A Federation Election?

[Sci]

Jackson_Roykirk said:
I have the feeling that the President isn't directly elected by the populace. Perhaps each member 'planet/civilization' elects their representatives to the Federation Legislature, and those members of the Federation Legislature are the ones who elect the President.

If that was the case, he'd be called the "Federation Prime Minister," "Federation First Minister," "Federation Chancellor," "Federation Taoiseach," or one of the other five thousand alternate names for a head of government chosen by and accountable to the legislature.

I would actually agree with this scenerio if the President's full title was "President of the Federation Council" or some such. But his full title was established in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home as being "President of the United Federation of Planets." The terminology alone strongly implies that the President isn't determined by the Council.

Besides, "Paradise Lost" [DS9] refers to the President as "the legitimately elected President." That strongly implies popular election.

Or maybe it is done iwth an 'Electoral Colleg'. Technically in the U.S., the people don't vote directly for a president -- We basically vote for representatives to the electoral college who then are reposnsible for casting their vote for president. There is no constitutional law that forces the electoral college member to vote the way the people told him. Therefore, the U.S. President is not directly voted for by the people -- the electoral college decides who to vote for (although the electors almost always voted for whom they have pledged to elect.)

Good God, I hope that that archaic and anti-democratic concept isn't emulated by the UFP. It's already outdated today.

There are a lot of good things about the US, but the electoral college -- and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia -- are definitely two things that should never be imitated by any other state, ever.

 

[Sci]

3D Master said:

Eternality said:
So you have around 150 member states spread across thousands of lightyears, some with jurisdiction over several worlds.

Actually, that would be a 150 member species;

How can a species be a Member? Besides, TNG's "Attached" established that polities that have jurisdiction over at least one unified planet constitute Members.

Colonies, once they are self-sufficient become sovereign, and are thus they're own member.

What's your source for that?

The total amount of planets that are part of the Federation would be a 1,000 at least, and probably closer to even 5,000 or even 10,000, and that's not counting the small not-sovereign colonies strewn about who are under the nearest main sovereign world.

The total number of planets within the Federation is probably that high. But the number of Federation Member States -- the polities that have jurisdiction over at least one planetary body -- is established by Star Trek: First Contact to be around 150.

 

[Blueicus]

Chances are they don't count outposts, starbases orbiting barren planets, or mining colones of 1000 people as federation member worlds.

 

[Sci]

Blueicus said:
Chances are they don't count outposts, starbases orbiting barren planets, or mining colones of 1000 people as federation member worlds.

Yeah. I'd imagine that the people on those outposts, et al, would be considered citizens of their Member State of origin or of (official) residence.

 

[3D Master]

Sci said:

3D Master said:

Eternality said:
So you have around 150 member states spread across thousands of lightyears, some with jurisdiction over several worlds.

Actually, that would be a 150 member species;

How can a species be a Member? Besides, TNG's "Attached" established that polities that have jurisdiction over at least one unified planet constitute Members.

And a homeworld as such equals a species.

Colonies, once they are self-sufficient become sovereign, and are thus they're own member.

What's your source for that?

Because the Federation and its members are good, and not like Babylon 5's EA.

The total amount of planets that are part of the Federation would be a 1,000 at least, and probably closer to even 5,000 or even 10,000, and that's not counting the small not-sovereign colonies strewn about who are under the nearest main sovereign world.

The total number of planets within the Federation is probably that high. But the number of Federation Member States -- the polities that have jurisdiction over at least one planetary body -- is established by Star Trek: First Contact to be around 150.

No. First Contact establishes that there are around a 150 member species. That's Picard meant with worlds. For the size of the Federation there to be only a 150 worlds is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Sci]

3D Master said:

Sci said:

3D Master said:

Eternality said:
So you have around 150 member states spread across thousands of lightyears, some with jurisdiction over several worlds.

Actually, that would be a 150 member species;

How can a species be a Member? Besides, TNG's "Attached" established that polities that have jurisdiction over at least one unified planet constitute Members.

And a homeworld as such equals a species.

