Argonath Democracy Movement - Message for all the Argonathians.

[Radagast]

It's tonight, haha, i mostly play right after midnight, my bad

I knew it would be - thanks.

IN YOUR FACE!!! 

[Marcel]

Do you need some ice Gandalf? Your face must hurt..  :hit:

[Huntsman]

Am i missing something? A meeting 20:00 CET (/time) ?

[Gandalf]

Am i missing something? A meeting 20:00 CET (/time) ?

Depends on what you will do in 2 hours time.... :drunk:

[Huntsman]

Depends on what you will do in 2 hours time.... :drunk:

What do you mean? I'm free at that time.

[Marcel]

Made a channel on TS3: "Argonath Democracy Movement"

[Huntsman]

Made a channel on TS3: "Argonath Democracy Movement"

I'm there
Post Merge: October 09, 2012, 09:22:24 pmTodays debate was : The basics of a possible democratical system, the proposal of a parlament and different city councils.

The next public debate is tommorow (2012.10.09) 20:00 CET (Server /time) or 8PM CET in Argonath Teamspeak.
Post Merge: October 10, 2012, 08:25:58 pmSo, this is what we have came up with so far..

P.S , sorry for ugly hand writing, i cant help it. If you cant read what it says, please let me know, i will re-take the photo in a lighter environment during a day

[stormeus]

Since I was not able to attend the TeamSpeak meeting today, I'd like to make several points.

Firstly, I still insist that we avoid using a system that allows entire political parties that get the most votes to be able to take control of the legislative branch. Even with a system where three parties are able to share the seats according to votes, let me propose a situation where this would not be entirely helpful. Assume that following an election, the three leading parties, which have combined, complete control over the legislative branch, a law is introduced that is popular with 80% of the electorate. The other 20% of the electorate has concerns regarding the laws. However, with legislators aligned toward their respective party's views, the 20% of voters that disagree with the act may or may not be able to get their point across.

Another scenario where party-based legislative branches would not be effective is a situation in which independents with no party affiliation are running for office. Independent is not a party. This makes elections for parliamentary seats more complicated because seats would be divided among the most popular parties, not individuals.

Secondly, I've only seen discussions on how the legislative branch will work. There is much, much, much much more that has to be discussed. The judiciary still has to be discussed. The executive branch still has to be discussed. The division of powers still has to be discussed. Issues with existing entities such as how official groups under the current authority of the president and prime minister still have to be discussed. A draft for the constitution that legally binds this together still has to be created, and a plan for a smooth transition and creation of this government still has to be discussed.

Thirdly, even if we were to effectively discuss and plan every single government branch and divide all the powers appropriately, write up a constitution, present it, and have a transitional plan, one more issue remains -- are we looking at this from the big picture? A government is not just interconnected parts put together to form a whole much like a machine, but is one body designed to enforce the ideas of the people. The branches are merely a by-product of dividing the powers to prevent a person or individual from having too much power.

In order to effectively create a government as such, we need to keep several questions in mind.

• Why do we need a democracy?
• How should the democracy be set up to fit the needs of the United States of Argonath?
• What is the average citizen like in the USA? How should the democracy be modified accordingly? (For example, are people very outspoken or passive?)
• How do we put a new government into place without interrupting anything?

And with that being said, there also need to be several goals to be kept in mind as well.

• To establish a government with the people, and not seats in a parliament, in mind
• To effectively establish order and enforce laws
• To be able to effectively create laws that represent the ideas of the people, and not a party
• To divide power in a way that suits the needs of our smaller active population, but also prevents an individual from getting too much power
• To make sure the proposed government is interconnected and organized
• To make sure all possible options are looked at thoroughly

As a final note, I wasn't able to attend the TeamSpeak meetings because of my time zone. While I may be one of the few with this issue, perhaps another mode of sharing ideas could be added, such as an open forum in this thread, that would allow people from other time zones who would like to attend but cannot to participate in discussions.

Only once all of these issues have been met can a true democracy movement begin, in my not-very-humble opinion.

[SugarD]

One small thing I would like to add to Stormeus' points about the overall larger picture is what about other servers? If we are going so far as to set up a political system for the entire country of the United States Of Argonath, then much, much more needs to be discussed pertaining to state/city (server) representation. A national government would affect all servers combined, so it would only make sense to get them all involved then.

[stormeus]

One small thing I would like to add to Stormeus' points about the overall larger picture is what about other servers? If we are going so far as to set up a political system for the entire country of the United States Of Argonath, then much, much more needs to be discussed pertaining to state/city (server) representation. A national government would affect all servers combined, so it would only make sense to get them all involved then.

I would have to agree with this. I don't remember who said it, but yesterday, I think I remember someone saying that the government should be focused more on San Andreas because it's more populated. The fact of the matter is that state governments should handle the states and national governments should handle the nation.

[Radagast]

That was me, saying that it would be best applied to the active (and open) servers of Argonath: SA:MP, VC:MP, IV:MP.

[SugarD]

That was me, saying that it would be best applied to the active (and open) servers of Argonath: SA:MP, VC:MP, IV:MP.

MTA:VC and MTA:SA are both active and open as well...

[stormeus]

That was me, saying that it would be best applied to the active (and open) servers of Argonath: SA:MP, VC:MP, IV:MP.

Is it a federal government if provinces are excluded because of being "inactive"? That would effectively prevent laws from being enforced in MTA:SA, MTA:VC, and LU in the future just because of a smaller population.

[Radagast]

What we were discussing was nothing federal, it was about a city council-based style of involving the citizens with RP complaints more than /report for someone parking his car on another guy's property, for example. It hasn't even started to be discussed other than in the context of "what if" or brainstorming sessions.

[SugarD]

What we were discussing was nothing federal, it was about a city council-based style of involving the citizens with RP complaints more than /report for someone parking his car on another guy's property, for example. It hasn't even started to be discussed other than in the context of "what if" or brainstorming sessions.

Then that is a completely separate idea from this one, which clearly references the country and community as a whole in several points in the original post.

This is getting a bit confusing...