NAC Politics

So is there an official way the NAC functions? Is it a two-party system
like
the U.S.A. or the free-for-all that politics seems to be in the U.K.?
Does the reigning Monarch have any power, for that matter do we have a name or
even gender for the current Monarch?

> Roger Brooks wrote:

UK politics have been three-party for at least a century
now, although *which* three parties does change from time to time. Seems
reasonable that this would be imported to the US (after all, the US two party
system didn't work out
in the GZG timeline, did it? :-) :-) ) and the colonies.

One model would be 19th century Victorian empire, with all the important
decisions being made on Earth. The colonies have to send lobbyists to the
central government if they want anything changed. This would create lots of
single issue parties supporting independence for various people.

Another would be late 19th century with Dominions, like Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand used to be and Scotland and Wales are now moving towards, with
their own assemblies and parties. Officially the NAC is one big happy family,
and like any family there's bickering and feuds internally, but everyone does
pull together on major issues.

> Does the reigning Monarch have any power?

Ah, now that's an interesting question. A big difference between UK and US
politics is the "unwritten" component of UK law and government. Tradition,
consensus, that's how we've always done things. And one of these aspects is
that the monarch has, legally, a lot of power; which they don't actually use.

(On reviewing this paragraph, I'm not so sure. Maybe there are unwritten
aspects of US law and government too and I'm just more familiar with the UK.
Anyone?)

For instance, in Australia the governer-general is the
Queens representative. Every piece of legislation enacted
by parliament has to be approved by the G-G, so in law
they can veto anything. But they never do so. The G-G
also has the power to dissolve parliament and force an
election if he/she decides the current government isn't
stable. This has only happened once, and many Australians are still furious
about it.

Since the NAC is a recent creation, and Americans are known for their, uh,
"excitability" compared to Brits, I'd assume it starts Victorian Empire with
intent to move towards Commonwealth. Bits of North America, and
colonies, have governer-generals/viceroys who play an
active role in politics and frequently exercise their powers. The monarch
tours a lot, and also frequently
gets involved in colonial politics. (Form of good cop/
bad cop: if the viceroy is being oppressive, you appeal to the monarch, who
really cares about the people. See,
isn't this better than being independent? :-) )

Politics on Earth itself should be interesting. The economic centre is clearly
going to be in the old US and Canada, so I can imagine a lot of unhappy
British complaining about the "North American Confederation" running things.

I've rambled on long enough I think.

cheers,

> Another would be late 19th century with Dominions, like Canada,

Politically speaking "Australia" was not a Dominion or anything else in the
19th century. Australia didn't become a nation, and part of the British
Empire, until 1901. Before that there were just the colonies New South Wales,
Victoria, Queensland etc. with varying degrees of autonomy and various
different representative bodies.

> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, R. Bryett wrote:

> >>>> Another would be late 19th century with Dominions, like Canada,

Likewise "Canada" prior to 1867.

The American 1.5 party system is a bit of an anomaly WRT other
democracies, which tend to be more free-wheeling.

Consider Canada. Our current opposition - called the Conservatives - are
mostly a party that didn't exist 20 years ago, combined with the shattered
remenants (and the name) of the party that founded this country, but which
went, in 1992, from a majority government down to having only 2 seats in the
Commons... (Commons = Congress, for Americans...)

Given that Brits run the NAC - more or less - and it's a very, very
geographically (astrographically?) spread out outfit, I'd expect more diverse
politics. Besides, it's more interesting...

> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:42:56 +1000

The U.S. does _not_ have a "two party" system. Congress can, and did,
function as a multi-party organization. The problem is that it's very,
very difficult for a new party to form and win seats in the Senate, or House
of Representatives, or take the presidency, let alone take two out of the
three.

While campaign finance laws stack the deck in favour of the incumbents, and
thus the status quo, there's nothing actually preventing multiple parties from
gaining representation in Congress.

