Open Mic Democracy

Crazy Boris

Banned
Guess who came up with another weird-ass political concept?

Ladies and gents, I present, Open Mic Democracy

A legislature exists as normal, with elected representatives who will vote on proposed laws. But the catch comes with the fact that they themselves can’t propose laws or changes to them, instead, that’s 100% down to genpop. Anyone can waddle on in off the street and give their pitch to parliament, proposing anything and everything they want, and then the legislators have to vote on it, they can’t dismiss any proposal outright.
 
If an ideology thing is only held by oneself, should it be described here, in the other thread, or neither?
This one is for ones you make up, the other one is for real ones. For example I put the Novuteranism entry in the other thread because even if I'm (99%) sure it was created and promoted by one obviously mentally ill man it was so goddamn weird in such a thoroughly unique way I felt I could write an entry on it, especially since even diseased as it was it was promulgated in a somewhat thorough form.
 
This one is for ones you make up, the other one is for real ones. For example I put the Novuteranism entry in the other thread because even if I'm (99%) sure it was created and promoted by one obviously mentally ill man it was so goddamn weird in such a thoroughly unique way I felt I could write an entry on it.
I guess I'm just not sure if someone subscribed to an ideology they made up, where it should go.
 
I guess I'm just not sure if someone subscribed to an ideology they made up, where it should go.
I suppose the question is: was it pushed to a large audience and meant to actually persuade them? Novuteranism was "published" on 4chan in a long series of weird screeds complete with propaganda posters, maps, and even models of hypothetical currency. It's a question of thoroughness, since someone could make up an ideology and share it in this thread and still believe it, but it wasn't released to a mass audience. If someone took an ideology they developed on this site and wrote a manifesto or started a substack or whatever it could go in the other thread, especially since the move to chat opened that one up to more current political stuff. Of course you could simplify it and say the "Could Have Been" in the title of the other thread implies it was created in the past (with the exception of the weird new strains of accelerationism that seem to be getting grandfathered in as permutations of the acc intellectual tradition).
 
In fact the "when was it made" argument is much easier for deciding. Accelerationism and the Pandora's box it unleashed was created in the 90s and even Novuteranism is at least a decade old. If I wrote a Cosmicist Manifesto as a fun change of pace I'd still keep the original post on it here because it's too new. So, even if the ideology only has one believer when was it codified/promulgated?
 
Guess who came up with another weird-ass political concept?

Ladies and gents, I present, Open Mic Democracy

A legislature exists as normal, with elected representatives who will vote on proposed laws. But the catch comes with the fact that they themselves can’t propose laws or changes to them, instead, that’s 100% down to genpop. Anyone can waddle on in off the street and give their pitch to parliament, proposing anything and everything they want, and then the legislators have to vote on it, they can’t dismiss any proposal outright.
I could see that working in a microstate like Liechtenstein or San Marino, but not in a normal country with millions of inhabitants.
 
Guess who came up with another weird-ass political concept?

Ladies and gents, I present, Open Mic Democracy

A legislature exists as normal, with elected representatives who will vote on proposed laws. But the catch comes with the fact that they themselves can’t propose laws or changes to them, instead, that’s 100% down to genpop. Anyone can waddle on in off the street and give their pitch to parliament, proposing anything and everything they want, and then the legislators have to vote on it, they can’t dismiss any proposal outright.
The amount of chaos this would cause makes me cringe.

Also unless there is a limit (like one proposal a day per person) filibustering is extremely easy. Just get a bunch of people to continually make nonsense proposals so that they can't get any serious work done.
 
I did suggest a "every citizen can make requests and propose laws" earlier in this thread, though rather than being to the legislative it was to an autocratic monarch with local mayors and governors appointed by said monarch as the middle man who'd receive these proposals and decide wheter to discard it or send it to their higher ups, till reaching the monarch themselves who'd read the list of proposals in public and comment on what could be done to make them a reality
That way the majority of the population would be incredibly supportive of said autocracy feeling that their concerns are being listened and that they have a stake on the system, and should their proposals and concerns not reach the monarch the blame would be redirected and focused solely on the local administration who decided to not re-pass these requests to the kind & infallible monarch who'd then proceed replace them if the local population hasnt killed them first for so rudely hiding the truth from their benevolent overlord
 
