[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]Living in northern Ireland has taught me that at the very least. Families of victims of sectarian attacks here now often call for no retaliation now to stop the opposing faction from using the incident as an excuse.

Very brave of them IMHO.
[/color]

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
This is why the Veto thing should be altered...

I mean France, China and Russia, who also have this Veto thingy voted for... shouldn't that be made so that the veto was denied?

Wouldn't be much of a veto if someone could de-veto it

I find it interesting that the same nation that complained about France and Russia using their vetos in the matter on the war in Iraq suddenly feels it's okay to use theirs here.

[Grey Wolf]

Realistically, the veto system should be removed from the UN. The UN could also use a bit of an overhaul, due to the changing world climate and some of the attributes of the body. For example, should San Marino get the same vote in the General Assembly as China, considering the fact that you could probably fit 4000 San Marinos in China, both population-wise and area-wise?

[Rictor]

One country, one vote. You vote, and if the resolution doesn't pass with 65% support, you can go **** yourself.

Simple. Thats my overhaul, but you know, I doubt anyone from the UN posts of HLP.

[an0n]

Politics is more damaging to humanity than any dictatorship ever was.

[Bobboau]

but then you have the problem of some East Temor sized contry caceling out a contry like China (then China nukes East Temor <-joke), unless you quantify a contries power importance and weight there vote by that, a simply one contry one vote system cannot work.

[Rictor]

Well, that same principle could be applied to national voting. So, who is "more important"?

So, the guy with more money  gets 3 votes? Or if his daddy is a congressman, he gets 5? Or if he has exceptional genes he gets 4? or if his highschool makrs average 96%, he gets 2 votes? You see the problem. There will always be someone who claims that they are more important.

No, one country one vote. The reason you are in favour of this system is obviously becuase you live in the US and you would naturally be considered more "important" and therefor be allowed more votes. One country, one vote, same as in any true democracy in the world.

[Grey Wolf]

At the same time, you (Rictor) are stating that San Marino deserves 0.0004 votes per capita, whereas China only deserves 0.0000000008 votes per capita. Why should the citizens of San Marino deserve to have each of their voices counted 500000 times as much as the citizens of China?

[Ghostavo]

The best system would be one citizen, one vote (as in the citizens themselves voting and not their representatives). But that's not possible so... the next best thing is me taking charge of the wor... er... whatever Grey Wolf 2009 said.

[Ace]

Or how about make it even simpler. Remove nation states from the equation.

One human being, one vote.

No representatives, all direct elections on all policies regarding governance. Now possible through the magic of advanced telecommunications technology and designing redundant systems to prevent tampering.

Sounds like anarchy? Yes, but with all of the dissenting opinions and even organized groups canceling out one another a concensus will be reached.

The threat of parties conglomerating for a larger power bloc does not exist as in a republic, as the citizens directly vote on the issues if you try to have groups with conflicting views align (i.e. uniting laissez-faire economists, theocrats, and libertarians as an example) to enforce a handful of goals they'll be slowly torn apart by internal inconsistencies in the members voting over time, (i.e. the libretarians might agree with less trade regulations, but disagree with a state religion, etc.) leading to the collapse of these groups.

[Ghostavo]

That's what I was talking about... it is not possible...

[Grey Wolf]

A world ruled by internet voting. This could have good and bad consequences.
Good: Everyone actually gets their voice heard.
Bad: Everyone actually gets their voice heard.

[Ghostavo]

"Election were canceled due to spam, please try again next year!"

[Rictor]

Actually the next best thing is Sweden. Esentially, they hold a referendum for each big issue and let the people represent themselves.

However, there are two things standing in the way of such a system being implemented worldwide.

1. Voter apathy. That, and the complete lack of education and knowledge on issues of importance. You can't have someone voting on whether or not to attack Iraq if they can't even find it on the map, nor do they know anything about the circumstances or history of the conflict.

2. The politicians wouldn't allow it. They're nice and confortable, not to mention powerful, in the current system. This method would take away most of their power, so they would not allow it.


_____

Greywolf: good point. But basing it on population almost guarantees that the people who are least educated get the most power. Face facts; countries with huge opulations such as China or India rarely bother to educate their citizens, and would therefore represent the most powerful and yet least competent voting block. The same is true for the US, though their population is not that large, the people are not very educated.