> Another would be late 19th century with Dominions, like

I guess whether or not Scotland is moving toward a "dominion" depends on your
definition of "dominion". Scotland wants "home rule", and has achieved much in
the last decade, mostly by showing what a chunk of a country can do when the
majority votes as a single block. What Scotland wants is control of taxation
and tax spending within Scotland, and a fair division of natural resources.
Scotland understands, though, that such items as national defence are best
handled at the U.K. level.

Ironically, what Scotland wants is closer to what individual states in the
U.S. have, or perhaps what individual states of the Confederacy had during the
American Civil War. Since Scotland has its own common law, it looks an awful
lot like Louisiana (it even has oil reserves, too, though Scotland's politics
are nowhere near as corrupt as Louisiana's).

> (On reviewing this paragraph, I'm not so sure. Maybe

Canada is similar to Australia in that the government has to go to the Queen
(through her appointed representative, the Governor General) to dissolve
parliament and hold a general election. The Governor General authorizes a
particular party to form the government, which is traditionally the party with
the most seats in the election, but there
is a precedent for this _not_ happening.

There are several "unwritten aspects" of U.S. law. The one that's received the
most notice, due to the outcome of the 2000 election, is the election of the
president.

The president is not chosen by popular vote, he's chosen by electoral college
vote. Each state has a number of "electors" equal to the number of members the
state sends to Congress (number of House Representatives, plus the two
senators). The District of Columbia gets 3 electoral votes. Each elector goes
to Washington after the presidential election and votes for the president and
vice president. The president and vice president must have a clear majority of
electors. If the president does not have a clear majority, the House of
Representatives votes for the president with each state in the house getting
one vote (the delegates from each state vote amongst themselves, and the
state's majority decision is cast in favour of one presidential candidate).
They keep voting until a president is selected, though if by inauguration day
no candidate has won a majority, the new vice president becomes president
until a choice has been made. In cases of ties, the senate votes for the vice
president, though it's unclear if the sitting vice president gets to break a
tie vote.

The people of the nation do _not_ vote for the president. Their vote
simply sways their states electors. This elector uses the people's vote to
decide who he or she votes for. The rules for the electors are different for
each state. Most states figure out who won the election in their state, and
then their electors all vote for that presidential and vice presidential
candidate. Maine and Nebraska handle things differently. They have their
electors vote for the person who won the presidential election in each
district, and then they give the two remaining votes to the person who won the
election in the state in general; this has never resulted in a split vote,
though.

In most cases there is nothing _legally binding_ an elector for voting
based on the wishes of the people of that state. In other words, in
the last election a majority of electors could _legally_ have ignored
the presidential election and put Ralph Nader in as president. There are 24
states that do have laws on the books punishing so called "faithless
electors", electors who vote against the rules of the state. There have been
over 150 cases of "faithless electors", most of which seem to have been simple
mistakes during the electoral college balloting procedure. (Apparently the
ballots are hand written, and so you get people switching the names of the
president and vice president, or leaving one or the other off, etc.)

Because of the electoral college system, it's possible that a president (in a
two party race) can win the presidency without winning the popular vote. This
has happened four times, in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. The House of
Representatives did elect the president twice in U.S. history, in 1801 and
1825. The Vice President was chosen by the Senate in 1837.

If this sounds "weird", it was actually quite deliberate. The U.S.
governmental system was devised in the 18th century when classism reigned. The
electoral college system was designed to protect the rich and educated from
the unwashed masses. "Democracy" was seen as "mob rule". In fact, there's
nothing in the U.S. constitution that requires a popular vote for the
president! (This in spite of what most
Americans believe.) The Federalist Papers suggest that the so-called
"founding fathers" envisioned that the standard way of selecting a president
was by the choice of the House of Representatives.

In other words, this is very similar to the Governor General issue in
Canada, where the will of the people could be legally co-opted.

There are other things like this in the U.S. Members of the House of
Representatives are given much more leeway in voting for legislation.
They do _not_ have to rigidly follow party guidelines like they do in
Britain and Canada (in Canada it is expected that MPs vote along party lines
other than with a "free vote", which itself can not result in a
vote of non-confidence). This propensity in the U.S. results in "pork
barreling", where riders are added to legislation in order to get a key vote.
This is why you'll see appropriation money for roads in California being
attached to a grain subsidy bill for Kansas and Nebraska, for instance.

