View Single Post
Old February 11 2013, 10:44 AM   #54
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Re: What are the requirements for the joining the Federation?

Pavonis wrote: View Post
Hey, not everyone thinks the novels are the best thing since TOS. I, for one, don't accept them as an extension of canon.
Well of course they're not an "extension" of canon. "Canon" in the context of derivative works is "the work the derivative work is based upon;" this by definition precludes the derivative work from being canonical.

I think many are unimaginative. For instance, depicting the government and politics of a huge, multi-species interstellar polity as being just like the United States,
The neat thing about Articles is that it does not depict Federation politics as being like U.S. politics. Not even structurally -- the Federation government is very different from U.S.-style Presidentialism. It doesn't have the strict separation of powers the way the U.S. does; the Federation President serves ex officio as the presiding officer of the Federation Council, and as the presiding office of the Council's committees if she chooses. Members of the Council's committees are appointed by the President upon ratification from the full Council, and the President is required to work closely in forming executive actions with the relevant committees, either in closed committee sessions or by seeking the constant advice of the committee leaders. And there are no Federation-wide political parties.

Very different from the American system.

with elections, campaigns,
"We're nothing like the Klingons. We're a democratic body." - Kirk, TOS: "Errand of Mercy"

"You would overthrow the legitimately-elected Federation President?" - Sisko, "Paradise Lost"

The canon has already established the existence of elections in the Federation. I for one am at a loss as to how you could possibly hold an election without a campaign; one automatically entails the other.

And unlike modern elections, there is, again, one major difference: No political parties.

and political talking heads on "TV" debating policy seems implausible to me.
Which part? The idea that people would analyze, debate, and comment upon public policy, or the idea that there is audio-visual mass communications?

The first sounds inevitable in a society with freedom of speech. The latter was already established canonically in VOY's "Endgame, Part I."
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote