Zwotstyg wrote:@Xin Prussia: Starting at the top..
No official will have 100% support. Even here in the INU, people will have voted against the people in the Supreme Council. It is impossible to please everybody; the whole point of elections is so that you can please as many as possible. Any leader will have people who didn't want him in office; there is no difference between the SC and the interregional president. The interregional president would be elected by popular vote, just like anyone else; it's just like the leader of a large region, who most like and some do not. If he is elected, it means the majority of people in the regions appreciate him/her. Even legislation won't be fully appreciated; nothing will be. The president is no exception.
You've just countered an argument i never made, know your fallacies. The point was never about 100% popularity or anything similar. As I've already stated, the difference between the Interregional President and the leader of a large region is this: If we think logically, regions will usually vote for candidates who have originated in their region. If we continue on this train of thought, under majority vote, the region with the majority wins. Let's do a trial election, shall we?
IWU: 40 votes for Candidate A
INU: 29 votes for Candidate B
ISU: 23 votes for Candidate C
IAU: 9 votes for Candidate D
Here, Candidate A wins, even thouh the majority of people did not vote for him. The majority vote simply
Does Not Work in this inter-regional enviroment. Even if we assume some people DO vote for a candidate outside of their home region, the results will be largely similar.
Giving the president veto powers also isn't tyranny. The president doesn't have dictatorial powers over anyone; he has influence, but that's all.
Unnecessary Influence leads to dictatorships.
If the president vetoes something, it's only neutered if the bill is unpopular enough that too few people like it to override the veto, and that's beneficial because it means those that pass will be more appreciated.
You act if neutering a bill with enough majority to pass is a good thing. As for being beneficial, what? I'd imagine vetoes leading to legislation not passing would be incredibly frustrating for legislators.
Also, if the president vetoes something that had a lower majority vote than the required veto majority, that doesn't strictly mean anything; if someone really supports it, they have the ability to convince others. That's the entire point of debate--to morph opinions.
Under that logic anyone with a strong belief in something is charismatic enough to change the views of other people.
Furthermore, you seem to assume the president will veto everything--they aren't in office to stick their tongue out at the legislature. People elect them to work with the legislature, and nobody's going to vote for someone who's ridiculously stubborn.
So you admit the president has the capability to veto everything. The argument isn't
IF he will do it. The argument is that he should never have the power to do it in the first place
Now, third, saying that legislation would always be more popular without a veto power is rather illogical.
I don't recall saying anything of the sort, but the assumption that legislation would be more popular with a veto is infinitely more so.
Here's an example. Say a bill passed in the legislature with a 70% majority, but the president vetoes it. But then, the legislature votes 80% to override the veto; as a result, the bill will be supported by a higher percentage. But then, say, the legislature passes a bill with another 70% majority, and there's no president. That means that bill will only be supported by that 70%, not the 80% like with the veto power. Vetoes weed out the less-popular legislation and allow the better ones to pass.
Except you scenario makes no sense whatsoever. Where did that extra 10% come from? They were voting against the bill before but now they're supporting it?. Here's what actually happens: Bill passes with 70% majority. Bill gets vetoed. 70% who voted for the bill voted to overturn the veto. 30% that voted against the bill, vote against the veto. Veto sustained, bill neutered.
About cabals, again, nobody's going to elect someone who simply sits to toss legislation.
He's not going to toss ALL legislation, just the ones he and his allies disagree with.
You realize that voters have minds--if someone is trusted enough to earn the majority of over 200 people, he or she will be responsible enough to cooperate and work intelligently.
Someone that popular isn't going to form a coalition with a whole fifth of the legislature, and similarly, a whole fifth of the legislature isn't going to be underhanded slicks. They too are elected as popular nations, and if they're responsible enough to be placed into interregional office, they aren't going to form a cabal with the president to destroy legislation.
Because democratically elected presidents and legislators have always been responsible and uncorrupt. :roll:Just because they are popularly elected does not make them uncorruptable. See Appeal to Popularity.
Regarding password-protection, it isn't useless, actually, because the delegates have admin powers. While a permanent raid is impossible, sabotage raids are, which means the raiders come in and eject everyone from the region and ruin it until the founder logs on again. That can seriously harm a region, because not everyone will be active enough or caring enough to return after such an event. But, again, as mentioned, there is no need for the president to do this, as the individual regions can handle password-protection as described in the organization plan (which, if anyone wishes to read it, I will send it to them).
It's worthless to give to the president, and i was operating under the assumption to founders would log on quite regularly. I'll have a look, send it to me.
Lastly, the president isn't a representative. All the regions have their say in the legislature--that's what it is for. The president is designed to lead the collective group, not sit on each region.
The president represents the collective group, which is composed of the regions. Therefore, the president represents the regions.
I currently disagree with a council because it would take too long to act. And while the IWU is bigger than each of the sisters individually, that doesn't mean it's always going to have the presidency.
Yes, it does. See: The problem with proportional voting. I've explained this above.
That is for several reasons: first, the IWU has very few active members,
Activity is only high in the new regions because they are new. Activity will drop down to comparable levels soon enough.
second, by the time the interregional government is ready, the sister regions will rival its size (and the three combined will vastly outnumber the IWU).
There's no way to prove the first claim. As for the second one, I've already explained the problem with the voting structure above.
There is also the factor of competition--the whole point of an interregional government is to encourage the regions to work together. They aren't there to compete, to make their own region control the government. It's a union, and just because a president is from the IWU or INU doesn't mean the other regions will dislike them.
Of course it doesn't. However, who would you vote for: Someone you've known for months who you know well in your region, or some complete stranger in another?
An INU candidate, if he/she is dedicated, could easily earn the majority of the IWU votes, just like an IWU candidate could easily earn the majority in the INU.
This is factually untrue.
Proportional voting would be unfair because that would almost always mean a president elected who only actually earned 20% of the votes. That's despicable--THAT would be tyranny.
Hogwash. How would someone with only 20% of the vote become president under a proportional voting system? Unless, of course...One region will control an incredible majority of the voting population. Buuuuut of course you said that was impossible...
right?
With full interregional voting, someone could actually be elected whom the majority of people appreciated--a president with 70% of votes or so.
Thought experiment.
Region A has a voting population of 50.
Region B has a voting population of 45
Region C has a voting population of 40
Now let's assume that the regions vote mostly for the candidate originating from them. Region A will be able to control 100% of the members in the position (President) with 37% of the vote. This meaning 53% of the vote wanted someone else. Explain to me how this is democratic.