Reforming the UK ~ My Two Cents
Day 2,989, 13:59
•
Published in United Kingdom 
•
by
•
by Addaway
It’s been quite a long while since I wrote a proper article, but I feel like the current discussion on a new eUK political system is something I can contribute to.
I agree that we could do with a seismic shift in the way our political system is run, but I don’t necessarily agree with those ideas proposed so far.
I believe that the best way to govern the UK remains representative democracy, it's the shape of it that I think we should change. Doing so requires large amounts of metagaming- perhaps its time to embrace it.
Here is my draft ideal system, in broad strokes.
1. The in-game Congress and Congressional elections are completely ignored.
2. In its place, a 25-man National Committee is formed to govern the UK.
3. 11 members of this committee will be elected(with people voting directly for the people via in game article/gdoc)
4. The remainder of the committee will be appointed as follows:
- Sitting Country President + one senior govt minister(nominated by the CP),
- Representatives from the 6 biggest (by membership) public MUs. Appointed by Commander
- Representatives from the 6 biggest (by membership) Political parties. Appointed by PP
5. The CP will act as chair of the committee.
6. The Committee has all the powers of the existing congress, with each member of it having 1 vote when making decisions.
7. A dedicated system of referendums should be established with ordinary UK citizens able to gather a petition to force one.
This is just a basic outline, dependant on time and things I may well flesh this out into a constitution that we could vote on via referendum (once Congress approves a referendum).
The biggest issue with it is the amount of metagaming involved- with the right organisation it wouldn’t be a problem.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Hahahahahaha, reviving your community is like trying to cure a zombie. Mission Failed
> is citizen of Netherlands
Bro you've already lost the game
eNL players are a fail but they are better than your whole community
> is Kimi. he loses twice
I'm not the person trying to get activity hahahaha
Shall we have more voting from in game fake accounts to decide who is on the committee just so the same faces are doing the same things, if we have any voting it should be from people who as least do the daily orders each day ( or can prove they are strength training) why should these fake accounts keep voting in the same people as they have so many accounts this is a problem which needs to be dealt with as I'm on the battlefield all the time and never see 80% of the UK players I tried of multi voters 2nd accounts fake accounts voting when they are not fighting, and not fighting when the UK is being wiped!
To an extent, I agree with you. The trouble is if you start restricting who can vote, where do you draw the lines? How would you do it?
Like I said daily order and or they train each day on a decent level of training not just 5 , people who are active and helping uk should get a vote people who log in every 10 day or 30 days shouldn't or don't fight, this also could promote activity !
I agree we can defo cut out the extreme cases, like people not logging in for days at a time; its something that could be looked at and integrated to this system for sure.
You just want that in place so you can exclude people from the vote to make your own side stronger.
First thing you'd do is say that certain people don't fight and they shouldn't get a vote.
You can't prove anything in regards to the amount of 'fake voters'
yes, i would agree here - trying to exclude people because they haven't worked or fought a certain number of days is a dangerous and slippery slope. Next people will have to belong to 'certain' MU's or Parties before they can vote - remember the infamous referendum on Sirius membership as organised by BigAnt - many UK citizens, who were members of non UK MU's were excluded.
AS you are just protecting fake accounts it quite clear now ! FAP paul we are taking weeks not days
Im on the side of the UK you make sides you create side you are more a problem since day 1
I created sides did I?
I wasn't the guy in New Era railing against TUP constantly was I? Ranting about the elites and how they're running fake accounts to keep their place in the eUK.
My concern is that you're going to deliberately exclude people like myself who don't actively fight because you want to exclude people who disagree with you, as well as other people under some arbitrary guidelines which may have no impact on the validity of someone's opinion.
I don't protect fake accounts, what I'm saying is you have no idea which accounts are or are not fake and to what extent false accounts exist. I don't have an idea either, which makes the issue a matter of opinion. Which is why I'm saying you can't prove anything.
Just get the PP's to pick them, you can divided up 25 seats based on party numbers (of every party in the country - not just the top ones). CP gets 1 vote, then you can have 4 gov members in the 30 max group message. Someone can update the message every week so PP's can change out people who are inactive. Simple and involves the least amount of meta gaming. Also MU's should have nothing to do with politics.