Erm, no it doesn't. For instance, Vulcans and Romulans have only been separated for around 2,000 years, meaning that they're still the same species -- but obviously most Romulans are not Federates. Similarly, there have been numerous Human populations that Our Heroes have encountered that laid outside Federation space and whose people were not Federation citizens.

It's inaccurate to speak in terms of a species being Members. Membership is a political status, not a biological one.

Colonies, once they are self-sufficient become sovereign, and are thus they're own member.

What's your source for that?

Because the Federation and its members are good, and not like Babylon 5's EA.

Right, so, no source.

In any event, I don't disagree that a self-sufficient colony that wishes to be a Member State in its own right ought to be given Membership. However, you're assuming that any and all colonies automatically would want that -- but what about, say, the colonies on Luna, which might still feel very strong ties to Earth and might not want separate Membership? Wouldn't it be predicated on those colonies asking for separate Membership first?

The total amount of planets that are part of the Federation would be a 1,000 at least, and probably closer to even 5,000 or even 10,000, and that's not counting the small not-sovereign colonies strewn about who are under the nearest main sovereign world.

The total number of planets within the Federation is probably that high. But the number of Federation Member States -- the polities that have jurisdiction over at least one planetary body -- is established by Star Trek: First Contact to be around 150.

No. First Contact establishes that there are around a 150 member species. That's Picard meant with worlds. For the size of the Federation there to be only a 150 worlds is utterly ridiculous.

Um, I didn't say that there were only 150 worlds, I said there were only 150 Member States.

 

[3D Master]

Sci said:

3D Master said:
And a homeworld as such equals a species.

Erm, no it doesn't. For instance, Vulcans and Romulans have only been separated for around 2,000 years, meaning that they're still the same species -- but obviously most Romulans are not Federates. Similarly, there have been numerous Human populations that Our Heroes have encountered that laid outside Federation space and whose people were not Federation citizens.

It's inaccurate to speak in terms of a species being Members. Membership is a political status, not a biological one.

You're being nitpicky. Nobody calls Vulcan a founding member of the Federation, they call Vulcans a founding member of the Federation, the same with Humans and Andorians and such.

Just because not every single last individual of species is a member, doesn't mean the species in general isn't.

Because the Federation and its members are good, and not like Babylon 5's EA.

Right, so, no source.

In any event, I don't disagree that a self-sufficient colony that wishes to be a Member State in its own right ought to be given Membership. However, you're assuming that any and all colonies automatically would want that -- but what about, say, the colonies on Luna, which might still feel very strong ties to Earth and might not want separate Membership? Wouldn't it be predicated on those colonies asking for separate Membership first?

Most colonies above a certain size indeed not only would want that, but it's pretty much a necessity. If they don't have their own government and thus membership, they can't function properly.

No. First Contact establishes that there are around a 150 member species. That's Picard meant with worlds. For the size of the Federation there to be only a 150 worlds is utterly ridiculous.

Um, I didn't say that there were only 150 worlds, I said there were only 150 Member States.

There are many more, there simply have to be, or else things don't make any sense.

 

[Eternality]

3D Master said:

Sci said:

3D Master said:
And a homeworld as such equals a species.

Erm, no it doesn't. For instance, Vulcans and Romulans have only been separated for around 2,000 years, meaning that they're still the same species -- but obviously most Romulans are not Federates. Similarly, there have been numerous Human populations that Our Heroes have encountered that laid outside Federation space and whose people were not Federation citizens.

It's inaccurate to speak in terms of a species being Members. Membership is a political status, not a biological one.

You're being nitpicky. Nobody calls Vulcan a founding member of the Federation, they call Vulcans a founding member of the Federation, the same with Humans and Andorians and such.

I disagree, I think it's quite obvious that these are independent interstellar states joining the Federation, not species. After all, we have Ambassadors from Vulcan, generally a political position. What you are proposing is like saying La Francophonie (the international organization of French culture and language) is better equipped to represent France than the French Government in international politics.

