Showing posts with label voting and elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voting and elections. Show all posts
Sep 16, 2014
Sep 10, 2014
Fads, Focus, Leadership, and Why Democracy Fails
The Kingdom of Edan uses social media to pass along information to others and as alterantive news sources. Today I was reviewing the ongoing battles in Ukraine between the coup leaders in Kyev and various separatist groups in the east; the impact of vaccine costs on the operations of Médecins Sans Frontières as they fight childhood disease; the work of various bishops to provide aid to the many Christians being slaughtered in Iraq; how ISIL forces are selling young girls into slavery to raise funds; the violent clashes between Boko Haram and African forces; etc. I was also reading a concerning report about the rapid decline in British military power in the last 2 decades and the possible impact this could have on global stability.
In the midst of this I encountered a tweet (and associated picture) that was stunning in its incongruity. In midst of the greatest outbreak of Ebola in history, unemployment and economic downturn threatening to both expand rapidly, Pakistan (a nuclear power) in political chaos, civil wars in Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic (in addition to everything mentioned above) this tweet and pic proclaimed,
It is easy to understand how people become so easily distracted by the trivial. To a wealthy American or Australian unmenaced by war or rebellion, far from plague and famine, in a land never threatened with attack in a generation or more the problems of West Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia seem far away and very, very impersonal. On the other hand the idea that it might take 0.5 - 1.5 more seconds to load your email in the morning is direct and personal.
Note that while I said it is easily to understand I did not say it is defensible.
As a result you have many people who are spending a great deal of time and energy influencing politics to make sure that their emails loads as quickly as they like even though their concern is based upon erroneous understanding of the topic at hand and their level of engagement is irrational.
This isn't a surprise. After all it is easy to demonstrate that voters are irrational in their voting and tend to attach emotional weight to trivial topics merely because others have already attached emotional weight to the same topic, a phenomenon called 'herding'.
But this may not be a bad thing, really - as Prince Jonathan pointed out, expecting every single citizen to be knowledgeable and engaged in all aspects of of government, economics, and foreign policy is a form of cruelty. Others have argued that voters are actually acting rationally when they remain ignorant of politics and 'herd' - to sum up their points, it isn't that voters are irrational but rather that remaining ignorant and voting as others do may be the only rational option for the majority of voters!
Regardless of the underlying causes of voter behavior, the fact remains that the net neutrality issue is a perfect example of why Democracy is doomed to failure.
Yes, really.
Remember, the entire argument underpinning net neutrality is based upon a misapprehension of how the internet actually works. Yet as is shown in the links on this age several prominent politicians are proposing laws to enforce the position of the ignorant/irrational activists. Why would they do this?
It could be that they are also ignorant of how the internet works. But why not consult some of the many experts they must have access to?
The actual answer is that it is rational for politicians to make bad laws that appeal to ignorant and/or irrational voters.
Why? Politicians are, in a very real way, just more voters: they do not have the time and energy to be fully conversant with every element of government, economics, etc. and they are not only likely to 'herd', they also face the tremendous pressures of being members of political parties - they are also forced to herd in many areas! Lastly, the tendency of voters to 'herd' means that politicians that appear to agree with a particular group of irrational voters will be seen in a favorable light by those voters - agreeing with ignorance will earn them more future votes; disagreeing might strip them of power.
The result is a system where ignorant, irrational politicians maintain or increase their influence and power by enacting bad laws to appeal to ignorant, irrational voters. Or, in short, any modern Democracy in action.
This is why the Edanian system of Feudal Technocratic Distributism is a critical element of governmental conceptualization; leadership in Edan is focused on avoiding decision making based on ignorance, reducing irrationality in leadership as much as possible and making the self-interests of leaders intimately tied to the long-term prosperity of families and the nation, not voting in short cycles. This concept of an integrated life is essential to Edan and foreign to Democracy.
In the midst of this I encountered a tweet (and associated picture) that was stunning in its incongruity. In midst of the greatest outbreak of Ebola in history, unemployment and economic downturn threatening to both expand rapidly, Pakistan (a nuclear power) in political chaos, civil wars in Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic (in addition to everything mentioned above) this tweet and pic proclaimed,
"No seriously people. Net Neutrality is more important than whatever you're doing right now."This discussion is not about net neutrality (although the arguments used in favor of it tend to reveal its proponents don't understand how the contemporary internet actually works) but rather about what some people have sarcastically named first world problems; how trivial issues can take on a large emotional value to people who do not face serious issues. There is a slightly older term for this - the fad.