[removed]
YES MUs AINT POLITICAL HALLELUJAH!
Seriously though, I agree to an extent, but not every party in the UK, as there would be a lot of parties getting barely any representation like the multiple one number parties we have
Lots of party's barely get any representation now anyhow, and what's to stop PP's endorsing people from outside there party? All you'd have to do to get into 'congress' would be to ask a PP and for them to put you forward. The inactive people get cycled out by the PP's on a weekly basis so more people would get a chance to get involved than ever before.
yes and thats good, but every single party? no. a lot of them are highly inactive as well. it should be a set number of parties
That's not the point though is it, you shouldn't be legislating and allowing certain partys to be included in things. If they don't want to take part that's fair enough, but deciding for them that they aren't active enough isn't really in the spirit of the idea.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FQAfzjPiQPCNuv40jjan6xCofHrW33DtzxXZZR395pQ/edit#gid=0
I only see the bottom two on there being a potential issue.
you are misunderstanding me, im all for anyone being involved, but why automatically grant a place to those two non active parties? the clue is in the description, not active. anyone who wants to send someone along from the active parties then go for it
But just consider this, using total democracy as an example
they have 0.55% on your spreadsheet which entitles them to 0.1375 of a seat. what do you do in this case? give them 1 seat, because that's unproportional in itself.
No zero, as it says on the gdoc.
When we are under a dictatorship we can operate any system we choose. We worked on a system that allowed Congress to operate the same as it would as if we had a democracy, whilst adding some additional areas, still using the same mechanics, that should have enhanced the Congress.
Where we may encounter problems by deviating away from following the 40 man Congress, top 5 parties way, is if we had a revolution and those Congress members elected regained their in-game voting rights. If we were to adopt an alternate system - what would we do with the Congress elections?
"1. The in-game Congress and Congressional elections are completely ignored." Well, it starts good...and the rest, meh; committees, gdoc votings, blah blah blah...you just need a good CP with a good capable team, people who spend more time then others in eRepublik and preferably spend some RL money on the game, nothing else will last.
And when we have that people still complain 😉
Screw the people 😃
This sounds good, but if you go into it a little deeper I'd be concerned that it would actually (although unintentionally) make things worse.
Some reasons:
1. Ultimately this is just a direct replacement for Congress, with no difference in powers. Although this may address the "Mongress" part, it doesn't do anything to change the fact that currently Congress is the third tier of decision making (Dictator > CP > Congress) with very little to do.
2. It's less democratic than the current system (13 of the 25 members would be unelected).
3. Effectively what this creates is an old Soviet style Politburo (or Central Committee). It's inherently vulnerable to having pretty much permanent members sitting on it (from the parties and MUs), increasing criticism that government is just jobs for the boys.Congress (and government) already have semi-permanent members. I believe this system would make that worse.
4. Meta-gaming votes and elections always get lower participation than official in-games votes. It's unfortunate because it restricts us, but it's just how it is.
One great idea to come out of this so far is to have activity requirements for public office. I wouldn't go as far as using full-on strength training as a requirement, because that skews things towards this simply being a war game and would exclude a lot of people who aren't interested in fighting. However, it's not unreasonable to expect public servants to be active on a daily basis, and to bar them if they're not.
"currently Congress is the third tier of decision making (Dictator > CP > Congress) with very little to do." - It is? Dictator doesn't make any decisions. Congress actually has vast law-making powers but chooses not to use them for whatever reason.
Yea, fair points- my main aim with this is to provide a better, more active body to hold the CP to account; as Rory mentioned above not having MU reps on it and more elected people could be a solution- or having a significant part picked by the PPs in the manner Rory suggested.
My hope would be that directly voting for a person instead of a list would spark a little more in the way of campaigning and such
Any change to the eUK's political system should also involve the permanent enshrining of Constitutional Monarchy in the eUK constitution.
What is this obsession with committees?
We have a dictator, let him dictate. Either that or kick him out and restore democracy
oh my
A few other ideas. Perhaps one will please sexagenarian... http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/political-reform-yet-another-view-2579564/1/20
I doubt it - I think i've got more chance of being the next Pope!
So effectively, replace the bad body of dudes with another body of dudes that may or may not be bad?
Not feelin it