View Topic

I am curious...as Citizens, would you prefer an elected body to represent you to other portions of the government such as the Monarchy, or would you prefer to represent yourselves as needed? For example, if you felt something should be done or considered.

I am considering ideas for on how improve how input and suggestions are handled and would like your input. This isn't related to having an elected Underhusen vs having an open assembly, so please don't factor that debate into your answer.

This is a very interesting question. I personally feel that allowing personal representation would be better for several reasons. First, it allows each person to air their own opinions as they see it, rather than being put under an umbrella opinion which may or may not fully represent them. Second, it reduces the hassle of selecting this middle-man/representative which in my opinion also reduces the chance for bias. Lastly, it might give a better way for citizens who have a hard time speaking up or airing their views to become more involved.

Representation is a great thing in many ways, but with a community of this size there aren't too many umbrella opinions that really work, as I personally have seen with several misunderstandings on the discord. That's just my opinion.

Individual representation has served us well so far. I've made plenty of personal appeals to the Monarch myself

I'll second Vro's opinion, in that I'd rather not open up the door to factionalism or unnecessary middlemen, especially when there's already a fair amount of bureaucracy for a community this small. (Small from an administrative / internet-at-large standpoint, not a Nationstates standpoint.)

To the absolute surprise of no one, I prefer Representative to some extent.

While there are some benefits to Direct, there are downfalls as well. It allows people to be more effectively isolated and it becomes easier for concerns to be dismissed as that of only a single person, and can make people a bit more hesistant to speak up. Representative does make things easier to an extent, it gives someone a person who is responsible for discussion and they will likely hear from others with similar concerns allowing it to be easier for citizens concerns (when they overlap) to be presented.

I will note that in this instance I'm not necessarily arguing for a rigid form of Representation, but a more flexible one. Perhaps one where representatives exist, but are effectively just people that a group of citizens feels will best represent them on an issue or issues and can withdraw their approval at any time.

You recognize that under a system of direct representation...people can still clump together and appoint someone to speak on their behalf? And arguably, people would be more able to 'withdraw their approval' from their representative 'at any time' if they didn't have some institutionally enshrined status under law?
A requirement to have and elect representatives can only be more restrictive than direct representation. I'm unequivocally for direct representation until such time as Wintreath is, like, 1000 people. Because only at that point do I feel it makes sense to have this conversation, not among, what, 30 people???

You recognize that under a system of direct representation...people can still clump together and appoint someone to speak on their behalf? And arguably, people would be more able to 'withdraw their approval' from their representative 'at any time' if they didn't have some institutionally enshrined status under law?
A requirement to have and elect representatives can only be more restrictive than direct representation. I'm unequivocally for direct representation until such time as Wintreath is, like, 1000 people. Because only at that point do I feel it makes sense to have this conversation, not among, what, 30 people???

I was somewhat under the intention that this wouldn't be entirely formal, and more informal. Furthermore such an action would likely be a decree of some sort, which is much more easily changed. I'm also not really advocating for formal elections or anything, more-so a more 'fluid' system where people are elected (Not necessarily on a set schedule either) by groups of citizens to formally represent them to any degree and that would be a bit of a job here. It would give people who might be otherwise unwilling to directly speak at least an alternative avenue to raise concerns and issues and have them dealt with. Although at that point they are more 'advocates' than 'representatives', but still. They still provide some utility -- however marginal -- that I don't think should entirely be ignored.