[The Referendum Act] - Thoughts and my favoured proposal
Day 2,996, 12:24
•
Published in United Kingdom 
•
by
•
by Huey George
Introduction
You may have read "[Speaker] The Referendum Act - Put Forward Your Proposed Systems!" informing you that the Referendum Act has been passed by Congress, which has set off a chain of events, which may culminate in a new system for how the eUK is governed or the decision remain with the current system.
I'd like to put some of my thoughts forward in favour of remaining with our current system. Whilst this could be seen as a tad boring and not embracing a wonderful opportunity for change, I remain very much in favour of our current system of governing for reasons I'll outline.
Our current system
How I understand our current system is best explained by the below diagram;
Whilst a relative simplification of our current systems I hope it demonstrates what I see as one of it's advantages, that being it is can be very clear cut, open and flexible to influence through many aspects of our society in both very open ways (articles, party/friend feeds etc) however also more discrete ways (Party President, Congressional and Country President elections, personal messages etc) and somewhere in between (Congressional discussion, Cabinet discussions, sitting on Congressional Committees, Ministerial work etc)
The diagram also possibly highlights one of it's main disadvantages, that being it requires a great deal of active citizens to maintain (CP and his cabinet (6-15 citizens?), 40 citizen Congress, 6-7 active Parties and Party Presidents (10-20 citizens per party not already active in Congress or the Cabinet would be ideal) so easily 100+ citizens if we wanted to avoid duplication in roles and really see the system in full flow.
Advantages
Is the system in place under 'democracy' (I feel this is one of the reasons our Constitutional Dictatorship has lasted so long) and allows us as a nation to be able to respond if our our Constitutional Dictatorship is overthrown against the public's will. Keeps in place three 'in-game' election mechanics which have better voter turnout than other methods we could try and initiate. In theory - The Country President is kept in check by Congress which is kept in check by the Political Parties they represent which all are kept in check by an active and informed voting public. As already covered above very clear cut, open and flexible to influenceDisadvantages
Whilst open and flexible, implementing change via the political parties and Congress can be rigid, slow and time consuming largely reliant on activity around election dates. Relies on transparency and communication from those making the ultimate decisions about our policies. (Although one could argue those not being transparent, communicative or active should easily be remove from positions where ultimate decision by the will of the public) As covered above requires a great deal of active citizens to maintain momentum.Close
I'm leaving it 4 reasons for our current systems to 3 reasons against...as it highlights why I am in favour of keeping our current system however I am sure I have read many more reasons for and against and I am sure the citizenry reading this article could add a whole host more.
I'll close my saying I hope you've found my thoughts and opinions of interest and you welcome me adding them to the national debate even if you don't agree with them. However I hope you are like me and would like to continue with our current system of governing.
Thanks for reading
Author
Huey George
Owner, Press Director and Editor of The Daily eWorker
Founder and Councilor of The Workers' Rights Party
Owner of 462-477 Engineering, Industrial, Manufacturing and Agricultural Concerns
Founding member of the Co-Operative of Equitable Pioneers
Founder and Commander of the Free British Irregulars Military Unit
Member of Congress(Parliament)
Current Minister of Finance / Governor of the United Kingdom
Former Party President of The Workers' Rights Party
Former Speaker of the House
Former Minister of Home Affairs (Minster of Education)
Former Minster of Foreign Affairs
Former Country President/Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Excellent article!
Great analysis and I think the part about needing 100+ citizens to fully obtain and maintain the current system is where we are facing our biggest problems.
Considering the seeming failure of the Congress committees, then maybe we should remove them or amalgamate them into a large grouping of those wishing to be involved from within Congress.
I'm also of the view that Congress needs to be the seat of government, even maybe to the point of governing from Congress with ministers being selected from Congress by Congress and answerable only to Congress.
Excellent article, Huey.
I'm more or less for our current system of government - or would be fine with something similar to it - so I think a good idea would be to address the disadvantages the current system and adjust accordingly, so as not to come out with a wacky and possibly impractical new system.
FOR a start I think we could streamline congress (get rid of the committees and have a few less members).
lel FOR
Great analysis as usual. The problem with the Congress Committees is that they are, in their current state, pretty much toothless. We can request all the information we want, but it doesn't go to say that we'll get it from government. The committees are also too large (in my opinion) - Addaway suggested a single person for each, though this defeats the object of a committee, and a compromise would be 3 congress members in each committee (with perhaps 4 or 5 in MoD/MoFA considering the scope).
The current system also has little in the way of incentive or disincentive for inactive, abusive or useless congress members. It requires a massive 66% vote to remove a member from congress; realistically, this might be a power given to the Speaker - to remove, temporarily (perhaps until the next round of elections), a sitting member of congress, with the current 66% vote being used for longer-term suspensions.
I would agree that government should be drawn from Congress, but would also include presidents of the top 5 parties among that number if they should not be congress members, and possibly commanders of the top 5 MUs being considered for roles in the MoD.
"We can request all the information we want, but it doesn't go to say that we'll get it from government"
Ministers have a statutory obligation to give you the information! If they refuse and the CP refuses, then its clear grounds to impeach the CP
I'm glad my views coincide with someone with enough experience to prove they're right, ahh warm fuzzy...
Agreed on most points - I expect my main difference would be in reforming the current system to include a wider basis of government. Chiefly on the merit of experimentation I would combine the government with Parliament itself (optimally with all 40 MPs, making the collective group around 50).
Given that the role of CP has become more of a burden than a reward it may be easier to make them more of a Speaker role within Parliament given the security of executive power in Woldy. Perhaps committees can actually have a point and help function ministries as part of their electoral responsibility?
I expect for common sense's sake top secret bollocks should be kept to the CP and the 4/5 chief ministers they want to nominate. Maybe give parliament the right to reject a proposed candidate but I expect that could explode into bullshit politics
As covered above requires a great deal of active citizens to maintain momentum.
big problem how many active citizens does the uk have ?
20?
It took me about 2 hours to understand all the arrows on the diagram but once I got it this turned out to be a good article.
nice
Excellent article.
For what it's worth, if it takes around 100 active players to maintain a healthy system and government, it takes even more to offer an alternative.
So I think our fundamental problem is not the structures we use, it's the number of players using them.
And if there aren't enough people getting involved, there are only two possible solutions:
1. get more people
2. slim down the structures so that fewer people are required
I can't see option 1 working any time soon, which leaves us with option 2.