[Grey Wolf]

An example of internet government:

Proposition 419:
End world hunger by diverting defense funds. Yes/No
Proposition 420:
End tax shelters. Yes/No
Proposition 421:
D00D, 1 H4><0R3D 7H3 G0\/3RNM3N7!!!!!!!! Yes/No

[Ace]

Originally posted by Rictor
1. Voter apathy. That, and the complete lack of education and knowledge on issues of importance. You can't have someone voting on whether or not to attack Iraq if they can't even find it on the map, nor do they know anything about the circumstances or history of the conflict.

2. The politicians wouldn't allow it. They're nice and confortable, not to mention powerful, in the current system. This method would take away most of their power, so they would not allow it.

True, such a system would require some radical education reform throughout the globe, taking assets from the systems that create the best products. (i.e. little to no functional illiteracy, etc.)

As for point #2, that's why you have an asteroid conveniently hit the Earth at some point. Errmm... I didn't say that out loud did I?

It was an act of god I swear! Repent! Repent! The end came and passed! Repent!

[Bobboau]

not to mention the fact that only Europe and America have any signifigant portion of there population haveing access to the internet.

Originally posted by Rictor
The reason you are in favour of this system is obviously becuase you live in the US and you would naturally be considered more "important" and therefor be allowed more votes. One country, one vote, same as in any true democracy in the world.

if my system were to be implemented the US would have less power than it currently does (within international legislation), there would be no veto, and no security councle, no way for the US to preasure a hand full of nations and get what it wants. I cannot beleve you actualy think that giveing the bazillions of small island nations with populations of 400 and the industrial capasity of a mom and pop cafe shop (and the military capasity of one) the same say in international law as the US, China, France, the UK, Japan, ect, is a good idea, or an implementable one.
think about it, China, 1 _BILLION_ people (more than that actualy) an army of 2.5 million, a GDP of $1.414 trillion, you are telling me that China should have the same say in international pollicy as... Bhutan, a contry haveing with a population of 600,000 people, GDP of $2.7 billion (not bad given there size), and a standing army of a wopping 6,000. how the **** is that suposed to work or be fair? how the hell do you expect China to stand for that, let alone the rest of the powerful nations of the world? the simple fact of the matter is not every nation in the world is equal, becase some nation are big and huge and other nations are four people on a tropical island, nations are colections of people if two nations unite (at the political level, become one nation) why is it that all of the sudden the people of the now one nation have colectivly half the international legislateive power than before? (this is not something that could be scaled down to an individual, the best you could probly do is break it down to cities or provences) You can _not_ tell me, unsarcasticly, that you honestly beleve that.
haveing the nations of the world representing there populations proportanately, and giveing weight to how well you can ether **** up or enrich the world, is the only way that a international legislative procces can work. (short of direct referendum, wich would negate national governments to an extent (and I'm not implying that's a bad thing, just makeing an observation))

[Rictor]

First of all Bob, this is a bit surprising comming from you. I would have thought you would be a great supporter of Empire, not phrased in such terms of course.

Alright, number one, not as many "poor" nations are as technologically backwards as you may think. Take for example cell phones. Nations much less prosperous than the US have a much higher percentage of the population owning mobile phones. The same is true, though to a lesser extent, for Internet access. Not that Internet access is totally necessary, it just makes the whole process easier. Direct government, or something between direct government and what we have now, could be carried out the same way that traditional voting is carried out, only more often.

The main thing here is not the technical details of registering the vote, though that is important, but rather the political and social literacy of the people voting.

Such indicators as literacy, attendance of postsecondary education and forth, while good general indiactors, do not directly judge a person's awareness and comprehension of the issues being asked. Thats why I think that political/cultural/philosophic education ought to take a far greater role in a young person's upbringing than it does today. Sure, math is important and blah blah blah, but people need to be aware of the how the world and its people function.

And, as I said, the population/international representation thing is valid, I spoke too soon.

[Ghostavo]

China has 1/5th of the world's population... India has 1/6th... put them both together, and whoever is in charge will rule the world.

[aldo_14]

**** it... i'm moving to the Moon. Oh crap!  So's Bush *grumblegroumble*