Design Your Democracy: Crafting a Charter

[wolram]

Design your democracy, what laws would you pass, what would you include in
a, "charter".

 

[Townsend]

I would keep most of the US constitution that is currently in place...with the following changes..

1. There will be four candidates to run for president and each would receive equal funding, no more, no less. The candidates are to be selected by the House of representatives. What ever candidate receives the majority of the US vote wins.

2. I would extend the idea of equal protection under the law to mean equal rights for everyone. In other words, things like AA would be illegal.

3. I would I make federal income tax illegal. I would impose a consumption tax in its place.

4. I would privatize all education...

5. I would limit the powers of the federal government on issues like abortion. To do this I would make the bill of rights the federally protected rights...all other individual rights are at left to the states to control.

6. I would give congress a bigger say in our foreign policy.

7. I would make SUV's get federal registration and tax the hell out of it to the point that no one save for the very rich would own one.

8. I would make things like Social Security illegal.

9. I would establish the TCRER...the Townsend Center for Renewable Energy Resources and I would give them the means to make a difference.

10. I would fund stem cell research.

11. I would make frivolous law suits a federally a punishable offense. The details can be worked out by congress.

12. I would legalize medical marijuana.

13. I would work hard at making my countries Intelligence the best in the world.

14. I would offer tax breaks to companies that didn't out source.

I am sure there are more things to add...

 

[honestrosewater]

Heh, I don't have a list yet- will work on it. But for starters, I liked J.S. Mill's ideas in On Liberty. I think anarchy would be nice, but...

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

- http://www.house.gov/Ethics/ethicschap1.html

The things I've taken away from my readings on the subject are phrases like sovereignty of the individual, tyranny of the majority, and elective despotism. So first of all, my government would protect individual rights.

BTW, I guess I'm an independent (I usually score as a liberal on those tests), and I think affirmative action should go. As my mom used to tell me: Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[rachmaninoff]

1. There will be four candidates to run for president and each would receive equal funding, no more, no less. The candidates are to be selected by the House of representatives. What ever candidate receives the majority of the US vote wins.

Hence self-perpetuating government? What if all four candidates end up having the exact same policies and personae as each other, and unsuprsingly, as the majority of the Representatives?

4. I would privatize all education...

13. I would work hard at making my countries Intelligence the best in the world.

These two goals are blatantly contradictory. Education is by necessity expensive; look at private schools here and now, a majority of the country could not reasonably afford to pay ~10k per year for K-12. You'd have an illiterate country, with millions of kids never learning to read. Oh, and "countries" is a plural, not a possessive.

2. I would extend the idea of equal protection under the law to mean equal rights for everyone. In other words, things like AA would be illegal.

What's "AA"?

5. I would limit the powers of the federal government on issues like abortion. To do this I would make the bill of rights the federally protected rights...all other individual rights are at left to the states to control.

The Bill of Rights already is the list of untouchable, federally enforced rights, and powers not granted to congress are already given explicitly to the States.

7. I would make SUV's get federal registration and tax the hell out of it to the point that no one save for the very rich would own one.

Who'd reelect you?

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

Food is free. Exercise is mandatory.

Healthcare is free to Citizens only. Emergency situations will be free for visitors.

Expecting mothers will get head of the line priveledges EVERYWHERE.

The education of your choosing is mandatory and free to any level. If you cannot show mastery of a certain level of education you will remain at that level until you do. Period.

Every Citizen MUST own and be trained in the use of a longbarreled firearm barring physical restraints.

Every Citizen MUST vote even if it is a null vote.

Lawmakers and Lawyers salaries will be equal to the median national salary of a schoolteacher and absolutely MUST pay for their own travel, transportation, food, and office supplies.

To apply for the position of President of the US you must run your own campaign w/o the help of a handler (Rove). You must use only the money that has been equally allotted to you and your competitors and no other assistance. Each state will choose their own candidate from internal elections. States can choose to recall their candidate at any time during the election or after the office is won.

