Cap 26, 00 / Dec 27, 16 09:07 UTC

Re: [Official Post] Writing a valid Constitution : Step 2 - Type of Government  

A Democratic Technocracy would be the perfect scenary.

Leaders are elected by the people, but for those to be candidates, they have to show excelence in its field.

Cap 26, 00 / Dec 27, 16 19:16 UTC

I just have to say this, Winston Churchill, said one time "Democracy it is the worst government system, except for all the others", what I'm trying to say is that some people things democracy is bad because necessarily means corruption or things like that, but that is a consecuence from a bad education, people on elections is engaged for vote because doesn't know how to recognize real information and trash information, we have to make all that is possible on educate on the right form all our people to prevent this, additional to this, we have to do something with the media, we have to control it, for prevent trash information, each media take party and tell things as they want, so we have to make something with that without restrict their freedom

Cap 26, 00 / Dec 27, 16 21:53 UTC

In my opinion, a good government would be a democratic technocracy in which voters* vote for laws, proposed by a for a certain time (like 1 year) elected group of experts(which exist per ministry) or a document written by any voter* that has been signed by a significant percentage (like 30%) of citizens.

  • A voter would be a citizen with a basic amount of knowledge about the current situation, what is about to be changed and every outcome's effects in the future. The person in question should be tested before every voting / document proposal.( Yes, this implies that every citizen wanting to vote has to be evaluated before said person is allowed to vote, but i believe that letting only people with understanding of the situation vote is a very big improvement over the traditional democracy!)

Cap 27, 00 / Dec 28, 16 01:38 UTC

Yo voto por gobierno parlamentaria Cuyo parlamento elija un primer ministro y este designe a los ministro, con posibilidad de juicios por el parlamento a partir del segundo del mandato, juicios por los tribunales en el momento que el tribunal apruebe y con un periodo de 4 años a 5 años.

El sistema de elección seria dependiendo del país que provenga calculado por la población y se base en un porcentaje, que el parlamento secione virtualmente o de forma presencial y emitan un voto secreto y directo, así se respeta la opinión de cada parlamentario y su voto no tendrá que ir contra sus ideales al ser secreto.

I vote for parliamentary government Whose parliament chooses a prime minister and this designates the minister, with possibility of judgments by the parliament from the second of the mandate, trials by the courts at the time the court approves and with a period of 4 years to 5 years.

The system of election would be depending on the country that comes from the population calculated and based on a percentage, that the parliament will be virtually or face-to-face, and issue a secret and direct vote, thus respecting the opinion of each parliamentarian and his / Will have to go against their ideals to be secret.

Cap 27, 00 / Dec 28, 16 15:22 UTC

The roles of civil service are specialty unto themselves. The organization and management of a population's needs requires a large amount of sociological and logistical expertise. I would recommend a merging system wherein a given government post has a group of 3 individuals associated with it. 1. A democratically elected Delegate to represent the will of the Asgardian people. Preferably a delegate with limited authority who must ratify their decisions with their represented body. 2. An Expert in the field governed by the post, appointed democratically by their peers without executive power but with power to veto a proposal of the delegate on grounds of negative impact or running counter to scientific consensus. 3. A bureaucratic expert to provide logistical support to the delegate and the expert with the obligation to provide logistical projections to ascertain the viability of a Delegate proposal and the responsibility to organize such efforts should a proposal be ratified into law.

The Delegate would be a term limited position with a maximum number of terms allowed to prevent popular support from transforming their position into one with executive power. Likewise, the Expert and the Bureaucratic appointee should have the power to jointly call for a recall election should they believe the Delegate is behaving as a bad actor and ignoring repercussions and logistics. The Expert would not be term limited but a 1/3 consensus of experts in his field could call for a new appointment to be voted upon no more than once annually unless they can demonstrate negligence in duty. The Delegate and Bureaucratic expert can also request a new appointment if they believe the Expert is not acting within the scientific consensus but must accept the new appointee for at least a single Delegate term. The Bureaucratic expert would be a career civil servant who is appointed due to his familiarity in the field. His lack of executive power should mean term limits and re-appointments are largely unnecessary but the Delegate and Expert jointly should have the power to request a different appointee from a central bureaucracy should they believe they are not fulfilling their duty in good faith.

By splitting responsibility and power in this way we can prevent popularity from allowing an elected official to become an effective executive actor while still executing the duties of the office with a firm knowledge they are not making these decisions without expert advice from as unbiased sources as are available. It also allows for removing of appointees and delegates when needed without allowing any of the three to "stack" the office in their favor.

