Proof that democracy doesn't work

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

An alliance working/succeeding or not is not solely a function of the method they opt for as far as leadership ascension is concerned. While it might be one of the determining factors in the path they take to success/failure it is not the most important one, in fact it is one of the minor factors.

The major factors are more to do with the will and the commitment levels of the membership.

Also, what Archon said. In this verse the exit barrier for leaving alliances is next to nothing. Every alliance is in a way democratic in that it allows the members to vote with their feet. Even the staunchest of imperial/democratic setups has to take notice and recant any miss-steps when a majority of the members decide to be 'democratic' in this manner.

[Matthew Conrad]

[quote name='Titus Pullo' timestamp='1284094070' post='2448576']
Aww darlin' that's so cute... Please try again once you realize I'm not even in TOP...
[/quote]

He didn't even say you were in TOP. Equating his critique of TOP in regards to your post and somehow that implying your membership in TOP is dumb. Anyways, your generalization of democracy working well in execution is also flawed and in no way based in reality. Besides "elite" alliances, democracies have proven to be largely ineffective in garnering any more competency and/or activity than other popular forms of government. A great example is Legion. Democracies work for elite alliances because they are competent, they aren't competent because of democracy.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Matthew Conrad

[jerdge]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1284081461' post='2448276']All alliances are failures.[/quote]
Delta, you showed one time too much that you're too wise for this world. Please leave! [i][/admiration][/i]



[b]On topic:[/b]
Democracy works in CN. Many successful alliances are democratic and there's no recognizable trend of autocratic alliances being more successful.
If anything, the workload of running a successful alliance mandates for some obligatory distribution of duties (and power), and to have members that find it worth to be active the membership needs to have some say on the most important issues. Some form of democracy is thus necessary for the success of an alliance.



[b]Slightly on topic:[/b]
How is the OP "proof" that democracy doesn't work? It doesn't even try to address the issues of power assignment in The Legacy...
It's not even [i]about[/i] democracy IMHO

[thaone]

[quote name='Davian Thule' timestamp='1284081895' post='2448286']
Meritocracy FTW

Just sayin'
[/quote]

Meritocracies don't exist, their is always someone who has to decide who has the most merit.

If you can show me a [b]true[/b] meritocracy, were someone is promoted/demoted [b]purely[/b] on merit I will give you fifty tech.

It would be stupid for an alliance not to strive to put the best suitable people in the right positions.

[R3nowned]

"Democracy is the worst type of government, except for every other type of government that's been tried before" - paraphrased from Winston Churchill

[memoryproblems]

There is no single alliance government type that will work for every alliance. What is best for any specific alliance is determined by the culture, goals, and mindset of that particular alliance.

With that said, I've always been a fan of systems that are a combination of the dictatorship/meritocracy style and democracy. If you have an appointed head who can make appointments mixed with elected positions, you gain the benefits of both, namely a stable government and a sense within the alliance that they have a say in what goes on. I think its even better when the division of power is as equal as possible, as in the absolute head of the alliance cannot take action (sign treaties, declare wars) without the consent of the collective group of those appointed and those elected, with neither group having enough power to make moves on their behalf. Such a system would have an alliance leader with decent power, but not absolute power and would mean their role would be less as alliance decision-maker and more as alliance curator, depending on the manner in which it is implemented.

Another thing, while infrequently does a complete democracy work in this game, I personally feel some level of democracy is ideal for the vast majority of alliances. Those elected will generally be those who are active and those who contribute, those who would work their way into government positions through democracy would usually work their way through a meritcratic system, but it provides the membership with the sensation that they are involved, instead of just following the whims of a single individual, and it provides them with an incentive to become involved and help the alliance, whereas one could quickly become discouraged when ascensions into government are done out of sight and behind the scenes.

[Kroknia]

[quote name='TheNeverender' timestamp='1284087544' post='2448396']
Every alliance is a democracy, for every member can vote with their feet.
[/quote]
I seem to remember Moo, EuroSoviets and Vladimir saying this every day in the League era when arguing with the left wing over who was the most left wing alliance... NPO spais running MK?

I do agree with it though. You just can't expect long term dedication or membership if this is the only measurement of your democracy.