It is easy to understand how people become so easily distracted by the trivial. To a wealthy American or Australian unmenaced by war or rebellion, far from plague and famine, in a land never threatened with attack in a generation or more the problems of West Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia seem far away and very, very impersonal. On the other hand the idea that it might take 0.5 - 1.5 more seconds to load your email in the morning is direct and personal.
Note that while I said it is easily to understand I did not say it is defensible.
As a result you have many people who are spending a great deal of time and energy influencing politics to make sure that their emails loads as quickly as they like even though their concern is based upon erroneous understanding of the topic at hand and their level of engagement is irrational.
This isn't a surprise. After all it is easy to demonstrate that voters are irrational in their voting and tend to attach emotional weight to trivial topics merely because others have already attached emotional weight to the same topic, a phenomenon called 'herding'.
But this may not be a bad thing, really - as Prince Jonathan pointed out, expecting every single citizen to be knowledgeable and engaged in all aspects of of government, economics, and foreign policy is a form of cruelty. Others have argued that voters are actually acting rationally when they remain ignorant of politics and 'herd' - to sum up their points, it isn't that voters are irrational but rather that remaining ignorant and voting as others do may be the only rational option for the majority of voters!
Regardless of the underlying causes of voter behavior, the fact remains that the net neutrality issue is a perfect example of why Democracy is doomed to failure.
Yes, really.
Remember, the entire argument underpinning net neutrality is based upon a misapprehension of how the internet actually works. Yet as is shown in the links on this age several prominent politicians are proposing laws to enforce the position of the ignorant/irrational activists. Why would they do this?
It could be that they are also ignorant of how the internet works. But why not consult some of the many experts they must have access to?
The actual answer is that it is rational for politicians to make bad laws that appeal to ignorant and/or irrational voters.
Why? Politicians are, in a very real way, just more voters: they do not have the time and energy to be fully conversant with every element of government, economics, etc. and they are not only likely to 'herd', they also face the tremendous pressures of being members of political parties - they are also forced to herd in many areas! Lastly, the tendency of voters to 'herd' means that politicians that appear to agree with a particular group of irrational voters will be seen in a favorable light by those voters - agreeing with ignorance will earn them more future votes; disagreeing might strip them of power.
The result is a system where ignorant, irrational politicians maintain or increase their influence and power by enacting bad laws to appeal to ignorant, irrational voters. Or, in short, any modern Democracy in action.
This is why the Edanian system of Feudal Technocratic Distributism is a critical element of governmental conceptualization; leadership in Edan is focused on avoiding decision making based on ignorance, reducing irrationality in leadership as much as possible and making the self-interests of leaders intimately tied to the long-term prosperity of families and the nation, not voting in short cycles. This concept of an integrated life is essential to Edan and foreign to Democracy.
Sep 3, 2013
Choosing Illusions
One of the most chilling concepts in theology is the idea that we choose Hell: the idea is that at the time of judgement everyone is presented with heaven, part of which is a clear, perfect view of reality, including the reality of ourselves. The damned are the ones who decide not to look, who reject reality for lies because reality is too much for them. The damned choose to be damned because, to them, eternal torment is preferable to the truth.
Perhaps most people participating in modern politics are likewise rejecting reality for illusion.
I have expressed my views on Communism elsewhere. It seems obvious to me that the various people and groups that still adhere to and promote Communism do so out of improper motives. They are, in the end, rejecting reality.
Are the members of Democracies that much better at recognizing reality? The slide of Democracy to collapse is so well known and understood that some of America's founders opposed Democracy and, when they were overruled by the democratic process, warned the nation of the danger. The French First Republic was notable for the Reign of Terror, a bloodbath that presaged the horrors of the 20th Century, and for lasting barely over a decade before being transformed into an empire that started the first global war and transformed civilians and such into 'acceptable strategic targets' of war. The French Second Republic lasted only about three and a half years but was still riddled with riots, uprisings, and death and, again, collapsed into a bellicose empire. The French Third Republic fell to invasion and the French Fourth Republic collapsed under its own weight. The French are on their Fifth Republic, so far, and still cling to the idea that the concepts that created the Terror, the Napoleonic Wars, are important to France being a great nation....
