[Paleopsych] World language change

[G. Reinhart-Waller]

Christian,
How big is big?  What works at a town hall level could actually work for 
a population the size of Norway.  What works for Norway could also be 
implemented in countries of a similar size.  Possibly now that a large 
number of Americans own computers with access to the internet, we could 
implement a more individual form of voting and support many political 
parties, but as far as political groups maintaining their special  
individuality, this is going to get might rough especially since the 
differences between Bush's Republicans and Kerry's Democrats isn't that 
great, at least from my perspective.

Maintaining diversity at a local level is very important and this could 
be done via computer terminal.   But how to implement this at a federal 
level for U.S. boggles the mind and is beginning to resemble the Tower 
of Babel.

Best regards,
Gerry

Christian Rauh wrote:

> Gerry,
>
> I'm sure that a system that was started in almost 100 years ago can be 
> improved with modern communication systems to handle a larger scale.
>
> The European Union parliament is implemented in a similar model but is 
> has a representativeness problem with some of its other political 
> structures that try to keep the national integrity of the members.
>
> What alternative you suggest to a global parliament system 
> proportionally elected through a d'hont system?
>
> The current situation is the undemocratic rule of the strongest.
>
> Christian
>
> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote:
>
>> Finish system would work well for a small political body and one in 
>> which everyone spoke the same language.  It has some overtones of a 
>> townhall form of government similar to that found in Vermont.  
>> Forming consensus and building alliances again work for small groups 
>> in which everyone more or less knows everyone else or that think that 
>> after a few interactions, they will.
>>
>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller
>>
>> Christian Rauh wrote:
>>
>>> Finland, in particular. Mostly from talking to a few finish and some
>>> reading, it seems that their political system is very representative.
>>> There is an abundance of smaller parties and many large parties
>>> (considering the population). There is parlament elected through
>>> proportional votes using a modified d'Hont system with no treshold
>>> (modifications are to make smaller parties stronger):
>>>
>>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method
>>>
>>> They also elect a president that forms a cabinet that has to be
>>> supported by the parlament. Most of the decisions are based on 
>>> consensus
>>> and alliances (since no party has the majority at any time). That
>>> reduces the margin for radicalism and maintains more stability 
>>> (although
>>> it reduces faster change). Government provides basic services for the
>>> population but does not interfere much with the economy (except through
>>> the indirect effect of providing such services, of course).
>>>
>>> That's a good start.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>> You've perked my interest.  Could you perhaps elaborate on such a
>>>> model?  Which nordic country are you referring to?
>>>>
>>>> Gerry Reinhart-Waller
>>>>
>>>> Christian Rauh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>> There must be a global democratic political structure with executive
>>>>> legislative and judicial powers. That's how we'll "spread democracy".
>>>>> People should arbitrate their problems through that system.
>>>>>
>>>>> This structure should be lean, representative, participatory and 
>>>>> strong.
>>>>> I would suggest looking at nordic countries for starting models.
>>>>>
>>>>> Christian
>>>>>
>>>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>> Me too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we use the United Nations?  That hasn't worked in the past....is
>>>>>> there a new resurrection?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christian Rauh wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No world cop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> G. Reinhart-Waller wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is of interest.  If US is not world cop, then who would 
>>>>>>>> you like it
>>>>>>>> to be?  The Russians, Chinese, one of the South American
>>>>>>>> dictatorships....moving forward takes a country willing to 
>>>>>>>> gamble at
>>>>>>>> playing the role of policeman in maintaining peace.  That is 
>>>>>>>> US.....not
>>>>>>>> because it is better at it but because no one else wants the role.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqi people who are 
>>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>> in Democracy.  That's good enough for me.
>>>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steve Hovland wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the US can no longer afford the pretense
>>>>>>>>> of being the world cop, we may move more toward
>>>>>>>>> group security.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As far as help in Iraq, we have fewer and fewer
>>>>>>>>> allies.  Most of the world is horrified by what we
>>>>>>>>> are doing, no matter how we try to pretty it up
>>>>>>>>> with blather about democracy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Steve Hovland
>>>>>>>>> www.stevehovland.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> paleopsych mailing list
>>>>>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> paleopsych mailing list
>>>>>> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>>>>>> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>
>