Dale Retter

tribunocracy.org

This conversation is closed.

The single thing the world needs most is better government. Tribunocracy is procedural change that will systemically improve government.

Tribunocracy is to Democracy what a Trial is to justice.

Tribunocracy is, What the world needs now...because:

At present citizen voting is the equivalent of a verdict rendered by jurors that do not attend a trial. Our present voting system might be called: “Mobocracy”. The world needs better government making better decisions.

Tribunocracy utilizes Tribunes randomly selected from all the willing eligible potential voters. Like jurors in a court trial the selected Tribunes attend a public trial-like Tribunal Convention before voting. The majority vote of the Tribunes is a proxy for the majority vote of the entire pool of eligible voters from whom they were selected. Like jurors, Tribunes serve only briefly, are dismissed after voting and retain no special power.
Tribunocracy reduces the role of money and shallow information in the election process because:

All the Tribunes attend a public trial-like Tribunal Convention, before they vote. Like jurors in a trial, Tribunes are exposed directly to the candidates and testifying parties for many hours, over a period of days. This exposure will greatly reduce the importance of prior paid advertising and shallow campaigning.

With Tribunocracy elected officials will be less compromised and preoccupied with raising money because:

The massive amounts of money now required to be elected and re-elected will not be needed. Candidates seeking reelection will be subject to much grater scrutiny regarding their past record. Candidates will have much more time to articulate their objectives and positions regarding important issues.

Tribunocracy is to democratic government what a public trial is to justice.
Witnessing and participating in Tribunal Conventions, will provide the public both entertainment and education. Tribunal Conventions will become the ultimate reality TV

  • thumb
    May 24 2012: I believe it is best to focus on understanding the substantive values achieved by our constitution and trying to see were it is successful and acknowledging were it is failing and could be improved than to religiously and dogmatically trying to honor the letter of its words. Growth requires change, stagnation leads to death and entombment, not growth and vitality.

    I believe the four most important parts of our democracy are:

    1. That the people should govern themselves
    2. No special separate group should be given power over the rest.
    3. Basic human rights should be protected for individuals and minorities even against the government and the majority.
    4. That a written constitution defines these values and provides a legal document that supports them and provides a framework for a government to operate in ways consistent with but not conflicting with them.

    Our constitutional democracy has two important variations from a pure democracy:

    1. The constitution supersedes wishes of even the majority.
    2. The exercise of self government is leveraged by delegation. Specifically the people generally exercise their right to democratic self government by voting for representatives that serve limited terms and can be removed. Representatives are empowered to “represent” the populace that elected them and carry out the functions of their office.

    There is nothing in Tribunocracy that inherently conflicts with our constitution or most importantly its values and objectives. Fore example, Tribunocracy is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Electoral College. In fact Tribunocracy better addresses the goals and concerns that were sought to be achieved by the Electoral College than our present practices.

    Simply put this process of public trial by jury, provides better verdicts than “mob rule”. At present we have elections by “mob rule”. Similarly elections by Tribunocracy would make our democracy stronger and more effective.
  • thumb
    May 20 2012: What you say is true. However one of the reasons that the path to Tribunocracy is much less step than it may at first seam is that its introduction can be achieved in a nonthreatening incremental progression. For example a minor political official not presently elected by mass mob vote, could be elected by a Tribunal Convention. This does not conflict with the status quo and it will give the public an exposure to what they will be able to see is a superior and more entertaining process.
  • thumb
    May 14 2012: No. The reason we need a better structural process to improve the world is because it, unlike the nature of humans is something we can change. Trial by jury was an effective improvement because it did not require "better" people, just a better process. Unfortunately I believe history teaches that human nature has never changed in aggregate. Likewise our present 2nd stage democracy was an improvement in part because it does not require better people.
  • May 10 2012: i m really interested to getting knowledge about the space and universe and how the planets occur...............
    so what can i do.............i just want to job that tpe company where debates occur for space and universe.....
    bu today i m a student..
  • thumb

    R H

    • 0
    May 10 2012: Interesting idea. Thanks for offering it. But just like jury's, couldn't the tributes be open to corruption in the same manner as jury's: jury tampering, jury selection interference? Who would pick the tributes? How are the chosen tribute members made known to the public, and how long before the election? How could a few tributes represent the wide varieties of peoples in the total population? Why would I want a 'representative' to cast my vote for 'representatives' in gov't? Unlike the obligation of jury service, voting is the right of each individual to participate - representing themselves. I think the media has cast themselves as 'tributes' for the population already anyway. I agree the current process is inefficient. Maybe we could just stop spending a billion a day in Iraq and Afghanistan and buy every family a computer (w/web access) so they could cast there vote from home, and have access to all the detailed info from a transparent gov't which they've been able to evaluate clearly because they've all had an excellent education. Nah, too pie in the sky...
    • thumb
      May 14 2012: Thanks for your interest. I will answer your some of your questions in order.
      Juries are much less frequently bribed or corrupted than our present political system. For important issues elections like a governor or senator their could be as many as 300 Tribunes. In a trial with only 12 jurors tampering with even one might have profound effect on the outcome. With a large number of sequestered jurors and laws making jury tapering a serious crime it is much less likely enough of them could be corrupted without exposure to affect the outcome. Tribunes are picked at random from the eligible willing populace. People registering to be chosen as Tribunes would relieve a unique number just as in a lottery, Numbers would be chosen and announced publicly. the selected Tribunes would be encouraged to keep their selection private. Statistically if you choose 300 people at random and the Tribunal process did not affect voting the outcome would be nearly identical. Hopefully the process would affect the outcome. For the same reasons you would you prefer a jury determine your quilt or innocence in a crime, instead of a public referendum? Please see: www.tribunocracy.org
      • thumb