3D Master said:


Just because not every single last individual of species is a member, doesn't mean the species in general isn't.

Because the Federation and its members are good, and not like Babylon 5's EA.

Right, so, no source.

In any event, I don't disagree that a self-sufficient colony that wishes to be a Member State in its own right ought to be given Membership. However, you're assuming that any and all colonies automatically would want that -- but what about, say, the colonies on Luna, which might still feel very strong ties to Earth and might not want separate Membership? Wouldn't it be predicated on those colonies asking for separate Membership first?

Most colonies above a certain size indeed not only would want that, but it's pretty much a necessity. If they don't have their own government and thus membership, they can't function properly.

Why not? California has nearly 34 million people, and has its' own government, yet it remains a part of the United States and doesn't choose to represent itself in the United Nations. I think that if a colony doesn't want to represent itself in the Federation, its parent member state could continue to. Of course, if it wants to represent itself, there is probably a mechanism that allows for it.

3D Master said:

No. First Contact establishes that there are around a 150 member species. That's Picard meant with worlds. For the size of the Federation there to be only a 150 worlds is utterly ridiculous.

Um, I didn't say that there were only 150 worlds, I said there were only 150 Member States.

There are many more, there simply have to be, or else things don't make any sense.

Why doesn't 150 make any sense? It's not like we've seen more than 150 different member states. You'll need to explain.

 

[Sci]

Eternality said:

3D Master said:

Sci said:

3D Master said:
And a homeworld as such equals a species.

Erm, no it doesn't. For instance, Vulcans and Romulans have only been separated for around 2,000 years, meaning that they're still the same species -- but obviously most Romulans are not Federates. Similarly, there have been numerous Human populations that Our Heroes have encountered that laid outside Federation space and whose people were not Federation citizens.

It's inaccurate to speak in terms of a species being Members. Membership is a political status, not a biological one.

You're being nitpicky. Nobody calls Vulcan a founding member of the Federation, they call Vulcans a founding member of the Federation, the same with Humans and Andorians and such.

I disagree, I think it's quite obvious that these are independent interstellar states joining the Federation, not species. After all, we have Ambassadors from Vulcan, generally a political position. What you are proposing is like saying La Francophonie (the international organization of French culture and language) is better equipped to represent France than the French Government in international politics.

Exactly.

3D Master said:
Just because not every single last individual of species is a member, doesn't mean the species in general isn't.

Because the Federation and its members are good, and not like Babylon 5's EA.

Right, so, no source.

In any event, I don't disagree that a self-sufficient colony that wishes to be a Member State in its own right ought to be given Membership. However, you're assuming that any and all colonies automatically would want that -- but what about, say, the colonies on Luna, which might still feel very strong ties to Earth and might not want separate Membership? Wouldn't it be predicated on those colonies asking for separate Membership first?

Most colonies above a certain size indeed not only would want that, but it's pretty much a necessity. If they don't have their own government and thus membership, they can't function properly.

Why not? California has nearly 34 million people, and has its' own government, yet it remains a part of the United States and doesn't choose to represent itself in the United Nations.

I completely agree in principle, except that it's probably inaccurate to compare the UFP to the UN. The United Federation of Planets possesses all the characteristics of a sovereign state, whereas the United Nations is an international organization of states that exists to facilitate inter-state relations. There's really no analog to the United Nations in the Trekverse, actually -- the Coalition of Planets from the ENT era comes close, but even that seems more akin to a sort of interstellar NATO than UN (and, besides, it's pre-Federation).

The better comparison might be to compare a colony of a Federation Member State to, say, New York City, which, in spite of a strong cultural divide between NYC and Upstate New York, does not constitute a separate US state and does not have separate representation in the US Congress from the State of New York's.

I think that if a colony doesn't want to represent itself in the Federation, its parent member state could continue to. Of course, if it wants to represent itself, there is probably a mechanism that allows for it.

Agreed.

 

[3D Master]

Eternality said:

3D Master said:

Sci said:

3D Master said:
And a homeworld as such equals a species.

