Training / set-up a new Government ================================== Top-down method: --------------- A new Government has different things that can be trained for, such as local Government and National Government, the various Courts of Justice, the King or Queen and the Electoral Committee. King or Queen: - - - - - - - Since it is a method of the proposed Constitution ( www.socialism.nl/law ) that the King or Queen takes control over representative Government when the representatives are in chaos, and since the Government representatives initially are in chaos because the whole representative mechanism doesn't exist yet, it makes sense to first elect a King or Queen, so as to have a fall-back Government in any case. The King or Queen is a singular focus point in the Nation, even if it does not assume power. It can often be useful to have a focus point and have it emanate some widely heard opinions and recommendations, even if the opinions/recommendations are moderately competent. Like a car drives better with a steering wheel regardless of who is behind it, and once someone is the masses have a mechanism of affecting its direction. Without a steering wheel everyone could be screaming left and right, but nobody is being heard, which leads to a danger of violent groups assuming local control. Judges - - - After the King/Queen has been elected it is potentially a good idea to set up the Judges so that the Law is operational, and the police can carry on maintaining order and Justice. Finding Judges should not be very difficult. Since the Judges do justice based on existing law their activities are predictable and help to restore calm in the Nation. They regulate the power of the King or Queen, and help with the setting up of representative Government because that is described in the law. There is a problem with this: according the Constitution the representative Government selects the Judges, but there is not any yet. Representative - - - - - - - After this the representative Government local and National can be set up, which is probably by far the most difficult process. Because it is the most difficult it will be helpful if there are already systems working that are easier to set up: electoral-committee, King/Queen, Judges. King or Queen: ------------- The King or Queen is the oldest of the 10 members in the Electoral Committee (EC). Is the EC (Electoral Committee) elected, then the King or Queen is known. The task of the EC is to set the date for elections for the National Government. It always has to have a strength of at least 6 members in order to make election date decisions, therefore if 5 step down there is no EC, causing EC elections, which may result in a different make up of the EC producing a different King or Queen. The EC regulates who is King or Queen. The EC must achieve its full strength of 10 members at least every 30 years in the constitution proposal ( www.socialism.nl/law ). Because the King or Queen ages, his/her chance of again becoming oldest in the EC increases, as does this chance increase with being more widely known and popular. The King or Queen therefore has a quite stable position, which is the point of having a King or Queen. 1. Ask some people, at least 10, to make themselves available for election into the EC. When training for this and having fewer then 10 people reduce the size of the EC to at least 2. It should be known when people are born in order to determine who is oldest. 2. Every person who got votes but has not made it into the top 10 (or top 2 if the EC size is reduced, etc) can give their received votes to someone who did make it into the top 10. 3. The difference between the person having won most votes and having won second-most votes has to be computed. 4. The person who has most votes can now give these votes to anyone he/she likes, someone in the top 10, someone who was on the election list to be elected for the EC, or someone else entirely. 5. After that the persons who are the top 10 of having most votes are the EC. 6. The oldest person of those 10 must be found: that is the King or Queen. Judges: ------ Determining the Judges is a procedural conflict because the representative Government determines who is a Judge. On the other hand it is probably very simple to find people who want to be Judges and who have been Judges before or who are sufficiently aware of the law to temporarily act as Judges. The procedural conflict can be solved by having the King/Queen assume all representative power, which is legal because of practical representative chaos (they do not do their job). Then the King/Queen can appoint the necessary Judges or decide how judges are to be found. If the King/Queen assumes this power temporarily there will be new King/Queen elections after the King/Queen gives this power to the Government representatives, or maximum after one year. This seems to be a good mechanism, and immediately puts the King or Queen to good use. The King or Queen will assist in the setting up of the necessary Courts of Justice: the factual Courts, the appeal Courts, and the singular National Law Court. The Law Court handles interpretation of the Law; it is the supreme Court of Justice also handling the case whether the King or Queen legally has assumed Government power "because the representatives are in chaos." These tasks are all rather straightforward, even if the King or Queen does not know what to do it should be easy enough. In a training exercise some people would volunteer to the King or Queen to be Judges in the 3 different Courts. At least one for the factual court, which determines who is lying and not, has something been stolen, is a legal procedure followed, etc. One for the appeal court where the Justice in the factual Court can get a second examination. At least one for the Law Court which interprets the Law and handles the most difficult Constitutional cases. The Judges all wear the same clothes which ought to relate their objectivity and lack of