Most states have a "first past the post" election. In other words, the
person who wins the most votes in the election -- be it for the state
house of representatives, state senate, governor, federal house of
representatives, or federal senate -- is given the position. As a
result, usually only one person runs for one party in a particular
district. This is _not_ the case in all states. Louisiana has a
primary system for all elections. The winner must have won a clear majority of
the vote to get the position. If he or she does not, the folk with the most
votes (I think it can be more than two, though in
practice it's usually the top two) have a run-off election. In our
local election for federal Representative here in Monroe, Louisiana, our
district had three Republicans and two Democrats running.

Louisiana's laws are odd, too, since many of them are derived from Napoleonic
Code. States create their own civil and criminal laws, subject to the state's
constitution and the U.S. constitution. This is why some, but not all, states
have the death penalty. You'll also hear the term "federal offence", which
means that the law being broken is a federal law, not a state law.

The point to remember about the U.S. is that before the Civil War it
was mostly known as "_these_ United States" not "_the_ United States".
States have a fair bit of power on their own, and can control how a number of
things are done, even with regard to federal elections.

> Since the NAC is a recent creation, and Americans are

I'm not sure what you mean by "excitability". If anything, Americans are far
more blase with regard to politics than Brits. Voter turnout is much lower,
for a number of reasons. I have a hard time seeing anything like the violent
poll tax demonstrations happening in the
U.S.

> Bits of North America, and

I can't believe that would attract Americans at all.

More likely would be an economic union that formed a de facto political union
later. About the most realistic path to the NAC
(which, honestly, is pure fantasy), would be by way of the Canada/U.S.
free trade agreement and NAFTA. The U.S. and Canada would start by developing
very similar border security rules, such as similar immigration policies. This
has been talked about in real life. Throw in some sort of monetary crisis
(fuel is probably a good one, particularly if oil prices continue to rise to
the point where tar sands extraction is economically viable), and an economic
threat from
the E.U. or -- more likely -- China and India, and you have NAFTA
moving closer to a North American Union, modelled roughly on the E.U. A NAFTA
dollar is created, and eventually a NAFTA presidency is formed.

Now, have Britain fall out with the E.U. option and turn to NAFTA. Perhaps a
huge Scottish oil reserve is found but the E.U. wants Britain to "share the
wealth". Or perhaps another military crisis has Britain ally itself with NAFTA
at the expense of Europe.

(My personal belief is that a renewable resource will be needed and that any
oil find in Britain would be a stop gap. The easiest renewable resource to
produce is biodiesel, which is already being produced in the U.S. Since it
involves crop production, this would make Canada a big player in North
American fuel. That doesn't leave much room for Britain, except that complex
hydrocarbons are still going to be needed for plastic production. Perhaps a
combined
British/American research team produces sustained, economical fusion
power, and the resulting patents only really apply to Britain and the U.S.
Have the E.U. change patent law to suck in the British fusion patents, and you
have a catalyst for Britain leaving the E.U. Since it looks like large
economic blocks are the only way to survive in the 21st century, Britain would
naturally turn to NAFTA.)

At any rate there has to be some reason why Britain is important to NAFTA, and
NAFTA is important to Britain. The North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement becomes
the Atlantic Free Trade Association, which itself becomes the forerunner of
the NAC.

I can't see Britain's political system being the catalyst for the NAC. The
catalyst has to be either military or economic, with economic being more
likely.

> At 10:51 AM -0500 7/6/05, Allan Goodall wrote:

The EC is hardly unwritten. Its codified in the Constitution and in electoral
law. As well as all the state laws. Its just poorly understood by the masses.

> The president is not chosen by popular vote, he's chosen by electoral

Of course, the State Senate used to choose the congressional senators too.

> If this sounds "weird", it was actually quite deliberate. The U.S.