From France to Germany, the USA to the UK the rise of democracy has seen the decline of nations and, much more importantly, decline for the citizens of those nations. I am not discussing increases in material goods, I mean the legal rights and moral health of people. Considering the level or unrest visible in these nations, I do not think greater wealth replaces less freedom and degraded public morals. From the rise of nationalist parties in Europe to movements such as Occupy and the Tea Party in the USA people demonstrate that they know they are losing ground but continue to return to Democracy again and again.
Why?
Because, in the end, Democracy is a comforting illusion. The spectacle of 'the electoral process' catches the eye; the platitudes of politicians and pundits engage the ear; the ritual of voting lulls the mind; the continual, meaningless bickering between interchangeable empty suits numbs the spirit. The flashy pomp and weightless rhetoric of 'politics' is so ubiquitous that people become sick of 'hearing about politics' and tune it out without realizing that is the goal - apathy. Yet even those who want to change, want to make an impact stick to the same pattern, use the same formulas, try to 'engage voters' and 'frame the narrative' and 'create a grassroots movement' and on, and on, and on... just like the people they wish to replace for being ineffectual (at best) or corrosive (as usual). They don't realize that they are just slapping a new coat of paint on the same Potemkin village.
The question that strikes at the core of modern Democracies isn't 'which party should I vote for?' it is 'why is it that, no matter who is in power, things never get better?'
Sure, this constituency might get that tax increase/break they wanted, and that group might get the program increase/cut they spent sixty million euros lobbying for, but overall things still got worse; the economy is still booming and busting with each boom a little lower at apogee and each bust a little lower at perigee; the overall burden f taxes, fees, fines, and such still creeps up each year, somehow; the burden of laws and regulations makes it harder and harder to get anything really done and done well; but once the 'electoral process' parade begins most people get in line for the ritual of casting a vote.
The Western culture really hammers us all with the idea that political systems boil down to "Democracy vs. various types of tyranny" and has done so for over a Century. The replacement of centuries-old, stable Monarchies with Democracies was of key importance to Western Democracies after WWI and WWII and we are still reaping the fruits of these changes in the Balkans and the Middle East. But the most stable nations in the Middle East are still monarchies; Lichtenstein is a beacon of success in Europe (and the citizens routinely vote down attempts to introduce more democracy to their nation), and it seems that as the Constitutional Monarchies of Europe degrade the powers of their monarchs their nation's see their own wealth and influence degrade as well. Yet, still, Democracy is idolized.
Certainly, some few see the issues with Democracy and go too far, rejecting all government as inherently bad, but this is just another form of accepting the illusion that there is either Democracy or nothing worthwhile.
So, what do we do?
Start pointing at the 'electoral process' and laughing. Long and loud. Start asking the real questions, such as,
'But what was the real meaning of the speech? Not the signals, not the opposition to another party - the real, inherent meaning?'
'When did your life get better because of Democracy?'
'If your duty conflicts with Democracy, what would win?"
And be a proud monarchist!
Perhaps most people participating in modern politics are likewise rejecting reality for illusion.
I have expressed my views on Communism elsewhere. It seems obvious to me that the various people and groups that still adhere to and promote Communism do so out of improper motives. They are, in the end, rejecting reality.
Are the members of Democracies that much better at recognizing reality? The slide of Democracy to collapse is so well known and understood that some of America's founders opposed Democracy and, when they were overruled by the democratic process, warned the nation of the danger. The French First Republic was notable for the Reign of Terror, a bloodbath that presaged the horrors of the 20th Century, and for lasting barely over a decade before being transformed into an empire that started the first global war and transformed civilians and such into 'acceptable strategic targets' of war. The French Second Republic lasted only about three and a half years but was still riddled with riots, uprisings, and death and, again, collapsed into a bellicose empire. The French Third Republic fell to invasion and the French Fourth Republic collapsed under its own weight. The French are on their Fifth Republic, so far, and still cling to the idea that the concepts that created the Terror, the Napoleonic Wars, are important to France being a great nation....
From France to Germany, the USA to the UK the rise of democracy has seen the decline of nations and, much more importantly, decline for the citizens of those nations. I am not discussing increases in material goods, I mean the legal rights and moral health of people. Considering the level or unrest visible in these nations, I do not think greater wealth replaces less freedom and degraded public morals. From the rise of nationalist parties in Europe to movements such as Occupy and the Tea Party in the USA people demonstrate that they know they are losing ground but continue to return to Democracy again and again.
Why?