Cap 27, 00 / Dec 28, 16 22:12 UTC

Na verdade penso que todos os modelos tem suas fraquezas, e consequentemente por mais criativos e inteligentes que sejamos não criaremos um sistema nem próximo da perfeição, desse modo talvez possamos unificar os pontos fortes de cada um dos tipos de governos existente e buscar criar um sistema mais justo e igualitário, onde qualquer Asgardiano possa contribuir com seus conhecimentos, o mais importante é que tenhamos um educação ética e política para que nosso Governo prospere.

Funções políticas ao meu ver não devem ser carreiras, mas sim contribuições ao Governo, e após tê-lo realizado há a necessidade de ceder espaço a outro para que com a devida competência exerça sua contribuição, portanto dizer que A é mais capacitado que B é totalmente relativo, ter diplomas, MBA, Doutorados e PHDs não transformam pessoas ruins em boas, ou vice-versa, logo de que adianta uma pessoa altamente educada cujos pensamentos e atitudes são facilmente corrompidos pelo poder?

Se queremos igualdade, há a necessidade de termos possibilidades iguais de contribuir; o mais importante é educar nesse sentido para que nossos cidadães possam escolher seus representantes da forma mais apropriada possível, tendo sempre em vista o bem estar, união e paz.

Cap 27, 00 / Dec 28, 16 22:59 UTC

I like the idea of some kind of democracy, leaning towards either technocracy or similar. However if we could at least have an expert as an assistant of some kind to make sure that the voted in person is making informed decisions with regards to things. Another way it could work is to have a panel of experts that are either consulted or put forward their opinions on how things should work?

Cap 27, 00 / Dec 28, 16 23:19 UTC

Definitely a DEMOCRACY, why? Very easy: Asgardia is a new state which is based humanitary reasons. Maybe a democracy won't always choose the "right" thing, however, it's what the citizenship wants. Why should I enter in a absolutly new country when neither me or the other citizens can choose how THEIR country has to be. If we give the power of our nation to one man, because he has worked strong, it will slowly become into a dictatorship, and we will never get rid of it, because as long as this person rules, he will slowly have "worked harder", juts because he has been a lot of time in power, lets say 4 years, but then, because of it, he would be "re-elected" (no one would vote him, because it wouldn't be a democracy).

Therefore, a democracy makes the country the way that its citizens want, maybe it isn't the very best, but the majority will like the way it will be.

Cap 28, 00 / Dec 29, 16 02:05 UTC

I'm not an expert at all, but I feel that EDD (Electronic Direct Democracy) would be great, it is not implemented in any country at the moment but there are some countries trying to get to this approach, why not be ourselfs the first on implementing it? I feel it is just in the line with Asgardia.

For people that do not know what is pure/direct democracy (Its quite better explained than how I would explain it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8vVEbCquMw (Video 1: nice introduction, you can get to video 2 though) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoP_mSIHqTY (Video 2: explains direct democracy)

Note: its in spanish, but has subtitles in several languages.

Some more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Basically, it would give the power to all the Asgardians instead of a group of people that just makes promises (removing the political parties from Asgardia).

Cap 28, 00 / Dec 29, 16 02:16 UTC

As for what SirCedric posted, I understand that having those few in the power just to keep all going feels like the way to go. But we are not conquerors, we don't want to be the future super power nation. So we don't need people that want us to go to one direction or to another. I feel that the best option is that all of us decide in what is the best for us all.

"SirCedric : I´ll propose that all decisions made by a member of the Asgardia government can be opposed if at least 100 citizen sign against this decision. In this case(at least if it´s something really urgent) this decision is suspended until it will by submitted to general vote of every Asgardia willing to vote, and confirm or suppressed after the vote. If it´s an urgent decision it stays until the vote. The 100 signatures of citizen to stand against a decision must be collected within a month after the publication of the decision. The vote in favour or against the decision will be summoned by the citizen who has made the petition to collect signature against the mentioned decision, not before one month after collecting the 100th signature, and not after 3 month after the 100th signature.

A member of the government whose more than 20% of decisions are suppressed by popular vote may be immediately proposed for dismissal by a group of 100 citizen or more, using the same procedure that the one used for the decisions."

I like both ideas, I would just change the size of the voters to vary depending on population (not a static % but it should vary, as only 100 people from who we are at the moment feels correct (thinking about people active and readers of the forum), but for 500.000 its to small.

I really want quotes to be enabled here...

Cap 28, 00 / Dec 29, 16 05:49 UTC

I definitely think all of us deciding our fate will prevent us simply becomming a parody of the fallicies that have infected Earth's political systems. They concentrate too much on controlling their populous.

