Any thoughts as what this could be in the future.

Im thinking a government without a pm or president instead a shared leadership and a new way of electing parties.

say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.

then labour get a 40 percent say in government.

Could that work?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Any thoughts as what this could be in the future.

Im thinking a government without a pm or president instead a shared leadership and a new way of electing parties.

say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.

then labour get a 40 percent say in government.

Could that work?

“say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.”

Wait what?

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Any thoughts as what this could be in the future.

Im thinking a government without a pm or president instead a shared leadership and a new way of electing parties.

say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.

then labour get a 40 percent say in government.

Could that work?

“say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.”

Wait what?

I’d like to hear better ideas if you have them.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Any thoughts as what this could be in the future.

Im thinking a government without a pm or president instead a shared leadership and a new way of electing parties.

say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.

then labour get a 40 percent say in government.

Could that work?

My ideal world leadership would be as follows. The only “voting” would be by small groups of smart people, a group of four for instance.

The government is run by people in a few political positions.

• The vision – has the role of setting policy
• The knowledge – keeps up to date with everything happening
• The action – has the role of getting things done
• The decision – hears different opinions and decides which to follow
• The voice – communicates to the public and foreign countries
• The crook – roots out self-interest and corruption wherever it occurs

Each individual hired for their qualifications and abilities for the job. For example, “the voice” has no role in setting policy and “the vision” doesn’t talk to the media.

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Any thoughts as what this could be in the future.

Im thinking a government without a pm or president instead a shared leadership and a new way of electing parties.

say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.

then labour get a 40 percent say in government.

Could that work?

“say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.”

Wait what?

I’d like to hear better ideas if you have them.

70 plus 40 is 110

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

“say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.”

Wait what?

I’d like to hear better ideas if you have them.

70 plus 40 is 110

Slow down egg-head…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Could that work?

Not really. A say in which 40%?

Eventually they are going to find areas where parties in direct opposition and their policy preferences are mutually exclusive.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I’d like to hear better ideas if you have them.

70 plus 40 is 110

Slow down egg-head…

it’s the new math.

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

“say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.”

Wait what?

I’d like to hear better ideas if you have them.

70 plus 40 is 110

Well if you vote early enough and often enough…………………

I think the Swiss and German models work reasonably well. They make cooperation more or less necessary.

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

“say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.”

Wait what?

I’d like to hear better ideas if you have them.

70 plus 40 is 110

ok 30 then.

STEMocracy

the end

SCIENCE said:

STEMocracy

the end

More like a Fruitopia…

Witty Rejoinder said:

SCIENCE said:

STEMocracy

the end

More like a Fruitopia…

MZLm theocracy

well if the world is rooted anyway why not grow up

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

SCIENCE said:

STEMocracy

the end

More like a Fruitopia…

MZLm theocracy

This government system is for advanced players. If you know what you’re doing, go ahead and pick Theocracy.
———Pros————
-25% Military Costs
+40% Construction Speed
———Cons————
-35% Maximum Technology Double GDI Expenses

Tau.Neutrino said:

Any thoughts as what this could be in the future.

Im thinking a government without a pm or president instead a shared leadership and a new way of electing parties.

say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.

then labour get a 40 percent say in government.

Could that work?

And how did we get to where we are? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma that perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

How about an anarcho-syndicalist commune. Where everyone takes it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more important affairs.

Wadda ya reckon?

Woodie said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Any thoughts as what this could be in the future.

Im thinking a government without a pm or president instead a shared leadership and a new way of electing parties.

say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.

then labour get a 40 percent say in government.

Could that work?

And how did we get to where we are? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma that perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

How about an anarcho-syndicalist commune. Where everyone takes it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more important affairs.

Wadda ya reckon?

Are you from the Judean People’s Front or the People’s Front of Judea?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woodie said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Any thoughts as what this could be in the future.

Im thinking a government without a pm or president instead a shared leadership and a new way of electing parties.

say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.

then labour get a 40 percent say in government.

Could that work?

And how did we get to where we are? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma that perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

How about an anarcho-syndicalist commune. Where everyone takes it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more important affairs.

Wadda ya reckon?

Are you from the Judean People’s Front or the People’s Front of Judea?

I am Arthur. King of the Bwittons. And yes, I know. You don’t vote for kings.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Woodie said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Any thoughts as what this could be in the future.

Im thinking a government without a pm or president instead a shared leadership and a new way of electing parties.

say libs get 70 percent of the vote and labour gets 40 percent.

then labour get a 40 percent say in government.

Could that work?

And how did we get to where we are? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma that perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

How about an anarcho-syndicalist commune. Where everyone takes it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more important affairs.

Wadda ya reckon?

Are you from the Judean People’s Front or the People’s Front of Judea?

I used to know someone from the Southern Siberian Front.

On TV last night, George III of England hated the governmental infighting that inevitably comes from the election of political parties.
So do I.

The purpose of the Opposition is NOT to oppose the government, but to help it.

mollwollfumble said:

On TV last night, George III of England hated the governmental infighting that inevitably comes from the election of political parties.
So do I.

The purpose of the Opposition is NOT to oppose the government, but to help it.

Our Opposition is often too busy opposing itself.

The Government believes its purpose is to help ‘business’ and the people who elected it can gather what crumbs they can that fall from the table.

i’d suggest that if you intend eliminating self-interest, that’s a substantial part of the idea, that you have in there some basic quality of tyranny, in fact i’d go so far as to say self-interest makes creatures understandable

so, do you have another idea?

transition said:

i’d suggest that if you intend eliminating self-interest, that’s a substantial part of the idea, that you have in there some basic quality of tyranny, in fact i’d go so far as to say self-interest makes creatures understandable

so, do you have another idea?

Do you see yourself as a tyrant over your landlordship?

roughbarked said:

transition said:

i’d suggest that if you intend eliminating self-interest, that’s a substantial part of the idea, that you have in there some basic quality of tyranny, in fact i’d go so far as to say self-interest makes creatures understandable

so, do you have another idea?

Do you see yourself as a tyrant over your landlordship?

my only point was that it’s easy to criticize self-interest, with unqualified statements, broad-brush it in a negative way, but i’d ask what of this world, of the creatures of this world, their motivations and behaviors, would be understandable without self-interest

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

i’d suggest that if you intend eliminating self-interest, that’s a substantial part of the idea, that you have in there some basic quality of tyranny, in fact i’d go so far as to say self-interest makes creatures understandable

so, do you have another idea?

Do you see yourself as a tyrant over your landlordship?

my only point was that it’s easy to criticize self-interest, with unqualified statements, broad-brush it in a negative way, but i’d ask what of this world, of the creatures of this world, their motivations and behaviors, would be understandable without self-interest

If you mean nothing would happen if they didn’t breathe, then nothing.

Anyone for Hare Clarke?