Because, in the end, Democracy is a comforting illusion. The spectacle of 'the electoral process' catches the eye; the platitudes of politicians and pundits engage the ear; the ritual of voting lulls the mind; the continual, meaningless bickering between interchangeable empty suits numbs the spirit. The flashy pomp and weightless rhetoric of 'politics' is so ubiquitous that people become sick of 'hearing about politics' and tune it out without realizing that is the goal - apathy. Yet even those who want to change, want to make an impact stick to the same pattern, use the same formulas, try to 'engage voters' and 'frame the narrative' and 'create a grassroots movement' and on, and on, and on... just like the people they wish to replace for being ineffectual (at best) or corrosive (as usual). They don't realize that they are just slapping a new coat of paint on the same Potemkin village.
The question that strikes at the core of modern Democracies isn't 'which party should I vote for?' it is 'why is it that, no matter who is in power, things never get better?'
Sure, this constituency might get that tax increase/break they wanted, and that group might get the program increase/cut they spent sixty million euros lobbying for, but overall things still got worse; the economy is still booming and busting with each boom a little lower at apogee and each bust a little lower at perigee; the overall burden f taxes, fees, fines, and such still creeps up each year, somehow; the burden of laws and regulations makes it harder and harder to get anything really done and done well; but once the 'electoral process' parade begins most people get in line for the ritual of casting a vote.
The Western culture really hammers us all with the idea that political systems boil down to "Democracy vs. various types of tyranny" and has done so for over a Century. The replacement of centuries-old, stable Monarchies with Democracies was of key importance to Western Democracies after WWI and WWII and we are still reaping the fruits of these changes in the Balkans and the Middle East. But the most stable nations in the Middle East are still monarchies; Lichtenstein is a beacon of success in Europe (and the citizens routinely vote down attempts to introduce more democracy to their nation), and it seems that as the Constitutional Monarchies of Europe degrade the powers of their monarchs their nation's see their own wealth and influence degrade as well. Yet, still, Democracy is idolized.
Certainly, some few see the issues with Democracy and go too far, rejecting all government as inherently bad, but this is just another form of accepting the illusion that there is either Democracy or nothing worthwhile.
So, what do we do?
Start pointing at the 'electoral process' and laughing. Long and loud. Start asking the real questions, such as,
'But what was the real meaning of the speech? Not the signals, not the opposition to another party - the real, inherent meaning?'
'When did your life get better because of Democracy?'
'If your duty conflicts with Democracy, what would win?"
And be a proud monarchist!
Aug 27, 2013
How Edan Works: Voting, Sessions, and the Government's Calendar
This 'nuts and bolts' discussion is a deeper dive into how elections work and the calendar of the government.
The Kingdom of Edan uses Greenwich Mean Time for all governmental purposes although local time is usually also included for ease of understanding.
General elections for the Senate are held every two years and are overseen by the Ministry of State. Voting begins at 1 minutes after Midnight on the 1st of March and ends 1 minute before midnight on the 2nd of March, giving citizens just under 48 hours to cast their votes. In general it is believed that voting will be permitted by electronic communications as well as in person.
In certain cases a special election will be needed. Special elections are scheduled and announced by the Ministry of State and the voting period lasts for 72 hours.
All senate elections use the single transferable vote proportional representation system with voting groups decided by the Ministry of State as needed. It is expected that citizens will be divided into groups that select between 4 and 8 senators, probably based upon fiefdoms.
All votes will be tallied and a complete count will be done at least twice. If more than 7 counts are required the Ministry of Justice shall assist with counts and in the unlikely event of a tie a run-off elections will be held until elections are complete.
The Assembly (which is the Senate and the Council) has 1 session each year; a session is the period when the legislature is available to performs its duty. Each year's session lasts from March 8th and ends on October 31st unless one or both days fall upon a Sunday - if that happens the date is delayed until the following Monday.
The session is divided into conclaves of eight weeks each with a recess of 2 weeks in between. The conclaves are periods of active legislation while the recesses are for discussion, time with citizens, relaxation, etc. The period of a session contains enough time for 3 conclaves plus an addition 4 weeks; the extra time is in case the budget process is delayed, to accommodate government holidays (which do not count as part of the time of a conclave!), or if there is a need for a special election.
The First Senator may request a null conclave - this is, essentially, a conclave where no work is done. The First Senator may ask once per session and the King may refuse the request.
The grand conclave is held each year on the 15th of November. On that day the tax schedule for the upcoming year is published and the King makes his address to the people on the state of the kingdom and the upcoming year.
