Vote for a Democratically-Elected President of the World

If it is to be a global democracy, which, if it were otherwise neither I nor you should want any part in it, then it must be democratic in nature. Vote yes to call for all officials of the site to be democratically elected, not to have inherited their positions through the starters of the site.

For example, perhaps let people be nominated by site participants, and then let those people choose whether or not to run for President or for another position, should one be created. With x number of nominations (let's deliberate on specifics here), and a choice made to run, let people vote on a person as they would an idea: Yes to see them in, no to see them out; it does not have to be conventional. Or just yes. At any rate, the person with the greatest positive number after everything's calculated would win!

People could post links to information on themselves in the meantime, and have their own doings be off site for the most part; funding, ability, competence, character, intentions and promises once elected, all could be displayed by links to information on them in their real lives. For any who think this extreme, do you believe this site can start a global democracy or are you here to waste time?

Vote yes now to call on the current President of the World to start planning with us for democratic elections to be held for GlobalDemocracy. A vote for yes is simply saying this; specifics I leave open to debate below, and to further consideration, none of which above are binding by your vote.

But to any who would not have it, and I will respond, please, indulge me: why should a global democracy in name not be democratic de facto?

Vote
55%
45%
Votes
18
Views
3362

16 Comments

  • "POW has no authority in the real world and only supports globaldemocracy.com ideas if they encourage global equality, freedom and security - as articulated in the Constitution of the Democracy of the Peoples of the World."

    Since, to me, it appears that the person on the video is merely a "representation" of what the most popular ideas are on the site I don't really see why we would need to vote on who presents the ideas brought forth. From what I get out of the idea, the POW isn't any form of an official or holds any opinion for this site... he just appears on videos regarding the ideas the people bring forth as the most urgent.

    I suppose it could be brought forth, then, to have a different spokesperson for every video?

  • The POW picks what to represent. Therefore he is an important figure. He also reflects on us, and what he says on his own is important, which he already has said a few things on his own, creating a Constitution solo aside. Giving someone an unregulated position is unwise; if this site is as successful as we all want it to be, we need checks and balances on him, because he represents the site presently and also decides what to say. Yes, that's determined by us in theory; but it's more based off of what he have to say; he can choose not to represent a popular idea, and choose from a range of ideas to represent things he himself believes. There are dozens of ideas with 100% approval ratings; WHO decides which ones make YouTube or elsewhere is a very relevant question. I stand by my original proposal, and ask that you change your mind. For the better interests of the site and everyone the PoW will represent in the long run, I strongly encourage it. But democracy's cornerstone is free debate, and I would persuade you if you could not persuade me; please do reply, and we'll talk this over.

    I should have explained all that in the original post. But get back with me.

  • I think that is is more important that the ideas that are represented selected democratically. Maybe some type of system where every profile can vote on any idea and any Idea with (for the sake of argument) 50k+ votes AND a 51% or better approval rating are automatically brought forward in one of the POW's addresses. If this website ever does become a valid political force then I would see a greater need to democratically elect the 'face' We need someone well spoken, polite and intelligent and the current POW fits that billing. So for now I respectfully disagree with the OP. The face is trivial, the content is critical and that content is what I feel should be democratically selected.

  • The POW can be whomever the site creators/administrators hire. I like the guy they got.
    As for the voting someone in? Pointless. Now voting on the ideas brought forth by the POW, perfect! Thats what the voting system is all about, though it's not just the votes, its the number of votes. So, the site observes a high number of voters than usual (amount worthy of a video) voting yes on a particular issue, its puts this idea forth. The most liked and most popular ideas get represented by POW. Exactly the way it should be

  • I can see where you guys are coming from. But I will be looking to the next few weeks to see how well the POW handles objectivity to himself (which is a lot to ask in anyone, read, too much) before I fold completely; I do think jlaz's ideas about making what ideas got represented more automatic and objective make sense as an alternative, though I still find fault with any system that enables someone to decide how ideas are portrayed as the main person doing so without being elected. Thank you for your input, it has helped challenge my viewpoint and for a critical thinker that is a good gift. Really for anyone it is a good gift. I will be watching how things play out, again, and pondering how major of a problem this really is after all, and some of your arguments will be in my mind, my fellow constituents. I only pray that you are right, and that I was wrong, because that is preferable given probability, considering current apparent popular vote on the issue and current dynamics, as to how things will be run; and reading your words, if the POW goes south at some point, I will expect you to renege on some of what you've said, not saying I'm asking to but I will actually expect you to if he doesn't work out so well as you think, because most of you are backing the man in question as much as you are the principle that allows him to hold office without democratic election. I would not want to be superficial in my thinking, nor rigid, nor negligent, but overall my main thought is that it seems to be the case that there is no democratic vote here in favor of challenging the legitimacy of the current POW, and that democratically his role is understood to be limited enough a democratic election is not needed, my own doubts less relevant in the face of the legitimacy of your arguments combined with the above.

