[Paleopsych] Re: World Political System

[G. Reinhart-Waller]

Big at a global level is warranted but can it be managed?  One 
definitely needs layers of representation ascending the ladder to final 
voting.  As I stated previously, computers could allow voting at a local 
level in which numerous candidates present their platforms and local 
(community voters) cast their ballots.  As far as having this work at 
national level, I can't imagine how.

Gerry

Christian Rauh wrote:

>Gerry,
>
>Big has to be global level. You might need layers of representation and
>action but that's an empirical question. In a global environment, people
>should be able to aggreaget themselves in both geographic location and
>interest groups.
>
>When you have a plurarlity of parties then each party can become more
>distinct from the other. In a two party system the two parties will
>converge to what is perceived as commonground. People who have a high
>investment on a non-popular issue will be left with no representation.
>
>Computer terminal will definetely play a role in a global scale
>democratic government, which brings up the issue of access and efficacy
>to/with technology. One of the first initiatives towards that would be
>to improve access and efficacy around the world.
>
>People make a world political system seem so hard and alien but the fact
>is that many of our global corporations have information systems and
>internal political/management structures that support and are very
>similar to what I'm advocating. The difference is that corporations
>operate under authoritarian rule and it would have to be democratic. And
>we all know democracy does have more overhead than authocracy.
>
>Christian
>
>G. Reinhart-Waller wrote:
>  
>
>>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
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>
>  
>