Why Democracies Don't Work

[Fronz]

I agree on the things you say here 'cause I've seen it happened before, but I think that the point of an alliance being democratic is so the membership uses their power or have power available should it be needed. If the membership doesn't use what's available to them, it would be their fault... NOT the system. Also, I never understand why people leave an alliance because a vote didn't go their way. I mean, what's the point of being in a democracy then? If you want choice, you have to accept others' choices too.

I would also have to agree with you to an extent, when the member base is active democracies can be really great and I think all alliances should have some underlying emergency democracy powers given to the general masses just in-case everything goes to hell, at least 50%+1 wont leave because they can do something about the situation. I guess what I'm saying is the system is very venerable to inactivity, all governments are, but I think democracies are the most venerable. During elections (when i was in the USN) we would only get a voter turn out of ~25 members out of ~120 when everyone was mass messaged about government elections, and every election at least one person won by default because there were not enough active people/willing people to also run for that position. I think this is where democracy fails, when you only have about a 1/4th of the alliance actually participating and there are people getting elected to high level government positions without a vote since there was no one to run against them, regardless if they are fit for the job or not. When it gets to this point you should really think about shaking things up and radically change the system.

I don't think most people think about the point of a democracy and the logic behind it when they leave, usually they are driven by emotion. I left because i was angry. I was told we were going to war and the at last minuet that didn't happen, guess that makes me a warmongering sith or something

Edit: ahoy! grammatical errors!

Edited October 15, 2009 by Fronz

[Chaoshawk]

The title was a little misleading for me.

[Sterling Shmigadoo]

Interesting perspective, heavily weighted down by complicating factors that, to me at least after reading the OP, have little to do with the claim made as the title of this topic.

From what I read here in these forums, the Sith alliance very closely resembles a direct democracy.

I cannot speak to their success, but I can speak to the level of discourse of their members here.

By that standard alone, I would judge it a very successful aka healthy alliance, inasmuch as I judge success or health here primarily on the engagement of an alliance's members.

Or am I missing something?

[Lonely]

Democracy can be an effective form of government, if the alliance is elitist. Otherwise, experienced and active members who understand how the game works and know about alliance politics have the same voting rights as a totally new player. This simply means that the alliance will not function as effectively, because it relies on the opinions of those who are not qualified to provide opinions on anything pertaining to this game.

When I have debated this with people previously, a common rebuttal is ‘but democracy works fine in real life!’ and indeed, I believe that in real life, democracy is the best form of government. This is not because I believe that democracy is the most efficient government system – indeed, a country governed by a voting body of intellectuals might actually function better than a proper democracy representative of the people of an entire nation – but because what the majority of people want, they get, regardless of whether it is best for them.

In Cyber Nations, things simply don’t work like that. An alliance is designed for maximum efficiency, and if the members don’t like the decisions of their rulers, they can go elsewhere. It’s not about what the majority of the members want, but what is best for the alliance, in the eyes of the people who are most qualified to decide on what is best for it.

[Sterling Shmigadoo]

Democracy can be an effective form of government, if the alliance is elitist. Otherwise, experienced and active members who understand how the game works and know about alliance politics have the same voting rights as a totally new player. This simply means that the alliance will not function as effectively, because it relies on the opinions of those who are not qualified to provide opinions on anything pertaining to this game.

When I have debated this with people previously, a common rebuttal is ‘but democracy works fine in real life!’ and indeed, I believe that in real life, democracy is the best form of government. This is not because I believe that democracy is the most efficient government system – indeed, a country governed by a voting body of intellectuals might actually function better than a proper democracy representative of the people of an entire nation – but because what the majority of people want, they get, regardless of whether it is best for them.

In Cyber Nations, things simply don’t work like that. An alliance is designed for maximum efficiency, and if the members don’t like the decisions of their rulers, they can go elsewhere. It’s not about what the majority of the members want, but what is best for the alliance, in the eyes of the people who are most qualified to decide on what is best for it.

Everything you have written sounds reasonable...

But...

Consider for a moment that, at least according to your qualified post, you don't even really believe in democracy in real life.

Consider further that we've never seen a democracy result in anything but mediocrity at best and chaos at worst in real life.

Finally, ponder for a while just why and how self-proclaiming democracies receive their senses of legitimacy.

I'd argue that what we see here evenly mirrors real life, from theory right through practice: the greater the illusion of democracy, the higher the level of individual acceptance of said governing system, no matter how any system, real or gaming, really is organized.

People want to think they make a difference. Tell them they do and give them a way to make a difference, throw in a little charisma to guide the "public" discourse, and they will believe a "limited" dictatorship is actually a form of democracy.

[Lonely]

Everything you have written sounds reasonable...

But...

Consider for a moment that, at least according to your qualified post, you don't even really believe in democracy in real life.

Consider further that we've never seen a democracy result in anything but mediocrity at best and chaos at worst in real life.

Finally, ponder for a while just why and how self-proclaiming democracies receive their senses of legitimacy.

