I have been wondering what people thought of the different governments used on planet bob to run alliances and which ones they saw to be more fit in general.

I personally think that each alliance is unique and therefore has different preferences. I love John Locke's ideas of how a government should be chosen and I believe many of his ideas are valid. For example, the governed should approve the government and if they do not see it to be fit, they have the right to revolt (in extreme cases though). Which relates to the fact that every country can function properly and effectively as long as the government (whether it is communism, monarchy or democracy) has the approval of the people. Even if some of us believe communism to be evil and not a government for the people, it might suit very well for the people who are governed by that system of government. It's all about frame of reference. From the outside, we may perceive other ideas than when we are in the inside of the government.

Anyways, back to my original question:
What government do you think is best suited to be used on Planet Bob and why?

Edit: Wrong forum, I thought I was posting in Open World, if possible please move

Probably a Representative Democracy.

This is due to the fact that I like the idea of having the general members personal opinions carrying some weight in the alliance's decisions, but at the same time lacking the problems involving efficiency so commonplace within democracy itself.

Funny Communism (pure Marxism) in theory should have no Government at all and that the people just get on with their lives as normal no one telling them what to do and just bettering their nation.

Triumvirate with Ministers subordinate to the triumvirs, deputies for the Ministers if necessary and possibly a Senate that can deliberate on treaties and other internal and external issues. The specifics of how it would work and what should be added/subtracted is something a little more complicated that I don't have the time to go into right now. But usually I find that system works well with larger alliances, though for smaller ones I prefer to either be or serve an autocrat with strict Ministry positions based on merit and ability, not popularity. Which means I hate democracy and wouldn't want elections in either system solely because they always end up being popularity contests instead of focusing on who would actually be a better fit for the job.

Consensus-based Direct Democracy. Call me biased, but it hasn't failed the LSF once since May 1, 2006.

A leader with supreme authority aided by a council of advisers.

Well from what I have seen, and am slowly starting to actually change my ideals slightly. I think maybe a representative democracy. There are a few reasons I am starting to shift to this...

1. It is easier to overthrow a few people who govern rather than an entire alliance that is involved in all aspects of governance, i.e. I think I may be supporting a rep dem because its a bit more susceptible to revolution (and I love revolution, so romantic!) as opposed to a direct dem.

2. Places a sense of obligation on the elected officials

3. A bit faster debates (this varies depending on the alliance's activity and laws in which debate periods and such are regulated)

4. Just had a discussion about this one, but I PERSONALLY think that most people don't know what there really talking about, i.e. you don't let a carpenter do brain surgery on you, or let a lawyer build your house, so why let some one who knows very little about politics (possibly even myself) to participate in politics?

5. Representatives represent maybe by strength range that they belong to or some other equivalent.

But I believe that a rep dem must have certain criteria...

1. 100% transparency(this may regulate freedom of speech, but only to a point where it is determined not what can be said but rather where it is to be said (i.e. responsible freedom of speech)).

2. It must have public voting of the government officials to show the people if there rep is voting in there best interests.

3. Elected reps can not hold other public offices to consolidate there power.

4. The people must have a way of recalling there rep should they deem him unfit or not representing the people.


I do not support a monarchy/dictatorship as there is to much power invested in one individual which would make him susceptible to corruption (lets face it, he is human) I have no desire to take commands and be sent to war on the whim of one pimple faced kid because he got his panties bent out of shape.

That's pretty much it for now.

I prefer the Francoist autocratic democracy myself.

Something which has been repeated countless times it's not the style of gover'ment that determines the quality of the alliance, but rather the quality of the members.

What I have found though is that micro-managing is a highly ineffective method of running an alliance as it requires government meeting after government meeting. As few people as possible are needed to make most of the decisions, whilst at the same time, not having too much burden placed upon them.

I find triumvirates are perfect in this regard. 2/3 can make decisions, and generally somebody will be around in case there is an emergency (most are diffused so long as there are people around to make decisions. The triumvirs can then appoint various people to do different jobs within the alliance and have different positions (what these positions entail is up to the triumvirs imagination).

That's very debatable, but that's a topic for a different time

Democracies have the advantage of electing very popular leaders that have a variable level of skill,
Whilst Autocracies have the advantage of having leaders with proven skill and an average amount of popularity.

And in the end the survival of an alliance depends on the skill of its leaders, and all it takes is for an alliance to have one inept leader and all the good work of those who came before them is undone. A autocracy has one leadership team and avoids this hazard easily, if they are inept then the alliance never becomes successful. But a successful democracy can (and has on at least one occasion in CN history I can think of) make one poor choice and elect a charismatic yet inept leader and experience disaster.

I personally believe a Triumvirate with 3 leaders each taking a certain job, so like one for IA, one for EA(FA) and the last for military for smaller ones. Especially little alliances, the less people in govt, the easier it is to run. Once your over id say 50-75 members you could add a council or add more ministers. Those three are really all you need tho. I also think there should not be elections for the triums, only time there should be is when your appointing them, this leaves out ppl who run for the position just to say they are the trium of the said alliance, and go inactive.

i like how ours is set up im not sure what you would call it but id throw it under the umbrella of a republic but i think a republic works best.

I like an autocratic leader and ministers with an elected Council below them. It's a good mix of both systems.

-Bama

I don't think there is a correct answer to this.

I personally prefer an alliance that allow members decide on everything and/or the choice to overrule a decision made by the government. In my opinion, an alliance is truly an alliance when it allows its membership to participate in every aspect that makes up itself.

it depends on the size of the alliance. Large alliances should have a triumvir with ministerial positions underneath them, but with enough power to make things happen still. The triumvir's determine the big decisions, and let the ministers carry them out.

Smaller alliances, 1 leader with ministers should be enough to get things done.

This is especially true. Alliances of 20-30 only really need 1-3 gov members at most. More than that and you've got too many cooks in the kitchen.

A government I've always thought would be good is having an elected council, and then the elected council chooses the ministers, and the ministers lead the alliance. I know theres a name for this but I can't think of it

Kronos has it's members elect a council - the council appoints the ministers, and the ministers and council combine to lead the alliance - is that what you're referring to?

Democracy. Autocracies are too inclined to stagnation in the upper ranks.

I believe it would be an elcted triumvirate, but I could be wrong. Funny, I was thinking that would be the king of gov I'd set up if I ever had to write a charter.

o/ Tobi

Centralized Democracy.

Dictatorship. There is no reason to elect a leader if you can freely elect what alliance to join. There's no need to separate powers if you have the most capable man leading.

Communisim/Socialisim