Shorbe, your idea of big power authority might work with the latest in nuclear artillery on their sides.

On the other hand, if it's more terrorism you don't want, you might get more than you've ever bargained for by means of simple atomic appliances that can not only be carried in the boot of a Mini, but in an average pocket.

With the latest in tiny mobile phones the terrorists won't even have to die - need only the energy to press that deadly button.

Unfortunately, the developing world sowed the seed a long time ago, a growing thing that rymes with greed, and as Adam Smith warned about his free market:

Though it pays to give the business entrepreneurs freedom, it also pays to keep them on that proverbial loose rope.

That means true lawful authority not from great powers but devised simply from proven wisdom and understanding.

The concepts are all there, Shorbe, if only we had the commonsense to learn and use them.

Has anyone suggested votes based on population, essentially, a democratic UN?

I can see flaws with this idea, of course. But the flaws I perceive could be at least partially addressed with certain limitations - i.e. a scaling of one to ten for nations based on their population.

This of course, would give China and India great power and would have the potential to accelerate their growth.

But if we make this 1-10 scale (and I confess, I'm kind of making this up as I go along, but if anyone has any better ideas, fire away) based on a non-linear model, it could work.

For instance, populations that are 1 million to 3 million = 1 vote. 3 million to 8 million two votes. 8 million to 15 million = 3 votes, etc.

You could have it, so that the US gets nine votes, while China and india might get 10 each. Then all the US would need would be the support of say, four other western nations to counteract the influence of China and India combined. No doubt Japan would lend a hand, with a fairly influential vote in their quarter.

Of course, this would make very poor countries influential - this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but of course it would need to be tempered. Perhaps tying in a component of GDP with the voting system could result in a better outcome. There would be room within this framework to encourage the stimulation of third world economies.

Just throwing some ideas out there. Any other suggestions?

Truly a Nice Try, Turn Right AND Then Left.

The problem with populations is that it still leaves minorities out of the equation.

ie: Here in Cooktown (Cape York) we have but one State Vote in Council even though we have the highest disadvantage, being a spatial populated inter-region, socio-cultural, historically and economic-politically.

Our Shire covers an area making us the most vastly - rugged and largest Shire in Queesnsland, if not Australia.

My bet is it has to do with lobbying our own government through Civic Engagement.

We need to see more UN work inside Australia (Agenda 21) at regional and local levels (LA21). We need our governments to help us each choose how to address these policies openly and promote our work as a UN committement instead of pretending we are invisible to its need and influence.

a) Greater Awareness through Capaity Building and,

b) Collective Securities. (Knowledge Share and Exchange)

We need to lobby for a "No Wrong Door" Policy everywhere across all services, at ground levels. This includes inside the United Nations representative circles itself.

Every day we waste, is another day added to the problem, we all face.

Dream for what you Want and Work for what you Need eh?

Perhaps we need a paper to discuss how we each could become more involved?

What do you think?

.

We need mechanisms to resolve conflicts. In practice most disagreements boil down to the division of resources.

Markets have proved to be one way of resolving the conflict inherent in the distribution of resources. A market is formed by enabling individuals to make choices between different alternatives offered by others.

Let us take this idea of a market and apply it to the resolution of conflict between States. What are the goods and services? Goods and services can be thought of as ideas on how states behave to each other and to matters which affect different parties.

What is missing from the system is a satisfactory method of expressing choice. We need the equivalent of money. Let us invent a new money called votes and let us issue votes each year to nations. The number of votes is determined by the population of the states and by their economic wealth.

What will happen if we have such a system? Countries will only use their votes to resolve conflicts with others on things that concern them. When there is an item of conflict then each group that has an idea on how to resolve the conflict will propose an "idea" for resolution. The number of votes used will depend on how important each country believes in the issue.

The particular form the system will take will be resolved by the system itself. That is, countries will come up with different ideas on how it should work. If there is now a method for countries to make genuine choices through voting tokens then it is likely that the fittest solution will arise.

TurnRightThenLeft,

You seem to be suggesting something like the Schwartzburg voting system, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwartzberg%27s_weighted_voting

I don't really like it that much. A wealthy country could easily game the system by only contributing funds when they have a vote they wish to win and then withhold funds during times when their interests aren't in play.

There are other voting methods. One which may interest you is the "square-root" plan, where each country is given votes in proportion the square-root of their population. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_method

This second method seems more promising.

What is being discussed here ? Representational politics or government? Because they are quite different things. In what legal jurisdiction do people think the UN exists? What powers and responsibilites do people think the UN actually has ? Yes, we are probably at a stage where there needs to be a visible path towards world regulation and national / international systemic governance, but that seems to me to NOT be an evolution of the UN as we know it ...... The UN was only ever convened as a tool of the convenors, and the behaviour of the US is proof enough of what the main players think of its usefulness, credibility and bite.
The UN is a forum for muscle flexing, posturing and settling the pecking order. But we should discard it only when we are all ready for the next step - which should be when we are ready to actually acknowledge the existence, nature, extent and implications of our international issues, which go far beyond hankering after rights and economic equilibrium. Within the lifetime of many who are now living will arise the pressing need to resolve issues that go to the very heart of human existence. And no collective of nations however constituted will ever be capable of dealing with those .... population, sustainability, sharing, husbandry and stewardship of our world. The question of who gets to sit in on meetings of the UN and on what terms is piffle by comparison.