This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Present democracy is like a verdict by a mob that does not attend a trial. Tribunocracy is a better way.
The single thing the world most needs now is better government. Our present system of mass public elections selecting government leaders and voting on referendum is equivalent to verdicts rendered by jurors that do not attend a trial. Better government requires a better system.
There is growing dissatisfaction with our election process, the role of money, and the ineffective government it produces Nevertheless reverence for the present form of democracy has largely precluded consideration of modifications substantial enough to significantly improve its substance. Tribunocracy is such a modification.
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. Tribunes serve only briefly, are dismissed after voting and retain no special power.
Tribunocracy reduces the role of money and shallow campaigning.
All 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 hours, over a period of days. Thus it greatly reduces the need and value of paid advertising, and shallow slogan based campaign rhetoric. Dishonest claims, incorrect facts, and shallow arguments will be much less common; because the opposition will have adequate time and opportunity to dispute them by presenting better more persuasive evidence and arguments during the Tribunal Convention.
A quick dramatic change to Tribunocracy is not possible. However its gradual adoption is. Tribunocracy should and will first be introduced and tested in small special limited non-threatening non critical situations. For example, Tribunal Conventions might initially select officials not now elected such as city managers, or judges
Dale Retter
Tribunes do not vote on legislation! Tribunocracy is only a system for improving the existing election process. Tribunocracy does not require or advocate other changes in government.
Bob Stiglitz
Except it doesn't do this because corporations have a monopoly on media, so you get things like fox news and pro market, pro corporate ideology and anyone elses thoughts dismissed as "radicals", or "people not to be taken seriously".
Dale Retter
Dale Retter
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Is it perfect. No. Can it be improved, I guess so.
Not sure I'd prefer randomly selected tribunals to make complex policy decisions. But it is ASN interesting idea. Thanks.
Dale Retter
Dale Retter
If the guilt or innocence of accused persons was to be put on a public referendum, urging the entire voting population to become to “put more work into it” would not in my opinion even come close to providing the required information necessary for even a majority of the voters to make an intelligent information based decision. Having a sampling of then (i.e. a jury) attend a trial before voting is much better. A jury may put in days of focused attention to what presenters spend days or weeks preparing and presenting. You are right that is important. It is not possible to do that for everyone but you can do that for a Jury, or for a Tribunal Convention for an election. See: www.tribunocracy.org
Dale Retter
Tribunes do not vote on legislation! Tribunes only serve as a way for a random selection of willing potential voters to attend a tribunal convention before they vote as a proxy on a ballet that is otherwise the same as in our elections now open to all eligible voters; just as jurors serve as a proxy for all the citizens eligible to be jurors.
Henry Woeltjen 10+
These groups would be easy targets for organized crime and things of that nature. I guess they could be regulated to death...so nobody tampers with the group...but I don't think it would provide enough substantial legislation in an appropriate amount of time. Not all Americans should be making decisions for everybody else.
Dale Retter
Do you think moat jurors are corrupted by jury tampering? Do you think it would be easier to corrupt a larger group of sequestered Tribunes?
Henry Woeltjen 10+
The value of our government is based on how much work the people are willing to put into it.
Peter Merel
So I think the problem to solve isn't influence so much as undue and secret influence. The way representative democracies are set up, only the super-wealthy can use their money to influence decisions. The only way to create an equitable system is to balance direct democracy against the plutocrats, actively and publiclly redistributing their lobbying money back to the people - who can use it to exert influence in their turn.
I felt strongly enough about this to implement it myself as a Facebook app. The system is in public alpha right now - see http://www.doshmosh.com - all feedback very welcome.
Dale Retter
Most juries are not frequently influenced by money and power because doing so is a crime. The jurors are sequestered and serve only briefly. In a some jury trial a single juror might affect the outcome. If a juror is bribed to vote not guilty in a criminal trial it will prevent a guilty verdict and the briber will be able to know if the bribed juror failed to do so, if they are found guilty. If there are dozens of Tribunes and it is a crime to bribe them or accept a bribe the risk to reward ratio of trying to bribe them will be small. Like jurors Tribunes are sequestered, the may keep their vote confidential, and they serve only briefly. Tribunocracy will greatly reduce the roll of money an power in deterring election outcome, and the behavior of candidates influenced by the need to raise money.