Those that willfully harm others are to be publicly caned by a person of the victims choosing while the parents of the condemned do the restraining. If no parents are available the most significant other will sub.

Parents are allowed to spank their children.

Corporal punishment will be mandatory in schools.

If you are convicted of murder BEYOND THE REASON OF A DOUBT and there is absolutely no evidence that can prove your innocence you will get one appeal. If you lose the appeal you will be immediately sent to a location to be stored until a panel of citizens decides your fate. (I'm teetering between cryo-something and soilent-something here)

Religious organizations will get no tax break.

Birth control will be mandatory for both sexes until after a two year resident internship at a daycare/kindergarten is accomplished.

New parents are required to visit homes of the elderly with their baby weekly.

Dang this is fun...I could go on but the Chinese Buffet is calling my name.

 

[Gale]

doesn't having one person designing a democracy rather defeat the purpose of the democracy itself...

 

[wolram]

doesn't having one person designing a democracy rather defeat the purpose of the democracy itself...

The people would vote for the candidate with, "in their view", the best charter

 

[rachmaninoff]

Echo 6 - you're hardly describing a "democracy" - sounds more like facism to me.

 

[Gale]

so, you're talking about a democratic republic then. in a true democracy, everyone would vote on everything, and there really wouldn't be a leader at all.

 

[wolram]

so, you're talking about a democratic republic then. in a true democracy, everyone would vote on everything, and there really wouldn't be a leader at all.

I am saying that the person with the most popular charter, would be voted
into office, it would be up to the people how ansewerable the, "leader", is.

 

[Smurf]

Echo 6 - you're hardly describing a "democracy" - sounds more like facism to me.

Well it certainly doesn't seem liberal, I wouldn't want to live in a country where Firearm use and ownership is mandatory.

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

Echo 6 - you're hardly describing a "democracy" - sounds more like facism to me.

Meh.

-Well it certainly doesn't seem liberal, I wouldn't want to live in a country where Firearm use and ownership is mandatory.

You wouldn't have to use it unless attacked or you knew someone was being attacked. You'll be missed.

 

[Smurf]

Meh.


You wouldn't have to use it unless attacked or you knew someone was being attacked. You'll be missed.

Heh, yeah. This war hero is moving to smurfonia (details following)

 

[kaos]

Heh, yeah. This war hero is moving to smurfonia (details following)

hehe let me guess?

in smurfonia everyone has to be blue and small and males have to wear skirts?

 

[wolram]

It would be a bit awkward totting a rifle every where.

 

[cronxeh]

Yeah.. umm.. Echo 6's "laws" give headway to overpopulation, civil wars, and a huge gap between the really rich and the really poor.

Now if there is one thing I'd like to see in a 'real' democracy it is this:

-A patent may be offered to anyone, free of charge, but the license to manufacture a certain product from a patent may not exceed 5% of company's revenue (for a total of $1million dollars total)
-Malpractice insurance claims to be reviewed by an independent panel of medical doctors in order to be certified as a valid claim for courts. The review process is not to exceed 1 month from the time of the claim being filed. If there is no evidence of foul play by the sued doctor then the person who filed the suit is to pay for the fees of the review commitee.

The list can go on and on, with some serious limitations to corporations and some refinement of law enforcement structure

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

Yeah.. umm.. Echo 6's "laws" give headway to overpopulation, civil wars, and a huge gap between the really rich and the really poor.

So I guess things wouldn't be that much different than now. Gale17 has enlightened us.

 

[Townsend]

Hence self-perpetuating government? What if all four candidates end up having the exact same policies and personae as each other, and unsuprsingly, as the majority of the Representatives?

I had no idea I had to defend my laws...
The reason for having 4 candidates is the fact that 2 parties does not do enough to represent everyone. The fact that the candidates are selected by the House means that if people don't like who the House picks, they can be replaced in 2 years.

These two goals are blatantly contradictory. Education is by necessity expensive; look at private schools here and now, a majority of the country could not reasonably afford to pay ~10k per year for K-12. You'd have an illiterate country, with millions of kids never learning to read. Oh, and "countries" is a plural, not a possessive.

