Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[Bohandas]

"Traitorous" or "disloyal" than.

[misko27]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Okay, stop, MetalSlimehunt won.

[Lagslayer]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Okay, stop, MetalSlimehunt won.

+1

Besides, this circular debate is getting boring.

[Sheb]

PTW

[GlyphGryph]

Besides, this circular debate is getting boring.

So comment on my stuff instead of going on about it.

But seriously, does anyone think it is an absolutely terrible/mindbogglingly great idea? Or anything, really? Most of the constitutional stuff discussed in this thread so far has been barely constitutional and mostly focused on trivial surface level things, I'd love to go into some deeper level structure stuff, since that's the primary purpose of our current constitution anyway.

[10ebbor10]

Besides, this circular debate is getting boring.

So comment on my stuff instead of going on about it.

But seriously, does anyone think it is an absolutely terrible/mindbogglingly great idea? Or anything, really? Most of the constitutional stuff discussed in this thread so far has been barely constitutional and mostly focused on trivial surface level things, I'd love to go into some deeper level structure stuff, since that's the primary purpose of our current constitution anyway.

Yeah, Electoral whatever you call it isn't a terrible system. It's current implementation is though. If you'd remove the winner takes it all state system, you'd have the possibility that a coalition of smaller parties springs up, resulting in an independent president.

Also, you might want to rebalance the numbers to accurately reflect population.

[Lagslayer]

Besides, this circular debate is getting boring.

So comment on my stuff instead of going on about it.

But seriously, does anyone think it is an absolutely terrible/mindbogglingly great idea? Or anything, really? Most of the constitutional stuff discussed in this thread so far has been barely constitutional and mostly focused on trivial surface level things, I'd love to go into some deeper level structure stuff, since that's the primary purpose of our current constitution anyway.

If you want.

Rewriting large parts of the constitution or scrapping it all together would do little to nothing for the long-term problems like corruption. Short-term, it would just rock the boat and potentially create a lot of chaos, making the situation worse. How would new rules help against those who don't care about the rules in the first place?

I feel the real issue lies with changing the people. Ultimately, they are the only ones that can hold the leaders in check, and it's going to require a lot of consistent effort all the time to do it. People end up losing interest or letting their guard down, and then it's too late.

[GlyphGryph]

Rewriting large parts of the constitution or scrapping it all together would do little to solve the problems long-term. Short-term, it would just rock the boat and potentially create a lot of chaos, making the situation worse. How would new rules help against those who don't care about the rules in the first place?

Because the system defines the behaviours of it's participants. Others have discussed new rules - I have suggested a new game, instead. I would suggest that this is the only approach that has even a chance of solving the problems long term. Was it folly, do you think, to suggest that scrapping the monarchy and drafting a form for representative government was merely "rocking the boat"? Yes, it potentially could have created chaos or made the situation worse. But are you really going to argue that establishing the rules they did somehow had no effect? That it didn't help avoid the risk of a dictator or permanent king being installed? Because that doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm a programmer, so maybe I'm biased here, but language is important for reasons quite contrary to what most people think - languages of equal power are incredibly different, because language defines culture - the structure shapes those who build on it and within it. If the problem is the culture. then changing the system within which it operates is crucial to enacting change in the results. When we see electing our leaders as so important that it is a professional duty, the way we conceptualize leadership changes. When we as a people believe that we may someday have the opportunity to directly argue for change in an arena where we have the power to implement it, the way we conceive of our participation in government changes. When the system is set up in such a way that it guides it's participants towards selecting someone competent rather than someone popular (as best as is possible), the belief that competency should be the guiding principle in our decisions becomes entrenched.

The belief that selecting our government is /worth/ that time of effort, initiated by those would make the decisions, is worth a lot on it's own.

But the change I proposes is more than just superficial (although superficial stuff can be INCREDIBLY important), it also dramatically changes the incentives. A government works best when it puts the right people in the right places with the right goals. I firmly believe this system incentivizes it's people to act towards those ends far more effectively than our current one does.

[Nadaka]

I have not actually seen this radical change you have proposed. Did you propose it in this thread?

[GlyphGryph]

The first component of it, yes. I was hoping to get comments on that much before continuing.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=118466.msg3747888#msg3747888

[Lagslayer]

The first component of it, yes. I was hoping to get comments on that much before continuing.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=118466.msg3747888#msg3747888

After reading your previous post, I present my counterpoints:



What is in the opening statement is already said in the current constitution. The debate is to what qualifies as "providing for the general welfare", "defense", and exactly what is "fair and just". Your statement seems no less ambiguous.

House of commons: I guess this is sort of like the house of representatives we have now, minus the formal election by voting. It could still be rigged in favor of particular people. Though, that could happen with any election, with it being supposedly "random", there would be no public reaction to gauge weather or not it is accurate (if only 20% of people say they vote for candidate A, and he still wins, it's a pretty big red flag). With a supposedly "random" drawing, only the people running it would have any idea weather it is fair or not.

