Low-Tech Democracy.

[Michael Cule]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

No place allows all adults to vote. I don't think inmates or the institutionalized mentally ill can even now.

There are places in Europe where the inmates are allowed a postal vote. Damn fine idea in my opinion.

I'd say that for any really wide spread of the vote you need to have a wide spread of literacy and basic education. A peasant out in his field won't have much interest in anything outside his immediate interests unless he can read about the greater world beyond his village.

And to get that you probably need printing and paper. Both of which were late medieval to early renaissance (GURPS TL 3 to 4) innovations in the real world (at least in Europe) but are so simple in principle that they could have come along much earlier. Availability of pre-printed forms for voting makes the secret ballot work and government bureaucracy more functional.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Michael Cule

There are places in Europe where the inmates are allowed a postal vote. Damn fine idea in my opinion.

I'd say that for any really wide spread of the vote you need to have a wide spread of literacy and basic education. A peasant out in his field won't have B much interest in anything outside his immediate interests unless he can read about the greater world beyond his village.

And to get that you probably need printing and paper. Both of which were late medieval to early renaissance (GURPS TL 3 to 4) innovations in the real world (at least in Europe) but are so simple in principle that they could have come along much earlier. Availability of pre-printed forms for voting makes the secret ballot work and government bureaucracy more functional.

With the printing press, demagogues can use pamphlets, newsletters, and so on to bamboozle and mislead the urban mob and the greedy burghers in ways that benefit the demagogues.

Literacy isn't really necessary, though. Parties could be identified by cartoons of farm animals or household objects on ballots. I think that has actually been done in India.


Peon A "I voted for the Rooster Party! They are going to put a chicken in every pot!"

Peon B ''I voted Goat Party. They are way better. I herd goats and they are going to give me free goat-care."

A "Rooster Party says that's a lie. It isn't really free. That new poultry tax is going to pay for it, that's what I heard at the village well last week."

B "No, dummy, it's you feather-fluffing freaks who are the problem! You have infringed on our sacred grazing rights!"

<fight breaks out, Goat supporter knocks Rooster supporter over noggin with goat-stick, state later outlaws goose crooks in a confused bid to stop stick related violent crime. A rider to the bill, attached by inmates in the capital city dungeon one hundred miles distant voting in a referendum, releases all murders and rapists who promise to be good boys. No one notices amid the national furor over goose crook violence. Many are killed in the riots…>

Yay, democracy!

[ericthered]

The meaning of 'Centralized' is making me scratch my head. In government classes I've had Centralized be the opposite of Federal: the central government holds complete power over sub-governing bodies. For some reason, Federalism tends to be in place over larger countries, even in this age of modern communication.

Or do you simply mean that there is a formal government with actual power, as a opposed to a cultural alliance of small governments or some other form of confederacy.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Michael Cule

I'd say that for any really wide spread of the vote you need to have a wide spread of literacy and basic education. A peasant out in his field won't have much interest in anything outside his immediate interests unless he can read about the greater world beyond his village.

So? What's wrong with voting for whoever you think will best defend the interests of your village?

It's a barrier to a really efficient direct democracy, where you expect the voters to make choices on complicated issues for the good for the nation. For a representative democracy where government paralysis isn't necessarily considered a bad thing, it might be a virtue. As long as there is enough time between each election and the representative body meeting for all the elected representatives to travel to the same place, there don't seem to be any particular limitations on that.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by malloyd

So? What's wrong with voting for whoever you think will best defend the interests of your village?

It's a barrier to a really efficient direct democracy, where you expect the voters to make choices on complicated issues for the good for the nation. For a representative democracy where government paralysis isn't necessarily considered a bad thing, it might be a virtue. As long as there is enough time between each election and the representative body meeting for all the elected representatives to travel to the same place, there don't seem to be any particular limitations on that.

''Really efficient direct democracy " sounds like a unicorn government to me.
:)

But that aside, I agree. The local men get together at the meeting-house and choose the sheriff, mayor, etc.

I don't know how many slaves, serfs, bondservants or other such people his society has got living in it.

Is there a property or social status equipment for voting? Poll tax?