Members of the Council may assign a proxy to serve in their stead (usually due to illness or military service).A council member who fails in their duties to the legislature (not attending and not assigning a proxy) by lose their noble status.
Senators must vote on each proposed law introduced during a conclave, Failure to vote in 3 consecutive conclaves means they are removed from the Senate. In an exception, once per term a senator may request a leave of absence of up to two conclaves.
The High Tribunal meets in session from the first Monday in February until the first Monday in November. The High Tribunal may take two recesses per year, each lasting a month and each separated by at least 2 months.
On to more direct information.
In general the royal and noble governments do no non-essential business on Sundays or Holy Days of Obligation. Emergency services will, of course, always be available.
King Richard has created a list of days in which the government is restricted to essential work only;
Fixed:
January 1st - the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
January 6th - the Epiphany
March 19th - the Solemnity of St. Joseph, Husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary
April 1st - Constitution Day
June 29th - the Solemnity of the Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles
August 15th - the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
August 19th - the King's Birthday
August 25th - the Feast of St. Louis IX
September 22nd - the Feast of St. Maurice
November 1st - All Saints' Day
December 8th - the Feast of Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
December 24th through December 31st - The Nativity of the Lord and the beginning of Christmastide
Movable:
Ash Wednesday
Holy Week and Easter Monday
The Ascension
Whit Monday
The Feast of Corpus Christi
Local nobles may set their own holidays, of course.
The Kingdom of Edan uses Greenwich Mean Time for all governmental purposes although local time is usually also included for ease of understanding.
General elections for the Senate are held every two years and are overseen by the Ministry of State. Voting begins at 1 minutes after Midnight on the 1st of March and ends 1 minute before midnight on the 2nd of March, giving citizens just under 48 hours to cast their votes. In general it is believed that voting will be permitted by electronic communications as well as in person.
In certain cases a special election will be needed. Special elections are scheduled and announced by the Ministry of State and the voting period lasts for 72 hours.
All senate elections use the single transferable vote proportional representation system with voting groups decided by the Ministry of State as needed. It is expected that citizens will be divided into groups that select between 4 and 8 senators, probably based upon fiefdoms.
All votes will be tallied and a complete count will be done at least twice. If more than 7 counts are required the Ministry of Justice shall assist with counts and in the unlikely event of a tie a run-off elections will be held until elections are complete.
The Assembly (which is the Senate and the Council) has 1 session each year; a session is the period when the legislature is available to performs its duty. Each year's session lasts from March 8th and ends on October 31st unless one or both days fall upon a Sunday - if that happens the date is delayed until the following Monday.
The session is divided into conclaves of eight weeks each with a recess of 2 weeks in between. The conclaves are periods of active legislation while the recesses are for discussion, time with citizens, relaxation, etc. The period of a session contains enough time for 3 conclaves plus an addition 4 weeks; the extra time is in case the budget process is delayed, to accommodate government holidays (which do not count as part of the time of a conclave!), or if there is a need for a special election.
The First Senator may request a null conclave - this is, essentially, a conclave where no work is done. The First Senator may ask once per session and the King may refuse the request.
The grand conclave is held each year on the 15th of November. On that day the tax schedule for the upcoming year is published and the King makes his address to the people on the state of the kingdom and the upcoming year.
Members of the Council may assign a proxy to serve in their stead (usually due to illness or military service).A council member who fails in their duties to the legislature (not attending and not assigning a proxy) by lose their noble status.
Senators must vote on each proposed law introduced during a conclave, Failure to vote in 3 consecutive conclaves means they are removed from the Senate. In an exception, once per term a senator may request a leave of absence of up to two conclaves.
The High Tribunal meets in session from the first Monday in February until the first Monday in November. The High Tribunal may take two recesses per year, each lasting a month and each separated by at least 2 months.
On to more direct information.
In general the royal and noble governments do no non-essential business on Sundays or Holy Days of Obligation. Emergency services will, of course, always be available.
King Richard has created a list of days in which the government is restricted to essential work only;
Fixed:
January 1st - the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
January 6th - the Epiphany
March 19th - the Solemnity of St. Joseph, Husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary
April 1st - Constitution Day
June 29th - the Solemnity of the Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles
August 15th - the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
August 19th - the King's Birthday
August 25th - the Feast of St. Louis IX
September 22nd - the Feast of St. Maurice
November 1st - All Saints' Day
December 8th - the Feast of Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
December 24th through December 31st - The Nativity of the Lord and the beginning of Christmastide
Movable:
Ash Wednesday
Holy Week and Easter Monday
The Ascension
Whit Monday
The Feast of Corpus Christi
Local nobles may set their own holidays, of course.
