WA Delegate (non-executive): The United Mangrove Archipelago of Ransium (elected )
Last WA Update:
Embassies: Yggdrasil, Philosophy 115, Europe, the Rejected Realms, The North Pacific, the South Pacific, 10000 Islands, International Democratic Union, Oatland, Democratic Socialist Assembly, Hippy Haven, Haiku, The Federation of Anarchist Communes, Texas, Canada, Portugal, and 20 others.Spiritus, Eladen, Singapore, Winterfell, The Region That Has No Big Banks, Antarctica, Antarctic Oasis, The Bar on the corner of every region, A Liberal Haven, Union of Free Nations, Sunalaya, Futaba Aoi, New Western Atlantic, Conch Kingdom, The Leftist Assembly, Conifer, Sonindia, Wintreath, Pacifica, and Osiris.
Regional Power: Very High
Today's World Census Report
The Largest Mining Sector in Forest
World Census experts measured the volume of stuff removed from the ground to determine which nations have the largest mining industries.
As a region, Forest is ranked 11,293rd in the world for Largest Mining Sector.
|1.||The Social Darwinist Imperium of The Ascendant Hive||Iron Fist Consumerists||“What Crota began, I complete. My will... conquers all!”|
|2.||The Aristocracy of Woodfall Swamp||Inoffensive Centrist Democracy||“All Hail The King”|
|3.||The Irradiated Badlands of Drasnia||Anarchy||“It's okay to be Gray.”|
|4.||The Trivia Mistress of Lord Dominator||Corporate Police State||“Fire Cures Everything”|
|5.||The Hotdog-craving birb of Seagull||Corporate Police State||“Money does rule the world”|
|6.||The Whispery Candle Thing of Candlewhisper Archive||Capitalizt||“The Eyes Have It”|
|7.||The Dictatorship of Theennerla Island||Corporate Police State||“You Can't Stop Progress”|
|8.||The Conflagration of Joerombie||Father Knows Best State||“To Swerve and Defect”|
|9.||The Gooses Vaterland of The Geeses Commonwealth of Goosedom||Psychotic Dictatorship||“Die Gšnse ‹ber Alles”|
|10.||The Abominable Treekillers of Republic of Ravens||Iron Fist Consumerists||“Fair is foul and foul is fair”|
Last poll: “Shall we form embassies with Osiris? ”
- : The Holy Empire of Morgateroyde arrived from Canada.
- : The Commonwealth of Route 1 departed this region for Thaecia.
- : The Commonwealth of Route 1 arrived from The Dank Meme Alliance.
- : The Secretive Tribe of Velossa departed this region for Middle Earth.
- : The State of EcoLof arrived from Lazarus.
- : Verdana ref ceased to exist.
- : The Penguin haven of Penguinmattland departed this region for DER BUND DER PREUSSEN.
- : Sinvald ceased to exist.
- : The Ancient Realm of Sho Mak Lan departed this region for Wintreath.
- : The Eco-Republic of Mozworld added a dispatch.
Forest Regional Message Board
Messages from regional members are co-ordinated here.
|The Efficient Manifold of Turbeaux|
Agreed, but then the US would have to switch to a parliamentary system. I do not think that such a change would even be considered given the requirements for constitutional amendments and the automatic opposition that both the Ds and Rs would present. They do not even want to let non-D/R candidates into presidential debates. The last one who made it in was Ross Perot in 1992. So we are stuck with making the best out of a creaky framework. Shifting to anything other than an FPTP voting system or a non-two party system simply will not happen unless there were to be a violent revolution and/or some sort of extreme catastrophe.
|The Plant-based Collectives of Uan aa Boa|
I don't think there's any inherent reason why the US system is worse than a parliamentary one. Just look at the recent Brexit mess for an example of the problems the latter can get into. In any case, over here we seem to see our elections as increasingly presidential. We had televised debates in 2015 and (to a lesser extent) 2017, an election called in part because Theresa May was worried the 2015 mandate wasn't hers, despite there being no legal basis for that concern. And there's no doubt that most voters are voting on which leader they want to be Prime Minister as if it was a Presidential election.