A tribal/national affiliation or family bloodline requirement? Like being a natural born citizen? Joining the nation/tribe after a period of residence and taking an oath of allegiance?

Nor do I know much about the status of females.

I'm skeptical that the sort of large in both area and population, centralized, democratic state I think he's describing is likely to develop and survive without improved communications and infrastructure of TL 5. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it seems unlikely to me.
If he means that all the adult men and women , barring felons, idiots, and aliens, can vote-- well, that's not really TL dependent.
But regularly counting such a huge number of votes, collating all the information, sending all the information to the central capital of a large and populous country looks like a massive headache. It might prove unworkable.
I'm thinking he may need not only printing presses (TL 4) but steamboats, lots of improved roadways, and maybe telegraphy.

Is there a reason why the OP doesn't want a federal system?

How centralized is ''centralized''?

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

''Really efficient direct democracy " sounds like a unicorn government to me.
:)

Not at all. Rule by unicorns is an aristocracy.

[William]

Multiplication of direct citizen referenda tends to make governing difficult even in modern-day American states, so if we want an efficient democratic government at low tech levels I think a federalized system of representative democracy is about the only way anything will get done.

You will want a good system of roads and a well-funded post, so that levels of government can communicate with each other. Government communications might have dedicated Pony Express stations. Of course, this benefits trade as well.

Federalization will result in regions being jealous of their prerogatives, but the American experience with the Articles of Confederation (and later, the Civil War) firmly supports the necessity of a strong central government with some taxation power, control over purse strings, authority in well-defined legislative spheres, and a standing army if the nation is to remain a single entity. Lacking any one of these things means they will have either no resources to fight regional entities, no political leverage, no areas in which to use their influence, or no muscle to back up the first three.

[Polydamas]

There is a book entitled The Secret History of Democracy which covers more democracies than the usual selective list of European ones.

Originally Posted by malloyd

So? What's wrong with voting for whoever you think will best defend the interests of your village?

It's a barrier to a really efficient direct democracy, where you expect the voters to make choices on complicated issues for the good for the nation. For a representative democracy where government paralysis isn't necessarily considered a bad thing, it might be a virtue. As long as there is enough time between each election and the representative body meeting for all the elected representatives to travel to the same place, there don't seem to be any particular limitations on that.

The representative principle is rare in our world, and the voters at least need to be able to follow what their representatives are doing. I am skeptical that a large democracy could work without printing, and probably without electrical communications. Something the size of England or the Aegean might work without either ...

I would also think about how ordinary people keep the moneyed, leisured elites in check. Aristocratic feuding, and aristocrats trying to squeeze more money and power out of everyone else, ended quite a few ancient democracies.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Not at all. Rule by unicorns is an aristocracy.

LOL, good one, dude!

:)

Originally Posted by Polydamas

There is a book entitled The Secret History of Democracy which covers more democracies than the usual selective list of European ones.


The representative principle is rare in our world, and the voters at least need to be able to follow what their representatives are doing. I am skeptical that a large democracy could work without printing, and probably without electrical communications. Something the size of England or the Aegean might work without either ...

I would also think about how ordinary people keep the moneyed, leisured elites in check. Aristocratic feuding, and aristocrats trying to squeeze more money and power out of everyone else, ended quite a few ancient democracies.

Indeed.

And how are mobs of poor citizens kept from voting in demagogues who wreck the state?
That's been another common death mode for democracies.

[combatmedic]

I wouldn't call it "centralized" or very large in population (only about 300 K people) but is the familiar with the Yeomanry League of the World of Greyhawk?



http://www.canonfire.com/wiki/index.php?title=Yeomanry

I always found it a plausible sort of medieval fantasy democratic state.

Warriors form local groups which elect representatives, who form groups which elect representatives who form the council that forms the highest level along with the elected heads of state and governments.
It's bottom up and concrete/organic in development, not top down and abstract/theoretical.
Over time craftsmen got the franchise.

By the late period that the article I've linked to represent, gainfully employed folks who have not borne arms also get the vote. That's not a retcon. It's a historical development, near as I can tell.



The Yeomanry may be rather too small for the OP's purposes. AN d of course it is a fantasy country, not a real world historical example.