Apr 30, 2012
An Essay from HRM Jennifer on Voting and Society
One of the seemingly shocking things
about the Edanian constitution is the lack of women's suffrage. King
Richard is fond of noting that it was actually his Queen who
initially insisted that women should not have the right to vote in
Edan. This statement is often met with disbelief, but in this, my
first essay as Queen, I am pleased to confirm King Richard's
remarks.
As I address some of the reasons behind my exhortations and the decisions of our King as he developed the constitution, please remember that we are speaking only of Edan. I make no assertions or assumptions about women's suffrage in America or anywhere else in our current world. Many things unique to the culture we hope to build in Edan make the lack of women's voting sensible and just in our micronation, but we do not speak for situations and cultures outside of our own.
Let me make clear that in our micronation, the limits placed upon the Edanian vote in no way impede women's dignity, human rights, or freedoms. As Edanians, and Catholics, we believe in the inherent dignity of all human beings, male and female, from conception to natural death. But the modern assumption that being equal means being the same is a fallacy that we Edanians must recognize as the evil it is.
First of all, let us remember that Edan is a constitutional monarchy. We are governed by a King who is not elected, and our local rulers are appointed by our King, not by vote. We do have an elected Senate, but the duties of these elected officials are to guarantee that the common people will always have a voice, even in the event of a tyrant or a calcified aristocracy. In fact, much of the Edanian constitution is devoted to limiting the power of elected officials while maintaining some general public forum to protect our future from being diminished or destroyed by one mad or corrupt King. So we must remember in this discussion of suffrage that an Edanian vote is not central to our governance, unlike the modern capitalistic or socialist democracies we are accustomed to.
But history has shown us that in all democracies, eventually a vote becomes something that can be bought. Bought by wealth or bought by charisma or even bought by something more nefarious, it is still subject to coercion, whether conscious or not. When every citizen has the right to vote, suddenly an entire society and culture can be bought (and made bankrupt). Or, even more frighteningly, as we see in the bipartisan America, a vote becomes "us vs. them" and true debate and progress are stifled. We believe that if we allow the voice of women in Edan to remain pure and unsullied by political infighting and the lures of coercion, Edan will have an unparalleled asset. Culturally, we will promote the ideal of a strong woman's voice, and women will be encouraged to enter into political debate and even run for office (note that in Edan, while women cannot vote, there is no restriction on women holding elected office). Knowing that we will have a chorus of individuals whose vote cannot be bought means that the ideas they put forth will have more merit, more weight, and will provide a needed balance to the necessary political wrangling that comes from the voting process.
In addition, we believe that it is important that the voting class knows that their vote isn't just a vote for themselves, but also a vote for their wives, daughters, mothers, and grandmothers. Even the seemingly-unfair limitation on single women will be balanced by the actions of responsible single men. In this way, a vote will not be simply a one to one trade, my vote for whatever will be given to me. A vote will become more precious and more meaningful and more forward-thinking, rather than a selfish choice based upon immediate desires. Thus, the voter will be less susceptible to the political pressures and frustrations that unfortunately prevail in the world of universal suffrage.
But why is it that women do not have the right to vote, rather than men? Because it is natural that women be the voice of reason in society, as a women's inherent nature recognizes relationship more fully. Whether mothers in fact or not, a woman's physiology and psychology are ordered toward motherhood. This allows women to see differently than a man. As Blessed John Paul II said in MULIERIS DIGNITATEM, "Motherhood involves a special communion with the mystery of life, as it develops in the woman's womb. The mother is filled with wonder at this mystery of life, and "understands" with unique intuition what is happening inside her. In the light of the "beginning", the mother accepts and loves as a person the child she is carrying in her womb. This unique contact with the new human being developing within her gives rise to an attitude towards human beings - not only towards her own child, but every human being - which profoundly marks the woman's personality. It is commonly thought that women are more capable than men of paying attention to another person, and that motherhood develops this predisposition even more." By ensuring that the voices of women cannot be purchased or influenced by those seeking her vote, Edan will be blessed with a class of women who not only have the natural attendance to relationship that allows them to more clearly see the impact of society's choices, but also can speak freely about what they see as right and just because they are not susceptible to voting pressures. In contrast, the masculine hormones and physical strength indicate that men are physiologically and psychologically more suited to the direct wielding of authority and dealing with harsh politics. By working within our God-given natures, society will benefit from the best that men and women have to offer.