I did suggest a "every citizen can make requests and propose laws" earlier in this thread, though rather than being to the legislative it was to an autocratic monarch with local mayors and governors appointed by said monarch as the middle man who'd receive these proposals and decide wheter to discard it or send it to their higher ups, till reaching the monarch themselves who'd read the list of proposals in public and comment on what could be done to make them a reality
That way the majority of the population would be incredibly supportive of said autocracy feeling that their concerns are being listened and that they have a stake on the system, and should their proposals and concerns not reach the monarch the blame would be redirected and focused solely on the local administration who decided to not re-pass these requests to the kind & infallible monarch who'd then proceed replace them if the local population hasnt killed them first for so rudely hiding the truth from their benevolent overlord
The thing is this an autocratic/monarchial system like this does function slightly different that a democratic one. In the autocratic one, it is fairly easy for the mayor or governor to weed out the "nonsense" proposals. He just looks at it and says, "that's dumb," and it ends there no arguing.

In theory, it would be the same, all the representatives would recognize that it is a dumb idea and agree to dismiss it without taking up much time. But in practice, what is going to happen is at least some of the representatives are eventually going to start taking advantage of these "dumb ideas" as a political tool against other representatives. And gum up the entire process, in the least.
 
The Changeling Way
As far as I know this is the right place for ideologies of fictional worlds.

The Changeling Way

Held by the Changeling Hives that exist hidden within Equestria, it can be summed up as

-Never snitch on anybody, even rival Changelings, and least of all your own Hive. Maintain your disguises at all costs when in public. To the outside world Changelings are a myth. Keep it that way.
-Share the love that you gain with your Hive, as the grubs have to eat as well.
-Only use violence when you have to.
-Obey your Queen, the Queen knows best.

As heroes-As the Changelings feed on love, and love is in short supply in wartime, they have used their wiles and occasional well-placed violence and cocooning to replace war-hungry leaders, stopping wars before they happen to protect their food sources.

As neutrals-For the most part, they use passive methods of love gathering, but are not above using force to cocoon others when love is scarce.

As villains-They see themselves as a Master Race, and other races merely as love sacs waiting to be captured and drained of their love, then allowed to die. Queen Chrysalis was an extreme example of this, almost a Changeling Hitler, who was willing to break the Changeling Way itself and attack peaceful cities, cocooning everyone in sight to drain their love.
 

Stretch

Donor
Guess who came up with another weird-ass political concept?

Ladies and gents, I present, Open Mic Democracy

A legislature exists as normal, with elected representatives who will vote on proposed laws. But the catch comes with the fact that they themselves can’t propose laws or changes to them, instead, that’s 100% down to genpop. Anyone can waddle on in off the street and give their pitch to parliament, proposing anything and everything they want, and then the legislators have to vote on it, they can’t dismiss any proposal outright.
100% before long the representatives would start bribing/setting up "proposers" to deliver the law ideas they want to present.
 
100% before long the representatives would start bribing/setting up "proposers" to deliver the law ideas they want to present.
Maybe this very system was set up by some mischievous politician pretending it to be a grand popular revolution to do exactly that
 
Swiftism and other madness
Swiftism-Swifties take the songs and other pronouncements of Taylor Swift to heart. They are accepting of homosexuality and transsexuality, and try to be nice in their lives. At first they didn't have much to go on as she kept her politics to herself, but recently they have found out what she supports.

As collectivist good guys-If Taylor Swift were one day to go into politics and win the Democrat nomination, they might propel her to the Presidency.

As individualist good guys-They can't achieve much politically but they can make the world a nicer place.

As individualist bad guys-One of them takes it to extremes and decides it would be a good idea to try and kill Kanye West, or starts stalking and trying to kill Taylor Swift's ex boyfriends.

Localist Racism- In this timeline Plessy v Ferguson was decided differently by the US Supreme Court. Mandatory racism as practised by the South was deemed to be wrong, but so was mandatory desegregation. It would be up to each headmaster or board of governors, each landlord or landlady, each police chief, each town mayor, each property/business owner, each railroad/airline/ferry company to decide if they wanted to not be racist at all, be as racist as they had been before, or be racist to some groups but not others.

As colectivist bad guys-The South is pretty much as racist by 2023 as it was in the 1890's, although with fewer lynchings. A few big companies have desegregated as it makes better economic sense, but most southern whites are still rabid racists.

