Exotic Governmental/Legal Systems

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

Have we mentioned this yet?

Instead of national citizenship and nationhood being defined by squiggly lines on maps, individuals choose their nation-state-of-allegiance by an opt-in method.

The problem is that many of the services provided by nation-states are location-based with no easy way to exclude free riders other than requiring everyone to pay. For example, it's far more efficient for a fire department to simply put out fires without worrying about who owns the property than to simply sit and watch a building burn if its owner hasn't paid.

For services that are not location-based, sure, they could be transferred to dispersed entities, but we probably don't call those entities governments.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Anthony

For services that are not location-based, sure, they could be transferred to dispersed entities, but we probably don't call those entities governments.

That's not the most serious issue though - location based services probably do need to continue to rest with local governments, but once you get up above the city or county level, it's not very significant for most stuff - you don't get much service *directly* from higher levels of government, it just pays for them.

I think the real problem with lots and lots of small intermingled sovereignties tends to be choice of law. It's not so bad for anticipated issues - you can spell it out clearly in every contract well enough, but if you run over my cat there could potentially be three separate law codes (yours, mine and whoever owned the chunk of street you were driving on) involved here that could say three different things, not just about what you owe, but about who has jurisdiction in the first place. When that's true for every legal dispute, well you have a mess.

[David Johnston2]

A representative democracy...except that the large cities are treated as semi-autonomous zones, the residents of which may not vote in the national government.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

This excludes the downvoted party, and all cadidates who have agreed to be part of said list during this election. Which means that bulky parties with a thousand-candidate list will get punished for it more than small ones if they turn out to be disliked that much.

As far as I know parties in PR systems don't puts forward a list of a thousand candidates. Here the rule is the parties put forward a list of twice the number of representatives the district has.

Also, if I'm understanding this correctly if "None of the Above" gets 10% of the vote all lists with less than that get punished?

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

As far as I know parties in PR systems don't puts forward a list of a thousand candidates. Here the rule is the parties put forward a list of twice the number of representatives the district has.

Also, if I'm understanding this correctly if "None of the Above" gets 10% of the vote all lists with less than that get punished?

When I suggested NotA I was thinking of American-style 'lone candidates', but it might work with lists. One thing about it: if we assume that a list that gets less than NotA is voided, that's a major incentive for each party to make sure that they don't include some one particular unpopular guy, who might lead to an entire otherwise-viable list being voided.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Legislature has two suppliments. One is picked by lot equivilent to jury duty. This is to ensure that it remains representative. The other is lifetime and chosen by the legislators themselves. These are to maintain the traditions of the legislature and preside over session but only vote to break a stalemate(or not if they actually prefer a stalemate). Note that these lifetime legislators are organic rather then being an executive or a separate house strictly speaking.

Another possibility: a 2-chamber legislature, both with set terms in the familiar way, but one is chosen by lot from among all eligible citizens, the other elected in the usual way.

GURPS Terradyne had an interesting variation: a 2-chamber legislature in which either chamber alone could pass new law by a (IIRC) 2/3 majority, or both together with simple majorities.

Or there could be a 3-chamber legislature, and legislation requires a majority in any two of them.

In a polity with a hereditary nobility, you could have a parliament made up of a commoner chamber, and a separate chamber for each 'grade' of the nobility. That is, the Commons would be one house, the Barons another, the Viscounts another, the Dukes another. Each chamber meets separately and votes separately. Maybe there would be a life peer chamber, too.

A two (or more) chamber legislature, with opposite franchises. That is, one is elected the familiar way, for a set term. The other is appointed by some authority, and holds office for life, until voted out. That is, every so often he must stand election and if a majority votes to remove, the appointing authority must pick a new member.

A familiar 1 or more chamber legislature, in which the longest-serving member is the head of government, regardless of party or majority. (This would give a given electoral district a big incentive to keep reelecting their man, the more so the longer he has already served.

Variation on the above, a gerontological system in which the oldest member of the legislature is head of government, regardless of length of service.

A system of multiple royal families, who are not permitted to intermarry or even have sex (to avoid producing cross-family heirs), the crown passes not from the current monarch to his offspring, but to the oldest member of the next family in line. That is, King John Smith dies and the throne passes to David Jones, the oldest Jones. When he dies, the crown passes to Ronald Ross, the oldest of the Ross line. Eventually it circles back to the Smiths.

A hereditary monarchy, in which the new monarch is chosen by lot from among the eligible offspring of the precious ruler. It might equally well be the oldest, the youngest, or in between. (I suspect intra-family rivalry in such a system might get...ah...intense.)

[RyanW]

Rather than casting conventional votes, the electorate provide entries into a random drawing. A write in candidate that gets one vote has a tiny but non-zero chance of winning.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

As far as I know parties in PR systems don't puts forward a list of a thousand candidates. Here the rule is the parties put forward a list of twice the number of representatives the district has.

Also, if I'm understanding this correctly if "None of the Above" gets 10% of the vote all lists with less than that get punished?

I thought the idea was that if NotA is the highest-winning vote, then the banning kicks in. Which means that, essentially, in situations like the recent [redacted] vs. [redacted] or [redacted] vs. [redacted] elections (ones where a large fraction, potentially a majority, of people feel like they're choosing between two evils), there's gonna be a clean slate and a second attempt with a totally different set of candidates.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

When I suggested NotA I was thinking of American-style 'lone candidates', but it might work with lists. One thing about it: if we assume that a list that gets less than NotA is voided, that's a major incentive for each party to make sure that they don't include some one particular unpopular guy, who might lead to an entire otherwise-viable list being voided.

Here you can strike someone you don't like from the list you vote on. You vote for a list and on the ballot are the names of the candidates running for that list in that district, if you don't like a candidate you can strike the name out (and you can strike all but one name off the list you're voting for) and if enough of your fellow X party voters do the same the candidate is moved one or more spots down which can in theory lead to the candidate not getting a seat.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I thought the idea was that if NotA is the highest-winning vote, then the banning kicks in. Which means that, essentially, in situations like the recent [redacted] vs. [redacted] or [redacted] vs. [redacted] elections (ones where a large fraction, potentially a majority, of people feel like they're choosing between two evils), there's gonna be a clean slate and a second attempt with a totally different set of candidates.

Yup, the original idea was for a first-past-the post system. However I was wondering how this would work in proportional representation systems.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by malloyd

That's not the most serious issue though - location based services probably do need to continue to rest with local governments, but once you get up above the city or county level, it's not very significant for most stuff - you don't get much service *directly* from higher levels of government, it just pays for them.

I think the real problem with lots and lots of small intermingled sovereignties tends to be choice of law. It's not so bad for anticipated issues - you can spell it out clearly in every contract well enough, but if you run over my cat there could potentially be three separate law codes (yours, mine and whoever owned the chunk of street you were driving on) involved here that could say three different things, not just about what you owe, but about who has jurisdiction in the first place. When that's true for every legal dispute, well you have a mess.

IIRC this was amongst the delights of feudal Europe - most places had several conflicting power centres fighting over each case (guild, crown, local lord, church etc., not to mention specialised operations like market courts). Many cases could be sandbagged indefinitely just whilst jurisdiction was established.