Erm, no it doesn't. For instance, Vulcans and Romulans have only been separated for around 2,000 years, meaning that they're still the same species -- but obviously most Romulans are not Federates. Similarly, there have been numerous Human populations that Our Heroes have encountered that laid outside Federation space and whose people were not Federation citizens.

It's inaccurate to speak in terms of a species being Members. Membership is a political status, not a biological one.

You're being nitpicky. Nobody calls Vulcan a founding member of the Federation, they call Vulcans a founding member of the Federation, the same with Humans and Andorians and such.

I disagree, I think it's quite obvious that these are independent interstellar states joining the Federation, not species.

That's nice that you disagree, 40 odd years of usage in shows, books, reference works and what not talking about the membership of species means you with just about anyone and everything to do with Star Trek. Congratulations.

It's absolutely amazing how someone can be this dense. When the main, more often than not, homeworld of a species has joined the Federation it is said the species has joined. Whether you like it or not.

AGAIN: nobody talks about Andor having joined the Federation, it's the Andorians that have joined, and so on, and so forth. You might not like it, but that's the way it is.

After all, we have Ambassadors from Vulcan, generally a political position.

Which of course, means nothing.

What you are proposing is like saying La Francophonie (the international organization of French culture and language) is better equipped to represent France than the French Government in international politics.

No, in fact, if you'd bothered to take your head of your ass, you'd notice the below arguments states the EXACT OPPOSITE. But you know, reading and comprehending what is written, tough to do.

Right, so, no source.

In any event, I don't disagree that a self-sufficient colony that wishes to be a Member State in its own right ought to be given Membership. However, you're assuming that any and all colonies automatically would want that -- but what about, say, the colonies on Luna, which might still feel very strong ties to Earth and might not want separate Membership? Wouldn't it be predicated on those colonies asking for separate Membership first?

Most colonies above a certain size indeed not only would want that, but it's pretty much a necessity. If they don't have their own government and thus membership, they can't function properly.

Why not? California has nearly 34 million people, and has its' own government, yet it remains a part of the United States and doesn't choose to represent itself in the United Nations. I think that if a colony doesn't want to represent itself in the Federation, its parent member state could continue to. Of course, if it wants to represent itself, there is probably a mechanism that allows for it.

Nope. California does not have its own government, the same way a province of some other country doesn't have it's own government. Does it have a governing and leading body? Yep. But not a government. California is not a sovereign state/country. The US government has in many matters say over California.

A completely separate planet/colony almost by definition requires its own sovereignty in most matters and can't be clunked to a far, far, far away body on some other planet. Many things, exactly the things that that governmental body would govern, require quick and local decisions.

3D Master said:

No. First Contact establishes that there are around a 150 member species. That's Picard meant with worlds. For the size of the Federation there to be only a 150 worlds is utterly ridiculous.

Um, I didn't say that there were only 150 worlds, I said there were only 150 Member States.

There are many more, there simply have to be, or else things don't make any sense.

Why doesn't 150 make any sense? It's not like we've seen more than 150 different member states. You'll need to explain.

Obviously someone who does not understand the size of space. We haven't even seen the 150 member species home worlds and states let alone all of the actual planets and colonies. Within the territory of the Federation, there are SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION stars:

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/5000lys.html

For there to be but a 150 inside that many, is patently ridiculous.

 

[Timo]

To be sure, we have zero evidence that any colonial worlds would be represented in the greater UFP government in any manner. To the contrary, for example the Maquis colonies seem completely devoid of a direct political means of influencing their own fates.

It doesn't sound at all unlikely, then, for mere 150 entities to be speaking for possibly tens of thousands of worlds. Whether this goes on "species basis" or "political party basis", and whether the planets in the latter case would be single-party or multi-party... That's fertile grounds for arguments. But what seems right out is the idea that every planet in the mix would get equal representation, or even representation proportional to population.

