OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Gregstrom

Just to stir a little , but I can think of two other greatest empires of all time: British (certainly covered the greatest area) and Roman (pretty impressive longevity and impact on western ways of thinking). Both ran a form of democracy (I wouldn't call them very representative democracies, though - OTOH, is a system where a 52%/48% split of the popular vote can equate to a 70%/30% college vote really that representative?), with a noticeable proportion of politicians who were corrupt or held extreme viewpoints. They had two-house systems of government, and rich and influential families kept on getting members elected to positions of political power on the basis of name and family influence for multiple generations.

I match you, and raise you one herring!

Well, Rome was quite proud and wealthy, but the ultimate power was more of an Aristocracy than anything. They had a rather effective means of keeping public favor, by involving the plebes to a degree, essentially letting them deal with petty affairs, while the wealthy elite maintained their own agendas - funded by the state.

Great Britain is not really a good example though. The map that I saw that seemed unreasonably comprehensive - actually was. It seemed to simply highlight every piece of land that Britain ever "claimed". Bear in mind, there are miles of grey area between "claiming" something, and actually governing or administering to it. For example, Australia was largely a penal colony. Britain itself had little dealings with most of the landmass, but in absence of a powerful and organized governing body, they "claimed" the entirety. The irony here is that this did not even begin to occur until America established independence. That is to say, while the map shows most of North America, as well as Australia as being owned by Great Britain, Britain did not own both at the same time. I am not really looking to do a comprehensive search on the rest, but I would postulate that many of the regions of Africa that Britain "claimed", it also simply did so in the absence of any other "claimant" with world power, and they similarly did little with that claim other than show it on maps - for later of course, I'm sure.


As to your point about how our system works - I totally agree. I will not balk at the implication that our political system is broken. I think we'd be in much better shape with 30 parties running, and candidates being victorious with 10% of the vote (though for President I would think 2 rounds of voting would be in order, the first narrowing to 3 candidates, then everyone voting again - something like that, not married to it).

Personally I believe that as far as the Senate goes, that on the state level many more representatives should be elected - but with a very meager salary, and little actual responsibilities. Their responsibility would be mainly to raise awareness in their particular district to the issues at hand, and to collect votes, which they would then forward on a 1:1 basis to the Federal level.

[Gregstrom]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Well, Rome was quite proud and wealthy, but the ultimate power was more of an Aristocracy than anything. They had a rather effective means of keeping public favor, by involving the plebes to a degree, essentially letting them deal with petty affairs, while the wealthy elite maintained their own agendas - funded by the state.

I sort of hinted at that in my post. And IIRC a lot of the public favour bit was arranged by throwing circuses, providing food and having lots of public holidays. Elections were often bought through family wealth, or just won on the basis of family reputation.

It's not exactly as if various wealthy families in the States don't get more than their fair share of political power, after all. That's getting close to aristocracy if you ask me.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Great Britain is not really a good example though. The map that I saw that seemed unreasonably comprehensive - actually was. It seemed to simply highlight every piece of land that Britain ever "claimed". Bear in mind, there are miles of grey area between "claiming" something, and actually governing or administering to it.

Here's a (arbitrarily chosen) map from 1897, showing British territories at that point only. Is that slightly clearer? As per most empires, governors and garrisons were appointed to claimed territories. Other local governmental and social structures were left mostly intact. It's what Alexander and Rome did, so you can hardly quibble on that point.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

For example, Australia was largely a penal colony.

For the sake of being argumentative: At the point the map linked above was made, transportation had been discontinued for 45 years. Convict labour had ended 30 years previously. Australia was being mined for gold and opals (and other minerals), forested for hardwoods, and probably several other things I don't know about.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I am not really looking to do a comprehensive search on the rest, but I would postulate that many of the regions of Africa that Britain "claimed", it also simply did so in the absence of any other "claimant" with world power, and they similarly did little with that claim other than show it on maps - for later of course, I'm sure.

How about gold and diamond mining, rare hardwoods and other natural resources? Africa was something of a feeding trough at the time, and European nations were all pushing for their share of it. There was hardly an absence of claimants for African land - it's very likely one of the reasons modern African governments don't like non-African nations interfering with their political problems. And of course, for an empire with a heavy reliance on sea trade and naval power there's a very good reason to keep hold of and use sea ports and islands. Britain had a strong tendency to go to war rather than lose territory, which is why their claims were taken seriously.