Per Decree N3, anyone who does not vote yes on the constitution on Unity Day will not receive citizenship and will be formally designated as second tier non-citizen Asgardians. What will you do if you want to vote no on the constitution?

There has been surprisingly little discussion regarding how ordinary legislation will be proposed, passed, and ratified. If we are to propose a viable constitution for ratification in June, we must first decide who will pass laws and how they will be ratified. For the poll, please pick the option you most favor or are most inclined to. In practice, most legislatures are mixed or hybrid systems. Please post your ideas on the best combination for discussion. Even among "pure" types, there are considerable variations, so please post your ideas on that, too. There are five broad types of legislative bodies: >Pure plebiscite systems (direct democracy) Under these systems, laws can only be passed by a vote of all citizens. Obviously, this is the most democratic system possible and as such highly desirable as a system on the face of it. When it works well, there is really nothing bad to say about it, unless you dislike democracy itself. Direct democracy is typically criticized for having poor scalability. The more voters there are, the longer it takes to conduct a referendum and the more costs are involved. The more voters there are, the more signatures must be collected to propose referendums, giving a natural advantage to the interested and wealthy. The main systemic problem of direct democracy is voter fatigue, which results in fewer total laws being voted on or a longer delay before a law is voted on. I am not aware of any pure plebiscite system that has ever been practiced with universal suffrage, but there have been many modified direct democracies or direct democracies with limited suffrage. Switzerland is the most famous example of the former, Athens is the most famous example of the latter. In general, direct democracies have become less common over time as the population has risen. Given the small size of Asgardia, direct democracy is less likely to have problems here than elsewhere. Please note that the other options do not exclude the possibility of holding referendums, nor does this option need to be fully "pure" and exclude a Swiss style direct democracy. >Cameral systems (republic) Under these systems, voters elect representatives to pass laws on their behalf at an assembly of representatives. These are typically described as indirect democracies, fundamentally undemocratic but with all authorization dependent on democratic processes. The major upside of republics is that laws tend to be written by semi-professional legislators, whose experience results in more easily executed and fairer laws with fewer unintended consequences. The administrative overhead of republics is also much lower and more laws can be considered more often, through regular meetings of the assembly. Republics are typically criticized for poor representation of individual voters' desires, corruption among representatives, and overrepresentation of the wealthy and influential, who tend to predominate representative offices. The additional power over the actual writing of legislation without popular "line-item veto" type accountability can serve to disenfranchise individual voters on controversial issues that can be passed with little discussion through amendments. Republics are by far the most common form of legislature, both currently and historically. There is also a great variety of republic types, varying on who can hold representative office, how representatives are elected, how many legislative bodies there are, and the scope of laws that the legislature is authorized to pass. Historically, the aristocratic tendencies of republics were an advantage, as few ordinary citizens were educated. >Commission systems (council) Under these systems, a small number of councilors are elected to pass legislation, often with limits on what they can propose. They are typically classified as a sub-type of republic or a variant on direct democracy, depending on the scope of the council's powers. Council meetings are held publicly and interested voters are encouraged to speak on legislation being considered or to propose new legislation for consideration. The main upside of council systems is that they are, in practice, hybrid systems. A legislative body exists to actually pass legislation, but individual voters have greater access to the small number of legislators, who are more accountable and more easily replaced. Town hall-style meetings are a common feature of council systems. Councils are often criticized for the same reason republics are, vulnerability to corruption, controversial legislation quietly passed, and aristocratic councilors. Councils are often criticized for some of the same reasons direct democracies, overrepresentation of interested and wealthy voters and lower individual voter participation as the population increases. Councils are the most common form of municipal governemnt and like republic come in a great variety of types, depending especially on their relation between the executive and legislature. >Executive decree systems (Dictatorship) Under these systems, the head of state simply declares laws by fiat. These are typically described as absolute monarchies or dicatorships. The main upside of these systems are their simplicity. The head of state can pass laws whenever they see fit and change them likewise. The obvious downside is that there is no room for democracy. The dictator can do as they please and public accountability tends to come in the form of extralegal actions, such as revolutions. Because so much power is invested in the executive, power struggles tend to be frequent, often including coups. Dictatorships are rare currently and have been uncommon historically due to their instability. This option is about dictatorships and absolute monarchies in particular, not monarchies in general. European monarchies, for example, typically had limited scope for royal decrees and a regular legislative body. >Tribal systems (constituencies) These systems originated with the Romans, who grouped voters into tribes for popular legislative assemblies. Each tribe holds a vote of all its members, then the tribe casts its vote for the majority opinion of the tribe, and the final vote is the tally of each tribe's vote. This system evolved into the modern constituency system, where voters are grouped into electoral regions rather than tribes. Typically, these systems are part of another legislative system for the election of representatives or for constituency specific referendums to enable regional autonomy. Constituency systems are meant to ease the problems of direct democracies (size scaling) without adding the problems of representative offices. The whole constituency votes on laws and agrees to any amendments, making public accountability mandatory. As noted, constituencies give greater flexibility for regional autonomy. In hybrid cameral-tribal legislatures, each representative is elected by a constituency which then has the sole authority to demand their recall. Constituency systems tend to be more politically stable and conservative (in the non-partisan sense). Constituency systems primary weakness is gerrymandering of one sort or another. Because each vote only matters within a constituency, a majority of voters may support a particular law, while a majority of constituencies oppose it. Intentionally skewing of constituencies is the most common reason for gerrymandering, but it's an inherent problem for these systems regardless, as demographics shift and people move. Constituencies are generally designed to have similar sizes, but natural migration patterns inevitably result in some constituencies being larger than others and in regional constituency systems, large cities tend to have more constituency votes than other regions but paradoxically fewer constituencies per voter. In the form of regional constituencies, these systems are practically ubiquitous today. The Roman system of tribal constituencies was more common historically and existed in at least a limited form in almost all governments with some kind of voting. Please note that picking the other options do not exclude the possibility of constituencies as a component of other systems. The Swiss direct democracy system includes regional constituencies through the canton system, for example. >Other (Experimental) Many, many experimental legislatures have been proposed by numerous people throughout history. Some have been tried for short periods, in limited forms, or for NGOs. They are as diverse as human thought. Some examples I've seen on the Asgardia forum include holacracy, pantisocracy, anarcho-syndicalism, voluntaryism, and anarcho-capitalism. The upsides of experimental system depends on the particular virtues of the particular system. The downsides are likewise specifically dependent on the system, but it should be noted that experimental systems tend to suffer from a lack of public confidence, due to their experimental nature. Experimental systems are common, though generally short lived, throughout history. >Discussion How do you want the laws of Asgardia to be decided? Try to imagine a real world situation we will face on Asgardia, how do you want to solve the problem? Will you think of a solution yourself and begin collecting signatures for a petition or sign someone else's petition and wait a month or more for a vote to be held and hope the consensus is the right answer? Will you write your representative and urge them to vote for your preferred solution and hope they do? Will you attend a council meeting and speak in front of everyone with your idea of how to fix it and hope people agreen with you? Will you wait for the leader to simply fix the problem themself? Will you meet with the members of your community to decide on a solution, then carry that to a meeting of communities and hope the consensus is the right one?

