True

What about continental members

Would we be locked to our landlocked members

colonization of planets would be a international affair managed by the Union but upon reaching a certain development threshold the colony would be given independence and the choice to join the Union. That way we avoid the Sci-fi trope of Zeons and Martian Dominions that hate Earth

anyone can join

they just have to guarantee the rights of what would essentially be the international bill of rights

Would we have a grand capital for all members in one location

it'd move

probs every half decade or something

I'd say that this capital should be isolated

although it would depend on whats happening in the world

No one lives near or on site

I.e if we are talking planetary

like not Earth?

A moon or planet would be the capital

ah

I could see our moon

But very important that no one lives there

Only visits for business

if it had to be on the planet itd be in the more empty areas

To show a common folk mentality

true

also term limits would exist for all non beurocratic positions

fair obviously

Would a system like the giver be put in place

You mentor and learn then take the next spot

most positions terms would jsut last the length of their position in their own States goverment

Or just like what we have now where anyone can go to school and grant an education that leads to you going forth with the position of government

but those not attached to the home government their would be a system of term limits in place

But

elected preferrably

Want to give the people as much power as possible, although a kinda of electoral college might be necessary

What if a subsection of member declared that they want an official to stay past term

I.e Democratic means to dictatorship

As in they already have a postion in the home state or only a position in the confederation?

Let's go with home state but with that in home state it could lead to confederation

tbh i havent thought as far into these aspects lol

A very well written constitution should be able to keep subsections of parties from illegitimate power,
The wording however..
Very interesting thoughts you guys have

If the home state has a change of governmental system then likely negotiations would have to start with the other members to determine their ability to stay on or have to appoint someone

hard to say there

but yea it could potentially be prevented if the constitution is written well enough lol

thanks Rickard

Ah but

BUT GOOD SIR

lol

although again they COULD also be kicked out

What if members vote to change this constitution

oooh!

And thank you rickard!

ideally though only Democracies would be members with very few exceptions like the UK

since they are technically in-between a Parliamentary Democracy and a Constitutional Monarchy

The Prime Minister would be the Confederations rep

Monarch would still largely do nothing as it does irl lol

Would it be one person

Or a collective

Might use royals for diplomacy though

Each member would have a Main rep, that being their executive leader. then theyd have essentially whatever their vice is if they have one and if not then the person would be elected by the individual state for that specific position

at least thats my vague idea of it lol

Also

i must disagree on the royals part.
I do support the idea of 'non' political diplomats that work for nothing but the best of relations with other entities.
Power should be earned, not inherited

I agree with you on this but for all of this to work we have to implement a all must vote law

true

It is mandatory for everyone to vote

i can see that

i want more people to vote anyway llol

One of many downsides with modern democracy..
Things work so smoth for the common man that he starts taking the system, its services and its benefits for granted.

Voter turnout sure is an important issue in many parts of the western world today

India has this implemented

Do you know if it works?

It does

Wait

Dont quote me on this

Let me take a look

It might be they make it available for everyone but it's not mandatory

US has on average approximately a 34% turnout

its awful

It's a disgrace

I also want to figure out a way to get everyone automatically registered to vote

Big brother has some ideas

Sweden had a turn out of 85.8% last election

Let the party help

Lel

No voter registration required in the manner it is in the US,
Citizenship and ID is all that is needed

lol

we have to register in the US

When you register, is that with a governmental entity or with a party?

Do you believe that we have that for racist reasons

The party

party, non partisan organizations, and government ala DMV

those are what i know of

I have never really understood the part of having to register with a party to vote...
Only thing you should need is citizenship and proof of that!

Elections Commission is typically who you do it through ultimately

registering to the party happens separately

registering to the party allows you to vote in closed primaries and i think caucuses

open primaries do not require membership of a party

iirc i am a registered democrat although im in an open primary state so it doesnt really matter

also allows you to be a DNC or RNC elector i think

tbh kinda registered on a whim when i helped a Dem campaign

we lost

Interesting system...
In Sweden the parties get to chose their own candidates and only party members are allowed to take part in the ranking of candidates to the different government bodies

was super close though

Representative democracy has its perks...

Anyone can run here

Parties are mostly just the pedistool

although the DNC and RNC allow the party to implement some control

yeah anyone can run here too, as independent candidates. Anyone is also free to start new parties

yea we can start parties too

ive got the party registration site bookmarked just in case

the problem with our third parties is that they are often single issue and not broad like the Dems and Repubs

Well the way your system is set up makes it very hard for smaller parties to stand a chance, right?
In Sweden it is enough with 4% of the total votes in order to gain access to the parliament, for anny party

in a sense yes

its one of the potential outcomes of first-past-the-post

other countries circumvent this via party coalitions

We currently have 8 parties in the national parliament, two coalition blocks and one 'out cast' party (12.9%)

kinda like how UKIP and the Greens coalited in EU parliment to stop Art13 and 11(?)

yea

art. 13 and 11 have not yet been voted on in the EU parliament, i think?

I do think though that just having ONE other option in the US would do it some good

They voted to not have secret meetings and negotiate publicly instead

the third would inevitably have to be Moderate to maintain balance

I agreem the US sure does need some other options..
Having some to choose inbetween helps with solving both democratic issues and bi-partisan issues

About article 13 and 11, you're right, it was shut down!