personal preferences. In a training exercise one could give them all a shawl of the same color. Representative -------------- This is the difficult one. But now at least there are Judges, there is a King or Queen, there is an EC with the power to order elections immediately. One could say: at this point the EC orders elections, sets a date for that. In the Constitution proposal this is a sovereign task of the EC, it can not be appealed or changed, not even by the EC. It will have to be carried out. Hopefully the EC will make a wise decision and allow for the People to understand the mechanisms beforehand so that it would actually work out. The EC decides per public majority vote, the King or Queen has one of these votes. vote groups: - - - - - - The basic voting principle is that people group per 100 people, they elect someone to organize a vote among them, and through that vote they produce one representative, representing these 100 persons. They can choose someone who is not in their group, therefore they can for instance vote for someone who has made it known he/she would like to get elected by some group. The person that organizes the vote ("voter group housekeeper") should ideally make a record of who voted in that group, these records can later be verified to prevent people to organize in multiple groups sending in too many representatives. In a training exercise one could reduce the size of these voter-groups to at least 2 persons per group. Everyone can participate in them, also the Judges and the EC. There is only a minimum size per voter group, but every groups produces one representative. If this process proves hard for the People it can be assisted by helping people establishing groups of 100 or more, even to invite people in in exchange for coffee/tea or soup, who haven't voted. It is not necessary that everyone votes. Only people who are interested need to vote. In theory this may produce a thin Government, then that is the way it is. It can always be changed both ways if the People want it. A voter group can always change their representative any moment, people who have not yet voted can organize later and send in their representative later, people who have voted can also retrieve their representative and not send a replacement. The representative Government is a dynamic business, not everything depends on that one voting moment. Then again: in practice it takes effort to change the representative, a new vote must be organized by that voter group. Changes in representative Government will not constantly happen on a large scale, presumably. Now everyone willing has determined a representative, someone they could know and have met personally, the bond voter and representative is strong, mutual knowledge high. local government: - - - - - - - - The representatives are now to group in groups of 50 or more, forming local Government (in a training one could reduce this size to at least 4.) This is flowing from geographic proximity of the voter groups. If none can be determined the representatives can select a location for themselves, either where they work or live, or fantasy in a training exercise. Once the groups of representatives have coalesced, they each are to elect a chair person, who will only chair meetings but has no vote in decisions. Once that is done each groups determines its own name, and seals that procedure with the question whether everyone is in agreement that the procedure was followed correctly. That should ideally yield a unanimous agreement, from then that local Government has been formed: it is the legal local Government with associated power. If one local government ends up with a very large amount of delegates *note*), there are two options: split into multiple local Governments each with a different territory, or to group within that group of delegates in 50 groups of delegates, each of which works the same way as a voter group: determine someone who will run the vote in the group, elect a representative. That yields 50 representatives/delegates over a larger area, 50 is a number of people who can have a meaningful debate and make decisions, reducing size so it can work. How the various smaller delegate groups work they can determine for themselves, some might leave the one chosen in charge, others might rotate constantly, others might even want to decide things by their own majority vote and have their representative react to that. national government: - - - - - - - - - - All these representatives chosen by voters are to be divided into 50 groups, each group should have (about) the same amount of representatives, they are grouped geographically. It is in principle the responsibility of the delegates to do this grouping, however the Queen or King can make recommendations or decisions if in power. (In a training exercise one could reduce the amount of groups to 4.) These groups of representatives choose from between themselves one representative for the entire group, this again can be done by first electing someone who will run the vote. Once those representatives have been chosen, have come together, they are to elect a chair person. This chair person will not have a vote, but who is the chair person can be changed later. The same things happen as with the local Governments: they decide on a name, and decide whether the procedure has been met. At that point they become the national Government with the associated power. government procedures: - - - - - - - - - - - The government can not simply debate and make decisions: it has to put up a public agenda, and debate those points. A point has to be at least 7 days on the agenda before it can be discussed. A point to change laws must be longer on the agenda: for 2 month. Only emergencies can be discussed immediately, and what should be on the agenda. King or Queen, again: -------------------- If the above has happened to satisfaction of the Law Court, if anyone were to challenge the King or Queen its rule over the Government, the