The new millennium project- time to decide!

Day 3,005, 00:24 • Published in Australia Australia • by Aus Prime Minister Office



This article has been telegraphed for a week now. Yes, eAustralians young and old, it's time to decide what your future government will look like.



The New Millenium project was flagged here, where I posed three concepts for how a future government could look and work. In that article I asked for champions of each idea to step forward and do their best to convince the rest of us. Only two have done so, which is disappointing, but perhaps most of you have already made up your mind and just want to hurry up and get to the decision making part.



Let's go over the ground again, so nobody can plead ignorance.






Option 1. Democracy



Option 1 was championed by Ranger Bob. In practice, things would remain much as they are now.



Ranger Bob's points in favour of Democracy were about activity, timeliness and accountability. A Democracy can only function with a free exchange of information. Senators without knowledge of the intention of a proposal have a tendency to vote no. Senators, the Country President and the various Ministers all have to talk to each other. And that means activity. Activity is, of course fun. Which is the objective of playing any game. Accountability is important. Senators have responsibilities, just like the Country President.



I will note that the greatest risk facing a Democracy in the current game is that it experiences a Military Takeover (MTO if you prefer). That is, someone (either foreign or domestic, it doesn't matter) starts a coup. They win and become dictator, with sole discretion to pass laws as they please, admit citizens as they please and unrestricted access to all the national orgs.


Of course, nothing is permanent in this game. With time, we can throw off an unwanted dictator through the sky high determination bonus. Organisations can be cleared of funds before the dictator assumes power. A loss would not be the end of the world as we know it.






Option 2. Democratic Dictatorship



Nobody championed the democratic dictatorship. In this concept, the elected Country President is also the dictator. This was the government model for most of last year in eAustralia.


In theory at least, the Country President must seek the vote of Senators before any proposal is made law, with a mass PM being the most common method used last year. In my own observation, the lack of any real authority has a tendency to decrease the number of Senators who bother to vote. In extreme cases, less than five votes were cast on some proposals. Under thread-based voting, the votes cast by any particular Senator are not private (as they are in a Democracy). An argument can be mounted that public voting may lead to intimidation, although I have no proof that this occurs.


There are two distinct benefits to a democratic dictatorship. Firstly, it eliminates the risk of suffering an MTO. Our government will always be under our control in this concept.


Secondly, it allows rapid passage of laws in emergency situations. Chile passes a NE law against us? We can respond as close to instantly as you can in this game.


A grey area exists with respect to citizenship passes. Last year this was abused by some dictators to admit friends (who then joined their political party). Should there be a vote on new citizens? How many are needed to carry a vote, as only one in favour is necessary under a Democracy?


A significant drawback of the democratic dictatorship I observed last year was a decline in activity. With no need to communicate to the public at large and persuade anyone other than the dictator, many citizens simply stopped writing articles. If we take this concept further, I would like to see people commit to writing articles and keeping the community active.






Option 3. A constitutional monarchy


Option 3 was championed by Guagature.



Guagature proposed that the dictator be a third party unrelated to the Country President. They will be voted in by a public vote after a 48 hour nomination period, and serve a 2 month term. A majority would be required to claim victory, with a split result (e.g. 3 candidates each with less than 50% of the vote) or a tie resulting in a new election.


Dictators would serve a maximum 2 consecutive terms (4 months). The Dictator's role would be to propose laws and vote (in game mechanics terms) according to the decision of the Senate. 50% + 1 of the voting Senators would be required to carry a proposal or admit a new citizen, even for law proposals that require a 66% majority under a Democracy.


The main benefit of the constitutional monarchy concept is similar to the democratic dictatorship: we eliminate the risk of an MTO.


If you prefer this concept, significant arguments will of course follow about who is a fit and proper person to be the King or Queen of eAustralia.






So, citizens, it is time to decide.


I would like all eAustralian citizens, young or old, to state their preference in a comment below. I realise this may be intimidating for some. Public speaking and displays of emotion are difficult at the best of times (trust me!). Please, count to three in your head and just press the button!


Anonymous voting via PM is not something I am keen on - you would have to take my word on the poll result for one thing. Not that I will manipulate the result, but I want everything to be clean and above-board...


Off-site voting (via Google Forms or Survey Monkey for example) does not attract much interest, based on previous experiences.


Please, express yourself clearly. If you don't speak up now, I will not stand for any griping about things later. Once this article drops from the news feed (in 48 hours), the vote is closed. Within a day after the vote closing I will provide another article with the result and a plan for how to carry it out.