Exotic Governmental/Legal Systems

[ericthered]

Only Algorithms can run for office, and the public has the ability to run them for 1 year before the election...

[Irish Wolf]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Only dogs can vote or stand for office. That way we can have honesty in politics.

I dunno, that could get pretty ruff.

[Ramidel]

Originally Posted by Varyon

The Managed Democracy from Helldivers (I assume both games, although I've only played the second) is another exotic government of sorts. Ostensibly, rather than directly voting ("Managed Democracy gives true freedom: the Freedom From Choice"), the system uses algorithms to determine people's stances on issues based on their responses to a variety of online questionnaires and uses that to make decisions on which representatives to vote for. The fact everyone at least acts like they are super patriotic (and there's a lot of negativity toward "dissidents") implies filling in the "wrong" answers on said questionnaires has rather negative consequences for the citizen. There's also a Social Credit System in place; one of the mechanics on the player's Super Destroyer comments on increasing her Citizenship Rank by reporting some dissident statements she overheard.

"Objective Democracy" from Cities Without Number is similar.

Originally Posted by Cities Without Number p.206

City modelers factor economic data, infrastructure condition, crime statistics, and official polls together to create an objectively correct model of citizen opinions guaranteed to fully enfranchise all members of society, whether or not they even realize they’re being represented.

Several traditional polling places are kept open on election day as a necessary element of the model, but any attempts to actually vote there are taken as election tampering. Such attempts to disenfranchise others by corrupting the objective model are punished harshly.

...

The current mayor of New Chicago is Elaine Korsakoff, recently elected for her third four-year term. She ran on a platform of social opportunity, celebrating the endless possibilities for each individual in New Chicago and all the wonderful work her administration had done to further expand those opportunities for the city’s least-served citizens. The model judged her campaign to be a resounding success, with objective factors greatly outweighing the minor element of poll results.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Limited Franchises

I've always rather liked only people who can make it to the floor of the Assembly alive. Only people possessing a certain Mcguffin (a fragment of the holy crown, the crypto keys to the ruling computer etc.) has a similar effect if you allow the candidates kill each other to steal them.

[Irish Wolf]

An idea that came to me - a constitutional monarchy, but the heir to the throne cannot be a blood relative of the current monarch, legitimate or otherwise. I'm sure there's some aspect that escapes me, so how horribly would that turn out?

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Irish Wolf

An idea that came to me - a constitutional monarchy, but the heir to the throne cannot be a blood relative of the current monarch, legitimate or otherwise. I'm sure there's some aspect that escapes me, so how horribly would that turn out?

So what really are the qualifications of a constitutional monarch? I feel like if you're hand picking them it matters a bit more.

On the one hand you could end up with the royalty just picking up an orphan and raising them as royalty. But then do "orphans" show up in certain places when royalty is being picked (Yikes). And if you raise them from young enough you sort of get all the bad aspects of "My father is the king"

I thought that a pre-existing functional aristocracy could just pass the mantle around, but they're probably too interbred. If the monarch holds real power and actually uses it,

I could see it ending up in the hands of cultural giants. All hail queen Oprah, or something like that. I imagine this is probably destabilizing to the monarchy and some series of scandals ends it: such characters make the news too often for their own good as it is.

I could also see the position captured by a political party: the Purples get it at one point, and then just pass it around. Though I'm trying to imagine what sort of people they stick in: is it elder statesmen, rising stars, or people who take a detour to be king instead of a more traditional politician. The other party or parties are livid and jealous, though if the king/queen is savy enough they never get to abolish the monarchy.


EDIT: one more weird thought: giving it to war heroes or senior generals. This of course assumes you have a war enough that such people are relevant, but I could see it being relatively stable.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by ericthered

And if you raise them from young enough you sort of get all the bad aspects of "My father is the king."

Yup. In the UK, George V, George VI and Elizabeth II were not expected to become monarch during their early upbringing.

Edward VII and Edward VIII were, so I think we can say that there is nothing strongly advantageous about being brought up as the heir apparent. It's a bit early to tell for Charles III.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Irish Wolf

An idea that came to me - a constitutional monarchy, but the heir to the throne cannot be a blood relative of the current monarch, legitimate or otherwise. I'm sure there's some aspect that escapes me, so how horribly would that turn out?

Sam Starfall from the webcomic Freefall notes that his species does something like this, with the current ruler adopting a promising young upstart and appointing them heir. But that's because rulers are all infertile - breeding is fatal to Sqids, and the ones who can breed typically do so about as soon as they reach sexual maturity. Then any other Sqid in the area who wants a kid shows up and takes their pick of the litter to raise.

I'd imagine the system you describe would be at risk of devolving into either a dictatorial monarchy (the ruler being unwilling to have an unrelated heir and seizing total power, rewriting or outright destroying the constitution in the process) or a series of puppet rulers.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Irish Wolf

An idea that came to me - a constitutional monarchy, but the heir to the throne cannot be a blood relative of the current monarch, legitimate or otherwise. I'm sure there's some aspect that escapes me, so how horribly would that turn out?

There's a theory that a version of this was fairly common in the ancient world. The hereditary bloodline was matrilineal, and the king selected some promising warrior to marry his daughter and succeed him. It accounts for very common mythical or culture origin story world-wide of the prince leaving home (no reason not to, he had no prospects at home), marrying the daughter of a king somewhere else and ruling there.

The most obvious failure mode for a more modern interpretation is defining that blood relative thing, given that everyone in the world is within a few dozen generations (i.e. "all Europeans are descendants of Charlemagne"), and it has a history in the politics of royalty (mostly in the other direction, "in the I want a divorce", or "you're a disqualified bastard because your ancestors were too consanguineous to be legitimately married" formats).

[J Crocker]

Originally Posted by Irish Wolf

An idea that came to me - a constitutional monarchy, but the heir to the throne cannot be a blood relative of the current monarch, legitimate or otherwise. I'm sure there's some aspect that escapes me, so how horribly would that turn out?

Isn't that what Rome did, the Five Good Emperors? Everyone picked who he wanted as heir, wasn't a blood relative. Marcus Aurelius broke the pattern when he picked his son Commodus. Some versions of the story have a slightly different spin.