Grand Country Council of a Nation (highest representative sovereign body) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is natural in the proposed state model that the power is closest to the people: the power over a delegate is with its voter group, the council of 50 delegates is a derivative of the power of those 50 * 50 = 2500 people. The reason to have councils is for practical limitations and to handle trivial matters allowing the people themselves to worry about all the other issues that they may specialize in (working in the economy). To underscore this the power of the Referendum (the people directly) is higher then the representative, who in turn is required to be subservient to the people. (etc) Because it is not practical to have every issue debated by all the national delegates (maybe some 1% of all people), therefore the National Council does it on their behalf. This practical limit is especially for the many trivial issues, therefore less so for the probably rarer grand strategic decisions. In rare and important events it is practical to debate an issue by all delegates or even all people: something very important, a strategic decision that may have far reaching repercussions. A direct involvement of all delegates as a raw national Council (which is mentioned implicitly in the Constitution: the undivided national council is all delegates) can also be used to break a (long standing?) stalemate in the Country Council (is national council, different name meant same thing). For example if there is only a minor difference in votes on a very important matter, it might be an idea to lay the issue directly for all delegates in the nation. These delegates should be able to talk to their voter groups, through that mechanism involving literally the whole of the people. This can also be used on an approach to a possible Referendum. For example if the issue is still closely contested in this Grand Governing Council of all delegates (the raw Country Council) and can not be postponed, then it could be put to a real National Referendum for final arbitrage. The beauty of this Grand Country Council that it can literally reach effectively all the people, every single person in a nation. By its nature of formation and loyalty/power it has a higher authority then the (regular 50 member) Country Council. This Grand Country Council is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, it has a lower authority then the direct (national) Referendum (which potentially tracks public opinion more precise then this Grand Country Council, namely individuals really counted individually, combined with the representative). Something in between calling for a national Referendum (cumbersome, costly, time consuming), and the regular inner-council procedures. In theory the Grand Country council could make a decision in several month (study by all delegates, talking to the voter groups, opinion forming, voting,) in an emergency 1) it could be much quicker (a week? a few days?). * Seems there is a possible conflict: - If the GCC is higher then the CC, and the Referendum is higher then both GCC and CC, and if you combine the Referendum with the GCC vote, does that then mean that later on only the GCC re-vote could change the (deteriorating) Referendum result, or can the CC also re-vote the (increasing number of) abstentions, changing a Referendum + GCC vote result ? Strictly speaking I'd say: only the GCC can re-vote it because it has a higher authority. If the CC wants to re-vote a Referendum + GCC result it should ask the GCC for permission, or ask the GCC to make a rule allowing it such permission under certain conditions to be legislated by the GCC. You could for example say: once the CC has asked the GCC for a re-vote, but the GCC (that is all the representatives) does not respond in majority within a certain reasonable time-frame (say 4 month ? twice the time-limit for putting legal debates on the agenda), then the GCC is assumed to be absent or say 'busy,' and the matter is apparently become a (more) trivial matter to be handled by the (more) specialized/trivial attention of a smaller council (CC). Another way is: the CC will re-vote, and wait to see what the GCC will do. If the GCC doesn't reverse it then it is apparently ok. If the CC reverses a GCC decision (shortly after), then this might have the element of a scandal, which might motivate the GCC to rotate away certain CC delegates, to force CC compliance. Another way is if the CC someday makes a law about this, for example "if the GCC makes a decision, it stands for 1 year until the CC can change it, unless a different time-frame is mentioned on the decision." The GCC could - if it wants to - reverse that law (by changing delegates with different opinions), if it doesn't then the GCC apparently agrees to that law, thus it flows from the GCC authority. If it is reasonable to have a GCC ruling once a year, then the 'it stands for 1 year' is also reasonable (how many such pressing issues can there be ? If many you might want to use a longer period.) The first idea coming to mind is: wait until the Referendum has deteriorated to a certain percentage, say 1/3rd of all votes for example. * Procedures: if the GCC is taken to be a council, then it has to follow constitutional council rules: elect a chair-person, select a name, establish the agenda. One might perhaps argue (to the supreme court) that the GCC is a cumbersome and slow body, for which procedures like electing a chair person, name and voting on an agenda are a tremendous burden compared to the occasional rulings it could issue, and that since these issues of a chair person, name and agenda are in the category of 'trivial' for the GCC, that it is then for the 'body of more trivial matters to wit the CC, which is quicker and more specialized' to handle those trivial matters on its behalf. Hence this could mean: - The CC chair-person is the GCC chair person, although the GCC will presumably not even convene in one area therefore not even needing a chair-person (still having one, complying with the constitution). - The CC could issue an agenda proposal for the GCC. - The GCC could be called General Country Council, General Council, Grand National council, etc etc, or some other name the CC could decide. Since the more general bodies (voter group versus delegate, section of delegates versus their representative, council versus Referendum, etc) can always overrule the decision, one could say that if the opportunity has been there to overrule a decision but is not taken that this comprises agreement. Hence if a chair-person is elected by the CC for the GCC, a name set for the GCC, and an agenda set for the GCC, and the GCC does not object, that then the GCC agrees and has made those decisions. Note that this GCC format can be used for other spaces, for example a Grand Provincial Council is possible, or a Grand Local Council or Grand City Council, each time comprising all the delegates as if it was one Closest Local Government body, which it is. --- 1) Emergency: it is an old trick to press for a quick decision while holding out a certain desired outcome, to foil the democracy. Then when the decision is made to diffuse further democratic review. It is therefore an idea to issue a provisional vote in an emergency, then continue with the regular longer process and eventually issue the actual vote. With the provisional vote the emergency could be dealt with (assuming), it being provisional only also speeds up it being issued, knowing that it will later be re-voted in a lasting way (changed where wrong in the matured idea of the voters). 2) This GCC or GGC is not drawn on representative schematic. http://www.socialism.nl/post/002/representative_schematic.jpg It would constitute a local council comprising all delegates. In the drawing it could be one large circle that encompasses the entire model, all with red drawn people. It would go over the top of the country council as well, showing how it is the supreme representative body (voter groups could be drawn inside or outside, or both; inside to denote 'care/responsibility' of that council for all, and outside to denote the power of the voter groups is larger and controlling over the GCC even).