Design Your Democracy: Crafting a Charter

[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!