Everyone! It seems a new draft may be very close at hand. I've been told this is a proposal for the constitution and at a quick glance, it seems to address many of our concerns. I'm curious of others opinions, however so please let the others and myself know. :)

The link: https://github.com/lorezyra/Asgardia.Government/blob/master/Asgardia%20Constitution%20-%20Proposal.pdf

Skieswanna couldn't a Technocratic government be geared to incorporate a democratic process? For instance, civic control over social policy and open job interviews. With these adaptations, a Technocratic government would be natural to Asgardia. 

@skieswanne
Precisely. However, in the case of technocracy, there's a problem: the guys who occupy the seat of power are the very same guys who decide who's "qualified" to succession.
There's a major conflict of interest.

But I hope that, into a technocracy, there should be "other ways" (parameters? formulas? "objective items") to "decide who will be in charge": if not, we'll not have a technocracy but an oligarchy (still better than a monarchy, anyway ;-)).

To me seems strange, the question itself about a form of government.

October 2017, in which the authors of the project Asgardia want to launch their first satellite is not only the 60th anniversary of the first satellite, but also the 100th anniversary of the October revolution, the anti-monarchist at first, and in my understanding of one event is the direct consequence of the other. Why pull out the light openly reactionary?

But for nookratic technocracy – to avoid perspectives of the usurpation of power by techno-oligarchy, as in the novel "Aelita" by Alexei Tolstoy, 1927 (there is Martian Supreme government structure called the Supreme Council of Engineers, and in fact a dynastic autocracy with elements of theocracy), to make some additions to the procedure for the selection of candidates for responsible positions. In addition to the previously mentioned IQ and the factor of competence, they need to determine another indicator. Let's call it, for example, "coefficient of altruism". 

There are already many studies of these factors, including their genetic sources (meadow and steppe voles, hamsters now, it seems, and people allocated to certain groups of genes). But the rules of the game of Asgardia people cannot be discriminated against for an innate genetic (i.e., independent of their conscious choice) featured. Remain the results of computer psychological testing. 

For a candidate for the position of Asgardia objectively a certain ratio of "altruism/selfishness" in an obvious way should be more than 1.0.

Otherwise you will get an usurpation of power clever scoundrels, from which it will be very difficult to get rid of legitimate ways. So, one of the most famous swindlers of the late XX – early XXI century, Boris Berezovsky, was formerly known mathematician, academician of the USSR. Such people are easy to pass any formal technocratic criteria, but then they will destroy and plunder everything that is possible, in their own interests.

@Dmitry Novoseltsev ++1
I would add the (at least) yearly verification that the Coefficient of Altruism remains the same or even improves.
I know, from the games' theory, the best way to subdivide something valuable between two persons is:

1. one of two "cuts" (makes the parts)
2. the other choose first

is there something similar to apply, which bypasses subjectivity and objectivity also, to calculate the CoA?

Hello friends of Asgardia

I have been surprised by this group of discussion about something as strange as a government of parliamentary monarchy or a republic, etc. What has happened to everyone? Has not he learned the lesson yet? Are we going to make the same mistakes as in the earthly past? Asgardia is a country that is projected towards the future, not towards the past. We can not waste time debating the systems of government that we know on earth and that are a failure because they only look for the privileges of a minority, leaving the weakest without protection. No and a thousand times no. That is over, in Asgardia we have to invent a new political system that is tailor made for our country. From here I propose to you to debate about the philosophy of power. The misuse of power when it is in the hands of a person or a few. Power corrupts and therefore my first proposal to debate is not to allow power to concentrate on a single person or a small group of privileged. An old idea and more or less applied in a few Countries is to govern the state by means of an assembly, whose president will fatten the country for a period of six months and whose election will be rotated in an assembly of twelve members. In this assembly must be represented at least two-thirds of the electorate, so that even if won by an absolute majority a political faction will not be able to hoard the seats of the assembly of government. And so an equitable and just government could be structured. I have more ideas on this but I leave them for another occasion. Translated by Google.

Hola amigos de Asgardia
Me ha sorprendido este grupo de discusión sobre algo tan extraño como un gobierno de monarquía parlamentaria o una república etc. ¿Que les pasa a todo el mundo?¿Es que no ha aprendido la lección todavía? ¿Es que vamos a cometer los mismos errores que en el pasado terrestre? Asgardia es un país que se proyecta hacia el futuro, no hacia el pasado. No podemos perder el tiempo debatiendo sobre los sistemas de gobierno que conocemos en la tierra y que son un fracaso porque solo miran por los privilegios de una minoría, dejando sin amparo a los más débiles. No y mil veces no. Eso se acabó, en Asgardia hemos de inventar un nuevo sistema político que sea a medida para nuetro país. Desde aquí les propongo debatir sobre la filosfía del poder. Del mal uso que se hace del poder cuando está en manos de una persona o de unos pocos. El poder corrompe y por ello mi primera propuesta para debatir será no permitir que el poder se concentre en una sola persona o un pequeño grupo de privilegiados. Una idea vieja y que más o menos se aplica en unos pocos paises es gobernar al estado mediante una asamblea, cuyo presidente gorbenará el país pòr un periodo de seis meses y cuya elección será rotativa en una asamblea de doce miembros. En esa asamblea deberán estar representados al menos dos tercios del electorado, de manera que aunque gane por mayoría absoluta una facción política no podrá acaparar los escaños de la asamblea de gobierno. Y así podría estructurarse un gobierno equitativo y justo. Tengo más ideas al respecto pero las dejo para otra ocasión. Traducido por Google.