I never said it would not be compulsory to have education and I never said was cheap. I said I would privatize it. And, I would establish a system where everyone, even the poorest, could get an education. But it would not be free.

What's "AA"?

Affirmative action...

The Bill of Rights already is the list of untouchable, federally enforced rights, and powers not granted to congress are already given explicitly to the States.

Yeah right...most of the rights on the bill of rights have been infrigined upon. I would make it so that this could not be done and I would leave all other rights not listed in the bill of rights up to the states. Such as abortion, drinking age, drugs, what have you...

 

[Townsend]

So I guess things wouldn't be that much different than now. Gale17 has enlightened us.

Mine would...I would take the best things about the US and fix everything else.

 

[Bladibla]

1. ANY form of protest is banned

2. Bunking school is a death sentence

3. Goths wannabes are apprporiate reason for execution

4. Hippies are wanted as criminals

5. All religion is banned.

6. 'National' parties will be burned down

7. Vegetarians will be made to farm their own food, and are banned from any mechanical influences

8. R+B music, Rock music, and goth music is BANNED. Penalty:death.

9. There will be more violas players encouraged

10. Womens right to vote taken away.

 

[Smurf]

1. ANY form of protest is banned

2. Bunking school is a death sentence

3. Goths wannabes are apprporiate reason for execution

4. Hippies are wanted as criminals

5. All religion is banned.

6. 'National' parties will be burned down

7. Vegetarians will be made to farm their own food, and are banned from any mechanical influences

8. R+B music, Rock music, and goth music is BANNED. Penalty:death.

9. There will be more violas players encouraged

10. Womens right to vote taken away.

1 through 10: Why?

 

[Bladibla]

1 through 10: Why?

Dunno. First thing that came outta my mind were those 10.

 

[Smurf]

Dunno. First thing that came outta my mind were those 10.

I love to live in your democracy.

 

[honestrosewater]

Well, the future sure looks bright. I'm going to try that 'one man is an island' thing... please don't blow me up in the meantime.

 

[hitssquad]

13. I would work hard at making my countries Intelligence the best in the world.

Intelligence as in evaluated information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or a possible theater of operations?

 

[Townsend]

Intelligence as in evaluated information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or a possible theater of operations?

yes..that kind...

 

[matthyaouw]

1. ANY form of protest is banned

2. Bunking school is a death sentence

3. Goths wannabes are apprporiate reason for execution

4. Hippies are wanted as criminals

5. All religion is banned.

6. 'National' parties will be burned down

7. Vegetarians will be made to farm their own food, and are banned from any mechanical influences

8. R+B music, Rock music, and goth music is BANNED. Penalty:death.

9. There will be more violas players encouraged

10. Womens right to vote taken away.

Read the original post again. It says democracy, not dictatorship you know.

 

[Astronuc]

The US Constitution is a high level document. Consitutions cannot be too prescriptive. For example, the government has the right to raise taxes, but the Constitution does not state how that is accomplished or how the taxes are spent; rather it allows for legislative bodies to determine such matters.

The major purposes of a constitution are:

1). Define a structure of government which will provide as just and fair a form of social regulation as possible, and this is achieved through laws.

2). Ensure basic human rights, rather than restrict rights.

 

[Bladibla]

Read the original post again. It says democracy, not dictatorship you know.

dictatorship would be to ban all parties except my corresponding one. Read more carefully.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Hmm, "totalitarianism" fits pretty well, don't you think?

 

[wolram]

I think it's time to leave for my private island, before i get shot, oe even
worse, the tax man gets a hold of all my ill gotten gains.

 

[Kenneth Mann]

I can't resist adding comments.

I would keep most of the US constitution that is currently in place...with the following changes..

1. There will be four candidates to run for president and each would receive equal funding, no more, no less. The candidates are to be selected by the House of representatives. What ever candidate receives the majority of the US vote wins.