As I have shown, the thought behind the lack of women's suffrage in Edan is not one of restriction upon, or lack of respect for women. Quite the opposite, it is the elevation of the feminine voice to one that is truly meaningful, and can contribute to all of our society, rather than be reduced to simply another button to be pushed in the voting booth.
As I address some of the reasons behind my exhortations and the decisions of our King as he developed the constitution, please remember that we are speaking only of Edan. I make no assertions or assumptions about women's suffrage in America or anywhere else in our current world. Many things unique to the culture we hope to build in Edan make the lack of women's voting sensible and just in our micronation, but we do not speak for situations and cultures outside of our own.
Let me make clear that in our micronation, the limits placed upon the Edanian vote in no way impede women's dignity, human rights, or freedoms. As Edanians, and Catholics, we believe in the inherent dignity of all human beings, male and female, from conception to natural death. But the modern assumption that being equal means being the same is a fallacy that we Edanians must recognize as the evil it is.
First of all, let us remember that Edan is a constitutional monarchy. We are governed by a King who is not elected, and our local rulers are appointed by our King, not by vote. We do have an elected Senate, but the duties of these elected officials are to guarantee that the common people will always have a voice, even in the event of a tyrant or a calcified aristocracy. In fact, much of the Edanian constitution is devoted to limiting the power of elected officials while maintaining some general public forum to protect our future from being diminished or destroyed by one mad or corrupt King. So we must remember in this discussion of suffrage that an Edanian vote is not central to our governance, unlike the modern capitalistic or socialist democracies we are accustomed to.
But history has shown us that in all democracies, eventually a vote becomes something that can be bought. Bought by wealth or bought by charisma or even bought by something more nefarious, it is still subject to coercion, whether conscious or not. When every citizen has the right to vote, suddenly an entire society and culture can be bought (and made bankrupt). Or, even more frighteningly, as we see in the bipartisan America, a vote becomes "us vs. them" and true debate and progress are stifled. We believe that if we allow the voice of women in Edan to remain pure and unsullied by political infighting and the lures of coercion, Edan will have an unparalleled asset. Culturally, we will promote the ideal of a strong woman's voice, and women will be encouraged to enter into political debate and even run for office (note that in Edan, while women cannot vote, there is no restriction on women holding elected office). Knowing that we will have a chorus of individuals whose vote cannot be bought means that the ideas they put forth will have more merit, more weight, and will provide a needed balance to the necessary political wrangling that comes from the voting process.
In addition, we believe that it is important that the voting class knows that their vote isn't just a vote for themselves, but also a vote for their wives, daughters, mothers, and grandmothers. Even the seemingly-unfair limitation on single women will be balanced by the actions of responsible single men. In this way, a vote will not be simply a one to one trade, my vote for whatever will be given to me. A vote will become more precious and more meaningful and more forward-thinking, rather than a selfish choice based upon immediate desires. Thus, the voter will be less susceptible to the political pressures and frustrations that unfortunately prevail in the world of universal suffrage.
But why is it that women do not have the right to vote, rather than men? Because it is natural that women be the voice of reason in society, as a women's inherent nature recognizes relationship more fully. Whether mothers in fact or not, a woman's physiology and psychology are ordered toward motherhood. This allows women to see differently than a man. As Blessed John Paul II said in MULIERIS DIGNITATEM, "Motherhood involves a special communion with the mystery of life, as it develops in the woman's womb. The mother is filled with wonder at this mystery of life, and "understands" with unique intuition what is happening inside her. In the light of the "beginning", the mother accepts and loves as a person the child she is carrying in her womb. This unique contact with the new human being developing within her gives rise to an attitude towards human beings - not only towards her own child, but every human being - which profoundly marks the woman's personality. It is commonly thought that women are more capable than men of paying attention to another person, and that motherhood develops this predisposition even more." By ensuring that the voices of women cannot be purchased or influenced by those seeking her vote, Edan will be blessed with a class of women who not only have the natural attendance to relationship that allows them to more clearly see the impact of society's choices, but also can speak freely about what they see as right and just because they are not susceptible to voting pressures. In contrast, the masculine hormones and physical strength indicate that men are physiologically and psychologically more suited to the direct wielding of authority and dealing with harsh politics. By working within our God-given natures, society will benefit from the best that men and women have to offer.