Why a monarchy? I would have agreed with a dictatorship,  but i cannot agree with a monarchy,  because monarchies are hereditary,  and if there's one thing that can destroy a nation,  it's concentration of power in the hands of one family. 

Attention authors! 

I'm glad some comments from participants of the forum introduced in the latest version of the Constitution. 

 Still, I urge the authors to change the archaic "kingdom" to neutral "state" (as in the first Russion text: "государство" now is "state", not "kingdom"; in old Russion only was "государство - государь" as "kingdom - king"). 

At first, the "Space Kingdom" sounds absolutely ridiculous (as "Star Wars" ect.). "Space State" is quite convincing, especially because the abbreviation SSA can mean both "Space State of Asgardia" and "Space society of Asgardia". 

And secondly, "kingdom" by definition, implies the presence of the "king". The Head of the Nation elected by universal referendum and which is re-elected every 5 years - definitely not "king" in the classical sense. 

Rights and duties of the Head of the Nation is already sufficiently detailed in the relevant section of the text.

 I hope that the authors will hear me and react. 

Thank you.

Like I said in the past, when you asked for our feedback that you ignored, I cannot vote to accept a Constitutional Monarchy. Monarchy is an outdated and dangerous concept, and to have it from the start in the Constitution is unacceptable. And you even put in Article 32.4. "the Head of Nation nominates a candidate for the position of Head of Nation on a hereditary". Really? The hereditary model was abandoned because it led to wars and dictatorships. You should consult some historians about why the Monarchy is a bad choice. I will not sign.

I have a Masters in International Relations. Posting a wikipedia article about Constitutional Monarchy does not impress me at all. I stand by what I said. 

From what I understand, the post of "head of nation" is a 5 yr position. Or am I mistaken? There are no other references to the length of service other than 32.2. Plus the wording of article 32.4 seems to be in reference to the retirement of an individual, not the 5 yr point.  

>> "One year prior to reaching the age limit or in the event of a voluntary resignation". 

At which point 3 people are put up for nomination, one of these being the hereditary nominee. I do agree that a "king" is an outdated title, but in the draft there was mention that the title would depend upon who they were dealing with.... i.e. talking to the US they would be referred to as President, The UK as King etc (or so I believed). This passage has subsequently been removed from the new constitution, unless I've missed it.  

@skieswanne(Asgardian) on 8 June 2017, 10:20 a.m.

I can respect your point about groups that will attempt to protect their interests. However, I anticipated this by adding term limits to all positions but the Parliament. However, I'm open to limiting them too.

@ Xaphyr(Asgardian) on 9 June 2017, 11:01 a.m.

... You are getting caught up in this irrational fear that a group of scientists is more susceptible to corruption than a group of politicians. It is definitely arguable that it is, in fact, the other way around.

While I applaude your optimism in believing that scientist are not as susceptible to corruption and power-hunger, we must be reminded how easily the human psychology has the social inclination to exploit one's status. As such, we cannot allow ourselves to believe that Scientist, however good intentioned they are... do and will become corrupted by power. 

I'm glad to see your support of Technocracy. I, too, believe it has a great future if we should ever found a nation upon it's principles. You may be interested to know that the "Devil's Advocate" in me is the reason I have placed term limits to prevent such consolidations of power within my proposed constitution.

@ Phicksur(Asgardian) on 9 June 2017, 11:26 a.m.

Why not have a 'required dissident', then, in any technocratic decision?
The premise is when a decision is made, one person who disagreed with the majority is thereby tasked (and minimally funded) with testing the failing view. In essence, regardless of which view is agreed upon as the 'correct' view, the primary alternate view will also be investigated. If the alternate view is determined to be false, then the matter can be settled once and for all. If the alternative view is determined to be true, however, then it should be put forth to a new vote with the new information.

I like your idea. I should have it incorporated, somehow, into my proposal. It follows the scientific method and ideas.

@skieswanne(Asgardian) on 9 June 2017, 7:09 p.m.

... the guys who occupy the seat of power are the very same guys who decide who's "qualified" to succession. There's a major conflict of interest. 

In the case of my proposed Democratic Technocracy, the Council is appointed by citizens of Parliament. They are rotated out by the Parliament. They have limited terms. Can you show me how that could be improved?