The other key to the system is that the proper focus should be at the local
level where most everything should be happening in one's life. One has the
most impact there with one's local state legislature. Personally, I think the
State Senates should appoint the Congressional
Senators as part of the tiered system of elected/representative
officials.

> More likely would be an economic union that formed a de facto

Anglosphere anyone?

> The U.S. and Canada would start by

India is looking like it'll lean closer to the US/UK/Australia/Canada
than China. Especially given the true democratic leanings of all of the former
British holdings.

> Allan Goodall wrote:

To this and others pointing out flaws, I was trying to give a "view from
50,000 feet" of the two political systems stretched over a century or so. As
you say, there's nothing actually stopping a third party from forming in the
US. But third parties are not often important in US federal politics,
while they usually are significant in UK/Australia/Canada.

> I guess whether or not Scotland is moving toward a "dominion" depends

Yeah, that's what I would mean by it. India in the 19th century British empire
would be "colony", Australia and Canada would be "dominions."

> Since the NAC is a recent creation, and Americans are

Blatant stereotyping :-) "Our" politics are of course stable
and entirely reasonable. "Your" politics are bizarre and it's amazing that
anything gets done at all. Values for "our" and "your" depend entirely on the
observer.

cheers,

On 7/7/05, The GZG Digest <owner-gzg-digest@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>
wrote:
> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:33:34 -0400

> At 10:51 AM -0500 7/6/05, Allan Goodall wrote:

I didn't say it was unwritten. I said it was "unwritten". I was using Hugh's
original use of the term "unwritten" (which didn't really mean unwritten,
either).

I had a statement in my post at one point to say that these things were not
literally unwritten, that they were formally codified, but at some point that
statement was edited out.

> Personally, I think the State Senates should appoint the Congressional

That won't work well in a party system. It would mean that if you voted for a
Republican in the state it would likely translate to a Republican appointment
in Congress (also substitute Democrat for Republican). This goes back to the
emphasis of the local level of government. You may not care much for a local
candidate's party at the federal level, but you might prefer the local
candidate because he works hard and has a good track record. Given how local
matters are less noticable due to overwhelming national news coverage, folks
would most likely see the Congressional senate seat as being more important
when voting for the state senate. As an example, I couldn't tell you who my
state senators are, but I can tell you the Congressional senators. (I have an
excuse, though; I'm a permanent resident alien, not a citizen).

If the State Senates appointed the Congressional Senators, you'd see parties
become stronger, which in my opinion is not a good thing. I would prefer to
see the U.S. have greater diversity in Congress.

> >and an economic threat from

I didn't mean to suggest that China and India were a threat as a single bloc.
I meant to suggest that both China and India, independently, would be seen as
economic threats. I probably should have said "China or India", but I was
thinking that both nations, independently but at the same time, would be an
economic threat to the North American Union.

Reality check.

The U.S. does not have a Constitutionally mandated two-party system
but that has no impact on the fact that there are two significant parties and
a bunch of wannabees that are left in the noise. You can quote the
Constitution forever, but that does not change the fact that Republican or a
Democrat is going to be in the White House for the rest of my life. The
legislature is going to be controlled by a Republican or a Democrat for the
rest of my life. The second largest representation, the "minority party", is
going to be a Republican or a Democrat for the rest of my life.

There is a slim possibilty that one of those parties will fracture and a

third party will rise in power, but shortly after this occurs we will be back
to two significant parties.

> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Hugh Fisher wrote:

> Blatant stereotyping :-) "Our" politics are of course stable

Well, yes.:)... but your politics are still wierd...

Don't forget that in the GZGverse the US fell apart in a
(limited) *nuclear* civil war and quasi-coup by the military. That's a
pretty major dislocation.

So, the US pretty much falls apart. The UK & Canada help pick up the pieces,
some of which glow in the dark. Americans start thinking, "Hey, how come
*they're* doing OK?". NAC happens.

It's a toweringly unlikely scenario, but that's more or less what's in the
canon GZG future history...