> Although I really prefer to go for the third option: an improved UN > where each country has one vote, where no country has veto power so > that no country can force its will upon others, and where all > decisions are made by all members, not a small subset of members > (like the UNSC).
Does one vote per country seem fair to you, when some countries, such as Brunei, with a total population about 70% of that of the *city* of Boston, would get the same representation and decisionmaking power as nations with populations hundreds of times larger?
As you correctly pointed out, there will always be people who will be unhappy with the way things are broken down. However, I think the "one country, one vote" system is the second-best approach (I'll get to the best situation later). The problem with population-based voting is that it would give too much power to just a handful of countries (such US, Russia, PRC)
The "one country, one vote" system also gives you the least amount of paperwork (all you really need is a list with the names of all countries) and prevents fraud. After all, either a country exists or it doesn't. If someone claims to represent the country of Jeroenistan (a country nobody has ever heard of), it can easily be established if it really exists: just let the esteemed representative show us where it is on the map.
It's much easier to commit fraud with population figures. If country X claims to have 50 million inhabitants, we'll just have to take their word for it; nobody is going to send in an international team to count heads. How can you be sure that a country doesn't exaggerate its population figure, so that it can get *two* votes while its neighbours only get one vote?
OTOH, I'm not sure a purely population-based voting power would be fair either. Perhaps some measure based on a combination of population, democratic representation, monetary dues paid
I think that especially the payment of those monetary dues requires strict enforcement. A country that is behind on payments should have its voting right suspended; this is necessary to prevent countries from using payment of dues to blackmail the organisation ("If you don't do what we want, we will not pay our dues").
Now, onto the ideal situation.
The ideal situation is in fact based on population. Ideally, all decisions concerning this planet should be made directly by the inhabitants of the planet -- everyone over a certain age (FREX, 18 years) votes electronically, and voting is mandatory. The problem here is in the cost of setting it up (the technology for it already exists): it would be extremely expensive to set up, especially in sparsely-populated regions.
So, until we can afford to set up such a system, the "one country, one vote" system is the best one available.
Jeroen "Political Observations" van Baardwijk
_________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
