I've thought about this before, and I thought of these forums.
For the most part, these forums are self-regulating, though with the help of Badspot and Co. Bans aren't all that frequent, and those who don't get banned are ostracized and become isolated enough to doubt what they've been doing in most cases.
However, there always are the persistent buggers. That's where the bans come in. Even though I have never doubted the reasoning behind any ban that I have seen (including my own). I'm thankful for this, but I don't think that this is any answer. Badspot is not really a dictator, nor a president. He's more of a god.
He created this entire environment. He is qualified to rule the forums and Blockland by the involvement he has. Nobody has to join this game or the forums, and so they submit to his rule gladly.
Modern-day governments are dictatorships, communist, or republics, though not always true republics.
Dictatorships have the obvious flaw of dissent. The leader forces the country to submit and that almost inevitably leads to violence, though brainwashing the populace is always attempted, sometimes successfully.
Any communism is a little harsh, but livable in my opinion. I don't know enough on the subject to really counter the major flaw of laziness, so I won't insist on it.
Republics are run by idiots.
What I mean by that is that they are run by the people who want to run them the most, and not the people who are most qualified.
To be elected president of the United States, one must campaign intensively. This was not originally the case, but now it is. To campaign intensively, one must be at least reasonably wealthy, well respected, and accomplished politically. The politics, eventually, descend into flinging mud at your opponents. One person makes an allegation, then there is a retaliation, and it continues.
However, people aren't always dumb enough to elect the best flinger. Sometimes the candidate actually does deserve to emerge victorious.
I don't like any of the systems.
So, my current idea is based off of the U.S. government for the most part, but that's the perspective from which I entered the thought process. It's a little vague, but I'm a little vague. The government's main premise would be to disallow campaigning, to a certain extent. Neutral deciders would be found, though they would be eliminated in the case of bias, by whom I have no idea. The candidates would pay an entrance fee of maybe 50-75 dollars, and would be eliminated by personality flaws, IQ, or anything really. Then, for maybe the last ten candidates, people would be given required reading (Essays from the deciders) and then allowed to vote. If you didn't do the reading, you wouldn't be allowed to vote. The votes would be tallied, and the best candidate would be elected. Impeachment would be completely fine, to be done at any time. The judicial branch would remain untouched; I'm fine with all that. The military would have a similarly elected officer, and nobody would be able to skip in any way serving at the very lowest rank to begin. I think I would want there to be some sort of "Council of Morality" that could overturn any decisions, but not make any of their own.
So yeah.
As a means of explanation, I just read the "Why Nerds are Unpopular" topic, and so I'm a little influenced by that at the moment.
