Expanding The Political Debate

John Creighton · 2006-06-20 20:16:07

When parties stay near the status quo it becomes easy to separate people into the left or the right because there are few issues which distinguish the political debate. In such times a demonomancy that promotes a few parties does a good job at representing the voter.

However, when parties start to make radical changes to the status quo on multiple fronts it is very likely that voters could be left with two equally bad choices. In such instances voters have no one that represents their interests. The solution is surprisingly simple. Simply increase the electoral districts 10 fold and let anyone that gets at least 10% of the vote become a representative. Moreover weight the percentage their vote counts in the representative body on the percentage of votes they actually get. Similarly base their salary on the percentage of votes they actually get.

This creates an interesting situation. A politician only needs 10% of the vote to stay in power so it is easier for them to stand on their principles without fear of losing their job. However, if people don’t think they are doing a good job their salary suffers.

Now ware am I coming from. I fear a situation where the left refuses to support any kind of international commitment based on military action, favors economically crippling environmental policies based on junk science, wishes to over tax and waste tax payers money. I fear at this same time, the right neglects all environmental issues, promotes draconian totalitarian laws, cannot separate church from state, thows half the population in jail, lets guns run rampant in the streets and leads far too aggressive of a foreign military policy.

Who do you vote for to say they both suck? You can vote independent but you may not be left with anyone to represent you because the percentage of votes needed to become a representive sometimes sets the votes to high.

Grypd · 2006-06-22 04:04:29

Most democratic countries have there political parties with ideaologies that take the center ground. This is easily down to the fact that most peoples political views are around this region. Actually most people believe they are leaning left but in fact there views tend to be on the right of the political spectrum.

In short we think we are rebels but tend to be conservatives.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-27 10:36:18

When parties stay near the status quo it becomes easy to separate people into the left or the right because there are few issues which distinguish the political debate. In such times a demonomancy that promotes a few parties does a good job at representing the voter.
However, when parties start to make radical changes to the status quo on multiple fronts it is very likely that voters could be left with two equally bad choices. In such instances voters have no one that represents their interests. The solution is surprisingly simple. Simply increase the electoral districts 10 fold and let anyone that gets at least 10% of the vote become a representative. Moreover weight the percentage their vote counts in the representative body on the percentage of votes they actually get. Similarly base their salary on the percentage of votes they actually get.

I'm not sure that such a complicated governing structure would be right for Mars, especially since their will be few people living their to start out with on the colony.
The initial governing structure will be simple, and probably a participating democracy where its one citizen per vote. Basically everyone will agree to behave themselves, and the special interest groups will be few. Elected reprentatives is a luxury that a 100 person colony cannot afford, their will probably be one elected administator who makes all the immediate decisions, and their will be town meetings whenever a specific legislative issue needs to be addressed where the citizenry themselves will act as the legislature. I doubt that many legislative meetings will be conveined. People will just agree on the rules and agree to obey them, if they don't, they are locked up and send back to Earth on the next transport. When the population becomes greater, then a constitution on Mars will be convened to determine representative structures.

This creates an interesting situation. A politician only needs 10% of the vote to stay in power so it is easier for them to stand on their principles without fear of losing their job. However, if people don’t think they are doing a good job their salary suffers.
Now ware am I coming from. I fear a situation where the left refuses to support any kind of international commitment based on military action, favors economically crippling environmental policies based on junk science, wishes to over tax and waste tax payers money. I fear at this same time, the right neglects all environmental issues, promotes draconian totalitarian laws, cannot separate church from state, thows half the population in jail, lets guns run rampant in the streets and leads far too aggressive of a foreign military policy.

Environment won't be a great issue on Mars. Mars has yet to be proven to have an existant biosphere of any kind, its a little premature to talk about measures to protect it if we don't even know what is there to protect.

Who do you vote for to say they both suck? You can vote independent but you may not be left with anyone to represent you because the percentage of votes needed to become a representive sometimes sets the votes to high.

I don't know why you are bring this up here. It will be a long time before Mars needs a representative government, and when the need arises, they will convene a constitutional convention and decide of government structures.

idiom · 2006-08-27 18:17:28

Below a thousand people its quite easy for personal charisma and respect to over-rule elections.

If the most popular guy who obviously knows best, doesn't accept nomination then your 'government' will be completely undermined. Loyalty is harder to ascribe to government when you know everybody in the entire nation.

Certainly with groups of only one hundred it would be quite hard to over-rule particualry willful individuals.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-28 09:41:19

I'm a bit confused, if somebody is popular, I'd expect that he would be elected, unless he is not running, and if he is not running and is not interested in the position, why would he suddenly try to overrule the colonial government that was duly elected by the popular will of the people? The obvious response to somebody who does not follow the rules is to lock him up and send him back to Earth on the next transport. It should be fairly easy to lock someone up on Mars, you just put him in a Hab and you don't give him a spacesuit, he can't get out from there, and if he punches a hole in the hab, he dies. Food and water can be cycled through, and he will stay put. Any hab will make just as an effective jail as any set of bars on Earth. If somebody does something that's dangerous to the colony, he should be locked up and sent back to Earth at the earliest opportunity.

idiom · 2006-08-28 17:03:32

Even the elected leader would have to be careful about mutinies.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-09-04 07:41:02

You mean some scatterbrain might rebel against the leader he elected, or maybe the minority who didn't get the leader they voted for are a bunch of sore losers and rebelled. If the minority overthrows the majority, what you end up with is tyranny. Once the rebels decide that there is not going to be a rule by majority if successful, then one by one, each of them is going to lose power in the power struggle that is to come, and then one of them is going to rise to the top eliminating all rivals by gaining more followers than the rest and using them to impose a reign of terror to keep the population cowed and under one dictator, that is why I have little sympathy for people who rebel against the Majority rule, and they should be dealt with harshly before they threaten freedoms.

citizen_142002 · 2006-11-19 14:54:25

A tyranny of the majority is no better than a tyranny of the minority. The idea that democracy is synonymous with freedom is absurd, because true democracy is by defenition an unlimited government. Are you saying that a minority which rebels against an oppressive majority is in the wrong simply by virtue of their number?

