The problem with federalism is that it perpetuates our system of competing nation states with their diverse law and economies. This competitive environment:
is what keeps us funnelling resources into defense and offense, which could be better deployed elsewhere
results in wars, borders, trade barriers and all the resources used to maintain them
prevents us tackling global issues like global inequality, famine, pandemics, and the effects of climate change.
A one world government system with global law and a single economy, as proposed by the likes of globalhumanparty.org, offers a systemic evolution that could resolve all these organisational issues (at least on paper!), but it would require long term (multi-generational) transitional support for which the EA movement seems unsuited.
When discussing voter constraints, please be clear about what citizens are voting for. Direct democracies do not work at scale (not everyone has the time to engage with every legislative proposal, unless all work is performed by machines), so I presume all discussions here are about selecting the most beneficial representative in a representative democracy. In which case we become dependent on voters ability to determine the 'best' representative. At what age do children become good at differentiating the ability of others? Are drug users abilities compromised? At what stage does dementia cloud judgement? Does the branding of party politics obscure the nature of representatives? Does the governance system make it easy to assess the intent, morals, teamworking and communications ability, laziness, self-centred altruism and understanding of the present issues and future vision for us all?
Rather than spending effort altering the set of voters, there is more value in helping all of us make better decisions. For instance:
Gov could fund all candidates equally (no candidate can spend more on their campaign) - reduces funding bias and those buying political influence. GOV could provide candidate Bios to same standards, and manage candidate comparison sessions so voters can better compare experience for the role (communications ability, issue knowledge, personal motives, teamworking ability, ideological or commercial bias etc) - improves voter decision making. GOV could provide training scheme in the governance process for all candidates - improves representative abilities. GOV could set up a new house for industry and ideology representatives where commercial and social improvements can be raised and discussed - replaces back room hidden lobbying and makes it visible. Remove all parties - Representatives seem unable to serve 2 masters (party and electorate) - representatives become focussed on electorate, can pick and choose which issues to support. Reduces party culture polarisation. This also requires a new way to select leadership roles. GOV could make legislative change process more visible to capture arguments (for and against), associated costs and planning timescales as they are discussed. Also allow citizens to input through their representatives. There are many ways we can better organise ourselves It would also help if there was a vision for the species that we can all agree on.
The problem with federalism is that it perpetuates our system of competing nation states with their diverse law and economies. This competitive environment:
A one world government system with global law and a single economy, as proposed by the likes of globalhumanparty.org, offers a systemic evolution that could resolve all these organisational issues (at least on paper!), but it would require long term (multi-generational) transitional support for which the EA movement seems unsuited.
When discussing voter constraints, please be clear about what citizens are voting for. Direct democracies do not work at scale (not everyone has the time to engage with every legislative proposal, unless all work is performed by machines), so I presume all discussions here are about selecting the most beneficial representative in a representative democracy. In which case we become dependent on voters ability to determine the 'best' representative. At what age do children become good at differentiating the ability of others? Are drug users abilities compromised? At what stage does dementia cloud judgement? Does the branding of party politics obscure the nature of representatives? Does the governance system make it easy to assess the intent, morals, teamworking and communications ability, laziness, self-centred altruism and understanding of the present issues and future vision for us all?
Rather than spending effort altering the set of voters, there is more value in helping all of us make better decisions. For instance:
Gov could fund all candidates equally (no candidate can spend more on their campaign) - reduces funding bias and those buying political influence.
GOV could provide candidate Bios to same standards, and manage candidate comparison sessions so voters can better compare experience for the role (communications ability, issue knowledge, personal motives, teamworking ability, ideological or commercial bias etc) - improves voter decision making.
GOV could provide training scheme in the governance process for all candidates - improves representative abilities.
GOV could set up a new house for industry and ideology representatives where commercial and social improvements can be raised and discussed - replaces back room hidden lobbying and makes it visible.
Remove all parties - Representatives seem unable to serve 2 masters (party and electorate) - representatives become focussed on electorate, can pick and choose which issues to support. Reduces party culture polarisation. This also requires a new way to select leadership roles.
GOV could make legislative change process more visible to capture arguments (for and against), associated costs and planning timescales as they are discussed. Also allow citizens to input through their representatives.
There are many ways we can better organise ourselves
It would also help if there was a vision for the species that we can all agree on.