As individualist bad guys-Over time, most businesses have desegregated by 2023, as well as the majority of landlords and landladies, as it makes good economic sense. The larger towns and cities have largely desegregated for the same reason , but there are a few whites only towns in some places, and very few non whites in the police forces of the South. Most university's desegregated for financial reasons-Oxford Town University did so in 2017, but with many of the best schools whites only, not many blacks get good enough schooling to pass the entrence exams. Only the richest blacks can vote, poll taxes and felon disenfranchisement laws make sure of that, and equality protesters get tresspassed and arrested if they don't leave. However, racism in the South is-very slowly-on the way out due to economics. In another 50-100 years, the South is likely to stop being racist of it's own accord.
 
Last edited:
Boardism and more
Boardism
Boardism can work with both dictatorships and democracies.

The ruler of the country, who can either be freely and fairly elected or be a dictator, is called the Admin, and the police are called the Moderators.

Criminals are only held in jail whilst awaiting trial, and for those found guilty and sane, there are only two punishments, the Kick and the Ban. Being Kicked means being forcibly exiled to another country, with or without the other country's OK. Being Banned means being executed. Those who come back before their Kick has expired are Banned. Typically, those who are kicked are sent somewhere like the EU, who is not legally allowed to send back anyone who will be executed. Some Boardist countries, rather then normally using the Ban, have a Permenant Kick for those who carry out murders and other serious crimes, and only enforce the Ban on those who come back or are forcibly sent back as a last resort.

As individualist Good Guys

The country has a democratic system and the laws are not too strict. For breaking a small one, people may be allowed to pay a fine or get a warning rather then a Kick. People are reasonably allowed to express themselves and even to criticize Admin and Mod decisions without punishment, and Kicks and any Bans are publically known about. Those who are Kicked are given a certain amount of money to support themselves and are sent to somewhere like Finland where there is a good welfare system and homelessness is rare to non-existant, and are often allowed back in a few months or years depending on the offence. For serious offences like murder or paedophilia, instead of a Ban there is sometimes a Permenant Kick, with a Ban only being used if the person comes back or is sent back against their will.

As colectivist Good Guys
Think modern-day Switzerland or modern-day Japan. Laws are strict, but enforcement is relatively fair. Whilst those who stick out too much are Kicked or occasionally perhaps even Banned if their crimes are very serious, there is democracy and most people are OK with it. . Those who are Kicked are given a certain amount of money to support themselves and are sent to somewhere like Finland where there is a good welfare system and homelessness is rare to non-existant, and are often allowed back in a few months or years depending on the offence. For serious offences like murder or paedophilia, instead of a Ban there is sometimes a Permenant Kick, with a Ban only being used if the person comes back or is sent back against their will.

As individualist Bad Guys

The Admin is a dictator, and outright Bans are quite common for relatively small offences. People who are Kicked are dumped in places like sub-Saharan Africa without money to support themselves, and Banned if they are sent back. For those who are Kicked, Permenant Kicks in inhospitable countries are common. People live in constant fear of the Moderators and the Admin.

As collectivist Bad Guys
Think Maoist China or modern day North Korea.

The Admin is a dictator, and outright Bans are quite common for relatively small offences. People who are Kicked are dumped in places like sub-Saharan Africa without money to support themselves, and Banned if they are sent back. For those who are Kicked, Permenant Kicks in inhospitable countries are common. People live in constant fear of the Moderators and the Admin. Not only that, but the country tries to forcibly spread Boardism to smaller weaker countries.
 
Magic through bad science
How about...

Magic through bad science!

Disappointed by people's skepticism about the supernatural, a group of believers in magic decide to rewrite the laws of physics / chemistry / nature so that these laws contradict many of our common experiences. That way, they can claim that the world is full of supernatural events! For example, they write a "law of nature" saying that metal objects cannot fly. This makes airplanes supernatural by definition. They fly through the power of Magic, even though science says tbey shouldn't be able to!
 
How about...

Magic through bad science!