In contrast, to think of the UFP as featuring hundreds of millions of planets goes massively contrary to what is told on screen, from Kirk's "We're on a thousand planets and spreading" in "Metamorphosis" to the fact that loss of UFP members (be they planets or species) to Dominion advances is a rare event in the war, even though the Dominion is said to be basically knocking on Earth's door. A total of mere hundreds of political entities representing mere thousands of worlds would fit this data much better.

Probably we have to assume that the UFP is not a sphere 10,000 ly across. Indeed, many a location mere hundreds of lightyears from Earth is said to be unexplored and/or open to enemy action throughout the series, suggesting a much humbler volume of space.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[misskim86]

One thing people take for granted is also that every federation world is a Democracy which I think is highly unlikely.

Most likely only a handful of worlds are democracies, whos to say many federation colonies aren't dictatorially ruled?

 

[Timo]

Indeed, while our heroes often praise the Federation, "democracy" is not one of the slogans.

Kirk does claim in "Errand of Mercy" that "we are a democratic body", as if this were a major thing separating the Federation from the Klingon Empire. Doesn't mean all Federation members would be democracies, though.

There are precious few examples of local governments of UFP members in all of Trek, and the ones we get are "special" to an unfortunate degree. The closely examined capital world of the Federation, if indeed Earth has such a status, need not be similar to the bread-and-butter planets in any manner. And the various monarchies, theocracies, tribal setups and telepathic pancracies that are enticed to become members in various episodes may end up having to drastically revamp their governments once they join.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[DaleC76]

Timo said:
To be sure, we have zero evidence that any colonial worlds would be represented in the greater UFP government in any manner. To the contrary, for example the Maquis colonies seem completely devoid of a direct political means of influencing their own fates.

It doesn't sound at all unlikely, then, for mere 150 entities to be speaking for possibly tens of thousands of worlds. Whether this goes on "species basis" or "political party basis", and whether the planets in the latter case would be single-party or multi-party... That's fertile grounds for arguments. But what seems right out is the idea that every planet in the mix would get equal representation, or even representation proportional to population.

In contrast, to think of the UFP as featuring hundreds of millions of planets goes massively contrary to what is told on screen, from Kirk's "We're on a thousand planets and spreading" in "Metamorphosis" to the fact that loss of UFP members (be they planets or species) to Dominion advances is a rare event in the war, even though the Dominion is said to be basically knocking on Earth's door. A total of mere hundreds of political entities representing mere thousands of worlds would fit this data much better.

Probably we have to assume that the UFP is not a sphere 10,000 ly across. Indeed, many a location mere hundreds of lightyears from Earth is said to be unexplored and/or open to enemy action throughout the series, suggesting a much humbler volume of space.

Timo Saloniemi

I agree. Of the hundreds of millions of stars in Federation space, only a tiny fraction would have planets that have life. Of those, only a tiny fraction would have intelligent life. Of those, only a tiny fraction would have intelligent life that would be suitable for Federation membership. And of those, I'm sure there are many worlds that simply do not care to join.

 

[Sci]

3D Master said:
Nope. California does not have its own government, the same way a province of some other country doesn't have it's own government. Does it have a governing and leading body? Yep. But not a government. California is not a sovereign state/country. The US government has in many matters say over California.

You need to look up the definition of "government." Having interned for the "governing and leady body," I can assure you that those bodies for the states do consider themselves governments, are called governments, and fulfill all the essential functions to be referred to as governments, because "government" doesn't equal sovereignty.

 

[Eternality]

*SNIP*

3D Master said:
Obviously someone who does not understand the size of space. We haven't even seen the 150 member species home worlds and states let alone all of the actual planets and colonies. Within the territory of the Federation, there are SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION stars:

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/5000lys.html

For there to be but a 150 inside that many, is patently ridiculous.

On the contrary, I am well aware of how BIG space is. I'm also aware that an entity like the Federation need not be homogeneous (and therefore not need to include every planet within its 'borders'). As DaleC76 noted above, there is no reason that all planets would be inhabited by Federation citizens.

Sure, there may be thousands of astronomical bodies within Federation territory that do have Fed citizens residing on them, but I don't think that each of these planets and moons are independently represented in the Council, especially when there is a perfectly functional member state already reprsenting them. Or member species if you prefer.