    I do feel a sense of promise again; I will leave this up for the time being because I don't want it off the site records, unless it comes to hurt my ratings too much for my comfort, which it plausibly could (my other ideas all have 100% approval ratings). This post needn't be any longer than it's gotten to be, but I would ask everyone to comment as to jlaz's idea of an objective, automatic system for putting ideas in the POW's lap, as this would largely solve my problems, and any it did not solve would be right in front of the community, but really that should have no further issues at that point. Jlaz, what do you say? Everyone else? I may post a new idea soon to replace this one, jlaz, but feel free to yourself as I would not wish to take credit for your idea if you had an inclination to post it, and I am sure you could elaborate on it at least as well as I, even after I've thought it over a little. But how does everyone feel about the proposed amendment to the above?

    -PeaceandRightsHawk (just in case it didn't record my name)
    mentalhealthcivilrights.com
    mentalhealthcivilrigths@yahoo.com
    Feel free to contact me about anything we talk about on this site, or anything you wanted to but never quite did. I am here to network, and to help forward a global democracy that puts people ahead of government, giving the People back their rights and control; all this I wanted to do before I found this site and just lucked out that someone else had already had the same idea who had the means to make it happen

  • If anyone is to take this seriously, then yes, true democracy should start here.

  • This site is more about solving problems through democracy than labelling those problems and solutions with an identifiable face, in this case an elected president for this site.

  • I object because although the idea of president of the world is cute, it is also silly. I like the idea of this site as a vehicle for achieving consensus. A consensus that if achieved would eliminate the need for leaders, or elections for them. In any case there are bound to be individuals more charismatic, articulate and authoritative than others, Power to them. But as far as this site is concerned as long as measures aren't taken to allow more ease of freedom in communication, navigation, and management between users and admins this site probably wont go viral, which it needs to.

  • I object because although I am very progressive, I believe international organizations-WTO , IMF, world bank,EU,UN,NATO, at least centralized ones have dismal, even dangerous tendencies,often serving wealthy and/or elite groups, often with a dangerous agenda(totalitarian -leaning).This website and other things similar are a great voice for the people and perhaps something like it in real life could serve the people's voice.Globaliztion has tragically been used by cold-blooded social engineers,corporatists, and oligarchs and odds are, a global centralized authority would take cues from these types,regardless of how seemingly benevolent, or charismatic the individual may be.I take my cues from classical limited republican values and some cues from democratic-socialist and anarcho-socialist influences.

  • I agree but present a slight variation of the idea. I believe it would be better overall if we were to vote that the top scientists of the world should replace poloticians, allowing breakthroughs and better technology to shape our world instead of greed and destitution.

  • I object because the administrators and President have no affect on policy, nor should they. The question demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the system.

  • - Wow .Amy these are amazingly baeutiful .i would be doing an album if i were her. How lucky she is to have these baeutiful images.again just baeutiful

  • I raelly couldn't ask for more from this article.

  • Separate but equal model may be better. Look what happened to poor old Hitler.

  • I object because it took my nation 700 years of suffering and patient endurance to attain it's rightful place in the world as a sovereign independant nation state. Why would I trample undefoot the countless patriotic sacrifices of my countrymen in that long history and throw away that precious freedom for which so many have bled, hungered, and patiently suffered. Every "ethnos", every cultural group has a right to self determination and governance. Models such as the UN are quite sufficient in providing a forum for peaceful conduct of international affairs, without taking away the freedoms enjoyed by nations to govern themselves as best suits their cultural nature. We aren't all suited to a "one size fits all" approach to governance. Why do you propose a president, for instance, and not a Tsar? Or a global Clan Cheiftain?

    McDonalds is for hamburgers, not for governance. Freedom is not only what you think it is, it's what Russians think it is, and Chinese, and Chileans, and so on and so on. They arent' all the same idea, but it's all freedom. And it is beautiful and deserves to be left in peace to find it's own way in the world.

    Give me Freedom. Or give me death! I'll keep my own president, thank you very much. I'm quite happy with her.

Similar Ideas: