TED Community » Dale Retter

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Tribunocracy because I believes it is literally what the world most needs now, and has the potential to make the world a better place.

An idea worth spreading

Tribunocracy is a new form of democratic voting that provides more informed and studied public participation in elections and referendum. It reduces the corruption and distraction caused by money and the need to raise it.

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. Tribunes like jurors are exposed to facts and information presented in an orderly and publicly observed forum. Tribunes have direct exposure to the candidates and focused time to consider and discuses the issues. Testimony is recorded and under oath, and subject to rebuttal. Like jurors Tribunes are dismissed after voting and retain no special power. Tribunocracy is the thing the world most needs now.

Talk to me about

Tribunocracy and how it could be introduce; and why once experienced there are powerful social forces that will hep drive it forward, like watching it live and opportunity for public participation.

My TED Story

Tribunocracy is what the world most needs today, and TED will help make it a known possibility.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +0.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: Present democracy is like a verdict by a mob that does not attend a trial. Tribunocracy is a better way.

  Dec 20 2012: At present many parties especially those who have money or can earn money by gathering an audience advocate for their particular beliefs or personal best interests. Part of this, especially its funding is motivated because they believe it will affect voters and thereby help get the candidates they favor elected. Tribunocracy reduces this because the influence of what is said before a Tribunal Convention begins will be much less. This is because much more of each Tribune’s decision will be based on what they see and hear over the hours or days they spend listening to the candidates in person, and the witnesses they present at the public presentations. This information will be better because it will be in much grater depth, given under oath, and subject to cross examination and rebuttal. Tribunes will be instructed to give priority to information presented during the Tribunal Convention. Just as jurors are instructed to base their verdict only on the information they obtain from witnessing the trial. This will not eliminate the biases or affect of everything Tribunes are exposed to before the Tribunal Convention begins, but it will greatly reduce it.

• A comment on Talk: Lee Smolin on science and democracy

  Dec 18 2012: I believe the most important differentiation between science and other systems it that science is based on empirical evidence evaluated in an objective quantified manner, as apposed to beliefs that are not. Politics and government can become more scientific if they are held to a similar standard. Values may be inherently determined by subjective choice, but the method of achieving them can and should be pursued as a science. Tribunocracy is an example of applying that principle to our present process of public elections see www.tribunocracy.org. The question is not if science will go away, but rather if it will overcome belief.

• A comment on Conversation: Present democracy is like a verdict by a mob that does not attend a trial. Tribunocracy is a better way.

  Dec 18 2012: Based on the comments I have received, it is clear that I invited the misconception that Tribunocracy is intended to change more than our present system of mass public voting. It is not.
  
  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.

• A comment on Conversation: Present democracy is like a verdict by a mob that does not attend a trial. Tribunocracy is a better way.

  Dec 17 2012: Trial by Jury is a terrible system that often produces bad results. However it is better than the alternatives. If accused of a crime would you prefer trial by a mob listening to outrageous assertions that would never stand up in a trial, or a jury trial? We are conducting our elections by mob voting. Tribunocracy randomly picks some of the mob as a representative sample then has them attend a public Tribunal Convention (like a trial) before they vote.

• A reply on Conversation: Present democracy is like a verdict by a mob that does not attend a trial. Tribunocracy is a better way.

  Dec 17 2012: Tribunes do not make policy decisions! Tribunes only vote as an educated proxy for what is presently voted on by all eligible voters choosing to vote.

• A comment on Conversation: Present democracy is like a verdict by a mob that does not attend a trial. Tribunocracy is a better way.

  Dec 16 2012: Henry,
  
  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

• A comment on Conversation: Present democracy is like a verdict by a mob that does not attend a trial. Tribunocracy is a better way.

  Dec 16 2012: Based on the comments received, it is clear that I should have said is: Our present system of public elections is like a verdict from a mob that does not attend a trial.
  
  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.

• A reply on Conversation: Present democracy is like a verdict by a mob that does not attend a trial. Tribunocracy is a better way.

  Dec 16 2012: 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. If accused of a crime, would you accept a mass public vote on your guilt or innocence instead of a verdict by a jury that fist attended your trial?
  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?

• A reply on Conversation: Present democracy is like a verdict by a mob that does not attend a trial. Tribunocracy is a better way.

  Dec 16 2012: The greatest direct influence of money and power in our political process is exercised by providing candidates with the money they require in order to pay for the campaigning they must do to be reelected or by spending money directly campaigning for a candidate. If a Tribunes alone determined the outcome of an election only after attending the public Tribunal Convention the importance of money spent on pre Tribunal campaigning will be relatively minimal.
  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.

• A reply on Conversation: Present democracy is like a verdict by a mob that does not attend a trial. Tribunocracy is a better way.

  Dec 15 2012: 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 for what would have been an election open to all eligible voters. Just as jurors serve as a proxy for all the citizens eligible to be jurors. If accused of a crime, would you accept a public vote on your guilt or innocence instead of a verdict by a jury that fist attended your trial? Does trial by jury lead to dictatorship?
  
  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