|
| | 
Grognard fantôme
Last Seen:
Today @ 3:18 PM
Posts: 7,248
Visits: 9,619
|
| | |
| | 
Go ahead, punk!
Last Seen:
10/28/2007 1:20 PM
Posts: 2,716
Visits: 3,818
|
| Time for me to chime in too 
While it is true that elected Senators are not necessarily more committed, better informed, or more inclined to feel responsible, they can be held accountable 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. |
--
|  |  |
| |
| |
Grognard fantôme
Last Seen:
Today @ 3:18 PM
Posts: 7,248
Visits: 9,619
|
| | 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!  ). 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. |
--
"'The front' is wherever you stop running away. Get used to it. This is what modern warfare looks like." K T Cat |  | |
| |
| |
Go ahead, punk!
Last Seen:
10/28/2007 1:20 PM
Posts: 2,716
Visits: 3,818
|
| 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 |
--
| | | |
| |
| |
Grognard fantôme
Last Seen:
Today @ 3:18 PM
Posts: 7,248
Visits: 9,619
|
| maniacalmonkey (3/12/2007)
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.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! |
--
"'The front' is wherever you stop running away. Get used to it. This is what modern warfare looks like." K T Cat | | | |
| |
| | 
Elite Pathogen
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 1:58 PM
Posts: 4,390
Visits: 10,911
|
| | |
| |
Go ahead, punk!
Last Seen:
10/28/2007 1:20 PM
Posts: 2,716
Visits: 3,818
|
| | |
| |
Grognard fantôme
Last Seen:
Today @ 3:18 PM
Posts: 7,248
Visits: 9,619
|
| | |
| | |
|
|