[Hyperion321]

Fark works just fine.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

I think the reason there are people that gripe about democracy is that they find it difficult to deal with other alliances that are democratic whereas they themselves are not in a democratic alliance. The thing with democracies is that they have a way of queering the pitch. You spend a month or two cultivating a relationship with the top guys in an alliance and their next elections throw up folks you have no standing with. Not to say that it is not possible, just needs more work and constant nurturing [hey, this might be a good thing after-all]

Also the aversion to the possibility of not really knowing what an alliance is likely to do, can they be counted upon? Like for example, everything works just fine like clockwork, you go ahead and DoW/Treaty someone, all your allies are smiling and passing the schnapps. Then, one of them clears their throat, "Ahem, might i have a word with you about a particular internal poll that just started on our forums". You can almost hear the *groan* that goes through your head.

There is also the perception [i don't know how justified it is] that democracies are more likely to succumb to PR related issues. There can and will be arguments both for and against this till the cows come home.

[sammykhalifa]

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1284071542' post='2448087']
So I found something quite funny here. I was reading through Mido's blog, this doesn't center around Mido I'm just saying, how [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&blogid=444&showentry=1811"]democracy is the way to go.[/url] Now he's joined the alliance The Legacy where it is a very structured, if not one of the more, structured systems:



Furthermore his caption under his avatar reads: "A Leader sets the Trail for others to follow!"

Well.. that's not democratic. Anyways, isn't it just proof that democracies on Planet Bob just aren't as efficient?
[/quote]

No. I vote for Sarm every day by continuing with him in his alliance. A "Despot" without popular opinion on his side isn't going to find himself an alliance leader for very long.

Depends on what you mean by "Democracy" I suppose. I know of no government in the world [CN or the Real One] that votes on every single issue that comes up.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1284131674' post='2448848']
No. I vote for Sarm every day by continuing with him in his alliance. A "Despot" without popular opinion on his side isn't going to find himself an alliance leader for very long.

Depends on what you mean by "Democracy" I suppose. I know of no government in the world [CN or the Real One] that votes on every single issue that comes up.
[/quote]
Switzerland actually comes pretty damn close to being a direct democracy. I also believe that LSF functions that way, though I could be entirely wrong on that count.

[Vladimir]

Alliances run on the basis of electoral democracy are anti-freedom, enslaving their denizens to the chaos of nature. It is therefore notable but unsurprising that alliances in general have increasingly moved away from these so-called 'democratic' practices over the past four years and towards more autocratic systems -- in terms of the executive, but more importantly in terms of day-to-day functions (when was the last time we had an international incident caused by an independent judiciary, or by the 72 hour debate period necessary for a minor political move). Of course, if you had all accepted Francoism into your hearts you could have understood this and saved yourselves those four years of painfully slow evolution.

[Sardonic]

Democracy is dandy but fascism is faster.

[Politician]

Being in a democratic alliance myself, I can imagine being in a non-democratic one to be more dull. Not sure if it is more efficient, but democracy is way funner.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Politician

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' timestamp='1284102112' post='2448668']
He didn't even say you were in TOP. Equating his critique of TOP in regards to your post and somehow that implying your membership in TOP is dumb. Anyways, your generalization of democracy working well in execution is also flawed and in no way based in reality. Besides "elite" alliances, democracies have proven to be largely ineffective in garnering any more competency and/or activity than other popular forms of government. A great example is Legion. Democracies work for elite alliances because they are competent, they aren't competent because of democracy.
[/quote]
One could almost say that an alliance's competence is based on it's competence and not it's system of government.

[Teddyyo]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1284087109' post='2448388']
You know, I'm really really proud of myself. Back when FAR was growing and seemed promising there was a thread to rate alliances. People generally rated FAR decently, and when I was in Gondor a few of our friends/allies had treaties with you and spoke highly of you. I remember I rated FAR a 5 with a commentary something along the lines of "Pandas and the rest of the alliance seems ok, but I don't trust that Fernando chap" and discouraged a FAR treaty. I might have been the first one to see how screwed up and moronic you were. I wish I could find that thread, I'd make a sig out of it


For the record, democracy has its pros and cons, personally I enjoy having an elected cabinet who serve under a monarchial executive with ultimate decision making authority, but can be overturned by a majority cabinet vote. Allows snap decisions to be made when needed, but the voice of the people is still heard, and the peoples representatives can overrule the monarch
[/quote]
You know, Fingolfin, I thought we were friends. Now that I see you talk about [i]my treaty partners[/i] in such a way, in a way it's an attempted insult to my intelligence.

