vote. It was a pity that they could just choose between two candidates of the same party...

People were, in some cases, forced to vote in USSR elections for minor local government posts.

Imagine that ladies and gents. Marched at gunpoint to the polling booth. Democracy should not be equated with freedom. All it really means is that if those running the show are useless, you have the means to kick the so and so's out.
 
It doesn't mean that the state won't seek to influence what is actually published.

Yeah, it is true. The state would try to influence, but also would anyone who pay (the owner of the press). And in any case there is a difference between influence and censorship. Well, thinking better, not too much.
Censorship: if you do not write what we want, you are in jail, and your children will die of hunger.
Influence by the owner of the newspaper: if you do not write what I want, you are fired, and you children will die of hunger.
Fair enough, I think
 
You can be in both Universal Suffrage and Slavery at the same time. In fact, you can even throw in Theocracy. The Civ4 civics make no sense whatsoever. At all. Don't even try to relate them to the real world.

Either accept that it's nonsensical and just a game, download a civics mod, or play SMAC.
 
Top Bottom