Can you be a dictator in this game?

[slattden]

Just wondering, I was thinking of buying this but if you can't then...eh.

[EmmaKat]

You are in the sense that what you say goes. But you can't stop the elections.

[Bruut Gullit♿]

Representationis a falsification of democracy

Political struggle that results in the victory
of a candidate with 51 per cent of the
votes leads to a dictatorial governing body
disguised as a false democracy, since 49 per
cent of the electorate is ruled by an instrument
of governing they did not vote for, but
had imposed upon them. This is dictatorship.
Besides, this political conflict may produce a
governing body that represents only a
minority, for when votes are distributed
among several candidates, one of them polls
more than any other candidate. But if the
votes polled by those who received less are added up, they can constitute an overwhelming
majority. However, the candidate
with fewer votes wins and his success is
regarded as legitimate and democratic! In
actual fact, dictatorship is established under
the cover of false democracy. This is the
reality of the political systems prevailing in
the world today. They are dictatorial systems
and it seems clear that they falsify genuine
democracy.

[Soggy2002]

I would have been
able to read that better
if you put more than eight
words on each damn line.

Speaking of, why did you leave the part that ends in 'overwhelming' out of your odd composition?

[Gikgik]

In my "Democratic Decay" mod, you can rig the election, and play as China or Russia.

[Luke]

There are mods that let you do some very questionable things. Extremism DLC is good for this, and there are mods, like one that let's you abolish fair elections and institute a corrupt systems. Other mods let you completely censor or outright ban just about anything, ie. religion, internet usage, and a Nazi mod lets you commit genocide.

Some of the mods make the game brighter and let you do very good things.

Some of them let you do very ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up things xD So there's a lot of potential variety.

Fair warning though, some of the "evil" mods are of a low quality and don't really do much besides make the Liberals hate you. Like the Nazi mod.

[Bijoux Styles]

Originally posted by Miyamoto-dono:

There are mods that let you do some very questionable things. Extremism DLC is good for this, and there are mods, like one that let's you abolish fair elections and institute a corrupt systems. Other mods let you completely censor or outright ban just about anything, ie. religion, internet usage, and a Nazi mod lets you commit genocide.

Some of the mods make the game brighter and let you do very good things.

Some of them let you do very ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up things xD So there's a lot of potential variety.

Fair warning though, some of the "evil" mods are of a low quality and don't really do much besides make the Liberals hate you. Like the Nazi mod.

That sounds sweet, where do i get these mods? and while im asking about those mods.. are they free?

[Eleazaros]

Originally posted by Soggy2002:

I would have been
able to read that better
if you put more than eight
words on each damn line.

Speaking of, why did you leave the part that ends in 'overwhelming' out of your odd composition?

Here you go - I also found it very hard to read so...

Representationis a falsification of democracy

Political struggle that results in the victory of a candidate with 51 per cent of the votes leads to a dictatorial governing body disguised as a false democracy, since 49 per cent of the electorate is ruled by an instrument of governing they did not vote for, but had imposed upon them.

This is dictatorship.

Besides, this political conflict may produce a governing body that represents only a minority, for when votes are distributed among several candidates, one of them polls more than any other candidate. But if the votes polled by those who received less are added up, they can constitute an overwhelming majority. However, the candidate with fewer votes wins and his success is regarded as legitimate and democratic!

In actual fact, dictatorship is established under the cover of false democracy. This is the reality of the political systems prevailing in the world today. They are dictatorial systems and it seems clear that they falsify genuine democracy.

Personally - his assertions are invalid.

The people decide how things split up and what things are acceptable.

By his assertions, 99% for 1 candidate would still be a dictatorship being as 1% is "not represented".

If the people decide 51% is all 1 needs - that works. If the people decide that among 10 candidates, 1 of them having the most (be that 11% to 1, all others at 9-10%) -- that would be a proper democracy.

It is the will of the people and how they agree upon who gets the top office - and how much power they have while in that office with however much accountability between elections is, again, determined by the will of the people based upon *THEIR* implementation of democracy.

He just has some boolean mindset where all must be for or it is a false form and that doesn't fit reality.