Lol, just messing with you


As for democracy, on CN, no. Just no. Let's hold a vote on whether to respond to a nuclear rogue and make it last a week.

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='Teddyyo' timestamp='1284152980' post='2449070']
As for democracy, on CN, no. Just no. Let's hold a vote on whether to respond to a nuclear rogue and make it last a week.
[/quote]
Not all democracies in CN take as long as that, ODN has worked on a much quicker timeframe than that for awhile now. The fact is that Democracies are only as good as the people who are elected, some alliances get lucky for a while in that regard, others do not.

[Owned-You]

Informal democracies backed by rigid structures are the most efficient forms of government I've seen in CN. Plenty of alliances have it; although it does tend to create the image of an Ivory Tower/Glass Sealing for lower membership.

[DictatatorDan]

[quote name='Titus Pullo' timestamp='1284094070' post='2448576']
Aww darlin' that's so cute... Please try again once you realize I'm not even in TOP...
[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]I never assumed that you were in TOP. I was merely undermining your thesis by providing a recent, and concrete example of how an alliance can make a horrible decision, in spite of being a Democracy.

Of course, that by no means makes a totalitarian system inherreantly superior, as demonstrated by Polaris in the Bi-Polar War except that totalitarian systems allow their leaders to make !@#$%*/good decisions at a much higher rate with limited acountability.[/color]

[Titus Pullo]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1284157653' post='2449150']
[color="#FF0000"]I never assumed that you were in TOP. I was merely undermining your thesis by providing a recent, and concrete example of how an alliance can make a horrible decision, in spite of being a Democracy.

Of course, that by no means makes a totalitarian system inherreantly superior, as demonstrated by Polaris in the Bi-Polar War except that totalitarian systems allow their leaders to make !@#$%*/good decisions at a much higher rate with limited acountability.[/color]
[/quote]

However, there is no such thing as a totalitarian system in CN.

e.g. Should a totalitarian leader declare war against another alliance in CN, his/her members have to approve of the war by declaring war on a nation in the opposing alliance. They must show continued support of their leaders actions by attacking and not accepting individual surrender. However, should the alliance not approve of the war the members can take matters into their own hands to either end the war before it starts or via other means.

[DictatatorDan]

[quote name='Titus Pullo' timestamp='1284159838' post='2449186']
However, there is no such thing as a totalitarian system in CN.

e.g. Should a totalitarian leader declare war against another alliance in CN, his/her members have to approve of the war by declaring war on a nation in the opposing alliance. They must show continued support of their leaders actions by attacking and not accepting individual surrender. However, should the alliance not approve of the war the members can take matters into their own hands to either end the war before it starts or via other means.
[/quote]
[color="#FF0000"]The keyword is 'limited'. It is unrealistic to expect an alliance, especially a large one, to do disregard it's leadership over morality issues and events that most members do not understand; Especially when the only consequence is to be alienated from a collective community.[/color]

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Mixoux' timestamp='1284081395' post='2448273']
Democracies can work, so long as you actually let your elected officials do their job and not whine and moan at every decision made.
[/quote]
I for the most part agree but some decisions do justify criticism but as long as it isn't the constant bickering that takes place between political parties in RL politics.

[Titus Pullo]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1284165224' post='2449288']
[color="#FF0000"]The keyword is 'limited'. It is unrealistic to expect an alliance, especially a large one, to do disregard it's leadership over morality issues and events that most members do not understand; Especially when the only consequence is to be alienated from a collective community.[/color]
[/quote]

Alienation is followed by outstretched arms at another alliance.

[DictatatorDan]

[quote name='Titus Pullo' timestamp='1284166201' post='2449304']
Alienation is followed by outstretched arms at another alliance.
[/quote]
[color="#FF0000"]A high price to pay for moralism, and someone elses double standards.[/color]

[Monster]

[quote name='Mixoux' timestamp='1284081395' post='2448273']
Democracies can work, so long as you actually let your elected officials do their job and not whine and moan at every decision made.
[/quote]

Totally this. If a democracy gets to the point where it's paralyzed by things like that, it's useless.