Discussion about the New Constitution

[ThePlagueRat]

Hey, Apoc talks about things to be efficient.
Ok, that's all nice and well.
The thing is: Democracy isn't very efficient.

After having studied the democratic tradition (ancient and modern) and some philosophy,
I would suggest we try to build it the way it was meant by such philosophers.

That could involve Voltaires principles of power-distro,
as stated above. That's why I want my suggestion to be ratified. And it would not necessarily mean efficiency. (though we could figure out something smart)

[Apocalypse]

Typically in democratic tradition there had been more than enough people who wanted all the various positions in govenment.

[ThePlagueRat]

Yeah, that's also a problem.
It's nothing we can do about it either.

e.g. IRL in my home country we got about 12 different ballots to choose between for all kinds of different parties.
(ranging from communists to right wing extemists)
You need 500 members to establish a party.
But anyway, Norway is a small country...

Also, the principle of parliamentarism is constitutionalized.
It gives our parliament the power to throw out government by votation.

Can we use that principle too?

[Arnelos]

Trevman,

NO, the SMC should not have to approve a declaration of war made by the people ("The Senate"). The SMC ("the military) exists to implement policy, the policy actually being made by the people themselves. This means that the Senate has (and should) have the sole authority on deciding whether to declare war or not. The SMC, whether he likes it or not, must respect that decision.

This does not bar the SMC for resigning his position if he feels that he can't execute such a war and invite the Senate to find someone who can...

[ThePlagueRat]

The chart in the latest editon of the Jungle Gazette,
describes the power distro pretty well.

It's pretty much like the US system.
(can it be that most players live over there?)

Well, I don't think the US system is the best in the world anyway.
The chart was a very nice thing, but it could not show things like:
Votations decided by the Senate which the govt. must follow.

To act lawfully the govt. must follow official polls accordingly.
(e.g. a certain decision in culture/science/military spending.)
Make sure it it written in the newCon!

[notyoueither]

Can you imagine Spiffor, Thud, and... dragging Uber or Aggie off to war kicking and screaming?

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Can you imagine Spiffor, Thud, and... dragging Uber or Aggie off to war kicking and screaming?

Precisely why I don't think this is really a worry...

[Aggie]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Can you imagine Spiffor, Thud, and... dragging Uber or Aggie off to war kicking and screaming?

I find that image hilarious. Actually if the senate did do such a thing, a wise SMC wouldn't resign, he would do what I would, he would not execute the war and once peace was possible it would be made. Remember the senate(as do the people know) does declare war but they can't tell the SMC how the conduct it. The more practical problem for the SMC is getting the people to vote for war. That is why I make and post such precise plans, because here's a rule about democracy. Democracies can be coninced to fight wars if either of these are true
1) The war is convienient and not too disruptive.
The persian gulf war is an example
2) The stakes are so high that people don't mind the sacrifice(The american civil war(and actually these we 2 democracies against each other) is an example and also WWII fits here. Though in the civil war this barely was met and the war could have been shut down politcally if not for some union victories.
The 1st condition is met by wars such as the french/american wars in this game.
The 2nd condition was met during the persian war in our game(Pyramids were worth fighting for) and would be met if we were attacked by another country.
So my job as SMC is to convince the people of either of the above conditions, if I fail I don't get a war and if I do I better make sure it does what is advertised. The fact that I realize that the people must agree gives me creditablilty and thus helps my views get adopted. That is also why I am open about being willing to make peace if the peole overwhelmingly want to. For example, if we attack france I have a war of conquest plan, but if after the 1 few cities the people want peace I will be happy to make it. Remember as the SMC, I am suppose to try to lead the country militarily, but in the end I am still a servant of the people and must bow to their wishes.
Aggie