Actually, there's nothing in our system that limits the number of viable parties to two. The two major parties have just been able to fix this perk for themselves through many years of manipulation. I don't see how your law would ultimately change this. They would quickly marginalize whichever parties got the other two spots, and it would result in the waste of a lot of taxpayer money. Also, those last two would come each time as result of sheer happenstance, and sometimes they would be the the most far-out of parties. On the other hand, LaRouche would almost certainly love your idea.

2. I would extend the idea of equal protection under the law to mean equal rights for everyone. In other words, things like AA would be illegal.

Not so!, unless you eliminate the Supreme Court.

3. I would I make federal income tax illegal. I would impose a consumption tax in its place.

Remember, the Constitution did make Income Tax illegal, until the Congress in the 20th century tampered with that. On this your choice is are absolutely right! It amazes me that those in Congerss do not see the debilitating effect on a nation of a "production-tax".

4. I would privatize all education...

It was until the 19th century, and the job went unfulfilled. Without "public school" competition, I think you would see costs go out of sight, like with hospitalization insurance..

5. I would limit the powers of the federal government on issues like abortion. To do this I would make the bill of rights the federally protected rights...all other individual rights are at left to the states to control.

Careful here! If you limit one side, the other will go ape. Remember, when the Supreme court declared that the Government had no right interfering with reproductive choices, the extremists in the Pro-Choice world claimed the right for complete Government financing of abortion. (Isn't that Governmental interference?) You just can't win on this one. Taking the Federal Government out of this would just put us back to where we were before the Court acted, 50 different State edicts, from one extreme to the other.

6. I would give congress a bigger say in our foreign policy.

Resulting in absolute confusion, and an inability to do anything in a timely manner.

7. I would make SUV's get federal registration and tax the hell out of it to the point that no one save for the very rich would own one.

I see what side you are on. How about just taking away the advantages that SUV's were granted (before there were any SUVs), like exemptions from safety and antipollution requirements (intended for commercial users)?

8. I would make things like Social Security illegal.

Isn't it a bit late now? That would cause massive disruption in an economy that has come to rely upon it. I do agree, however that SS poses a serious and potentially fatal problem if it isn't corrected very soon (and at great cost). Let's just not make the cure worse than the disease.

9. I would establish the TCRER...the Townsend Center for Renewable Energy Resources and I would give them the means to make a difference.

Then everyone could blame you for all their problems.

10. I would fund stem cell research.

Okay, but be ready for attack from most religious groups.

11. I would make frivolous law suits a federally a punishable offense. The details can be worked out by congress.

Actually, these are a feature of our most recent years. Previously judges automatically threw out anything that had any scent of being frivolous. Then someone in the court system decided that this offered inadequate protection. So, now we are at the other extreme. What we need is a good way of weeding out the chaff, like possibly a series of judicial case review boards (at all levels), backed up by appeals for those who felt that theirs were good causes that shouldn't be ignored. This would make frivolity much more expensive, while still allowing just causes to be heard. Those could be compensated for after having been vindicated - - and only then would they be heard in court. This would also reduce much of the present court backlog.

12. I would legalize medical marijuana.

And recreational marijuana?

13. I would work hard at making my countries Intelligence the best in the world.

Eugenics? or are we talking about information gathering? Either way, nothing is guaranteed.

14. I would offer tax breaks to companies that didn't out source.

What would you do with GATT?

KM

 

[Mk]

10. Womens right to vote taken away.

This is the only one I object to. I think no one should be able to vote... except paraplegics.

 

[Townsend]

I can't resist adding comments.

Comments are welcome.

Actually, there's nothing in our system that limits the number of viable parties to two.

What makes you think I think that? The Jeffersonians were the first political party that latter became the democrats...I know a little about American politics, but thank you non the less.

The two major parties have just been able to fix this perk for themselves through many years of manipulation. I don't see how your law would ultimately change this.

The only money they are allowed to have is fixed...that same amount of money is given to the four candidates that are selected. No money is to be spent by third parties on behalf of a candidate.

They would quickly marginalize whichever parties got the other two spots, and it would result in the waste of a lot of taxpayer money.