Lucky me 😛

in regards to executive positions the primary process would likely cover 3 parties instead of 2 so it could potentially be longer

the Art 13 and 11 stuff aint over keep calling them Meps

basically instead of two tables at the poll during the primaries youd have 3

the only reason RNC and DNC exist is to narrow down candidates

through the primary

but the people still elect the candidate

then the Super Delegates are SUPPOSED to function similarly to the Electoral College and vote with the constituents iirc

Yeah... The EU is doing alot it shouldn't.
I get the narrowing down principle, it makes sense for a party to do so.
But as you point out, at least one more option would probably do alot of good.
The super delegate part though, very strange!

and if it HAD to be between two parties then we would have to have an additional process after the primary to narrow things further

Super Delegates can be bought and honestly i think that they should be nonpartisan as a result

Man, if it had to be between two parties the corruption potential would be hughe

because they already have party biases

thats the problem we are dealing with

ofc they have. There should be no acctual delegates, only the result of the voting

DNC rigged the presidential primaries to ensure Hilarys win

yea ideally

i heard about that

very sad

id maintain the electoral college in regards to the over pres election though

popular vote aint always the smartest lol nor are electors at times but idk its a insurance thing if anything

like before typically electors just vote with the state

It may very well be an insuranse thing, but also a weak point

I remember hearing about that and the fact that bernie pulled a coward move and played for Hillary really showed me a lot

and since electors change based on population the way you campaign changes

Bernie did essentially cuck himself

Should I start another BLM page? The official one was some Australian guy having a laugh. And I'm an Australian guy that wants a laugh.. I could make them all do the Boiling water challenge and become cannibals or some shit

Very complicated system for someone not as read in to it as me 😛

tbh i dont know as much as i might be implying, especially about the Electoral College

Probably more than me anyhow!

thats why idk how to argue or or against it when it comes up

fair lol

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

oh boy, here comes the facts!

"Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about the qualifications of the Electors and restrictions on who the Electors may vote for."

lol

jeez

id get rid of party selected ones

but yea it leaves it up to the states

so California might have different rules from say Texas

btw something those two states have in common. They both like talking big, and about succession

aaaaaaaand they never do it, in part cause its illegal to leave the Union

Is it really illegal??

"The Constitution does not directly mention secession. ... The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union. There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding. Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal."

so yes and no

Sounds like there is no law or chapter touching on the subject?

basically

if there is no writing forbiding it is it not then legal?

theoretically a state could probs but the overall Union would likely respond in a way to keep them in

Man that is an interesting subject, would be nice to have a lawyer pitch in

kinda like the Civil War

it was after that that we "made it" illegal

yea

Constitutional lawyer specifically

^^

"Texas v. White in 1869, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot secede."

I bet there is a great and way too long ytube video on this

Of course it was Texas lol

probs

Haha what other state.. Alaska?!

"We want to go back to russia!"

like i said Texas and Cali are the ones that always want to succeed lol

Alaska dont want to go back, although Russia want them to come back kek

the reasources

And the military strategic interests..

Pres who bought it got shat on but place ended up being black gold

oh def

No great deed goes un-punished..

Hawaii we essentially conquered

that i havent looked into though

but yea Alaska got Oil so we were satisfied in the end

Hawaii has an indigenous population, right?

yea

we overthrew their Queen iirc

it was weird

then we just turned around and gave them statehood

although again i dont know that much about it

I have a feeling this "invasion" also created a massive lift in standard of living, but also a loss of sovereignty

yeaaaaa

I know that there are some who use it for their identity politics

oh boy.. one of few topics i try not to touch 😛

same with Native Americans (they all prefer different names for them)

yeaaaa

Yea if you ever meet a Native American dont be afraid to ask what to refer to them as

Some are fine with Indian, some prefer Native American, or Indigenous People, or whatever tribe they are part of

hard core!

basically it varies per individual or tribe

Tbh i think that the Federal Government needs to help the reservations more because if we are gonna make them live there we might as well treat them well too

they have rampant poverty issues that we could help

Do they have access to education?

i don't think we will ever get to a point where they become independent nations. maybe states but that'd have to be negotiated with the current states they reside in

yea

They are all citizens

iirc

so they have all the same benefits

I personally think that if the have access to education they also have the choice to persue better and other lives

they just get ignored

therefor you have no obligation to aid them specifically before other groups/individuals

those that dont live on reservations tend to do fine

those that do either live in poverty or go into the stereotypical casino jobs

I will need to talk to a friend of mine who knows this stuff more

Noticed when i was vissiting the US, almost only natives employed at the casinos outside of vegas

they are part of a tribe and advocate for aid essentially

yea thats the trend

and they tend to be those living on the reservations

cause otherwise its poverty

cause they dont have good options on reservation

again i dont have all the details so im really basing this on heresay

iirc casinos are illegal but native tribes get special privaleges

and vague knowledge

depends on the state

and yea they get a pass i think

so long as they are on reservation or in states where its legal

Can't know everything..
Iäve heard about those weird casino laws before

i guess it has its reasons but i'm no fan of group specific laws

if anything in this case its kind of to pay them back for conquering them

yeah i kinda wish we'd have just integrated them into US society instead of pushing them into reservations

its just poorly implemented

Integration is the best way of handling marginalized groups, def. agree on that!

We have integrated them in many ways but tbh i would have prefered theyd have become states

and hell maybe that cans till be made possible

the problem is negotiating size

wonder if the voters would support that

could be a party splitting issue?

and obviously the state the reservation is in would have say in said negotiations\

iirc its been quite a divisive topic

cause the reservations essentially want ALL of their previous territory back while the States that control alot of that land obviously dont want to give it away

My thought exactrly

I think there should be some sort of compromise