I'm not sure which type of government we should use. I mean Golden's system is kind of limited after a while, and there are no classes which we rank our members as. I believe the one I presented effectively deals with the problem, because if the leader gets out of hand, one of the philosopher princes can aid them. I also believe a class system of grading members is needed to help promote eagerness and vigor to our alliance. Members will strive to become an adept of our Alliance. We could offer rewards for being a higher rank. If you did not see my previous system, here it is. Don't forget you can vote about it in the forum.
1. President Sanctimonia (leader, decides most foreign affairs, aid, "universal" tech-deals)
2. Philosopher Princes (three, in essence the legislation. They can over-rule the president on a 2/3 basis)
3. Minister of
-Recruitment (handles recruitment technique and officers)
-Commerce (handles trade, as well as aid to other nations)
-Foreign Affairs (handles all problems dealing foreign nations, including war)
-Technology (handles tech deals and helps other members make them)
-Interstate Affairs (Handles problems between alliance states, judicial leader)
4. Adept of the Z.A.W. (advanced member, can hold officer position)
5. Acolyte (basic member, can hold officer position
6. Initiate (new member)
7. Honorary Members (a friend from a different alliance)
I also believe a continuous system of voting is the best way to solve the voting procedure problem. Even though, as Golden said, we would have to monitor it, I believe once we grow to a sufficient size, then that would not be a problem, for we would have a dedicated team of people at our side.
EDIT: Also, a commentary about ranks. I believe that we should not give all the higher (in power) ranked people the higher ranks in our system. It is only appropiate to judge the nation on their ability to govern, (good choices, not war-frenzy or stagnant), senority,and participation within the alliance itself. For a person with higher power could be a person that just is powerful from a deal, and not mature in the inside.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just to clarify, I didn't actually create a system of government. I just listed some ideas that some people gave me. Regarding different levels of government, this could be a good idea in the future when we have like 30 members. Currently, there is not much need for it though. Again, the continous system of voting wouldn't be practical because than people could change their vote whenever they want. This could create confusion as we could have people constantly changing their vote, creating a never-ending string of different leaders. We need to have definite leader in place so that order can be established. The vote idea could be changed so that people can re-vote when say, there is motion of impeachment or reelection of some sort. Oh also, aren't the high-ranking members supposed to give rewards to new nations? Plus, who would give the rewards?
ReplyDeleteIN truth I believe a continous system is better, for if the leader makes some harmful choices, we should not let him stay in office like that. The continous system offers a chance for people to sawy with the events and time
ReplyDeleteI agree that the continous sytem is a good idea but it might not work if people take advantage of it. Say someone becomes leader by one vote and another person is close behind. Say the person who lost gives aid or a tech deal to a nation who voted for the nation who won and that nation changes their vote so the nation who lost wins. This could essentially make a new winner. Now say this process occurrs all over aagain by everyone in our alliance every 5 minuts. That means a new leader might be chosen in less than every 5 mnutes. Now, I am speaking theoratically but this may be the case just over a longer period of time. It is also possible to take out a honest leader for no reason due to this system. A nation might just randomly feel to change their vote and then we might have a new leader. It is true that we could change our leader very quickly but, why would we want to change our leader when he is doing a very good job? I believe that the vote should only be conducted when a nation feels that reelection should be put into effect.
ReplyDeleteNow that I examine the pros and cons, I see that a continuous system might be a better idea, but in a different way.
ReplyDeleteThe poll would be reopened every few weeks or once a month or so, to avoid the over flooding of votes that Golden said might happen, and is likely to happen with newer, less responsible people.
It might be possible to just reopen the poll when enough people feel it is necessary to do so. A poll could be opened in order to open up the poll for voting. Majority vote in the poll to open up the other poll means that the poll to vote would be opened up? I'm not making much sense, but there should be a majority vote to change the leader in order to open up the poll to elect a new leader.