User:DontClickMeName/sandbox

Marriage systems

Communist marriage: the wife has no possessions, and everything is owned by the husband, who tells her it's for her own good. She is not allowed to divorce, and her husband can treat her in anyway he likes. He can beat her to a pulp and tell her the beating was done all by herself until her traumatized mind eventually believes it. He tells her that all her troubles are caused by her rebellious fantasies, and everything will be all right if she can be obedient. His reason to keep her under such subjugation is because he sees how she can be a greedy person, and thinks greed is pathological, even though he is even more greedy himself.

Direct democratic marriage: the woman has free will except marriage is strictly illegal as a victimless crime for no apparent reason. Enforced loneliness can be so depressing she would eventually admit she'd rather living in a representative democratic marriage.

Representative democratic marriage: the wife can either completely obey her husband, or get a divorce, but must choose a new husband immediately after divorce. She divorces every husband because she eventually disagrees with each one, and divorce is the only way to disobey. Men know that the woman subconsciously prefers a husband who robs a bank to give her the cash, even though she screams "no", and empathizes with the poor bank clerk who dies. They know this because she stays in a marriage with such a man for longer, even though she would never rob a bank herself (unless she was starving to death). No man is good at managing finances, but she only notices poor management in ex-husbands who did not rob a bank since she is rich otherwise, so she cannot stand non-robbers for their money-managing incompetence. Her husband would always calm her by assuring that the bank was evil and probably developing weapons to attack her, and he may subconsciously wish that was true, so he is not super-motivated in negotiating peacefully with them. Men focus on discrediting other men, as that is the most efficient way of winning her, since she must choose someone. When she is extremely frustrated with all the choices, she may marry a stranger, but strangers turn out to be very nasty men.

What political system would a normal marriage be?

Well, it'll probably look more similar to representative democracy than direct democracy, but it will have the same "right to not be represented" as a direct democracy. Using advanced information technology, every candidate who is voted for is allowed a seat in the parliament, albeit a virtual cyberspace one, (although few will go in the real parliament). Not every seat counts as one parliament vote, however, because representatives' voting weight is proportional to the number of people they represent. Who voted for whom is stored in a database so that each person can change who, if anyone, represents their vote at anytime. After representatives finish voting for a bill, they must wait a day so that people who they represent have a chance to represent themselves for the particular vote if they disagree with their representatives. Of course, most people aren't too involved in politics, and will never bother to notice any bill being passed, letting their representative do all the deciding work, so one may think this system is the same as an representative democracy, except costing more with excessive technology used. But it is not. The mere threat of people having the power to represent themselves in a bill vote is enough to discourage politicians from ever thinking of daring of betraying voters.

With this system in place, political parties will no longer be able to do whatever they want just by discrediting other parties. For example, imagine a radically socialist party trying to rule such a country by making everyone hate the other parties. Even after it gets most of the votes, if it tries to pass a bill to abolish currency, everyone will simply choose to represent themselves for that one bill and vote against it, and the bill wont pass. Also, instead of attacking a country and then asking for forgiveness (to stay elected), the government would need to change its strategy into asking for permission and then attacking a country. This will reduce the concept I talked about earlier on opposing war yet being happy if inadvertently forced into a winning war and money poured in.

The one worst case scenario that could occur with this system, unfortunately, is when everyone passes bills against everyone. To imagine this, we have three regions in such a country: region A, region B, and region C. A bill suggested benefits both region A and region B, at the cost of greatly harming region C. This bill would be passed because regions A and B combined makes a majority. A second bill benefiting regions B and C would also be passed, and so will a third for regions A and C, leaving everyone worse off.

Now, in theory, this would not occur in a representative democracy, where unfair bills would only go in one direction, ie. regions A and B (or any combination) would vote for a party supporting them while against region C. But many actual representative democracies seen today work by having people vote for regional representative, not federal leaders, so this worse case scenario (with mutual unfair bills passed against everyone) is just as likely (I think) to happen there, and yet we don't see it happening, so most likely, it wont happen in such a system either. The reason it isn't happening could be because regional representatives can share the same political parties, which will also work for representatives in this system, and probably people as well, as many associate themselves with a political party.

In fact, aside from how a representative democracy's unfair bills might be less likely to go in multiple directions (without regional representatives), it should be less likely for regions A, B, and C to pass unfair bills against each other in this system, than a representative democracy. This is because when, say, region C is threatened by an unfair bill, it will try to convince other people to go against it, perhaps explaining that it wont support unfair bills against other regions if it is spared, and may succeed. But in a representative democracy, parties just evolve like microorganisms. A party that says, "lets not pass unfair bills against anyone," will do fairly well, while a party saying, "lets pass unfair bills against region C, they can't do anything about it," will be heavily opposed. However, when a new party emerges by chance, that, by chance, believes something else, saying "look at how unfair our system is towards regions A and B, we need to make things fair and stop being overly favorable to region C," things get different. Regions A and B have no clue if the third party's beliefs are correct of not, but perhaps after some scandal by the first party, they vote for it, having majority. The third party starts making many unfair decisions against region C, and region C starts to protest the same way it would without representative democracy. The third party, however, would lose votes if it didn't do anything about the protest, so it will utilize as much propaganda it's allowed in order to counteract, and reassure regions A and B that region C is being greedy. Such a use of propaganda might not happen without representative democracy. In the end, the unfair decisions against region C do benefit regions A and B, except regions A and B do not examine the cause of the benefits as much, attributing it to just how the third party is better, voting for it again.


 * I call it the "individualist representative democracy."