Adir Zagury

This conversation is closed.

A whole new type of government, planed from the ground up, to actually work.

My idea of truly democratic and effective method of govern:

-Each person have an equal vote (measured in points), on legislative and executive acts. If you think it exist anywhere now, you're wrong; In USA all political minorities in each state have no votes, in most of Europe if your party doesn't reach 4-6% you don't count, and nowhere in the world a 30% party equal two 15% parties.

-No party could be both in Executive branch and legislative branch. Its the "Nordic law", smart one.

-Parties are funded only (!) on vouchers. Each citizen get a certain amount of money to fund a party of his choice, divide it, or keep it to be used on democratic information gathering. For every percentage from the power of the vote there's an equal percentage of the voucher funds. It creates equal power for people of every economic background in the democratic power and free the people to best match their choice with their belief.

-There is no government offices, each party works (administratively, executively and research and formation of laws) with the funds she's been given. Sounds radical but would work with the next clause. It will also put a direct link between parties and their output and lower government cost due to competition on the work.

-Legislation and executive decisions pass not on majority, but highest votes one pass. For example: a budget will be passed after each interested party submit one and they all vote on it with the power of votes they received (lone people too) the one with most votes win. With completely transperent government and no reseved offices the competition on the best form would work.

-Changing your vote(s) could happen anytime you wish. Counting millions of paper couldn't been done contnuesly but noe there's no Need to wait for years for no reason when technologicly it is as easy as changing your address in your licenss.

If you have any suggestion, improvements, critcism or a whole other type of government you think will work better, say it:

  • thumb
    Apr 12 2013: Some very good ideas
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Apr 10 2013: You say "You and I have a fundamental disagreement about the nature and purpose of a government." What do you think its purpose is? Simply put, I think its role is to improve the state of the country (by regulations, public order laws, infrastructure, people's safety and investment in the future) but I haven't wrote it, maybe I should have had- how can I ask for a better government without stating its goal?

      Adam Smith never wrote what you said but he did wrote that labor is like any other commodity, and if there's too much of it, it would "discontenued production" (horrible, but true in a free market). He have no connection to the idea - it could be a socialist regim, libriterian or any other, but the most important thing is that no matter what each voice is truely equal and extrimly competitive.

      If the solution is to throw the money (or any equal commodity) out, how would the government feed itself? if only those who can afford working without pay will lead us who do you thnk will lead us? an toward what?
  • thumb
    Apr 10 2013: I don't see where this mitigate the tyranny of democracy. That is the reason the U.S. has a Republic and the electoral college for the POTUS.

    I think the problem boils down to public ignorance. Without a more knowledgeable, responsible constituency you still have the same problems.

    Reality by definition is what people agree it is. No system is going to get around the fact that we need more knowledgeable and responsible people.
    • thumb
      Apr 10 2013: You are right, there is a big problom with public ignorance whitch lead to a reality show form of election there is now. We can't force people to understand the world around them. We can't have only the ones with knowledge vote, because you wouldn't be able to force them think on the coomon good.
      I think that because this idea would increase the power of people it would push them towards learning.

      Even if they wouldn't learn, in this methode there is a clear link between your vote and the result so you can change your mind and influance in improvement of government.
      • thumb
        Apr 10 2013: In the early days of this country you had to have skin in the game before you could vote. Consequently you would be inclined to vote for the good of the country. Much more so than the tyranny of the majority who just want more free stuff.

        How would the voter see the cause and effect?
        • thumb
          Apr 10 2013: Sorry for not making my self understood, but the effect I meant wasn't the real life effects -that takes time anywhere, its the effect of party conduct, legistlation and execution. Currently, each candidate is throwing blame when stuff gets wrong or when not acting in the voters wants. You can blame the office who puts sticks at your wheels, you can blame the party whitch pushes you away, you can do lots of things in the name of "politics".
          When the offices is in the hand of the parties, their completely responsible for them. When their is no power cost of choosing a small party over a big one, you won't align yourself without truely believing it is necessery. When everything is transparent and open, and when there's a true compotition eithout bars, you can know exactly what you get with your vote.