        R H

        • 0
        May 16 2012: Thanks for responding. I saw the website. Very interesting. Sort of a 'union rep' for voters idea. The legitimizing factor for me is the televised/internet live questioning. I still have a concern with the politicians 'people' getting to the tributes; and the qualifications, and any compensation, for becoming a tribute. It would take a lot of time and prep to sit on such a panel. But all in all, It would be interesting if one state would pilot it for a few elections to see what would happen. Thnx again.
  • thumb
    May 9 2012: Isn't better government impossible without better people? Our government is a reflection of our national morals. Tribunocracy seems to require thinking, interested, informed, intelligent, dedicated, motivated people. What if the Tribunal Convention is on opposite the Top Model Cage Fighting Challenge (the favorite show for many of the randomly selected Tribunes)? What is the difference between your proposed Tribune and our current Convention Delegate? Sorry Dale. Your idea looks like a potential reality TV script for sure, but I think your sweeping generalization is off-target. . . what the world needs most is better people, better government will follow. Thanks for sharing.
    • May 10 2012: Dale,
      I concur with Edward; better people will result in greater REAL freedom and better society. I do agree we should take a hard look at the present election processes and requirements. Too many of us are ignorant and therefore not qualified to vote!

      Your idea of utilizing tribunes for decisions on placing people into public service deserves an honest and thorough examination.

      I would like to hear more from others.

      Edward is right to call attention to your sweeping generalization. I suggest a sensitive approach and that we all need ample patience. The human processes for evolution of thought are ongoing and the very best is yet to come! Meanwhile, we need you and other thinkers to propose new ideas!

      Peace,
      MK
      • thumb
        May 10 2012: Mark, that last sentence in your first paragraph is pregnant. Should there be a voters test (just like a drivers test) to determine if a person meets the minimum established requirement for understanding of the issues and candidates? Our forefathers did not think so because they assumed every American would cherish, protect, and properly exercise their hard-won right to vote. Maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment to establish minimum qualifications for voters and penalties for non-voting.
        • thumb
          May 10 2012: I must say YES there should be a competency test not just leaving a mark on a mirror administered by ACORN.

          It is not unprecedented by the way, you used to have to have "skin in the game" in order to vote in other words own land. That was what the framers did do, but changed it, I think they had it right the first time. As the tyranny of democracy is what we have now and will likely sink the country.
      • thumb
        May 14 2012: The reason we need a better structural process to improve the world is because it, unlike the nature of humans is something we can change. Trial by jury was an effective improvement because it did not require "better" people, just a better process. Unfortunately I believe history teaches that human nature has never changed in aggregate. Likewise our present 2nd stage democracy was an improvement in part because it does not require better people.

        Would it be overgeneralizing to say trial by fire or trial by mob is a flawed system? Although I would like to be able to pick better than average Tribunes, I believe the dangers of the selection process out way the potential improvement. Just as it would with picking jurors in criminal trials.
        • thumb
          May 14 2012: I agree Dale that systemic changes can be made in a process regardless of what raw materials are available. But if the goal is to improve the final product itself then you are limited by the available raw materials. You can't build a house with nothing but dandelions. The best government you can build with greedy, selfish people is a greedy, selfish government. Improve the people and you improve the government. We humans must stop ignoring God. We must seek Him with humility. The Holy Bible has the answer.
    • thumb
      May 14 2012: The reason we need a better structural process to improve the world is because it, unlike the nature of humans is something we can change. Trial by jury was an effective improvement because it did not require "better" people, just a better process. Unfortunately I believe history teaches that human nature has never changed in aggregate. Likewise our present 2nd stage democracy was an improvement in part because it does not require better people.
  • thumb
    May 9 2012: How is your Tribunocracy different from the American version of a Republic?
    • thumb
      May 14 2012: The same way a jury trial is different from a verdict rendered by a mob. Please see: www.tribunocracy.org
    • thumb
      May 14 2012: Please see the schematic illustration of the three stages of democracy at: www.tribunocracy.org It compares Tribunocracy to our present republic.
      • thumb
        May 14 2012: I will take another look at it later when I have time but it does not give a good definition of a Republic. The framers of the constitution were not stupid?

        I don't see any assurance that the tribunal will be vetted either?

        The campaign funding is an issue imo but McCain Feingold did nothing.

        When ever I look at this subject I keep coming to the conclusion that it is the individual that has to be educated on this subject and to insure that they are I would not be opposed to the requirement of them having skin in the game or at the least pass a basic competency test on the subject
  • May 9 2012: Dear Dale,

    I agree with you. Without perfect government, we cannot achieve sustainable development.

    I have already given an approach to elect perfect government. Most of the issues were considered in the article. Please read "Proposals of Sitaram Naik" at http://www.complexproblems.in/
    • thumb
      May 14 2012: Tribunocracy is not perfect government, but it is a significant systemic improvement. I liked your Proposals. I too believe most of our problems exist, not because there are not solutions, but because we don't have the systems in place to allow them to be chosen. see the Heaven and Hell preface at www.tribunocracy.org
      • thumb

        R H

        • 0
        May 16 2012: Now that's a very interesting statement. Social problems certainly seem to have their root causes in the systems we've arranged. Since nobody wants the discomfort of total revamping, we continue to 'patch' the issues without changing the fundamentals - which have usually evolved since their basic tenets were created back in the Rennaissance. if the gov't were a corporation, do we think they would have survived? They would have certainly reorganized. With our new capabilities, and the utter revolution in abilities, ideas, and impending singularities, maybe a new constitutional convention is in order.