Peter Merel
Of course doing that would be criminal, but in the USA you have congressional leaders on record passing out checks on the floor of the house to influence votes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAC2xeT2yOg) - do your really think sequestration would prevent such people from having their way?
Andrew Wiggin
Power in the hands of few will only end in a dictatorship no matter the original intentions.
Dale Retter
When eligible voters register they will indicate the Tribunes they would be willing to sever on if selected and given a number like a lottery ticket. Selection will be by live public drawing of numbers...like occurs in a public lottery. Like jurors after tribunes vote once on the same questions that mass voters now vote on (such as which candidate they think would be the best elected official). After their single vote they are dismissed and retain no special power.
The present mob of mass voters is more susceptible to influence by money and shallow irrational arguments than a Tribune that will get prolonged exposure to all the facts and argument the contending parties think most relevant. See www.tiribunocracy.org
pat gilbert 50+
But as stated the core problem is no education on the subject, which would only be addressed in a perfunctory manner with your system.
The first thing to know, which you have missed, is that there is something to know about this subject.
Dale Retter
Attending a jury trial before voting on the quit or innocence of defendant, is arguably only a “perfunctory education” however if you were on trial, do you think it would be important to require jurors attend your trial before they voted?
pat gilbert 50+
The Republic also would go this way if more of the democrats could be bothered to vote but fortunately they aren't. The original intent of the framers was to resolve this problem by giving as much power to the states as the Federal government which included state appointed senators as well as the right to secede as well as 10th amendment.
As to a jury trial as afforded by the 6th amendment the two are apples and oranges. There are many appeal possibilities and the jury has to decide on a single issue that is presented to them by professionals geared toward the layman and the jury has to be approved by the defense and the prosecution.
As opposed to an election that can produce such things as Obama care and Frank Dodd and Social Security and Medicare and Sarbanes Oxley that will no doubt be the undoing of the country the problem is that appeal is next to impossible and as you can see last into perpetuity or the demise of the country what ever comes first.
The problem is an ignorance of government and liberty as a way of life.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Don't they often send innocent people to jail?
Barry Palmer 50+
The biggest problem with any system of self rule is education. Would there be an educational requirement to become a tribune? If so, that would be disenfranchising the less educated. If not, then the tribunes would have to reflect all education levels, as well as other demographics.
With all its problems, I think this would still be an improvement. This is the type of change that should be tried on a small scale. If people like it, it will grow and spread. Of course, even that would require an amendment to the Constitution.
Dale Retter
Just as for mass voters and jurors there are no special requirements for Tribunes. The extra education of jurors comes solely from their attending a trial. Likewise the educational gain of the Tribunes is that they attend the Tribunal Convention before they vote.
I believe technically and functionally it complies with both the letter and spirit of the constitution. Where individual votes do not now directly determine election outcome this will not even be an issue. For example, selecting officers not now elected by public voting such as some judges and city managers.
Under the Constitution most decisions are delegated to elected representatives. For example representatives vote as a proxy for every citizen on war, taxes and most laws. An indirect process that employs delegation is not undemocratic or unconstitutional. Our Constitution provides Representative Democracy not Direct Democracy.
An important part of our democracy is that citizens directly determine the quilt or innocence in criminal trials. However, they don't exercise this power as part of a massive mob, but rater individual citizens are selected as proxies for the rest of the citizens. Tribunocracy operates in essentially the same way.
