1BC Civ Forums / Civilization IV Discussion / 1BC CivIV BTS Multi Team Battle / Town Square / Dgame Archive / Representative or Direct Democracy? / Latest Posts

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

jerm — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:32:40 GMT

Well the whole reason this came up was due to the election fiasco. It's hard to review all of the pros and cons of a system until it is put into use and problems arise which may not have been obvious before. That's the beauty of a flexible system.

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

maniacalmonkey — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:30:29 GMT

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (3/12/2007)[/b][hr]Are you in a legal or politicalprofession in real life MM? You seem to have a very good grip on this type of stuff.[/quote]

Gods no - this stuff is good fun in a microcosm like a DGame, but it gets stupendously boring on any real-world scale :D That said, I did do a bit of research into political theory and philosophy back when I wrote this Constitution, and have been brushing up on it recently. Wikipedia is great for getting a shallow understanding of just about everything!

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:19:05 GMT

Woulda been even better to bring up such a boat-rocking topic when you first submitted the Constitution for review. But sometimes you just gotta cross bridges when you come to them. Even when you have a map and know how many bridges there are up ahead, sometimes you realize things when you are standing there about to cross that you didn't or perhaps even couldn't foresee.

Are you in a legal or political profession in real life MM? You seem to have a very good grip on this type of stuff.

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

maniacalmonkey — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:12:19 GMT

Now that we have that out of the way, let's talk about your income tax :hehe:

Yes, I suspect we will be making changes to the government as the game progresses - the Constitution is quite open to this, and offices which answer to any of the branches of government can be established freely or as a matter of Law. Eventually, such offices could be assigned more responsibility and permanency by adopting them into the Constitution. In any case, citizen initiatives and discussions like the one we've just had are vital to keeping the Community on its toes and to ensure that we always seek improvement.

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

jerm — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:56:08 GMT

Good discussion Scipio. You really did bring up good points. One other aspect is simply that it's fun to be able to run for stuff and the greater goal of a Dgame is to have fun. As the game moves along, I think we'll start to see the senate or even another executive body emerge (like a cabinet) which will lighten the load of the president which will also give people more positions to be involved in. All of the games I've been involved in have ended up having some equivalent to a Secretary of the Economy or Foreign Affairs Chairman. If the government were a pure democracy, these positions (I'm not saying we will end up with them) would not have enough teeth to be "fun".

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:43:56 GMT

[quote][b]maniacalmonkey (3/12/2007)[/b][hr] The clinch for these citizens is, that whenever they do not vote on an issue, they are not represented, and thus their citizenship is dimished. If they elect representatives, however, they are represented in all matters, which I believe makes for a more inclusive democracy. Effectively rating a citizen's institutional value by his willingness (or ability!) to be knowledgeable and active may seem fair at face value, but smacks of elitism upon closer inspection.[/quote]

This is the most cogent and compelling argument I've heard in support of the representational system, and it convinces that keeping a representational system does have a greater practical benefit: there is a geographical distance in realword, and in the 1BC world, there is the "rate of logging on" distance. I'll also take your word for it about the level of the evolving technicalities placing an actually EXCLUSIONARY obligation on the citizens.

Okay :) I'm convinced. Representation it is!

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

maniacalmonkey — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:38:09 GMT

The philosophical debate between direct and representative democracy goes a good deal further than mundane issues of practicality, but that ties into a lot of big real-world issues that do not necessarily apply here.

However, even in a relatively simple system such as ours, keeping pace with all matters of Law and government is going to be a challenge. How many people only log on two or three times a week? I'd like to include them too. And how many are not participating in that big technical discussion on how to elect a Senate? I'm guessing they would not be too interested in weighing all the pros and cons of procedural Laws either.

The clinch for these citizens is, that whenever they do not vote on an issue, they are not represented, and thus their citizenship is dimished. If they elect representatives, however, they are represented in all matters, which I believe makes for a more inclusive democracy. Effectively rating a citizen's institutional value by his willingness (or ability!) to be knowledgeable and active may seem fair at face value, but smacks of elitism upon closer inspection.