However I still disagree with your characterization of what we've seen so far in terms of Federation members. Just because we might hear the Vulcans have agreed to something doesn't mean that the species as a whole agreed to it in some sort of bizarre species-based political decision. Its a planetary government with administration over various other Vulcan colonies with representation in that government. 'Vulcans' is a term to not only discuss the species as a whole, but to mean the government that represents them (which may well include members of other species that have decided to take Vulcan citizenship - a political and legal affiliation).

And I can read just fine thank you very much. Until you can show me the Federation Charter that shows the meaning of membership to be the Species rather than the Government that represents them, I'll still politely disagree.

But this all does bring up another question. If another interstellar power (say the Klingons) wants to join the Federation, does the whole darn empire join as one unit, or would it need to be broken up?

 

[3D Master]

Eternality said:
*SNIP*

3D Master said:
Obviously someone who does not understand the size of space. We haven't even seen the 150 member species home worlds and states let alone all of the actual planets and colonies. Within the territory of the Federation, there are SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION stars:

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/5000lys.html

For there to be but a 150 inside that many, is patently ridiculous.

On the contrary, I am well aware of how BIG space is. I'm also aware that an entity like the Federation need not be homogeneous (and therefore not need to include every planet within its 'borders').

Which doesn't matter. The sheer size and sheer amount of stars means even if not everything is part of it, you still get several hundred million stars.

As DaleC76 noted above, there is no reason that all planets would be inhabited by Federation citizens.

Never said they were.

Sure, there may be thousands of astronomical bodies within Federation territory that do have Fed citizens residing on them, but I don't think that each of these planets and moons are independently represented in the Council, especially when there is a perfectly functional member state already reprsenting them. Or member species if you prefer.

Never said they were, in fact I said the exact opposite. What I said was that there would be far more than just 150. And that remains. There would be more sovereign planets and colonies than non-sovereign ones, unless there is a truly huge number barely inhabited.

However I still disagree with your characterization of what we've seen so far in terms of Federation members. Just because we might hear the Vulcans have agreed to something doesn't mean that the species as a whole agreed to it in some sort of bizarre species-based political decision.

Again, I never said they did, I said the exact opposite, but you know. Reading, comprehension, tough stuff.

Its a planetary government with administration over various other Vulcan colonies with representation in that government. 'Vulcans' is a term to not only discuss the species as a whole, but to mean the government that represents them (which may well include members of other species that have decided to take Vulcan citizenship - a political and legal affiliation).

Yeah; and thus the Vulcans are members the Federation.

And I can read just fine thank you very much. Until you can show me the Federation Charter that shows the meaning of membership to be the Species rather than the Government that represents them, I'll still politely disagree.

You still can't read, because that's pretty much what I said, and you still think I didn't say that.

 

[StolenThunder]

Neroon already warned you for flaming today so there's no point me giving you another one - just back off with the harsh words a bit please 3D Master.

 

[Lokhtar]

Sorry for bumping an old thread, but it occurs to me that any federation level election has to be by member worlds, races or colonies, and not by individuals. Meaning, 150 worlds get one vote each, or 300 races with each getting a vote each, in terms of the election of the President.

You could have an insect species that has a population of 100 trillion on their home world, and if they have ten worlds, they might very well dwarf the votes from a whole bunch of other worlds. It would be quite unfair, and so the mention about someone moving from world A to world B and becoming a citizen of that world may not hold true in the strictest sense. Maybe they vote by race (then the question is what about hybrids - maybe they get to choose?).

The council seems to be one member per world - but is it really one member per world or one member per race? Does the moon have its own council member, Mars? The hundred other humans colonies? Or is there simply 'human' representative(s) (how would they decide how many each race gets? 2 per race, US senate style?) that speak for all humans, while humans amongst themselves decide how to elect them.

 

[Sci]

Sorry for bumping an old thread, but it occurs to me that any federation level election has to be by member worlds, races or colonies, and not by individuals. Meaning, 150 worlds get one vote each, or 300 races with each getting a vote each, in terms of the election of the President.