Because Tribunes are selected at random from all the eligible potential voters who are willing to serve, equal protection requirements are fulfilled.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
though election processes could be improved, the current systems are ensuring the compliance with popular demands in satisfactory degree. therein lies the true problem. the very idea of "public" decisions is a fallacy. when people asked whether they prefer safety at the price of drone-bombing some unknown nations, majority says hell yeah. when they are asked whether our own fellow farmers should be protected by law and tariffs against mexican/brazilian/chinese farmers, the answer is sure thing! people are truly in favor of these horrid decisions. because they are not educated enough to understand the true consequences. they buy the broken window fallacy on face value.
ask yourself: which election process would not lead to the reelection of W for his second term, or the recent reelection of obama? or what kind of election system would negate the war on terror? people new exactly that obama is in favor of drone attacks, they voted him to office anyway. it is not the fault of the system. it is the fault of people.
for that reason, tweaking the system can bring about some results, but can not resolve the core of the problem.
Dale Retter
PS regarding Bush’s reelection see: noel akin;s comment prior to yours and my recent answer to it
John Smith 30+
Your website does not explain how the agenda will be set for the tribunals (who will decide what to discuss and when?), the system is also likely to devolve into randomness with things like abortion being stuck in a loop of being legalized one week and being criminalized the next (this is the reason there are years in between elections). The one thing less reliable than politics are trials.
Dale Retter
If you were accused of committing murder, would you consider a trial by mass public opinion manifest by voting on a referendum, more or less reliable than a trial by jurors who witnessed your trial?
John Smith 30+
"If you were accused of committing murder, would you consider a trial by mass public opinion manifest by voting on a referendum, more or less reliable than a trial by jurors who witnessed your trial?"
I really hope I never get accused for a trial by jury (thank god my country doesn't have those), period. The American justice system is a farce with judges and especially juries who judge people by their appearance and don't know the first thing about technology, science and statistics, and lawyers (the most clever ones only available to the rich) who know how to exploit those weaknesses. I'd rather have trial by computer, I would at least stand a chance then.
And seriously, what if the science budget is up for debate and the tribunal presiding over it is composed of 100% inbred, evangelical teabaggers? Also, in politics there often is no single right answer: which is when the voice of the people is the only measure you can go by. How much money should be spend on security, how much to development aid? This is when it really matters to hear the voice of the people instead of the voices of a handful of people who were randomly picked and may thus very well represent a minority opinion.
Dale Retter
Initially the objective of Tribunocracy is to replace mass public voting by eligible voters choosing to vote with a random sampling of eligible voters who indicate they would be willing to serve as jurors if selected. The advantage is not that they are any different from the group of eligible voters they represent, but rather that the process of attending the Tribunal Convention before they vote would provide them more information, exposure to the candidates and arguments, before they vote. It does not require that Tribunes assume any greater participation.
Seriously I view trial by jury a poor form of justice, but as Winston Churchill said of democracy, its only virtue is that it is better than the alternatives.
noel akins 10+
pat gilbert 50+
A government that requires that it "borrows" (by force) from Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
noel akins 10+
pat gilbert 50+
http://www.answers.com/topic/tyranny-of-the-majority#ixzz2Eyu4pi5l
California has the highest taxes in the country, 33% of the welfare in the U.S. goes to Southern Calif, the unions own the election process and have created the highest salaries in the U.S. for public employees of all stripes.
With all due respect Mr Akins It is definitely a tyranny
Dale Retter
John Smith 30+
noel akins 10+
Dale Retter
Tribunocracy is only an improvement in our democratic system based on two new methods of its practice.
1. A randomly selected group of Tribunes may serve as a proxy for the full body of eligible voters.
2. The Tribunes must attend a trial-like Tribunal Convention before they vote (just a jurors must attend a trial before they vote)
I would trust a jury selected at random to vote on my guilt or innocence after they witnessed a full formal trial, more than a mob composed of any eligible voter who had an opinion and chose to vote without bothering to witness my trial. Why not have the same requirement for electing government officials? Tribunal Convention would reduce the rolle of money, shallow campaigning, voter ignorance. It will increase exposure to facts, argument, and allow for controlled group deliberating,
Bob Stiglitz
Any solution to problems would be perceived as a "threat" to one or more groups, hence problems are intractable because human beings are incapable of accepting the truth. Most would rather live in denial or their version of reality. Religion is proof of this.