A fixed percentage is sensible, as the actual number required scales with the population. 100/100,000 is an alarmingly low number, less than 1%. 60% would require 60,000 people to have an issue with it - and 60,000/100,000 disagreeing with something might suggest there's something wrong somewhere. And when after June this becomes 600,000+ then 100 is an even stupider number. I'm not suggesting the percentage be 60, just that it's clearly the majority.

Cap 29, 00 / Dec 30, 16 22:36 UTC

First off, I would like to introduce myself. I am Isabela Rocha, a bachelorette of social studies at Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), majoring at Political Science. My favored subjects are in the areas of Economics and Politics, and as such, I tend to have a materialistic (dialetical materialism) view on science.

Considering materialism, I advocate for the system I believe the fairest way of governing: A Worker's Direct Democracy.

Starting from the functioning of Society, people tend to have tastes and habilitites. Some people enjoy making art, music, dancing. Others like the idea of raising buildings, planes. Others like to study languages, write and read. Others enjoy studying people, psychology. What is common to all these people, to all human in general is their hability to transform the world around them, to work. Work, as we understand in the materialistic view of science, is transformation, the human hability we have of making something turn into another entirely new, and of meaning, use to us. Our hability to transform the world around us - to work - is what makes us human.

Considering that, and that all sort of work is valid, I advocate for Workers Councils. The artist together deciding what is best to them. The engneers and constructors. Teachers, writers, psychologists, academics and so on. These Councils would ellect people among them to represent them in The Worker Council, in a fair, direct democracy. In order for this system to work, we would need to:

  1. Identify all materialistics sources of work.
  2. Organize Workers Councils from working groups.
  3. The Workers Councils would ellect a number of delegates (that could be stripped of their position and replaced at any moment) to The Worker Council.
  4. At the Worker Countil, decisions would be made, but entirely public for the world to see. In adittion, these delegates would have to write summaries to the ones on their originary Councils.

I believe this system, while not entirely developed in one forum thread, to be the fairest when regarding a good handle of sociaty and means.

Thank you.

Cap 30, 00 / Dec 31, 16 17:07 UTC

Sounds remarkably similar, albeit with different terminologies, to a loose structure I'd proposed...

The existing ministerial structure remaining loosely in order to sectionalise, but forming councils comprised of anyone willing to attend - then the role of the ministers would be akin to that of mods in forums. Keeping conversation on topic and towards productive means. An adjudicator ensuring productive conversation, and in cases where no clear agreements can be reached, the arbiter of the ultimate decision. Topics can be discussed for a fixed period of time - say for sake of argument 30 days - in the case of non-emergency issues with emergency issues having the longest sensible window, and where immediate action is required to prevent loss of life etc, the minister making the descision on behalf of the group with further review by the relevent council at the earliest practical time. I would further envision an additional layer, an "Asgardian high council" (quite how to decide who these are I haven't lent much thought, beyond Igor should get himself a permanent position). Their purpose is to function as another layer of appeal in various applicable cases, but primarilly to facilitiate interactions betweeen the ministries - each high council member having one to focus on, knowing what they're working on preventing conflicts of interest between the ministries and deciding generally deciding what each individual ministry should be working on next - potentially deciding from accepted proposals submitted by the community as a whole, leaving the ministries themselves - and by extension the greater populous - to sort it out themselves between themselves - put forwards their ideas, argue the merits for and against for various presented solutions until the point of vote.

Or am I mis-interpreting something? It was just the first way I'd considered to apply such in a "fair" manner, allowing all to take part both in the descision process and the "practical work" involved that seems at least on outset to adress the four points you'd raised? Apart from summeries suggested in point 4, it doesn't directly reference that, but such is an easy addition(hence only the most loose of structure defined, plenty of room for adjustments to suit). The only major difference I see in the two suggestions being point 3, where instead of elections all can become delegates, if they so choose. This will allow maximum utilisation of relevant experiences, skills, and other suitable features our population can provide. Once the skillset DB is searchable, this will allow for various ministries(or indeed, private projects and other initatives) to invite relevantly qualified (through acedemic studies or "real world" application) to assist in applicable ventures, ensuring sanity and practicality to solutions manifested.

Cap 30, 00 / Dec 31, 16 21:21 UTC

Good day Asgardians,

If you want the best he can be bad. If you want the smartest he can be bad. If you want who you chose, you can only blame yourself.

Now... 2 parties is just madness and 30 is to much. It should be proportionate to the amount of people, that will secure that parties leaders secure deals for their parties, collaboration is always the way to go.

Have a nice day,

Aqu 01, 01 / Jan 1, 17 05:21 UTC

I am in favor of a democratic government where all the AdGardians can postulate, but that there are no political parties, friendships and relations between politicians plug and grow corruption.

To be able to make my proposal, all Asgardians must be educated.