A democracy can vote to strip the minority of their religious freedom, their freedom of expression, their right to property, and anything else, yet you equate the majority with a moral absolute.

What you need is a government which is limited in scope. Even a small direct democracy of 100-200 people can have a charter or constitution, which limits the power of the majority.

Frankly, I think that Democracy is at the root of all most contempory authoritariansm. National Socialism and Bolshevism are quick to claim that their platform is the will of the people, and that it is of course in the interests of the majority. Government should be representative, either democratic or republican, but it should also be limited in scope. In the end most decisions should be left to the individual, and government should primarily be employed only to prevent one individual from infringing on the equal rights and freedoms of another.

The idea that every apect of our lives is subject to legislation is far from correct, as is the idea that government actually solves many problems.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-22 01:39:13

I do not believe a minority has the right to wrest control of the government away from the majority. Those things that a society must decide on need to be governed by the Majority. Things like how much to spend of defense, what the tax rates should be etc.

citizen_142002 · 2006-11-24 03:10:49

Yes Tom, you are saying the same thing that I said, but you're trying to make it sound like I was advocating minority rule, which I wasn't.

I am saying that government should be constrained, and those areas where the government is given liberty. It is important to remember that the govt. doesn't grant rights, because a right can't be granted. It's either a right or it's not.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-24 09:30:52

Yes, I was in the midst of a discussion with a self-described anarchist on another thread, and I must have crossed wires, sorry.

I think a society needs law and order, some people think it does not, but they tend to think of the disorder spreading in one direction and not in another. I tend to think that if there is too little government, then people will start settling scores with violence rather than calling the authorities that they deem powerless. There is a minimum amount of things that need to be done to prevent society from breaking down and from groups within that society from strong-arming their neighbors and imposing their own order. I don't think government should be so controlling that it should be telling its every citizen how to think and how to live, islamic theocracies tend to be very oppressive as well as the regimes in Cuba and North Korea.

MartianMatt82 · 2007-01-14 21:59:12

Why not eliminate political parties altogether?
Forces people to consider issues directly instead of choosing sides.
If not that then how about instituting a test on the candidates and current issues and events that people must pass in order to even vote at all.
Keeps people from voting for a particular political party just because its the party their parents voted for. In addition it would mean that a greater percentage of votes are well informed votes...
I could elaborate further but I'm pretty dang tired,

Let me just say though that is feels fantastic to be back and involved here, I had a profile here a couple of years ago, "Nirgal82" I believe it was called (anyone remember me? :? ). Anyhow, things have been weird for me the past few years, but now I think I'm finally ready to participate again in Mars related discussion.

Keep up the fight!
-Mathias

John Creighton · 2007-01-14 22:56:38

Why not eliminate political parties altogether?
Forces people to consider issues directly instead of choosing sides.
If not that then how about instituting a test on the candidates and current issues and events that people must pass in order to even vote at all.
Keeps people from voting for a particular political party just because its the party their parents voted for. In addition it would mean that a greater percentage of votes are well informed votes...
I could elaborate further but I'm pretty dang tired,
Let me just say though that is feels fantastic to be back and involved here, I had a profile here a couple of years ago, "Nirgal82" I believe it was called (anyone remember me? :? ). Anyhow, things have been weird for me the past few years, but now I think I'm finally ready to participate again in Mars related discussion.
Keep up the fight!
-Mathias

I like that idea a lot but is it practical? Would candidates have trouble raising money? Also most change comes though political movements which start off small and when the idea gains enough traction people will still end up choosing sides. The natural tendency of likeminded people to align them selves is unavoidable. Group think is an unfortunate sheepish consequence of our social nature.

Here is an interesting question though. Without politics how do idea’s gain traction? There are many things in science, and history that become accepted without a massive political movement to try to legislate a given belief. One wonders how this is accomplished in academia without advocacy.

Palomar · 2007-01-16 06:49:11

Why not eliminate political parties altogether?
Forces people to consider issues directly instead of choosing sides.

Nice thought, and likely impossible. People group together, schism/sect by nature ["birds of a feather"] -- particularly when ideals and results are at stake. And ideals can widely differ, sometimes drastically.

Let me just say though that is feels fantastic to be back and involved here, I had a profile here a couple of years ago, "Nirgal82" I believe it was called (anyone remember me? :? ).

Yep, that name rings a bell. Welcome back.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-06-20 20:16:07

Re: Expanding The Political Debate

#2 2006-06-22 04:04:29

Re: Expanding The Political Debate

#3 2006-08-27 10:36:18

Re: Expanding The Political Debate

#4 2006-08-27 18:17:28

Re: Expanding The Political Debate

#5 2006-08-28 09:41:19

Re: Expanding The Political Debate

#6 2006-08-28 17:03:32

Re: Expanding The Political Debate

#7 2006-09-04 07:41:02

Re: Expanding The Political Debate

#8 2006-11-19 14:54:25

Re: Expanding The Political Debate

#9 2006-11-22 01:39:13

Re: Expanding The Political Debate

#10 2006-11-24 03:10:49

Re: Expanding The Political Debate

#11 2006-11-24 09:30:52

Re: Expanding The Political Debate

#12 2007-01-14 21:59:12

Re: Expanding The Political Debate

#13 2007-01-14 22:56:38

Re: Expanding The Political Debate

#14 2007-01-16 06:49:11

Re: Expanding The Political Debate

Board footer