With time being the issue (Little Upsilon)

Us presidents on SC are very lucky, for years pass by with the blink of eye and we get to see the fruits of our long term policies mature and our countries succeed. But thats not the same for presidents/countries of the real world. How would we handle our countries if each country was run by a president controlled by the computer with the VP (virtual president) running your country in the way you want it (conservative, democratic, liberal etc).
So. You see your country going where you want it until the elections and then your population elect the opposite party. How could a country handle such a dramatic change in policy every 4-8 years? (3-5 weeks in sc terms) How could any long term policy be truly implemented?

Solution: single-party state.

Decentralise and empower people with real facts and the means to build a consensus.

Irrelevant vested interests aim short and long-term and need to be taken out of the equation.

Education needs to inform people that a life is not naturally valued in monetarty terms but food, shelter, procreation, good health health and happiness are the goals of a society. When one gets back to the real goals, then one can begin to think outside the vested interests set norms.

Turning the education system into a propaganda network could conceivably work, but how do you convince people to agree on what propaganda to spout? Wouldn't the propaganda change with each new administration? Isn't using the education system as a propaganda network itself a long-term policy?

You're helping my point that the only solution is a single-party state.

In my experience, I don't see that many changes when there is a party in Government, for the two main parties are quite similar and because Reason is Queen.

Major objectives for any nation should and can be subject of consensus among the major parties, long with civil society for greater commitment.

If we teach people the status quo (which is the existing setup or propaganda now) then that is what they'll follow.

If you teach people to question everything and to explore a range of opinions and facts even on controversial subjects, people can have the tools to self-sustain and build consenus with what ever party is in power.

So much of the education is to accept laws blindly, to go to work to earn money and "play the game".

Life tools are dying out leaving government with more power over their citizens.

Governments should accommodate all types of people and communities and prescribe to them.

Government should be protecting our freedoms from violence and intimidation, allowing us to explore the way we want to live our lives peaecfully.

I don't want to tell a capitalist he can't make profit but I don't expect a government to make it all but impossible to live without pr

I agree with David on almost all points. We the people need to retain and take back our power; less power and less spoils to the State and its cronies.

Scarlet, I'm surprised at your proposal.

Laguna understands the root reason of a single-party state. There is only room enough for one ideology and there must be agreement regarding what this ideology is those in government in order to implement any long-term policy.

However, I may add that the effort to maintain the rhetoric required to convince people that there is real choice when in fact neither party disagrees in any important way would be better spent on the propaganda network David proposed. Therefore, the best solution is a single-party state.

David, once again, I'm letting you know the best way to implement your long-term policies. How could government possibly "accommodate all types of people and communities and prescribe to them," if there were a party that did not accept this as a valid purpose of government? What if a party had a certain notion about what, "I don't expect a government to make it all but impossible to live without profit," mea

People have broad agreement about some things, and disagreements about others. You hear a lot more about the disagreements than about the agreements.

I had you pegged as a zero party person, Scarlet. One party government is usually synonymous with severe restrictions on political liberty, because there is always something to disagree about and form other factions over unless doing so is forcibly prevented.

What long term policies are you so in favor of anyway, that have any good chance of being enacted in a one-party state?

Personally, I want my government weak and incapable of enacting long-term policies. I believe this is a check on the power of government and a very good thing... but the question was how to ensure long-term policy is truly implemented and a single-party state seems like the logical answer. The apparent perception of the "need" for successful long term policy is where I disagree really. I don't WANT or NEED my government setting goals for society. I want my government keeping itself and other people out of my damn business so I can choose my own damn goals.

The only long-term policy I'm in favor of is keeping government limited to courts, police, and military that is constitutionally limited to staying out of my damn business and legally obligated to keeping people out of my damn business. Seeing as I think a single-party state is less likely to do this, I support multi-party democracies... because I believe that this system h

I think we do need successful long-term policy to cope with enviromental damage and proper chances and provisions for all. I say this with that I kind of agree with Scarlet in that I don't want a strong national government. It is too remote from the people in localities. I also don't agree with having a head of state of any kind, only people's representatives.

I believe in strong local democracy with truly complete proportional representation; to allow everyone to get involved in shaping long-term policy and accept and understand the consequences of such.

National goverments in my opinion should be replaced with representatives of the local communities to ensure effective and fair policing, the provision of a legal system that only covers the basics (such as murder and rape but not drugs or immigration) and a defence force. The rest can be dealt with at a local level.

Here in Brighton (UK), the Gre

Apathy is going to be any ideas destruction. Both Scarlets and Daves' views seem quite attractive but you're only going to find a small percentage of the people are going to actively participate, so you're on a loser before starting.
If you're ideas were to be the most popular but only account for say 20% of the people, could your system truly be called democratic or 'fair' or just or any of the catchwords you care to use to frame your ideals?