I know it would more often than not be a battle between two parties but who the two parties would be is the thing. It would not always have to be the rebs vs the dems. That is the key difference.

Also, those last two would come each time as result of sheer happenstance, and sometimes they would be the the most far-out of parties. On the other hand, LaRouche would almost certainly love your idea.

The last two are still being supported by the House...these are candidates that have political support...that is not happenstance

Not so!, unless you eliminate the Supreme Court.

Yes so...even with the Supreme Court...

I would limit the interpretation of laws by the Supreme Court to new laws...and I would explain and outline each of the existing laws so as little interpretation is needed as is possible.

Remember, the Constitution did make Income Tax illegal, until the Congress in the 20th century tampered with that.

Well..basically my laws would make things like the New Deal impossible...

On this your choice is are absolutely right! It amazes me that those in Congerss do not see the debilitating effect on a nation of a "production-tax".

Well that's cool...

It was until the 19th century, and the job went unfulfilled. Without "public school" competition, I think you would see costs go out of sight, like with hospitalization insurance..

I don't see why.

Careful here! If you limit one side, the other will go ape.

I would prefer it being a state issue even if the states cannot make up their minds...

Resulting in absolute confusion, and an inability to do anything in a timely manner.

I would give congress a bigger say but not that much bigger. Just a tad bigger...

I see what side you are on. How about just taking away the advantages that SUV's were granted (before there were any SUVs), like exemptions from safety and antipollution requirements (intended for commercial users)?

Perhaps...I would be willing to look at different ideas.

Isn't it a bit late now? That would cause massive disruption in an economy that has come to rely upon it. I do agree, however that SS poses a serious and potentially fatal problem if it isn't corrected very soon (and at great cost). Let's just not make the cure worse than the disease.

Yes, it is too late now...but my country is starting new so I don't have all those problems like the US does.

Then everyone could blame you for all their problems.

People will blame the government for their problems either way. It's just politics...but I really believe in this one.

Okay, but be ready for attack from most religious groups.

Ok...all set...bring em on...

Actually, these are a feature of our most recent years. Previously judges automatically threw out anything that had any scent of being frivolous. Then someone in the court system decided that this offered inadequate protection. So, now we are at the other extreme. What we need is a good way of weeding out the chaff, like possibly a series of judicial case review boards (at all levels), backed up by appeals for those who felt that theirs were good causes that shouldn't be ignored. This would make frivolity much more expensive, while still allowing just causes to be heard. Those could be compensated for after having been vindicated - - and only then would they be heard in court. This would also reduce much of the present court backlog.

Ok... we will do that then.

And recreational marijuana?

Up to the States to decide.

Eugenics? or are we talking about information gathering? Either way, nothing is guaranteed.

Information...I would never support eugenics...I know nothing is guaranteed but I still want the best I can get.

What would you do with GATT?

I don't know that much about it...so it all depends.


Regards,

 

[Smurf]

Well, I'm an anarchist. But if I were to create my own (what I assume you mean) liberal representative democracy... I'd do it this way:

Welcome to Smurfonia.

Structure:
-Parliamentary.
-Semi-Presidential System
-trias politica separation of powers
-Bicameral legislative chambers

Principles:
-Based on Jeffersonian Democracy
-Based on Trudeauian Democracy

Separation of Powers:
-Prime Minister and President share the most senior position in Cabinet. Prime Minister and President each appoint 50% of other cabinet members from the sitting legislature.
-Prime Minister and President can only be dismissed during their term by a motion of no confidence, at which point a general election is held.
-Every executive position is ultimately answerable to Parliament.
-All residual powers belong to Parliament.

Voting:
-Preferential, Multiple-Winner Single Transferable System is used.
-The Prime Minister is drawn from the senior office of the party with the most seats in government.
-The President is elected independently from a separate vote at the same time as the parliamentary election.
-A person cannot run for President while holding the senior office in a party running in a general election.