1) Why would biological species get a vote? We don't have a "European" or "African" vote in the US, because politics is about community, not biology. And what vote would someone like Spock or Data get if it was divided on the basis of race?

2) You're essentially arguing in favor of the Federation equivalent of an electoral college. Why, exactly, couldn't a Federation election be determined on the basis of popular election -- counting each individual instead of only counting the Member State? It's 300-400 years into the future. They have computers untold hundreds of times more advanced than ours. They have sensor systems capable of locating a single needle on a planet's surface, ships capable of travelling faster than light, replicators capable of creating matter from energy, transporters capable of teleporting people across vast distances, and computer systems capable of reaching self-awareness. You gonna tell me they can't put together a computer system capable of counting?

You could have an insect species that has a population of 100 trillion on their home world, and if they have ten worlds, they might very well dwarf the votes from a whole bunch of other worlds. It would be quite unfair,

Why would that be unfair? One person, one vote. No one runs around saying that it's "unfair" that there happen to be more whites in the United States than other races -- just that whites ought not to discriminate or oppress those other races. As long as no one's rights are being violated, why shouldn't each individual member of an insect species get exactly the same vote as anyone else? Why should their votes be given less weight than a Human's or a Vulcan's?

and so the mention about someone moving from world A to world B and becoming a citizen of that world may not hold true in the strictest sense.

Why not?

Maybe they vote by race (then the question is what about hybrids - maybe they get to choose?).

That's like saying that people today should vote by skin color. It makes no sense. It's the United Federation of Planets, not the United Federation of Species.

The council seems to be one member per world - but is it really one member per world or one member per race?

Well, first off, canonically, we don't know if it's one Councillor per world or not. It is one Councillor per Federation Member State in the novels, however.

Secondly, why would it be determined by species? What about situations where you have an Andorian who was born on Earth, grew up on Earth, is fully assimilated into Earth's culture? Or a Human born on Tellar?

What if the citizens of Mars have a very, very different political culture from the citizens of Earth? Why should they have to have representation on the basis of biology (something they can't control) when they may feel no real sense of connection with Earth? You might as well argue that Washington State and Texas should both be represented by the same person -- "the Senator of White People" -- even though Washingtonians and Texans have vastly different politics and agendas.

Does the moon have its own council member, Mars?

It would depend on whether or not Luna and Mars are considered to be polities that are independent of Earth. Long Island, for instance, does not have its own United States Senator -- but it is represented through the US Senators From the State of New York. If Luna is a political subdivision of United Earth, then its Council representation would be done through United Earth's. If either one is actually a separate Federation Member State, in the same way that the State of Maine and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are separate United States states, then they'd get their own councillor.

For the record, the novel The Genesis Wave, Book II seems to imply that Mars is a separate Federation Member State, with its own representation on the Federation Council, and the novel Section 31: Rogue establishes that Mars successfully fought Earth in a War of Martian Independence (and that some Martians are resentful of their status within the Federation as they feel that, with Utopia Planetia Shipyards, Mars has just become Earth's garage).

The hundred other humans colonies? Or is there simply 'human' representative(s) (how would they decide how many each race gets? 2 per race, US senate style?) that speak for all humans, while humans amongst themselves decide how to elect them.

That's insane. Politics is not determined by biology -- never has been. You might as well argue that English-Americans should be represented by a single US Senator for Englishmen, German-Americans by a US Senator for Germans, African-Americans by a US Senator for Africans, etc. It's impractical, it's illogical, it doesn't acknowledge political reality -- that politics and agendas are determined by communities and by geography, with biology playing a secondary role if at all -- , it doesn't address what to do with hybrids (especially hybrids that are descended from more than two species), it implies a racial unity that does not exist, it would make the value of each individual's vote unequal (the votes of individuals from species that are less numerous would be disproportionately more powerful, and vice versa), and it doesn't address what to do with citizens like Data or the Doctor, who lack biological species.