I agree that the technical aspects of implementing direct referenda in place of the Senate votes are minimal - no issue there. And yes, it could be altered if it doesn't work - but the same goes for the Senate, so that argument goes both ways :)

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:06:14 GMT

I've never participated in one of these, so I certainly defer to the expertise of you experienced guys. But consider this: a direct democracy does not REQUIRE anyone to participate. As long as a quorum of five citizens votes on an issue, it can be ratified just as if five Senators voted on it. If 6 or more vote on it, all the better. The same thing goes for discussions; and I don't think the issue of having "too much" discussion is really an issue is it? Are the proceedings of the Senate, Exec, and SC going to be secret, behind closed doors affairs, or are citizens going to be precluded from expressing themselves about discussions? If not, then the existing Senatorial system offers no more nor less "prevention" of "bedlam" in the form of excessive discussion than would not having a Senate. In sum, any possibility that would exist with a direct democracy that there be too much discussion is no less a possibility with a Senate.

More citizens join? So what? They can speak up if they want to, they can vote if they want to, they can stop coming to the site if they want to. As long as any Presidential request receives five votes, a direct democracy will apparently work no differently than a representative democracy.

Let us reconsider the actual real world bases for representative systems. Such systems are used in societies that are quite large geographically. Many citizens do not reside near the center of government. Many citizens are illiterate, and most citizens are primarily ignorant of any of the disciplines which are most salient to dealing with the technical matters of legislation and jurisprudence: legal theory, legal precedent, the copious legal documents, and laws themselves. Not to mention the fact that, most nations are far more numerous than 21 citizens! ;) These are the reasons for representation: geographic dispersal of citizens; illiterate or unqualified citizens (it should be noted: being illiterate or ignorant does not in itself preclude a citizen from having equal rights to have their vote counted, it simply means that the facility with this the citizen can routinely, and efficiently participate in debates, considerations, and determinations); too many citizens to practicably allow each to participate in any specific affair of state. All of these are matters of practicality, not of philosophical imperative, meaning, the use of representatives is not generally considered to be a philosophical IMPROVEMENT on a direct democracy in terms of executing the fundamental philosophical purpose of a democracy. A direct democracy is generally considered to be a more "true," and more truly democratic form of democratic government. Representational systems are validated, and used simply as a matter of practicality given the scale of government for most real world polities.

In short, the whole point of a democracy is that every citizens vote is supposed to count equally with every other citizens vote. A representative system constitutes a slight infringement on this philosophical basis and as such is a less ideal system, but representative systems are arguably more feasible in the real world (although even this is debatable! :P ).

None of the constraints that make a representative system more feasible exist in the context of the 1BC DGame. We are all here in this common "geograhic" space. The constitution, and the technicalities of the game are simple (relative to those of a true real world polity) and familiar if not transparent to all. There are not too many of us, and I would not even think that 100 would be too many of us; as noted above, if there is going to be bedlam and things are going to grind to a snails pace because of "too much discussion" that is going to happen with or without a Senate, unless of course the execution of the DGame is going to be concealed from the citizens, else citizens are going to be made to shut up about their views of the progress of the game.

The other matters that I wanted to address: there is really no need to engage in anything like laborious editing or changing of any documents. If such a referendum to amend the constitution were passed, it would simply be the understanding of the people that, whereever it says Senate, we now take it to mean People. If a matter of confusion or contradiction is encountered, We the People will deal with it when it arises, through discussion and commiseration. If it is found that for reasons argued, or for other unforeseen factors, the direct democracy "changes" could be repealed. This as I have argued is the beauty of a democracy. There are no absolutes other than that the will of the people is paramount. All other technicalities, specificities and details can be shaped, reshaped, altered, recast, amended, repealed as needed.

