|
Post by BertramStantrous on Nov 2, 2003 4:49:00 GMT -5
Representative democracy is the underpinning of a balanced and sensible society governed by checks and balances. The US's fore-fathers saw this long before the problem arised. Many feared true democracy and called it mob-ocracy. Representative democracy not only permits for the will of the majority, but protects the minority from the tramplings of the majority. Checks and balances are crucial to prevent government from becoming tyranny or disorganized chaos. Actually, representitive democracy didn't emerge in the United States until around the time Andrew Jackson was elected president (mainly because the Western favorite, Taylor, didn't get elected). If you are looking for a lesson in failed representative government, look no further than California. A state that has turned to public referendum instead of checked and balanced legislation has descended into chaos - debt, stagnant educational system, slow economic growth. This list goes on and on. The United States' government has been so effective in the past because it ensures that the majority of the nation can support legislated policies that remain true to democratic principles. Sure, if by "majority of the nation" you mean "The United States Government." Also, it's nice to know that they're upholding "democratic principles" when the US isn't even a democracy. It's a republic. When you say that people elect people, but have no say in who gets elected to the Supreme Court, you are, in one way, right and another wrong. The people elect the President, who must consult with the legislature. Both are representatives of the people. The Supreme Court's purpose, even in its nature, is not to cater to either other branch of government, but to ensure that each does not exceed its power. It is the ultimate check on executive and legislative power. If anything, the Supreme Court is the guard of representative government, not a failing of it. Ahem. The people elect the president? Excuse me if I'm wrong, but we elect people to elect the president, who then elects the Supreme Court. We elect someone to elect someone to elect someone.
|
|
Francos Spain
Our Blessed and Chosen Leader of the Pacific
Posts: 496
|
Post by Francos Spain on Nov 2, 2003 6:47:19 GMT -5
By the way, if you find it important to continue this conversation, please post it in another thread instead of cluttering this one up. The Senate will appreciate it. Please do this. I'd like to comment on the topic, but not here.
|
|
|
Post by ModerateCompassion on Nov 6, 2003 17:56:23 GMT -5
It seems the "Senate" is just a compilation of a bunch of titles that may or may not have any significant meaning. How creating useful jobs and electing the occupants of those positions?
The positions I suggest may include the following:
Minister of Defense - externally focused defense issues to include intelligence/counter-intelligence
Minister of Economic Affairs - obvious
Minister of Civil Affairs - again obvious
Provost Marshall - Police and domestic security
Judge Advocates x 3 - acts like our supreme court who rule on the legallity of any propositions or laws we may create.
Of course, Franco may want to refine this crude idea but at least these would be elected positions to help organize the internal structure of the Pacific and help Franco in day-to-day affairs. Also, these elected Senators can chose their assistants to help accomplish their numerous tasks. The terms of these elected positions I'll leave for your discussion.
Thanks for listening to my thoughts.
Moderate Compassion
|
|
|
Post by BertramStantrous on Nov 9, 2003 1:37:30 GMT -5
Those titles are all well and good, ModerateCompassion, but they don't cater to our enormous egos. The title "Director of the Secret Police" sounds MUCH more intimidating than "Provost Marshall."
Besides, names are very superficial, and our jobs would remain the same regardless of our titles. Too much trouble for too little payoff, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by RacePeople on Nov 9, 2003 9:42:14 GMT -5
how can i get into the senate?
|
|
Francos Spain
Our Blessed and Chosen Leader of the Pacific
Posts: 496
|
Post by Francos Spain on Nov 10, 2003 19:23:21 GMT -5
And thank you for deleting your own account. Next time you attempt to trick us, at least try to use complete and coherent sentences, as well as utilizing proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation. I have to hand it to you though, your post here was almost not sub-par. Some of your other ones, however...
|
|
|
Post by Tar A on Nov 10, 2003 20:12:26 GMT -5
how can i get into the senate? Now that's what I call subtlety.... me 2, Francozzz!1!! i want n the senate! can i b delegete next? plzzz?///
|
|
|
Post by BertramStantrous on Nov 11, 2003 0:17:50 GMT -5
How can I get into the senate? OH, wait.
|
|
Sir Paul
Senator / Director of the Pacific Press
This is PNN
Posts: 617
|
Post by Sir Paul on Nov 11, 2003 2:15:59 GMT -5
Perhaps the senate could be elected by the people of the pacific. We could decide on a number of senetors (I recommend 13) and then divide the region into districts via the alphabet (District 1: A and B, District 2: C and D, etc.) This would allow representation for all nations, who would have one senetor to take their greivences and ideas to. This would also encourage more participation in the NPO, which would help fend off attacks by the PA and RR. This would also provide a body to advise the region delegate upon the governance of the pacific.
|
|
|
Post by BertramStantrous on Nov 16, 2003 6:38:11 GMT -5
Perhaps the senate could be elected by the people of the pacific. We could decide on a number of senetors (I recommend 13) and then divide the region into districts via the alphabet (District 1: A and B, District 2: C and D, etc.) This would allow representation for all nations, who would have one senetor to take their greivences and ideas to. This would also encourage more participation in the NPO, which would help fend off attacks by the PA and RR. This would also provide a body to advise the region delegate upon the governance of the pacific. The NPO has so many enemies (and puppet nations in the Pacific) that this would be a dangerous move. The Senate is composed of the most trusted nations possible, and to have our enemies elect one of their buddies to the Senate would prove disasterous.
|
|
|
Post by Tar A on Nov 16, 2003 16:42:46 GMT -5
Just for the record, I know Bertram's right, but I'm curious as to how you explain happenings to the contrary *cough* Zhdanov *cough*
|
|
|
Post by Deringstan on Nov 17, 2003 16:25:10 GMT -5
I would like to be in the Senate. I have experience at invading and I hope I could be a addition to the NPO.
I can't say under which name but I have worked inside the ACC/AA, RRA (before it fused with the PA) and several small invasion groups. I tried to begin my own but that failed, I guess I don't have enough patience to do that.
I do not know much about democracy, but I do know enough that Democracy is very unstable in a region like the Pacific, the Pacific needs a strong hand to keep it from anarchy.
Awaiting your response, Deringstan
|
|
Sir Paul
Senator / Director of the Pacific Press
This is PNN
Posts: 617
|
Post by Sir Paul on Nov 17, 2003 19:59:03 GMT -5
So will there be no democracy in the Pacific? The PA and RR can't even region crash and cheat properly; do you think they have the patience to vote? I trust the people of the Pacific to do what is right.
|
|
|
Post by Warrior Thorin on Nov 17, 2003 20:16:00 GMT -5
I don't think we need to worry about votes and democracy until our enemies have withered away. I believe our government is perfect during this time of outside influences. If we allow voting to occur, some PA or RRA spy could become a member and help subvert our region. I say we wait until the threat is over.
|
|
|
Post by Abysseria on Nov 18, 2003 8:44:07 GMT -5
Agreed. I am not a fan of pure democracy in any measure, anyhow. I much rather prefer representative democracy in the form of a republic. Granted, the people don't have as much of a voice, but then again, I don't trust the people to rule fairly. I won't trade one ruler for 4,000.
|
|