House of Experts: This seems to be like a combination of the house and senate methods. I am most curious as to how this jury would be chosen and run. That bit about no income or jobs within 3 months of their vote won't change much. They can still be promised money before or after that session, or the "income" can come in another form, such as an unrelated gift.

House of representatives: This is how the current Senate used to be, but some of the states wouldn't send anybody because of gridlock. An amendment was added to have them elected by popular vote instead.

And none of this addresses the problem that people can be bought off or may have friends in high places. These things are often already illegal, but happen behind closed doors where nobody can see it anyways. Hell, a lot of it is done out in the open, because any good lawyer can find a loophole to exploit (especially if it's something as vague as giving something, anything to somebody else). I see the house of commons being the most vulnerable in a way, because they are the most likely to be poor and really need the extra money. Making it illegal to do deals in the shadows does nothing if you can't see into the shadows anyways (how else are you to know it's happening?). Surely, you can't monitor everything everyone is doing at all times.


The bold text is just to make it easier to read, no emphasis intended.

[GlyphGryph]

All good points. Though recall that it's the first draft of the first part, and each section would need to be expounded on in a way that provides for the best outcome.

What is in the opening statement is already said in the current constitution. The debate is to what qualifies as "providing for the general welfare", "defense", and exactly what is "fair and just". Your statement seems no less ambiguous.

It's a statement of purpose. The explanation is generally supposed to be "the rest of the constitution".

You are correct in that transparency and protections against corruption will be needed in the selection process, both for the common house and the expert jury - at least some of these protections should reasonably be enshrined within the constitution.

As for in-house corruption... I would, at the least, support strict laws against such, but I'll have to think about the ways in which the constitution will prevent it. The fact that the Representatives and Jurors should already be well compensated for their time should hopefully help, and unlike with our current politicians, the benefit of "staying bought" for would be bribers is diminished.

Do you have any suggestions we could add on that front?

(Also, the House of Experts should probably have the ability to increase and decrease it's size come the next election cycle, or to change the nature of each position within the house as times change)

[Pnx]

Well I should point out that lawmaking is a really difficult thing to do well, you've got to watch out for ambiguity of language, and all kinds of other issues, and that a bunch of random internet people are probably not the best people in the world to choose out the laws that should be in the constitution. That said, I really can't resist adding my own two cents to the conversation.

The first thing I'd say is that if you're writing a constitution, it might be best not to add too much to it. I think I'm going to pull an Einstein quote and say, "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." Some of the stuff people have proposed is things that while they might make for good laws, or guidelines for laws, are probably things that shouldn't be in the constitution. I really think you guys should stick to the basic rights of man stuff, and the fundamental structure of the government, and maybe some of the other really important stuff.

The second thing is that I don't think that anyone here has actually pulled up what I think it is probably the most important bill of rights thing ever, Habeas Corpus, or the keep some fucking records law. "Losing" the paperwork is something that should be a frigging felony.
I might even make this kind of thing extend to the making laws and not just upholding them. Maybe make politicians obligated to make any discussion involving a multitude of people regarding the formation of the government's laws, or the enactment of those laws a matter of public record. Transparency, freedom of speech, and good record keeping are honestly the only things that stand a chance in hell of making any democracy worthwhile.

[Lagslayer]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

All good points. Though recall that it's the first draft of the first part, and each section would need to be expounded on in a way that provides for the best outcome.

What is in the opening statement is already said in the current constitution. The debate is to what qualifies as "providing for the general welfare", "defense", and exactly what is "fair and just". Your statement seems no less ambiguous.

It's a statement of purpose. The explanation is generally supposed to be "the rest of the constitution".

You are correct in that transparency and protections against corruption will be needed in the selection process, both for the common house and the expert jury - at least some of these protections should reasonably be enshrined within the constitution.

As for in-house corruption... I would, at the least, support strict laws against such, but I'll have to think about the ways in which the constitution will prevent it. The fact that the Representatives and Jurors should already be well compensated for their time should hopefully help, and unlike with our current politicians, the benefit of "staying bought" for would be bribers is diminished.

Do you have any suggestions we could add on that front?

(Also, the House of Experts should probably have the ability to increase and decrease it's size come the next election cycle, or to change the nature of each position within the house as times change)

As much as I'd like to say I have the answers, I do not. No matter what angle I observe the system from, no matter how I envision the pieces are arranged, I keep coming up with the same dead-end. It's why I believe the system itself doesn't matter all that much, and the key lies with people. How they can't organize themselves without some sort of leadership, and sometimes, seemingly inevitably, you are going to get some bad leaders. Even something as supposedly spontaneous as online movements have leaders and starting points. And the problem only gets worse the larger the system is. Turning everything back and having us all be tribal again isn't really an option.