As I have shown, the thought behind the lack of women's suffrage in Edan is not one of restriction upon, or lack of respect for women. Quite the opposite, it is the elevation of the feminine voice to one that is truly meaningful, and can contribute to all of our society, rather than be reduced to simply another button to be pushed in the voting booth.
Nov 23, 2009
An article from the Distributist Review...
Apr 21, 2008
The Most Controversial Change
There have been a few changes to the laws of citizenship since the first draft of the Constitution in October, 1999. For example, originally there was a push to allow voting by citizens as young as 16, although this never made it to a draft. There has been a rather persistent attempt to change the right to vote since the very beginning. Her Majesty, the Queen, has been the leading proponent of this alteration and, after 9 years, she has prevailed. Here is the new language on the right to vote;
"(4) The right to vote is not universal. In order to have the ability to vote, must;
"(4) The right to vote is not universal. In order to have the ability to vote, must;
(a) Have Edanian citizenship
(b) Be male
(c) Be at least 18 years old
(d) Not be barred from voting due to penalties imposed by the courts for a specific conviction
(e) Have valid census information on file with the Ministry of State no more than 5 years old
(f) Have met the minimum education standards of the Kingdom as defined in this constitution as demonstrated by formal test"
This means that women do not have suffrage within the Kingdom. Further, it imposes a minimum standard of reading and writing in one of the Kingdom's official languages.Jun 25, 2007
Discussion of the First Draft of the Constitution, part 6
Article 22 The Assembly; the Council
This establishes the Council as a counter-point to the Senate in the bicameral houses of the legislature. The Council is, here, based on Provinces. Councilors serve longer terms than Senators, there are fewer of them, and they are strictly regional. So they are in some ways much more like the British House of Lords. Although it is not mentioned, Councilors were meant to be elected by regional 'first past the post' voting.
Article 23 The First Senator
This describes the First Senator's duties a bit and explains about the Secretary of the Senate, who keeps the official record of legislation and debate.
Article 24 The President of the Council
The President of the Council was originally planned to fulfill a role identicle to that of President in a parliamentary system - a symbol of the nation with neither the sovereignty of the King or positional power of the First Senator, but above the First Senator in precedence for such things as treaties and visits by Heads of State. This article also mentions the Secretary of the Council with suties similar to the Secretary of the Senate
This establishes the Council as a counter-point to the Senate in the bicameral houses of the legislature. The Council is, here, based on Provinces. Councilors serve longer terms than Senators, there are fewer of them, and they are strictly regional. So they are in some ways much more like the British House of Lords. Although it is not mentioned, Councilors were meant to be elected by regional 'first past the post' voting.
Article 23 The First Senator
This describes the First Senator's duties a bit and explains about the Secretary of the Senate, who keeps the official record of legislation and debate.
Article 24 The President of the Council
The President of the Council was originally planned to fulfill a role identicle to that of President in a parliamentary system - a symbol of the nation with neither the sovereignty of the King or positional power of the First Senator, but above the First Senator in precedence for such things as treaties and visits by Heads of State. This article also mentions the Secretary of the Council with suties similar to the Secretary of the Senate
Discussion of the First Draft of the Constitution, part 5
Chapter IV Legislative Power
I originally saw this as the heart of the document, although I no longer hold that opinion.
Article 21: The Assembly; the Senate
Roughly analogous to the American Congress or the House of Commons. This section is the basics of how many senators, how they vote, terms, etc. Very long! It also discusses the First Senator; originally, the First Senator was conceived as analogous to a Prime Minister and largely in control of the day-to-day of the Government. This section, like all the others, totally fails to mention that Senators are all elected "at large" in a List Proportional election system. Of course, a List Proportional system also demands that the constitution address such issues as political parties, independent candidates, etc. - which it absolutely fails to do.
I originally saw this as the heart of the document, although I no longer hold that opinion.
Article 21: The Assembly; the Senate
Roughly analogous to the American Congress or the House of Commons. This section is the basics of how many senators, how they vote, terms, etc. Very long! It also discusses the First Senator; originally, the First Senator was conceived as analogous to a Prime Minister and largely in control of the day-to-day of the Government. This section, like all the others, totally fails to mention that Senators are all elected "at large" in a List Proportional election system. Of course, a List Proportional system also demands that the constitution address such issues as political parties, independent candidates, etc. - which it absolutely fails to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)