Going back for a few things...
Trent Roman said:
Don't really agree that it's a clear implication, but I'll admit my proposal isn't any more likely. Which is actually kind of too bad; I liked the idea that the Federation would initially include a diversity of systems of government, and that it would have a transformative and liberalizing effect on those member worlds. Democracy through osmosis, rather than the current notions of spreading democracy via physical warfare and economic sanctions.
I like the idea of peacefully, noncoercively persuading people to adopt democracy instead of having it be imposed in an act of neo-imperialism, too. (Fascinating how the US government seems to think that it can forcibly impose a successful democracy upon Iraq, but it favors peaceful persuasion for China, isn't it?) You could still do a story like that, in fact, even if the Founders are all democratic -- after all, we could see, for instance, Denobula or Rigel be persuaded to adopt constitutional liberal democracy by the Federation and choose to join.
I don't see that it's a flawed comparison. Washington was a universally popular candidate, but even if he hadn't been, the example does show, rather definitively, that you can institute a democratic government and allow it to function for a time with an empty executive office until elections can be held. It's not as though society will disintegrate if the post of Federation President goes empty for a month until they can organize an election.
When there's only one man on the ballot, running unopposed, I don't call that a democracy.
Well, technically, Washington did not run unopposed, because at the time, the second-highest vote-getter became Vice President. So there were a lot of people who, legally-speaking, were running against Washington, but who were in reality running against one-another for VP.
But I digress, because even given that, the point remains that it IS possible to leave an office empty until an election can be held; the presidency doesn't need to be instantly filled.
But I don't think gaps in the executive are critical, either. I rather liked SNL "Bill Clinton"'s suggestion during the Gore/Bush debacle that we just forgo a President for a while.
Easy for you to say; you Canadians get a Queen, a Governor-General, and a Prime Minister -- between the three of them, there's always SOMEONE around who can make executive decisions in an emergency!
Babaganoosh said:
<Gus Hedges> I feel we may be straying down tangent boulevard here... </Gus Hedges>
What? A tangent? In the TrekBBS?
seriously though, I *would* kind of like to see what a Trek novel could do with Vanderbilt, or at least with the very early years of the Federation (not sure if this would fall under a possible ENT novel). Especially if he is a member of the Vanderbilt family as I suspect.
I... would not. I don't want to see Vanderbilt, anyway. I think that
The Good That Men Do and the ENT canon has pretty well established most of who ought to be the major players in Coalition and early Federation politics at this point -- Nathan Samuels, Haroun al-Rashid, Soval, Gral, Avaranthi sh'Rothress, T'Pau, Shran, Solkar, L'Nel, Admiral Black, Admiral Gardner, General Casey, Thoris, and, of course, Jonathan Archer. There's certainly room to add more people as they go -- who else is in Prime Minister Samuels' Cabinet, for instance? -- but I don't see why they should feel compelled to add a "character" that only ever appeared in a newsclipping that never appeared on film and which has only ever been seen by a handful of fans on the 'Net.
And I
really hate the idea of linking him to the real-life Vanderbilt family, because that just seems elitist to me. "Oh, hey, the rich and the powerful today will still be rich and powerful in the 22nd Century!"