Charter:
-The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be sufficient, with the following modifications:
1. Voting age in General Elections is 16. Provinces may decide their own voting ages for provincial elections, not exceeding 21 years.
2. There will be a sitting of parliament and each legislative body at least once every three months.
3. Removal of section 33 and subsection 6.3
4. Section and 7 through 15 given utmost priority in the constitution and are not to be limited or violated in any way except in the most extreme of situations.
5. Section 34 will read "This Part may be cited as the Smurfonian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Centralization:
-Smurfonia is a Federation. Provinces will have their own levels of elected government (using the same system as the federal government) with judicial and limited legislative powers as well as limited constitutional veto ability. Municipalities will also have a separate level of government with limited judicial and bylaw powers given to city council. Residual powers belong to the Federal Government.

Federal Services:
-Education up to a College degree is entirely government funded.
-Health care is entirely government funded for Smurfonian citizens.

Specific Legislature:
1. All sales taxes must be included in the price of a product.

2. Retirement age is raised to 70 years barring physical disability.

3. Legalize and tax marijuana.

4. Illegalize the addition of harmful chemicals to tobacco cigarettes.

5. Raise taxes on sales of Tobacco and Alcohol.

6. Harsher punishments for DUI, especially re-offenders.

7. Higher restrictions in Competition Act to encourage small businesses and Smurfonian ownership of the economy and to prevent higher degrees of market monopoly, federal corporations excluded.

8. The Patent Act modeled after Canada's, but not including intellectual property contained in higher life forms.

9. Strict requirements for creation, usage and distribution of Pharmaceuticals, to be regulated by a federal institution.

10. Create a government institution with the specific purpose of monitoring, enforcing and advising on environmental protection and energy laws.

11. Create a government institution for the research and development of renewable energy sources.

This is fun.

 

[zhongsan]

A different kind of democracy

I'm trying to describe a model of a completely different of democracy. It's called "multi-level election". For the sake of the argument, let's create an imaginary country with only 100 citizens. loosely every 3 citizens voluntarily form a "group", so there are roughly 30-35 such "groups". Each group has about three citizens. from each group a "first-level officer" is elected by his or her fellow group members. Again "second-level groups" are formed from the "first-level officers". Each "second-level group" consists of roughly 3 first-level officers and from each second-level group a second-level officer would be elected... And so on...
So about 4 such levels of groups would cover our imaginary country and about 20 such levels are enough to cover the entire world population. The highest-level "officer" would be considered the president.

There are many advantages of this system. The most obvious one is flexibility.
Since each "officer" is elected from his or her group of only three people. He or she can be changed at absolutely anytime he or she is found to be imcompetent, corrupt or in other way inappropriate (or dead). In many cases such changes doesn't even need to be formally written.
Another advantage of this system is that people of great ability is for sure to be higher level officers and vice versa. Since each "group" consists only three people, the voters know the candidates extremely well. Unlike the current system which the voters know almost nothing about their candidates.

I know it is going to be very difficult to start carry out this system. But once it starts, I don't see any shortcomings of this system.

 

[Smurf]

I'm trying to describe a model of a completely different of democracy. It's called "multi-level election". For the sake of the argument, let's create an imaginary country with only 100 citizens. loosely every 3 citizens voluntarily form a "group", so there are roughly 30-35 such "groups". Each group has about three citizens. from each group a "first-level officer" is elected by his or her fellow group members. Again "second-level groups" are formed from the "first-level officers". Each "second-level group" consists of roughly 3 first-level officers and from each second-level group a second-level officer would be elected... And so on...
So about 4 such levels of groups would cover our imaginary country and about 20 such levels are enough to cover the entire world population. The highest-level "officer" would be considered the president.

That's a horrible system. That's just hidious, only 2/3rds of the population get any say at all and only 1/4 have any significant power. This is just begging for tyrrany of the majority.

And how do you plan to distribute power among these officers?