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

maniacalmonkey — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:20:29 GMT

Time for me to chime in too :)

While it is true that elected Senators are not [i]necessarily[/i] more committed, better informed, or more inclined to feel responsible, they can be held [i]accountable[/i] for all of the above. A Senator that goofs around would face the prospect of not getting re-elected or, indeed, he might get dismissed on the spot.

Also, during the first term especially the Senate will have quite a bit of work to do in establishing Laws. These things can get fairly technical and involved, which would discourage more casual citizens from participating. Handing these responsibilities to a Senate means that casual citizens can invest their confidence in people they trust, and be assured that they are not "disenfranchised" if they don't want to stay on top of every little issue. Exactly how much work the Senate will face in later stages depends on the flow of the game, but we can always review our options later on.

And if past experience is anything to go by, the DGame will also be picking up more citizens as it gets underway with actually playing the game. Many of these will be of the more casual type as described above.

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:58:17 GMT

Having thought about it, I don't see how 21 citizens with a quorum of five are going to be any less effective at determining Articles of Law than will be five Senators. I see your point about having been elected creating a greater sense of obligation and thus participation, but not necessarily a greater interest in the polity, nor necessarily greater expertise, insight or "vision" for "doing it the right way." Thus, it seems the effective function of the Senate is simply to oblige a fixed quorum to participate. Given that this game is going to go on for 500 turns, I can imagine it being rather increasingly difficult to come up with willing Senators after the first few rounds of elections? Why not instead make everyone eligible to vote, and as long as five of them chime in on a Presidential mandate within the same span of time that would be allotted to a Senatorial vote, let the citizens run the show!

Power to the People!

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:16:28 GMT

[quote][b]von Clausewitz (3/12/2007)[/b][hr]The list of responsibilities for the Senate seem simplistic on the surface where one could question why the citizens in general and as a whole cannot do it.

There is a little phrase there - alter the Articles of Law. Right now there are no Articles of Law, that is for the first Senate to develop. This is where the oversight of elected officials comes into play. An elected official has a greater sense of responsibility to the group then an appointed official, which has a greater sense of responsibility then a guy that walks in off the street. I think the lack of the Articles of Law is what makes it appear that any guy of the street can fill all the tasks of the Senate.

The Articles of Law are second only to the Constitution, and so long as the Articles of Law do not conflict with the Constitution they are the rules of how the DGame is played. There are specific limitations on the President laid out in the Constitution that require Senate approval. Those are the ones 'set in stone' and can only be changed by the people. The Senate could, by the Articles of Law, add further limitations (that may be debatable issue that will need its own topic). They will, by the Articles of Law, set the time frames for the elections. They will, by the Articles of Law, set the standards for being absent.

It is the ability to alter the Articles of Law that requires a greater sense of responsibilty that only comes from the election process. If there is any greater responsibility then voting, it is being elected. No longer are your own interests a priority, nor the interests of those that voted for you, but you take on the burden of all those that voted.[/quote]

Fascinating, and excellent points. I'd almost say they convinced me that my "revolutiionary" motives were misguided and should be shelved.

As it is, I'll think on it till tomorrow when I'm fully awake and let you know what I think. VC, you are are statesman, and your messages routinely ring out with the sentience of the stateman's awareness!

Please be assured, my primary motive is to provoke only enough debate to galvanize the community to that course which it already finds itself magnetically drawn; not to turn everything topsy turvy. When you have thought deeply about your path, your path becomes true. When you have wantonly decided on your path, it becomes a source of doubt.

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

von Clausewitz — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:30:03 GMT

The list of responsibilities for the Senate seem simplistic on the surface where one could question why the citizens in general and as a whole cannot do it.

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

Locus Coeruleus — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:10:49 GMT

[quote]In my opinion, this type of metadiscussion has no place here anymore.[/quote]

There is always room for discussion, brotha. Jeeze, what are you, some kind of dictator? Discussion, isn't that what democracy is about?? :P

I think Scip has a point. In the beginning when there isn't much going on, it might be quite more democratic, and still quite simple for the president to put forth a plan, have the people vote upon it and not there not be a need for a legislative body such as the senate, but as the game progresses and complexity develops, a need will also develop for a division of labour, and hence a need for something akin to a senate.