Something that strikes me as odd about the US system is the lack of relationship there can be between candidate and party. Did Trump have any connection to the Republican party before his run? And the Democrats were considering Saunders, who sat in the Senate as an independent.
Perhaps more concerning is the apparent requirement that candidates be independently wealthy in order to finance a campaign. I remember thinking when Theresa May first met Donald Trump that the founding fathers might have been surprised that the leader of the US was a hereditary millionaire while the leader of the UK was a clergyman's daughter.
EDIT - meanwhile Ransium's proposal Repeal Endangered Species Protection has been submitted to the WA and will probably be the next motion at vote. Don't panic, he hasn't suddenly gone anti-environmental. A more robust replacement is ready and waiting.
|The Constitutional Republic of Aclion|
|The Commonwealth of Route 1|
|The Nomadic Peoples of Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners|
This might be an effect of the Founders' (or, at least, the Federalists') extreme distrust of parties and "faction." On the one hand, the appeal of democracy ("of, for, and by the People") was obvious, but so are the problems of partisan faction -- "tyranny of the majority." So, they invented (or stole from the Iroquois, according to one history professor I had) a system where parties/faction -- the House -- is checked by the second sober thought of more dispassionate and educated minds -- state legislatures, the Presidency, and the Senate. In theory, according to Madison in Federalist no. 10, those elected to state legislatures, the Presidency, and the Senate should be people (free, white, land-owning, educated males...) better trained in the arts of debate and consensus-making and all that sort. These people would be elected from among the population, and given how difficult it would be to bribe or otherwise corrupt them, these individuals would be ideal for checking the necessary if ruckus House of the People.
Thus is established a system and political culture that idealizes individuals who are meant to be above it all in a way as to ensure democracy and good government. This is an ancient theme in democratic theory; the "philosopher kings" have become the "philosopher representatives."
But, fast forward a couple centuries, over the course of which Federal power has been consolidated and there has been significant movement toward more majoritarian systems of government (including de factor popular election of the President and de jure popular election of the Senate), and you end up with a system and political culture that idealizes individuals and is highly partisan. Thus, partisan factionalism gets consolidated behind individual personalities.
The Founders completely failed (not to their discredit of course) to anticipate 200 years of technological development that largely fueled that consolidation -- radio, television, travel across the country in a few hours, the internet, social media, absurdly vast corrupting wealth, etc -- but their system built on the assumption that factionalism could be controlled probably didn't adequately deal with the problem of political parties and majority rule all that well after all.
EDIT: Regarding the "borrowing" of the Iroquois confederate model --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_Peace
|The Pacific Alpine Commonwealth of Mount Seymour|
This. A parliamentary system has its own set of drawbacks, and is not clearly preferable to a presidential system. But either type you can have with a non-FPTP voting systemó STV/IRV/Ranked-Choice principally. Of course, such a change is just as unlikely to ever occur in the current climate. Itís one of the only things the Republican and Democratic parties can agree on: that the system which allows them to preserve their stranglehold on politics has to remain in place (ironic, considering itís a system which is massively harmful to the democracy they claim to uphold). No one wants to write the law to give themselves more competition.
|The Constitutional Republic of Aclion|
|The Free Land of Cameroi|
media has a role to play in this if they would. they don't HAVE to give ALL the air, to candidates from the two major parties.
|The Wild Hunting Grounds of Areulder|
They will, not least because most "journalists" today are little more then political activists and they're in a relationship with their preferred political party.
|The Federal Republic of Digedingdangdong|
That comparison doesn't hold up because in 2016 the party hierarchy was very unified behind Hillary -- not just "someone other than Bernie," but specifically Hillary Clinton -- and they put their thumbs on the scale hard. This time around, there are several candidates being given serious consideration. Even if Biden wins the primary, there will still be some other candidates that got a fair shake.
Also, keep in mind Clinton had a lot of baggage that had nothing to do with moderate vs. progressive. A moderate candidate who isn't Hillary Clinton won't necessarily have so much baggage or such a divisive campaign style.