Dale Retter
Bob Stiglitz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Lastly one doesn't even have to go far to see that americans are so wedded to free market ideology in the face of enormous corruption and unchecked power of corporations they are basically in no position to figure out solutions. A person who had any inkling of intelligence would select a "citizen king" give that good citizen absolute power and immunity, total access and ability to print money an go kick ass and take names.
As an example: I would go and buy a majority stake/buy out all the irresponsible companies and either 1) liquidate/sell off assets 2) Use that majority ownership to kick out irresponsible management. 3) If the company is public (on the stock market) take it private (out of the stock market) so there is no pressure to cut corners and develop criminally underhanded ways to make money.
The problems are intractable _because_ of human irresponsibility at all levels. The only way to stop it is to be able to remove/jail/punish/prevent irresponsible humans from inflicting damage against future generations.
That is unlikely to happen even though it would be the best solution because even too many educated people are too mired in morals and ideology, right now we just need to be able to put a stop to miscreants and confiscate their money/power/property as punishment for being a irresponsible member of society.
America has a problematic ideology of worshipping the individual and respecting the "rule of law" and property rights but we've seen this worship of these things are both failures in practice and the current political climate is the result.
Both parties in the US are so corrupt and irresponsible you need an outside third party to go in and nullify the privileges they've given themselves.
Random Chance 30+
They can sense it and the sane ones see it, with their own eyes. They don't lie to themselves.
What many still cannot do is reason it out. Thus:
voting fits perfectly a description of insane behavior, i.e. doing the same thing over and over,
and expecting different results.
Politicians will never deliver solutions to human living problems. They will only create them and benefit off of them.
If you are speaking about creating a just system to replace the broken and unjust system we have, then I am for that.
But, your system must not have any features or elements that create reasons for crime, greed, corruption, inequality, poverty and so on. That is possible and is what a just system is. The system has to be just. If you retain or have reasons, causes or climates for the unjust problems I listed, then it is not a just system, it will not function as a just system and it cannot become a just system. You will have to start again and figure out how to make a just system from the very beginning.
Getting rid of money will eliminate all of those negatives I listed. It's true, but most people will scoff at that immediately and not even entertain thinking deeply about it.
Not my loss, but for those of you who will be alive in the next 10 years on up, it will be devastating if you don't devise a just system. Either that or many may think that somehow they will become part of the ruling or financial elite or will somehow benefit from the love of finally having, loving, compassionate, fair, just, ethical, moral, inclusive and wise leaders, politically and financially, who, in an unjust system, will not fall prey to the corruption of power and money, simply to keep from squirming around in the muck the rest of humanity will be forced to eat and live in.
I don't know if a "tribunocracy" can do or be that, but that is what is needed. Not a new name, a new system built that is just. Just that.
Dale Retter
edward long 100+
Dale Retter
Noel Akins, yesterday had questions similar to yours and you my find them and my answer in this conversation relevant.
edward long 100+
noel akins 10+
Dale Retter
As the number of voters grows,
down in value each vote goes.
Where a vote of ten thousand is small,
the value of one vote is infinitesimal.
Though it may cause despair,
one vote is not worth bus fare.
The noble vote is now like a cheer
from a spectator seated in the rear.
To vote
is to emote
without hope
worth note.
One vote is not worth great concern,
when it will never an election turn.
Where a vote is cheap,
some behave like sheep.
Rightly fearing Bullyocracy,
most engage in hypocrisy.
Our leaders say,
to vote does pay.
With heads tucked below reason,
they say disbelieving is like treason.
Yet it is from the soup of logic and reason,
that good government gets its season.
If mass public voting is the best way to reach a democratic decisions, why bother with jury trials? Why not let the parties make their case in the media and through paid advertisements, and then have everyone who wants to cast a vote? Hopefully, that would seem like a terrible idea, because you have already witnessed a much better system. Why is a jury trial necessary for a meaningful verdict, and not for an election. Could it be because we have not yet witnessed a better system?
Dale Retter
Zman Kietilipooskie