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

jerm — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:01:29 GMT

In fairness, I think that is what Scipio is trying to do but I think he just wants to explore the issue as a first step. Scipio, "Democracy Game" is kind of a generic term for these kinds of things. There actually was an Oligarchy game, and in the last Dgame we actually experimented with a few systems including a feudalistic type of aproach. The goal is to get a workable government which involves as many of the people in various aspects of the game while still allowing it to actually move forward at a decent pace (otherwise it just simply falls apart). Still, I'm not sure it's such a bad idea but I think other things would also have to be changed in order to accomodate this. For example, there would need to be ample time writen into the system in order for the people to review, debate, and then vote on presidential proposals. There are unfortunately practicalities which must be taken into consideration though, otherwise the game stalls and it is like pulling a handcart through the mud to get it going again. The more momentum the game has and the smoother the road, the more fun it is and hence more people will want to stick with the game.

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

Zigeuner — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:37:22 GMT

I take issue not with your point but with your timing. The game has started as far as I'm concerned and we now have a Constitution. Perhaps you do not like it. In that case, I suggest you read it closely and find out how to go about changing it. This is not about you shutting your trap. This is about the Constitution having been approved after weeks and weeks and weeks of time for input, and hardly getting any. In my opinion, this type of metadiscussion has no place here anymore. If *you* want it changed, *you* undertake action. *You* work out the details. *You* try to drum up enough support. *You* lead us to true Democracy. Hell, I may even vote YEP. [url=http://planetsmilies.net][img]http://planetsmilies.net/alien-smiley-124.gif[/img][/url]

[quote]ARTICLE V: LEGISLATURE

1. These Articles of Constitution shall be the supreme law of the Community; no other body of legislature shall supercede it.

2. [b]To alter the Articles of Constitution, a majority vote of no less than two-thirds of the People shall be required to be in favor.[/b]

3. To ensure the proper execution of the Articles of Constitution, Articles of Law shall be established, to be adhered to by such parties as they concern.[/quote]

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

Scipio Africanus — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:04:44 GMT

[quote][b]jerm (3/11/2007)[/b][hr]I think it's a question of efficiency. Having 5 people voting for an "issue" means there is less of a chance that it will go the "wrong" way. There's also the issue of accountability. When a mistake is made, that person can be voted out of office while a citizen is a citizen (unless caught cheating of course) and there's nothing to keep that person from voting the wrong way. Also it is more transparent when the senate votes (assuming they use a yay, nay system instead of polls). [/quote]

Well I can understand if there is a bigger concern with getting things moving along than with actually simulating a democracy.

But then why call it a "Democracy" Game? If founding documents are to be left sacrosanct and unamendable by the will of the people, if more confidence is to be placed in an oligarchy than in the people, why not call it a Republic Game, or an Oligarchy Game? ;)

I don't wanna cause trouble cause I know you guys enjoy these things. But, I guess I just don't understand what these Democracy games are supposed to accomplish if they are not actually meant to be a simulation or test of running a civilization game through democratic enterprise. Believe me, I can shut my cake hole if pondering this stuff too deeply is clearly unfashionable; but I just cannot help but ask at least once: what is the point if not to simulate a democratic enterprise? How is anything less than a direct democracy a more thorough simulation of a democratic enterprise?

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

Zigeuner — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:37:15 GMT

Wah? Maniacal has been thumping that piece of cowskin for three bloody moons and nobody ever gave it heed. Let's not start heeding it now that it's been approved...

And you [i]have[/i] heard our neighbors' taunting talk of Celtic twins?

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

jerm — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:54:58 GMT

I think it's a question of efficiency. Having 5 people voting for an "issue" means there is less of a chance that it will go the "wrong" way. There's also the issue of accountability. When a mistake is made, that person can be voted out of office while a citizen is a citizen (unless caught cheating of course) and there's nothing to keep that person from voting the wrong way. Also it is more transparent when the senate votes (assuming they use a yay, nay system instead of polls).

