Voter block bottom-up representative democracy: great freedom, or chaos ? Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:34 AM ? With the potential for freedom, comes the potential for mistakes & chaos. To reduce this chaos, especially in the beginning but perhaps semi-permanently: one would want to reduce the freedom and introduce some top-down measures again, such as: Not allow the complete freedom of people to erect their own local government anywhere they want, but "every concentrated build up village / city area in which at least 50 delegates are elected, will have on local government: either one direct council, or a `further` body; very large cities are divided up into 50 parts, delegates in each combine to elect one `further` delegate." This means that some freedom is removed, in exchange for a clear structure that at least can not go wrong, that is predictable. Note that in many cases this would anyway be a good set-up of the bottom-up government divisions. Something else that can be done without affecting things much: there is a quite large gap between the local governments and the national government, and this gap is also a physical gap as in "who is responcible for large areas where nearly nobody lives." In the constitution this is "solved" by the power of national and local governments to make up "ministries" (government departments), which can again be elected systems. The Proposed Constitution does divide the country in 50 parts, yet does not exploit that further. What one can do is: divide every 50th part up again in 50 geographical parts, and have all delegates from that 50th national area not only elect one representative to national government (country council), but have each 50th of a 50th also elect one local area representative. The legal status of that council depends on how it is set-up legally: if it is informal it is an advice council with no power of its own. If the national government issues a law that sets up such a council, it will be a national ministry structured as a further local government council. The powers and responcibilities that it has are described in that law. Another way to look at this "50th area local council" is that it is the Constitutional local government, since it is elected exactly in that way, yet is not national. Then there would be 2 local government bodies over the same territory, the one that is responcible for many small areas, and the second over that one 50th. That may not usually be any problem at all, however it is probably better not to do that since it is confusing: either of the two should be the "real local government." That is easier for laws and courts and so on. To prevent confusion, I`d say it is easier to make the 50th local council, if needed, a national area ministry, making it easy to give it specific tasks. It can then be responcible as local government for the wide areas where (almost) nobody lives, for example. The different route would involve the 50th of the nation local council ("province level") be the real local government, where the smaller local governments are ministries of that council, legally sub organizations (ministries). This would presumably make that 50th of the nation local council a more powerful relative to the smaller local councils. Clearly there is another problem: impossibility of people to combine in voter groups, and impossibility of delegates to form councils. This can, as previously suggested, be solved by organizations that "embrace" this problem. The voters (or some) could be part of something that groups them in voter groups. Though that is legal if by choice of the voters, it does threaten that the voters will in practice be dictated for who to vote. If however voters can`t resist such pressure, then one may wonder if they would do any better on their own. Such pre-organization and voter-block organizing activity can at least ensure there is actually an elected government, and that people are finding each other to vote. Perhaps this is really not a bad thing at all, since the potential for people (in the west) to just meet up and do political/activist things that matter in real life seems low to none. Many people also live lives where they have little to nothing to do with neighbours or even anyone in their village / city. The fact that people are also potentially part of "rival" organizations such as sports or religions should not be a big problem, since each such organization can also be a spring board to electing delegates. Point about local governments: these are NOT sovereign bodies, only the national government is sovereign. That means if you live in an area under responcibility of a local body in which you have no delegate, maybe you didn`t vote, or chose to be part of a block that has a delegate elsewhere for some reason, that does not mean you have no power over the local council where you live. First you have petition and referendum power, secondly the local council falls under the national government and any "ministries" it has set up, such as a 50th of the nation province council. Thirdly the local council is by law required to do what the people want, which is not limited to their voters. Fourthly there is the "public consultancy" protocol to voice opinions. There is certainly the potential for politically different groups to start to live together under their own local government, that potential already exists now, but it could become stronger. I don`t think that is a problem, but a solution, so that people can live more the way they want. In such cases it may be better to think about moving to a place with which you have more affinity with the people, if you didn`t do already. Far beyond the above measures there is the somewhat ultimate measure of making election participation mandatory, and to force the voter grouping per street for instance, or other tiny geographic locations, (maybe if people have not managed to be part of any voter group by themselves already.) Combined with the above that will certainly result in a form of representative government in principle at least. Note that representation is just one factor in the democracy, reducing its bottom-up freedom in exchange for structure is not necessarily significantly eroding the ability of the people to get their way with the government. One of the most powerful instruments of popular will is the referendum law, which is not changed by any of the above. Also note that the above is not the key element of the overall system, in principle any form of democracy will do that reduces corruption and makes sure money is invested and political decisions are made in the public interest. For starters one could set the age for allowing to vote at somewhere between 15 and 21. 15 for nice young people, and 21 for "scum," however that is probably not easy to do and could add to potential for chaos. Maybe this: 15 legal to vote in referendums, 21 legal to vote in and be voted in voter block. Feedback # re: Voter block bottom-up representative democracy: great freedom, or chaos ? 11/12/2008 11:49 AM by jos boersema One of the things that is most difficult is the large cities. What can help a great deal, save the day, is to have the national government appoint a person in each large city. It can be given responsibilities by the national government, ranging from pretty much "running the city" to being an office that registers where all the local governments currently are and what their territories are. The large cities can comprise several 50th "provinces." When there are many small local governments in a city, the province level can be useful in creating some order between them; in which case appointing one city-wide office/person fills a city-wide void. When there is one larger local government, the province level can be a voice of varies parts of the city. In some cities the province and the local government could end up about the same size/area, although one could avoid that by changing 50th "province level" borders. The province (1/50th of the nation) level which is more stable, and therefore more accountable, could be made responsible for aspects of taxation such as collection, distribution to local governments, keeping track of local governments. The 50th level can also have a stable office location, which can be useful if the other local government level is (more) dynamic. If there are any areas that are able to set up completely free bottom-up governments, or if such bottom-up governments are set up later, then if the law still allow it, it is probably interesting to let that develop itself to see what happens. If it goes wrong, the national government can always make laws and ministries to deal with the situation in a more top-down way. Ultimately the King Elect could come in to (try to) restore order in case of national chaos. But between all these levels & possibilities, there ought to be some solution. Post Comment - - - - - See also: post/000/333.html Function identifiers See also: post/002/020-* Function identifiers, added comment: shielding sovereign use. *.jpg Simplified rank designators. See also: post/002/038-* Democracy from the barrel of a gun (((Oops, file deleted out of post/000, restoring ...)))