I didn't see a thread to discuss Dr. A's press releases today congratulating President Berdimuhamedow on his re-election as President of Turkmenistan and Mr. Steinmeier on his election as President of Germany. May we continue to establish and maintain friendly relations with all the nations of Earth!

One of the goals of Asgardia is peace in space, leaving the conflicts of the earth on earth. One way to ensure this is to have the constitution require to Asgardia to remain formally neutral in military conflicts. Normal legislation can also accomplish this, but constitutional provisions are harder to change by design. What is the consensus of Asgardians? Does anyone have any arguments against constitutional neutrality? Against neutrality in general?

This is a discussion meant for how the basic structure of the government of Asgardia will be organized. Our founder Dr. Ashurbeyli has proposed at minimum some form of democracy and a variety of ministries with specified areas of functional responsibility. This strikes me as reasonable and this seems to be the consensus of the Asgardians on the forum as well. How these ministries will work is less clear. I propose we decide on a simple question to give a direction to these discussions. How does a minister become a minister? >1) Ministers are appointed by another authority. >2) Ministers are elected. The first option leaves the possibility for a strong executive government, a strong legislature government, or a balance between both. This is the most common structure of terrestrial national governments. The second option leaves the possibility for more direct democracy by allowing voting on specific policy areas and combined with a referendum system does not necessarily need a legislative body. This is a common structure of terrestrial municipal governments. Neither options rules out having ministries led by committees which could potentially include both elected and appointed positions.

This forum format is frustrating to try and carry a debate with. Unless you have someone comment directly to you. It's hard to keep track of things. Probably one of the most irritating formats when I am enjoying the dialog. Not trying to be rude, just find it quite limitating to have a decent debate. *** **MOD EDIT** The location of this post has been moved from *[... General | Off Topic ]* to *[... News and Announcements | Feedback ]* - *Jason Rainbow 13 January 2017 @ 03:10 am*

Matrix is a new communication/chat platform that is federated. It uses p2p connected servers to share information across a single global network. The advantage of p2p networks in relation to space is that we can have the same network span multiple planets and space stations rather than being bound to a specific data centre on earth.