(06-28-2014, 07:05 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Why would we want a PM as head of state? What you really are proposing is making the head of government separate from the delegate.

Yes. In so much as the Queen of England is separate from the government.

(06-28-2014, 08:38 PM)Unibot Wrote: You haven't addressed my point about clashes of agendas, Tsu. Let's say if the Delegate had been a very well trusted member of TSP, one of the most senior members of the CSS ... Belschaft, and Escade had been PM ... do you REALLY think that would have went better than if Escade had just been delegate?

No, it would have been an unmitigated disaster. Most of the people we would have considered extremely trustworthy, including Milograd, Belschaft, Hileville, Southern Bellz etc. would have been problematic and have clashed with a Prime Minister at some point.

You wouldn't have a clash of agendas. The delegate would be a trusted figurehead who we protected, who voted in WA votes, and updates the WFE. Obviously the person would have some political sway -- as Bels, SB et al. still do, whether or not they hold an official office.

But, we wouldn't be handing over keys to the entire world so it would make fears of transition much less.

Quote:Ahem --- it's even easier than both upsetting an election of 30 or 100, to worm your way up a chain of respected senior appointments and be chosen based on exclusive criteria. Winning against a field of candidates in a competitive election has always been more challenging than deceiving meritocratic structures.

Please, Unibot. What you're really saying here is that those in a position of power don't get to know people. Understandable with your experience in the region, but I doubt you yourself wouldn't be able to name a few trusted individuals in the region.

Quote:If you think the problem of small electorates is as troubling as I do, I encourage you to reconsider my proposal to expand the size of the electorate.

When the option is between 30 relatively active and informed members or 4500 uninformed members, I'm going to choose the former.

To be really honest guys, there are similarities between this discussion and issues with the forum administration. We continually conflate what is "power," "democracy" and "government positions" with the enabling structures there of.

Further, I understand this is an effort in futility considering that 1) this would never be passed and 2) this is a radically different worldview from what/where TSP is now. I push this discussion, at least, because I think these issues need to be considered when we consider other legislation -- a la Uni's previous election discussion.