RE: Representative or Direct Democracy?

Black Owl — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:30:33 GMT

I'm all for throwing congess out. OOPS! Wrong thread again. Seriously tho, I think Scipio makes valid points here and it makes sense. It has been said that things not need be so complicated for a game. Even choosing names of houses seems to have it's problems. A President would answer directly to the people, boy how I wish that were true! You really couldn't call it a dictatorship because the people hold the power of the vote. And since we are a mostly vocal group I don't see the Prez. misunderstanding, or getting away with anything. I almost mentioned that the supreme court seemed to be enough, unless you had a council of sorts. Much like tribes in the early days of a civilization when numbers were small. Yes, I like that. A wise chief, a council, and a couple of Shamans. (Supreme Court).:cool:

If we grow than we can grow into a representitive style of government. And evolve into a Congressionally run style of Democracy. Lets crawl first? And be on with it.

ADDIT: Glad your off the meds for your head cold Scipio.:D

Representative or Direct Democracy?

Scipio Africanus — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:54:11 GMT

It seems that the issue of how to vote for Senators is presenting a fairly onerous obstacle to the efficient execution of the DGame. As such, I'd like to present a referendum to the citizenry of the DGame (all 24 of us!). Here are the quotes from me and Maniacalmonkey that are salient to understanding the context for this referendum taken from the [url=http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2233017-90-2.aspx]Organizing the Senate Thread[/url]

From me:

[quote]Can we take a couple small steps backward for just a second here?

I realize the Constitution is already written, but just the the sake of putting the idea out there: is it really necessary or "salutary" that there be a "Senate?"

So far we have 24 members in This DGame. Excluding the President and two Supreme Court Judges, the common citizenry amounts to 21 people. With five Senators that works out to be one Senator to represent each of 4.2 citizens!

Is this really necessary? Heck, Modern Switzerland with a population of 7.2 million people has a direct democracy! Is it really necessary that we have a representative branch when it might just be more efficient for there to be referendums that all citizens vote on?

For that matter, I'm a bit confused about exactly what actions the President can take independently, and the actual role that the Senators are intended to play in the execution of the in-game decisions.

I apologize if this are really stupid questions that would answer themselves through a bit more studying of the Constitution, etc., but this is my first DGame. I'm still a bit baffled by what it is all for[/quote]

[quote][b]maniacalmonkey (3/11/2007)[/b][hr]Here's a few snippets from the Constitution:

From Maniacalmonkey:

[quote]The President must present a request to the Senate, and have it approved by simple majority of the Senate, if he wishes to:

- Found a new settlement.

- Disband an existing settlement.

- Adjust Civics.

- Engage in treaties with a foreign power.

- Engage in acts of war with a foreign power.

- Construct a Wonder.

- Use up a Great Person.[/quote]

[quote]The Senate may, by vote of simple majority:

- Disband the office of the Presidency.

- Disband the Senate.

- Dismiss a Supreme Justiuce.

- Alter the Articles of Law.[/quote]

[quote] The main argument for having representative government, rather than direct democracy, is to allow policy to be enacted over a period of time, rather than changing it according to the fad of the hour. Also, it puts the business of official decision-making in the hands of a few dedicated individuals, leaving the casual citizen free to slack at the sidelines and complain about dirty no-good politicians :D

This is a rather different discussion though. Please feel free to start a new thread on this if you want to discuss it further, but let's keep this one focused on figuring out the best way to elect a Senate.[/quote]

Given the unnecessary complications, I'm not so certain that we even need a Senate with only 24 citizens--21 private citizens with the govt excluded. The beauty of Democracies is that they are malleable and adaptable to changing demands. The consitution on which the DGame was founded seemed perfectly fine until we started encountering this issue with voting, and this has raised a couple of more fundamental issues.