[Bruut Gullit♿]

|Representation is a falsification of democracy|


Parliaments are the backbone of traditional democracy as it exists today. A parliament is a misrepresentation of the people and parliamentary governments are a misleading solution to the problem of democracy. A parliament is originally founded to represent the people, but this in itself, is undemocratic as democracy means the authority of the people and not an authority acting on their behalf. The mere existence of a parliament means the absence of the people, but true democracy exists only through the participation of the people, not through the activity of their representatives. Parliaments have been a legal barrier between the peoples and the exercise of authority, excluding masses from power while usurping sovereignty in their place. Peoples are left with only false external appearance of democracy manifested in long queues to cast their votes in the ballot boxes. To lay bare the character of the parliament, we have to look to the origin of such a parliament. The parliament is either elected from consti- tuencies or a party or a coalition of parties, or is formed by some method of appointment. But all these procedures are undemocratic, for dividing the population into constituencies means that one member of parliament represents thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of people, depending on the size of population. It also means that the member keeps no popular organisational link with the electors since he, like other members, is looked upon as a representative of the whole people. This is what the prevailing traditional democracy requires. The masses, therefore, are completely isolated from the representative and he, in turn, is totally separated from them. For immediately after winning their votes he himself usurps their sovereignty and acts instead of them. The prevailing traditional democracy endows the member of a parliament with a sacredness and immunity denied to other individual members of the people. That means that parliaments have become a means of plundering and usurping the people's authority. Hence the people have the right to struggle, through the popular revolution, to destroy instruments which usurp democracy and sovereignty and take them away from the masses. They also have the right to utter the new principle, no representation in lieu of the people. If, however, the parliament emerges from a party as a result of winning an election, it is a parliament of the party and not of the people. It represents the party and not the people, and the executive power assigned by the parliament is that of the winning party and not of the people. The same is true of the parliament in which each party holds a number of seats. For the members of the parliament represent their party and not the people, and the power established by such a coalition is the power of the combined parties and not of the people. Under such systems the people are victims fooled and exploited by political bodies. The people stand silently in long queues to cast their votes in the ballot boxes the same way as they throw other papers into the dustbin. This is the traditional democracy prevalent in the whole world, whether the system is one-party, two-party, multi-party or non-party. Thus it becomes clear that representation is fraud. Assemblies formed by a method of appointment or hereditary succession do not fall under any form of democracy. Moreover, since the system of elected parliaments is based on propaganda to win votes, it is a demagogic system in the real sense of the word. and votes can be bought and falsified. Poor people fail to compete in the election campaign and it is always the rich -- and only the rich -- who come out victorious. Philosophers, thinkers and writers advocated the theory of representative government at a time when the peoples, without realising it, were driven like sheep by kings, sultans and conquerors. The ultimate aspiration of the people of those times was to have someone to represent them before such rulers. Even that aspiration was nullified. Peoples went through long and bitter struggles to attain what they aspired to. After the successful establishment of the era of the republics and the beginning of the era of the masses, it is unreasonable that democracy should mean the electing of only a few representatives to act on behalf of great masses. This is an obsolete theory and an outdated experience. The whole authority must be the people's. The most tyrannical dictatorships the world has known have existed under the shadow of parliaments.

[Gekkibi]

Or shortly put: democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch...

[Eleazaros]

Originally posted by Gekkibi:

Or shortly put: democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch...

That is known as tyrany of the masses and why most are mitigated by use of a republic in one form or another.

Switzerland has about the purest form of democracy right now with its structure yet does have an effective 'ruling council'.

As far as other forms of government for nastiness - look at ancient Greece at the time of Socrates with respect to the Thirty Tyrants.

Socrates (supposedly) and definately Aristotle prosthelytized the perfect form of government to be an Olagarchy of the wise. Yet when Critias & friends decided to implement that system in Athens, they killed off 1 in 5 Athenians in 1 year to eliminate the ideas of Democracy (before they were stopped).

Their method of implementation vs what they tried to put together... IMO that is a perfect demonstration of what happens when one group feels "we know better" vs accepting info from all who will be under the rule of a government.

[Gekkibi]

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
- Winston Churchill

[Bruut Gullit♿]

Yeah, sooner or later the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a ♥♥♥♥ about them
Government doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare, or your safety
It simply doesn’t give a ♥♥♥♥ about you
It’s interested in its own power, that’s the only thing, keeping it and expanding it wherever possible…

Now’s not the time for picket signs Or letters to your senator and etcetera
If you love your children, if you love yourself You’ll throw down the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ hand that’s dealt
And cut the puppet strings attached to your life
♥♥♥♥ it! See you in hell ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥!

[Serris]

This forum sure does attract its share of insipid political screed. We're talking about a videogame. Hackneyed sophomoric rants about democracy being a lie are better served on Reddit. Too many threads asking a question about the game get hijacked by vapid "it's all a lie man, open your eyes sheeple" crap.

[slattden]

Yeah, serris.. This was a pretty simple question

[hypermail]

Seems too simplified a game, if there just are random people and adjusting of things. There should be possibility to use education to affect peoples opinion, form a group outside of politics that gains popularity the more succesful the group is, and so forth.