Disappointed by people's skepticism about the supernatural, a group of believers in magic decide to rewrite the laws of physics / chemistry / nature so that these laws contradict many of our common experiences. That way, they can claim that the world is full of supernatural events! For example, they write a "law of nature" saying that metal objects cannot fly. This makes airplanes supernatural by definition. They fly through the power of Magic, even though science says tbey shouldn't be able to!
.It's worth noting that science does not aim to disprove the existence of supernatural phenomena outright. Rather, it focuses on explaining natural phenomena through natural causes and seeks to uncover the underlying mechanisms that govern our world. This approach has led to remarkable discoveries and advancements in various fields. And of course....challenging existing scientific paradigms can be a valid pursuit, as scientific progress often involves revising and refining our understanding of the world. However, it typically requires solid evidence and rigorous experimentation to propose and establish new scientific ideas. Extraordinary claims, such as supernatural events, require extraordinary evidence to be considered seriously within the scientific community.
 
Ludocracy
Ludocracy/Athletocracy

Government by sportsmen, with conflicts resolved through sports. It's commonly said that the Olympics, or sports in general, are a substitute for war. Anthropologists have found this opinion globally in many indigenous cultures, and archaeology confirms many traditional sports are of considerable antiquity. However, it's also clear that tribes, peoples, countries, etc. have no reason to accept the result of a sports game when they feel they could succeed in a war for it.

Therefore the goal becomes how to properly set up a government to make this concept work. I imagine it could only thrive within one culture, or very closely related ones. What I envision is that a hegemonic ruler would force his neighbours--and his vassals/internal contenders--into accepting resolution of disputes via the result of a sports match. This of course requires the culture to have that concept, but it isn't uncommon and has happened globally. The benefits of this are greater prosperity from not having destructive wars, which would let this culture react better to truly external threats (i.e. "barbarians").

This culture would still have armies and a military, but they would be indistinguishable from their athletes. All soldiers would be athletes and vice versa. I envision the "best of the best" forming the actual teams competing in sporting events. The foremost general, or even the ruler himself, would be the coach, although he might do double-duty as team captain and actually get on the field (in any case, he's likely to have been an athlete himself). Lesser athletes would be the supporters. They would stay in the stands and cheer on their team while keeping a close eye on the enemy.

If worst comes to worst, then the supporters will protect their athletes and ruler while driving off the enemy, but this would not be a common occurrence. Presumably a sports match in this society would be just as rowdy as certain teams around the world notorious for the actions of their supporters. It would be half ritual, half entertainment, potentially last days and multiple matches, and there would be much alcohol served, gambling, etc. and the resulting fights you'd expect.

If needed, referees would be priests, possibly from a neutral third party state or a religious institution not seen to favour either party. Or perhaps a sovereign with minimal actual power but great cultural/political/religious influence, like the Japanese Emperor, might serve as referee, or perhaps a "league commissioner" of sorts.

I envision this as hard to work in an international relations context, but within a single confederation or country might be feasible. As war becomes more complex with gunpowder weapons and battlefield artillery, this sort of system will likely break down, so it probably would not work past the 17th/18th century or so. At least not without insanely specific circumstance, like one could imagine a society ruled by super-intelligent AI having humans settle their affairs in sports (and possessing the ability to eliminate cheating).

Potential societies--

Ancient Greece - The ancient Olympics were a hugely important religious festival and actually did play an important political role. It seems very possible to take it further and have society be totally dominated by the Olympics (and similar competitions)

Mesoamerica - The "Mesoamerican ballgame" had deep religious significance and like the Olympics, was used for political purposes. It quite literally did settle disputes between prominent figures and states in certain times and places. However, it was more entertainment than politics in the Aztec Empire, so Mesoamerica would still need some alternate PODs to get the ballgame as the centerpiece of society.

Ancient China - The sport of cuju was first known in the Warring States era. Maybe it gets more popular earlier and the conflicts of that period are resolved over cuju matches?

Medieval Japan - Kemari descends from cuju (and is written with the same kanji) and was popular in the Imperial Court during the late Heian period. It continued rising in popularity in the subsequent Kamakura period and reached the warrior class as a whole in the Muromachi period. One could imagine with the right series of PODs the Shogun and Emperor telling the parties of the OTL Onin War to settle it over kemari instead of repeatedly burning down Kyoto.

Future Earth - We get taken over by AI, but the AI doesn't intervene much in our affairs beside telling us to stop fighting wars and settle it through sports instead
 
Top