Gov't type straw poll

Monte Ozarka

Monte Ozarka

TNPer
This is the first straw poll of many that will be used to gauge regional preferences regarding style of governance.

Here's some explanations as to the choices above:

Dictatorship: Let one man's will be done. Think Moo in the NPO.

Constitutional Monarchy: The top spot is kinda separate from the rest of government and holds broad, permanent powers. However, the person at the top is expected to follow the rules of law. Think Westwind in Equilism.

Oligarchy: A few powerful, entrenched people in positions of power. Something akin to having multiple kings who rule jointly. I'm not sure if there ever has been a model akin to this in NS.

Meritocracy: Only those who have proven their worth may take part. Once you do, however, it's a republican system. Uh, the obvious model is the Merit.

Representative Democracy: The unwashed rabble votes for a few leaders, and those few leaders then vote for the specifics. Think of the US political system or the PRP's Governors (except with actual clout :P).

Direct Democracy: Everyone gets to be active in the innards of politics if they'd like. Pretty much like what we have now.
 
Hmmm...perhaps an Oligarchy? Then again we almost already have that here and it reminds me far too much of the West Pacific Dominion's "Core".

A Constitutional Monarchy wouldn't be that bad...brings me back to the days of West Pacific Triumvirate, most fun I've had in a feeder since Stars of Sky overthrew Pixie.
 
There are problems with the definitions being used -- i.e., RL Great Britian is regarded as a constitutional monarchy, but the Crown has limited constitutional powers and authority.

TNP is a blend of a constitutiojnal monarchy and a direct democracy.

A representative system makes no sense here. There are other ways of addressing current issues, and I am working on a essay to discuss what might be sufficient change without throwing out much that has worked and worked exactly as intended.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
There are problems with the definitions being used -- i.e., RL Great Britian is regarded as a constitutional monarchy, but the Crown has limited constitutional powers and authority.
Click to expand...
That is true, which was why I made sure to try to explain my terminology in the first post. The constitutional monarchy that I was thinking of is definitely NOT the current British system.
 
I think a direct democracy is most favorable to the goal of retaining new players. If they can't have a say in decision-making, I think it is less likely they will stay in TNP.
 
I think a combination of Meritocracy and Representative Democracy might work. You go through a screening process to be admitted to the legislative, and both the legislative and the people can vote for the Delegate/PM. It allows everyone to be involved in the government in a small way, while allow the people who are capable and have the devotion to form and shape the way the regional government.
 
The only point I would raise is that what we currently have sits somewhere in the middle of the representative/direct democracy brackets. It isn't pure direct democracy as cabinet ministers do have the ability to act independently of the RA, not every decision goes to vote (although most do).

Perhaps the next thing to ask is how much power people think cabinet ministers should have, whether the current balance is ok, or whether ministers should have more or less ability to make decisions for themselves.
 
Under the current system, ministers can make their own decisions, but others can request either a Cabinet review of a Minister's decision, or seek judicial review concerning it. In addition, the RA can enact a law that effectively overturns a Minister's decision, or can vote to recall the Minister from office.

I'm bothered by the perception that the Ministers have absolute fiefdoms. That has never been the case (at least as far as the constitutioonal language goes) dating back to the Blackshear constitution.
 
I would favor a Constitutional Monarchy myself. It combines the ingame realities and the opportunity for democratic participation.
 
Kirby calls dibs!

134ti2.gif
 
I think every Prime Minister/King/Queen should be able to choose their own title as suggested on IRC, like the system that the old PRP had, it's a lot more fun with Protector of Pacific Peoples and Vanguard of the Revolution and all that. ;)
 
I appreciate the kind words of support . :tb2:

However, I do have a couple of comments regarding the notion of a constitutional monarchy as it pertains to TNP. Despite what the Constitution may do to limit the governmental responsibilities of the Delegate, a feeder Delegacy IS the brass ring. I think it is healthy for the region to have new Delegates, and it is healthy to have members who can aspire to become the Delegate.

If you build something that relies too heavily on a single individual, what happens to the system when there is a change of personnel? EVeryone has a different style of leadership, and different strengths and weaknesses. I try to work from the servant-leadership model. You can give me a lot more power than I have at present, because you know I won't abuse it. Others are more authoritarian. We would not be wise to centralize great power in their hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top