posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:10 AM
Well... Considering the vast number of factors involved, I would have to say "Yes, I would vote."
I always vote, or at least try to.
If there absolutely must be a World Leader, and if humanity is lucky enough to at least pretend this leader is democratically elected, then
obviously it is my duty to vote responsibly, just as if it were my President, Governor, Sentaor, Representative, Mayor, or Police Chief.
I think something those that fear the OWG haven't taken into effect is that some day (hopefully) humanity will become a multi-planetary species. As
such, planets will most likely be ruled in the same fashion that countries are now, with a loose affiliation similar to that of the U.N., except it'd
be more like the U.P. It's the most logical way of maintaining a representative interplanetary council. Additionally, the vast boundaries of space
between planets might make it ideal for entire countries to relocate to another planet altogether. Imagine how much more peaceful the world would be
if, for instance, Israel and Palestine each had their own planet, far away from one another.
As time goes on, and the number of colonized planets gets in the hundreds, a United Planets council would become too cumbersome, and such councils
would likely be relegated into the local star systems or clusters. A Galactic council would probably result with the main representative being from
each Star System rather than planets until the inevitable colonization of a different galaxy, and then eventually a multi-galactic council will result
with the head of each Galaxy representing.
So, as far as one main leader for Earth goes, I think it's inevitable and I don't feel it neccessarily has to be a bad thing, any more than I
feel a democratically elected president of a nation is a bad thing. It's all in who occupies the spot and the ideals they stand for in both action