I think states should be run by representative democracies. I think so because this type of government identifies the populations through a representation of bodies that reflect who the voters are. As opposed to direct democracies, representative democracies represent not only the people, but an ideology. This democracy is a little contrived because elected representatives have their own agendas (sometimes), but ultimately the will of the people is expressed - without all the hypocrisy.
The states should be run by representative democracies, allowing a direct democratic vote of the ideals of that individual. I feel that due to many cultural difference which cannot be erased in the Utopian society, despite the lack of borders, people have so many varying opinions that would need to be filtered and scrutinized for the whole. A representative of the most agreeable ideals for the populace would allow a more centralized figure to stand up fort he issues of their constituents, while not having every person quarrel over the "best" method.
i voted for a representative democracy, and i see also that the majority of others did, but i cant help wondering if it is just because we are being influenced by the way things are. i tried to think outside of the ideological bounds of the society we currently live in, but found it really hard to even imagine having any other form of running states. Perhaps we should experiment with other ways, though, because it could very well be that I am only thinking this way because I am being influenced by the current prevalent ideological structures and the purpose of this game to is to imagine alternate political structures.
With the rules already in place, it is hard to imagine any other type of government other than communism. With players unable to own private property and control inheritance, the members of this society will be unable to control much of their futures any way. If we are going to base this government on needs of the society as a whole, then a democracy will not be the best way to further to accomplish this. Democracy is not equal rule, it is rule of the majority. Even if a specific piece of legislation hurts the general public, it can (and often does) easy get passed so long as it appears to offer benefits to many of that society's members, or more often, serves to disadvantage a homogenously hated group among that society (ex. A law preventing African Americans from attending college will certainly hurt the overall public good in that it will prevent a large percentage of society from fully developing and realizing its potential, but the rest of society (the majority) will benefit from the reduction in competition for admittance to universities, and thus Caucasian, Latino, and Asian populations will increase their own future opportunities, and thus seek to pass the law).
With Communism, the will of the society will be taken out of the hands of an oppressive majority, and placed into the hands of the state, who can pass legislation aimed at improving the society as a whole, even if it is in opposition to the general desires of that community. More over, the majority, which often controls an overwhelming percentage of the resources, will be prevented from bullying the less advantaged members of that commonwealth.
I think that the state should be run through direct democracy. I believe that this is the best type of government because it would accurately represent what the people vote for. Representative democracies sounds like a good idea, but we must take into account who these representatives are and what is it that they want. They could either vote for their benefit or for the benefit of the entire population, but we cannot really be sure what their votes would turn out to be. I know that direct democracy may not be equal rule since it is what the majority of people vote for, but in comparison to other types of government it offers the most voice to the people.
I stand by my original assessment on representative democracies. We are trying to imitate teh world (accordingly) and I think that the representative democracy model illustrates the way the world ought to be run especially in the 21st century. Direct democracies are troubling because they will permit the pursuit of privatized goods. Plus how can we know that these systems will maintain our order? Communisim surely is a way to hell for our country because we are imitating the real world. Our population wants the best and representative democracy will uphold this idea. We don't want our people being sold to other doctrines or faith that is going to put our real world system at stake.
Direct democracy is an ideal world in my opinion. If by popular demand the government adopts anarchy or communism, then at least it was at the will of the people and not determined by a supreme leadership. When you get into representative democracy, you run in to the same problems as in the real world--partisanship and political agendas.
I think states should be run by representative democracies. I think so because this type of government identifies the populations through a representation of bodies that reflect who the voters are. As opposed to direct democracies, representative democracies represent not only the people, but an ideology. This democracy is a little contrived because elected representatives have their own agendas (sometimes), but ultimately the will of the people is expressed - without all the hypocrisy.
The states should be run by representative democracies, allowing a direct democratic vote of the ideals of that individual. I feel that due to many cultural difference which cannot be erased in the Utopian society, despite the lack of borders, people have so many varying opinions that would need to be filtered and scrutinized for the whole. A representative of the most agreeable ideals for the populace would allow a more centralized figure to stand up fort he issues of their constituents, while not having every person quarrel over the "best" method.
i voted for a representative democracy, and i see also that the majority of others did, but i cant help wondering if it is just because we are being influenced by the way things are. i tried to think outside of the ideological bounds of the society we currently live in, but found it really hard to even imagine having any other form of running states. Perhaps we should experiment with other ways, though, because it could very well be that I am only thinking this way because I am being influenced by the current prevalent ideological structures and the purpose of this game to is to imagine alternate political structures.
With the rules already in place, it is hard to imagine any other type of government other than communism. With players unable to own private property and control inheritance, the members of this society will be unable to control much of their futures any way. If we are going to base this government on needs of the society as a whole, then a democracy will not be the best way to further to accomplish this. Democracy is not equal rule, it is rule of the majority. Even if a specific piece of legislation hurts the general public, it can (and often does) easy get passed so long as it appears to offer benefits to many of that society's members, or more often, serves to disadvantage a homogenously hated group among that society (ex. A law preventing African Americans from attending college will certainly hurt the overall public good in that it will prevent a large percentage of society from fully developing and realizing its potential, but the rest of society (the majority) will benefit from the reduction in competition for admittance to universities, and thus Caucasian, Latino, and Asian populations will increase their own future opportunities, and thus seek to pass the law).
With Communism, the will of the society will be taken out of the hands of an oppressive majority, and placed into the hands of the state, who can pass legislation aimed at improving the society as a whole, even if it is in opposition to the general desires of that community. More over, the majority, which often controls an overwhelming percentage of the resources, will be prevented from bullying the less advantaged members of that commonwealth.
BryanZmi
I think that the state should be run through direct democracy. I believe that this is the best type of government because it would accurately represent what the people vote for. Representative democracies sounds like a good idea, but we must take into account who these representatives are and what is it that they want. They could either vote for their benefit or for the benefit of the entire population, but we cannot really be sure what their votes would turn out to be. I know that direct democracy may not be equal rule since it is what the majority of people vote for, but in comparison to other types of government it offers the most voice to the people.
I stand by my original assessment on representative democracies. We are trying to imitate teh world (accordingly) and I think that the representative democracy model illustrates the way the world ought to be run especially in the 21st century. Direct democracies are troubling because they will permit the pursuit of privatized goods. Plus how can we know that these systems will maintain our order? Communisim surely is a way to hell for our country because we are imitating the real world. Our population wants the best and representative democracy will uphold this idea. We don't want our people being sold to other doctrines or faith that is going to put our real world system at stake.
Direct democracy is an ideal world in my opinion. If by popular demand the government adopts anarchy or communism, then at least it was at the will of the people and not determined by a supreme leadership. When you get into representative democracy, you run in to the same problems as in the real world--partisanship and political agendas.