1. What is the more truly democratic form of government? One in which national policy is determined via intermediary representatives of the people, or via direct vote by the people?

2. All else being equal, and assuming that democratic principles are the primary goal, which is the "better" form of government? A direct or representative democracy?

I'm gonna suggest that, with only 24 citizens, there is no need for a Senate and given the mechanics of polls on this site, it would be easier, and a more democratic structure to simply dispense with representatives, and have every citizen in the Dgame have an opportunity to vote on the issues about which the President must seek Senatorial sanctioning.

The referendum quite simply: replace the word Senate with Electorate, and Senator(s) with Citizen(s) in the constitution.

If there is a concern about quoroms, a certain % of the population could be specified as being required to transact national policy making business, say for example five citizens.

Often times 50% is considered a quorum. But given that we are already limiting ourselves to only five Senators being consulted on issues of national policy making, we could make the quorum five citizens, which is effectively what we are doing by having a Senate of five.

ADDIT: except for the fact that Senators might feel more obliged to be on the site regularly to participate in national policymaking than are all 21 private citizens, having 21 "Citizen Senators" with a quorum of five is effectively (a) no different in terms of efficiency than running a Senate; (b) more efficient in terms of skipping the time and effort to run Senatorial races: and (c) more truly democratic in allowing every citizen equal opportuinty to vote in all questions of national policy making.

Direct participation in all voting issues would encourage citizens to particpate, thus overall increasing the probability that a true majority of the citizenry would influence policy, and suffering no more unrepresentativeness than the Senate itself would impose in the first place. Having Senators certainly is not going to encourage participation any more than would direct democracy.

If there are five people who are willing to commit to being Senators, and thus to be present with sufficient regularity to conduct national business, then it stands to reason that there will already be a sufficient number of citizens present most of the time to conduct national business as a direct democracy too.

So, here is how the section of the Constitution that MM quoted above would read:

[quote]The President must present a request to the Citizenry, and have it approved by simple majority of the voting Citizens (with a required [url=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quorum]quorum[/url] of five), if he wishes to:

- Found a new settlement.

- Disband an existing settlement.

- Adjust Civics.

- Engage in treaties with a foreign power.

- Engage in acts of war with a foreign power.

- Construct a Wonder.

- Use up a Great Person.[/quote]

[quote]The Citizens may, by vote of simple majority:

- Disband the office of the Presidency.

- Disband the Senate.

- Dismiss a Supreme Justiuce.

- Alter the Articles of Law.[/quote]

This next part I find a bit perplexing and even a bit contradictory, though forgive me if I am simply not understanding MM.

[quote] The main argument for having representative government, rather than direct democracy, is to allow policy to be enacted over a period of time, rather than changing it according to the fad of the hour.[/url]

Why are the Senators any less likely to be prone to "fads of the hour" than are the citizens from whom they are drawn? This seems to reflect a kind of elitism; Democracy is fine as long as it is only reserved for the qualified?

[quote] Also, it puts the business of official decision-making in the hands of a few dedicated individuals [/quote]

Which seems to me to be fundamentally contradictory to the very idea of a democracy, i.e., that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. If the point of this being a Democracy is that every citizen has an equal say in the policy of the social entity in which he/she is a participant, why create unneccessary middle men? This can only promote cronyism, and partisanism such as the formation of so-called "political parties" and special interest groups.

[quote] leaving the casual citizen free to slack at the sidelines and complain about dirty no-good politicians :D[/quote]

Why allow citizens to be slack? Why not impose a rule: he who does not AT LEAST log on to the site for a certain span of time (4 months?) will have his/her citizenship revoked? Obviously this would be a simple token "punishment," because such a revocation should never be irreversible, but at least it would provide a means to thin out the electorate when people stop wanting to participate. IIRC, in direct democracies like Switzerland one is required to either participate or explicitly abstain, and is subject to being fined if one breaches this requirement.

Is it not the duty of every free citizen in a democracy to his fellow citizens and to their common welfare to participate to his earnest best and on equal footing with all his fellows?