I'd argue that what we see here evenly mirrors real life, from theory right through practice: the greater the illusion of democracy, the higher the level of individual acceptance of said governing system, no matter how any system, real or gaming, really is organized.

People want to think they make a difference. Tell them they do and give them a way to make a difference, throw in a little charisma to guide the "public" discourse, and they will believe a "limited" dictatorship is actually a form of democracy.

I do not understand where in my post I stated that I did not believe in democracy in real life, such was certainly not my intent. If you could specify what you mean, I will clarify.

Perhaps democracy (in real life) does have its flaws. It’s actually an entirely useless, !@#$ty government system. But it’s also the best government system in the history of the world. The communists may debate that communism is better than representative democracy and capitalism, but the reality is that communism does not work, and hence every communist regime that has arisen thus far has been associated with mass murder, re-education camps for those brave enough to dissent, and so forth. But I digress. This thread is about democracy in a Cyber Nations context.

[Sterling Shmigadoo]

I do not understand where in my post I stated that I did not believe in democracy in real life, such was certainly not my intent. If you could specify what you mean, I will clarify.

Perhaps democracy (in real life) does have its flaws. It’s actually an entirely useless, !@#$ty government system. But it’s also the best government system in the history of the world. The communists may debate that communism is better than representative democracy and capitalism, but the reality is that communism does not work, and hence every communist regime that has arisen thus far has been associated with mass murder, re-education camps for those brave enough to dissent, and so forth. But I digress. This thread is about democracy in a Cyber Nations context.

I think the semantics and open endedness of what many of us take or dispute to be "democracy" is to blame here, for I actually agree with much, if not all, of what you wrote. I think most of what we take to be democracy naturally leads to flawed ways of conducting any organizational venture, here or elsewhere, but... like you, I also agree that it is still a far better approach to dealing with others than any alternatives we have seen.

Back specifically to this topic, I suppose my central objection to the OP is that I simply do not see how we approach or attempt to practice "democracy" in Cyber Nations differs at all from how we approach or attempt to practice it in "real life."

Edited October 16, 2009 by Sterling Shmigadoo

[Iotupa]

All of those paragraphs could have been shortened to read "The majority of CN players have absolutely no idea what is going on at any point in time, so they make decisions based on nothing. This is why democracy does not work."

[Heracles the Great]

All of those paragraphs could have been shortened to read "The majority of CN players have absolutely no idea what is going on at any point in time, so they make decisions based on nothing. This is why democracy does not work."

The truest statement I've read said in the most concise way... I knew there was a reason I liked you JB -

[Stumpy Jung Il]

All of those paragraphs could have been shortened to read "The majority of CN players have absolutely no idea what is going on at any point in time, so they make decisions based on nothing. This is why democracy does not work."

OOC: Sadly this can be applied to many real world democracies as well.

IC: Seriously the truest things Ive heard about the political semantics of this game in a long time. Well put old friend.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Stumpy Jung Il

[Arcturus Jefferson]

All of those paragraphs could have been shortened to read "The majority of CN players have absolutely no idea what is going on at any point in time, so they make decisions based on nothing. This is why democracy does not work."

That seems to apply to most alliance leadership regardless of means of selection so I don't see where you're going with this.

[Iotupa]

That seems to apply to most alliance leadership regardless of means of selection so I don't see where you're going with this.

Well, yeah, I would say most alliance leadership doesn't know what is going on either. I'm just trying to restrict my comments to the topic at hand, which is that democracies don't work.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

And I'm just concerned that the topic at hand is leading people to miss the big picture, is all.

[Iotupa]

And I'm just concerned that the topic at hand is leading people to miss the big picture, is all.

Alright, well let me hit the big picture for you then.

Nearly every single player of CN, regardless of whether they are a normal member or government member, has no idea what they are doing or what is going on at any point in time.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Alright, well let me hit the big picture for you then.

Nearly every single player of CN, regardless of whether they are a normal member or government member, has no idea what they are doing or what is going on at any point in time.

Works for me, thanks for wrapping this up!

[Iotupa]

Works for me, thanks for wrapping this up!

You are welcome, sir.

[Chief Savage Man]

I disagree. The common man must be the power. If capable people run each alliance, then conflicts will be resolved and tensions reduced. Competence is ruining this game. It must be eradicated.

[Drostan]

If nobody knows what is going on then it doesn't really make a huge difference who governs an alliance. I think this is over-stating the case but certainly has some truth to it. I think democracy can work on a small scale but becomes too slow and cumbersome on a large scale. The other problem with democracy is that since most people won't know what's going on, they will inevitably opt for whatever they think is the safest course. Lucky for war-mongers like our friend Savage Man here, they don't know what they're doing and so they eventually screw up and war ensues.

I am quite confident that it is not competence that prevents wars though. That's far too cerebral. Every time I read leaked logs I get more and more convinced that competence has little to do with the resolution of tensions. I think it simply takes time for tensions to build, and then you need circumstances to grant you a CB (even a weak one), and then you need circumstances to allow you to pursue the war (public opinion). All of this takes time. I think conflict on Bob is fairly cyclical and we can expect to see another conflict within the next few months.