 

[zhongsan]

only 2/3rds of the population get any say at all and only 1/4 have any significant power

Why's that?
Remember the grouping of people is voluntary so if you don't like your group members you can choose another group. I don't see where the "only 1/4 have any significant power" come from.
The "officers" are responsible for his or her own group, so the power is distributed and dissolved among the whole population.
Also the current democracy system has all the same problems you pointed out. What percentage of people do you think get any say at all in the current system?

This is just a preliminary model only, and some details need major modifications. But I think the idea is better than the current system. The central theme is "dissolving of the power"

 

[Smurf]

Why's that?
Remember the grouping of people is voluntary so if you don't like your group members you can choose another group. I don't see where the "only 1/4 have any significant power" come from.
The "officers" are responsible for his or her own group, so the power is distributed and dissolved among the whole population.
Also the current democracy system has all the same problems you pointed out. What percentage of people do you think get any say at all in the current system?

This is just a preliminary model only, and some details need major modifications. But I think the idea is better than the current system. The central theme is "dissolving of the power"

1. It's totally inefficient, and these groups.. why bother? It's unnecessary.
If they can move groups at any point you're just adding more paperwork. Just let each person vote for who they want as president instead of going through all this burocracy. You're going to end up with X number of groups supporting Y candidate on each level, president is essentially the one with the support of the most groups. It's like using the electoral college instead of the popular vote, you create unfair distribution of representation.

2. How are you going to distribute power? I can only assume the president gets total power so long as he's at the top, In which case only the most populous group gets representation, which doesn't even have to be the majority.

 

[zhongsan]

1. It's totally inefficient, and these groups.. why bother? It's unnecessary.
If they can move groups at any point you're just adding more paperwork. Just let each person vote for who they want as president instead of going through all this burocracy. You're going to end up with X number of groups supporting Y candidate on each level, president is essentially the one with the support of the most groups. It's like using the electoral college instead of the popular vote, you create unfair distribution of representation.

2. How are you going to distribute power? I can only assume the president gets total power so long as he's at the top, In which case only the most populous group gets representation, which doesn't even have to be the majority.

1. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. One of the greatest advantages of this system is it's efficiency. In fact you don't require any paperwork at all. With merely three people in each group, the leader can be chosen at anytime informally and orally. And the "presidnet" is not really the one with the support of the most groups but merely the head of the highest-level-group.
2. The president has very little real power. He is only responsible for his own three-person-group. And it's not the case that "most populous group gets representation". First each group is fixed at roughtly three people, and even if it's not so, having more people in a group does not give that group any advantages. After all only one officer is chocen from each group to go to the higher level. The power is equally distributed among all the people. The "officers" of each level doesn't have much power. They are mainly for the organizational functions to form higher-level groups. And within each group each officer plays the role of "the head of the family."

 

[Smurf]

so... it's totally efficient with no purpose?

 

[Smurf]

1. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. One of the greatest advantages of this system is it's efficiency. In fact you don't require any paperwork at all. With merely three people in each group, the leader can be chosen at anytime informally and orally. And the "presidnet" is not really the one with the support of the most groups but merely the head of the highest-level-group.
2. The president has very little real power. He is only responsible for his own three-person-group. And it's not the case that "most populous group gets representation". First each group is fixed at roughtly three people, and even if it's not so, having more people in a group does not give that group any advantages. After all only one officer is chocen from each group to go to the higher level. The power is equally distributed among all the people. The "officers" of each level doesn't have much power. They are mainly for the organizational functions to form higher-level groups. And within each group each officer plays the role of "the head of the family."

Okay, here's some specific examples so we can get some de facto info on how your system works.

1. How will a criminal code be constructed?
2. How will a specific piece of legislation be decided on?
3. What is the responsibility of the leader of a level 1 group?
4. What exatra power does a leader of a level 2 group gain over a level 1 leader?
5. Who has control over the military?

 

[zhongsan]

Okay, here's some specific examples so we can get some de facto info on how your system works.

1. How will a criminal code be constructed?
2. How will a specific piece of legislation be decided on?
3. What is the responsibility of the leader of a level 1 group?
4. What exatra power does a leader of a level 2 group gain over a level 1 leader?
5. Who has control over the military?

