Planning A World Government

[adhay]

@BrainGlutton

Believe it or not, there is an Expansionist Party of the United States.

Yay for the USofA!

[sqweels]

@RickJay

If you’re going by population, Russia’s a strange choice to be kept separate. Russia is not one of the four most populous states in the world. It’s ninth, actually.

If you’re going by area, then India’s a strange choice.

It’s a question of how keen its neighbors would be about re-uniting with the seat of the former USSR and how much clout they would have over it.

Of course, how keen any 2 countries would be about uniting is a major issue. Each theoretical regional federation brings its own set of challenges. But I think it’s a good idea for any one country not to have more than 50% of the population or military or economic power going in.

Canada, for example, would probably be going it alone since becoming the 51st US state is not too popular there. But Canada is nice and stable, so no need to alter the North American status quo.

[sqweels]

@Wesley_Clark

I don’t know which form of government would work best. I’d assume a parliamentary system but do not know which one. Plus you run the risk of giving a nation like North Korea the same influence in world events that you’d give to a nation like Canada, and Myanmar’s vote would be as powerful as that of France.

Not if they retain one-party rule they don’t. They get increased isolation and the combined military forces of the rest of the world arrayed against them.

[sqweels]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I think we’ll go in the opposite direction. Other than the EU, democratic government and self-determination tend to create smaller political entities, not larger ones.

Look at the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent breakup of Yugoslavia. Anything constructed by military force tends to disintegrate sooner or later. Now, the native populations of, say, the United States are sufficiently integrated (and disintegrated) that a rebellion of that sort is unlikely - but it’s not all that unlikely that Oregon or Texas or South Carolina* or smaller or larger subdivisions, will one day decide that they’re better off on their own.

Even Britain is slowly becoming less integrated rather than more.

This is what I call natural stabilty vs. artificial stability. Empires and totalitarian blocs need to be broken up, and a period of instability is almost inevitable, but eventually they reach a point when the smaller entites are no longer likely to go to war with each other. They then might be willing partners under the broader umbrella organization.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

That’s true, but I think it remains to be seen whether there will actually be a general trend towards diluting sovereignty, as opposed to loose confederations like the original EEC or MERCOSUR.

[Baron_Greenback]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Given that many of the worlds’s people would love to live in America, I would love to see America open its borders to accept other countries who wish to become part of their federation. Sure, it might take decades if not centuries. But it has worked for 50 states already. 150 more is not out of the question.

I’m not sure the US is ready to encompass other large first-world countries. Even if it was just the UK, do you think that adding a country with 20% of the population, that politically is on the left of the Democrats, would be accepted? Add in France Germany and Italy and that’s 260 million-ish socialists (by comparison anyway). I can’t see the Republicans going for this somehow.

[antechinus]

@Curtis LeMay

So here’s the Curtis LeMay Plan For World Government

-Presidential System on the American model.
-President to serve a term of six years and no term limits.
-Vice President and various governments departments round out the Executive Branch.
-The Legislative Branch consists of the Senate (500 members) and the Assembly (2000 members). Senators are elected for terms of six years and assemblymen for terms of three years. The world are to divided into Senatorial districts which will contain four Assembly districts each.
<snip>
So what do you think?

A world government would be better off styled after a decent democracy, rather than the US model.

If we were looking for a world government, it would be better to get it right the first time. A Democracy Index greater than 9 of of 10 would be a good start.

[mecaenas]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

The world already has a successful model that can apply to a world government. It is the United States of America.

Inevitably, if we are to survive on the planet, we must be governed by a body with the means to effectively execute the controls on the citizenry for a fair and judicious use of resources favourable to our species.

Washington does that for a segment of North America and Oceana .

New York is a joke. (So is Copenhagen)

Given that many of the worlds’s people would love to live in America, I would love to see America open its borders to accept other countries who wish to become part of their federation. Sure, it might take decades if not centuries. But it has worked for 50 states already. 150 more is not out of the question.

I see a slowly evolving concept of “world government” from " America government" as more doable than any convention that seeks simultaneous acceptance.

Given how horribly corrupt the US Senators and Congressmen are due to all the bribery (sorry, “lobbying”) that goes on to ensure that they mainly represent corporate and special interest groups rather than the voters. Throw in the Haliburtons, neo cons, tea baggers and far-right-wing religious fundies influencing policy and I can’t think of anything worse than scaling the US system up to global level.

As to the “many of the worlds’s people would love to live in America” quote, it’s easy when you’re talking about Somalia or Uzbekistan or Burma and the US is easily a better place to be. No question. However, for the rest of us in the Western world, we do just fine in our own countries thankyou very much.

[mecaenas]

@RickJay

Perhaps that is why the OP specifically states the World President would be elected by direct popular vote, not by an electoral vote system.

On the other hand, I’d say your proposal to use a Westminster-style system is, obviously, even worse than an American system, for the simple reason that the Westminster system assumes the head of state is a hereditary monarch. Westminster works fine for the UK and its various commonwealth children but it’s a system that assumes a lot of legacy compromises; Curtis has offered us a sandbox, an opportunity to create a system designed for the world. Why not look outside your own experience? I’d be intrigued by the possibility of starting with a system like France, which has elected, and politically meaningful, heads of state AND government.

Or maybe something more divvied up; maybe what we need for a government this big is a Council of Presidents.

The other question would be the separation of powers between the World Government and the various member states. Anyone who lives in a federal country knows that much of the political discourse is about the conflicts between federal and state/provincial governments. I think we can assume the World Government is in charge of the military, but who’s in charge of education? Criminal law? Transportation?

Ok, I stand corrected about misinterpreting the means of presidential election. However, a key reason that a derivation of the Westminster system is preferrable is that it makes a distinction between the Head of State and Head of Government. I am thinking outside of my experience (when clearly the OP wasn’t) as I’m well aware that you can put in the Head of State by hereditary birth such as the UK (not what I’m suggesting) and I know you can elect a Head of State instead (ala France). The important part is a separation of powers and responsibilities, and the separation of nationalism/patriotism from politics.

Fundamentally it all comes unstuck because the premise is that a variation of the US political system is best, when clearly there are a plethora of other successful models to draw on.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Direct election of the head of government/state may be slightly closer to the US model than the Westminster model, but it’s still a complete change. The electoral college makes a huge difference in terms of encouraging multiparty participation in the presidential election.