I'll try to answer the first two questions together because I think criminal code is also a piece of legislation. First let's say an average citizen comes up with an idea of making a new law(for the sake of the argument let's say the person belongs to the lowest level). He first discusses it with his fellow group members. If there is a consensus within his group, the group leader brings it to the second level and discusses it. If there is a consensus within the second-level group, the group leader brings it to the third level and discusses it... and so on... Now let's say when this process goes to the fifth level and an a consensus cannot be reached, then the idea would become a law for the groups from the first four levels that aggree on it, much like the "local bylaws". Some discussions here only involve the officers from higher level groups. But if the group members these officers command doesn't like the new bylaw, they can certainly revoke it within their lower level group or change the officer. This sure is going to create a lot of unstableness at the beginning but an equilibrium is going to be reached afterwards. This is why I say it's difficult to start carrying out. There better be a set of pre-established laws. Also criminal code sure is different from other kind of laws, so there should be a set of special laws that cannot be changed so easily within the lower level groups. I should think these over some times...

The main responsibility of the leaders of all levels is purely organizational. They exist so the multi-level structure can be formed. Also they have personal authority within each group.(That's why he can be chosen) When certian issue is in dispute, he is the main settler. And the group members trust him to make certain decisions for them.(in the law making process when he is discussing with the higher-level group members) Besides that the officer of each group has no other power and he can be changed at anytime informmaly. And level 2 officer has not much more power than a level 1 officer. When they belong to the same level 2 group, the level 1 officer is a member of the group and the level 2 officer is the head of the group. When they are not in the same group, they may or may not have anything to do with each other.

I haven't think of the military yet. Military itself is a danger to any democracy. Maybe I'm being to idealistic.

 

[Townsend]

Military itself is a danger to any democracy. Maybe I'm being to idealistic.

So what should that democracy do when an invader comes? Do you think the people of your country would feel safe without a military?

 

[Smurf]

oh come on townsend at least respond to MY democracy. It's by far the most interesting.

 

[Townsend]

oh come on townsend at least respond to MY democracy. It's by far the most interesting.

ok...

but not today... There is too much to cover in a reasonable time frame.

 

[Smurf]

I'll try to answer the first two questions together because I think criminal code is also a piece of legislation. First let's say an average citizen comes up with an idea of making a new law(for the sake of the argument let's say the person belongs to the lowest level). He first discusses it with his fellow group members. If there is a consensus within his group, the group leader brings it to the second level and discusses it. If there is a consensus within the second-level group, the group leader brings it to the third level and discusses it... and so on... Now let's say when this process goes to the fifth level and an a consensus cannot be reached, then the idea would become a law for the groups from the first four levels that aggree on it, much like the "local bylaws". Some discussions here only involve the officers from higher level groups. But if the group members these officers command doesn't like the new bylaw, they can certainly revoke it within their lower level group or change the officer. This sure is going to create a lot of unstableness at the beginning but an equilibrium is going to be reached afterwards. This is why I say it's difficult to start carrying out. There better be a set of pre-established laws. Also criminal code sure is different from other kind of laws, so there should be a set of special laws that cannot be changed so easily within the lower level groups. I should think these over some times...

The main responsibility of the leaders of all levels is purely organizational. They exist so the multi-level structure can be formed. Also they have personal authority within each group.(That's why he can be chosen) When certian issue is in dispute, he is the main settler. And the group members trust him to make certain decisions for them.(in the law making process when he is discussing with the higher-level group members) Besides that the officer of each group has no other power and he can be changed at anytime informmaly. And level 2 officer has not much more power than a level 1 officer. When they belong to the same level 2 group, the level 1 officer is a member of the group and the level 2 officer is the head of the group. When they are not in the same group, they may or may not have anything to do with each other.

I haven't think of the military yet. Military itself is a danger to any democracy. Maybe I'm being to idealistic.

That's just... bleh.
1. Nothing would ever get passed
2. How much money that would cost! That Burocracy has worse mileage than a Civic!