combined Judges of the Law Court will determine that the King or Queen is no longer in possession of this power: the `state of chaos' has ended. That implies re-election of the EC, because the King or Queen is always re-elected after having taken over Government power (Constitution proposal, article 1.4.a: "One month after the end of the state of chaos, new elections for the Electoral Committee are being held (...)") Therefore the King or Queen will be elected again which means EC elections, the same as described above. No doubt if the Queen or King has done a good job she/he stands a chance of again becoming the Queen or King. If the Queen or King had not assumed official power, there would not be a need for new EC elections. In that case the Judges could have been unofficially installed, their position and work later to be ratified by the representative Government. This seems to be a better method if the situation allows it (if there is no actual chaos in the Nation). Another slightly different method could have been not to work on the Judges first, but setting up representative Government first, or to work on both problems simultaneously. As long as the People remain calm, continue to work normally no matter what, even if things initially fail or just seem to fail or nobody seems to know what is going on, in all likelihood it should end up right in the end. The People: ----------- Something that the People should look for is published agenda points from the local and National Governments. At first there is likely to be some discussion about which territories will be controlled by which local Governments, how large the local Governments are, and whether certain integrated areas (cities) should be under one local Government or not, or have multiple local Governments with a city-wide advice council elected by all local Governments (everyone can be elected in such an advice council). All these things can be decided by the People, because of the absolute level of democratic influence by the People. Presumably at least every city/village (closely integrated living area) should have a certain unifying Government component. In villages too small to have a local Government it can be someone appointed by local Government to represent that Government, for the people to input information for the Government into. In cities so large they can have multiple local Government there can be something similar, decided on by all the representatives in that city, some kind of central office that remains in the same place, so that the People can always find the local Government, etc. Cities can also integrate all local Govermnents into one, however that means all delegates agree on that, because they have the right to split away if they are with enough delegates (25 to 50 or more in one area). This central point in each village/city would be something like todays "mayor," but the councils decide everything. At the point where the voter-groups elect their delegate is a good opportunity for those voters to talk to their representative about what they want, on any subject. Done: ---- From then on the Government has been established, it can now solve the problems that it is to solve. This would initially be to establish and consolidate the DAVID legal system in the Nation in some form or the other. That requires: distribution system for natural resources, establishing the correct ownership for already existing companies, initiating and managing the financial infrastructure and setting up its potential private sectors. Once that is done the task of Government becomes carrying out the will of the People. training: - - - - For a full scale training needed: 50 for national Government, implies 50 local Government sectors meaning at least 50 distinct local Governments. That requires at least 50 representatives per local Government at 100 voters per representative: 50 local gov. * 50 representatives each * 100 voters per representative = 50 * 50 * 100 = 250 000 persons *note**). That would yield a very realistic exercise, as the group is so large that genuine mass problems would occur. Electing a Queen or King first to reduce the lack of coordination may seem right, but how do you out of nowhere start an election with 250 000 persons ? In a way that already requires the existence of some coordination, which is precisely what would be missing at first. Somehow the whole group is going to vote on a list of people, but who even knows who they are voting for, nobody knows all 250 000 persons. One idea is to find the oldest people, because it is easy to find the oldest and wisest people. Bring them together *note***), and make them organize the vote: They could determine who stands on the ballot, so that voters would place a mark by a name and it would be clear who that person is because it is a ballot made in advance. That way the votes can be counted properly, which is hard if people write names on paper out of their own initiative. To get on the ballot different people would need to present sufficient support of people to the oldest and wisest group. Those people with most support get on that ballot, up to a certain total amount of people to be determined by the oldest and wisest then. From then on the election can be held in a coordinated way, counted and the procedure run through, yielding an EC and Queen or King. From then on the group has a defined single person focus and the mass problem could have been solved. It would presumably be an idea that those on the ballot in some way present themselves to the wider group, although in principle that is not even necessary. I don't know whether this set up would work on a National scale: can you gather the oldest and wisest together and have them determine a ballot ? That would already be hundreds of thousands of people, all across the Nation and often unable to move. But one could select those oldest and wisest people who are willing to come and do that task. It is not a very difficult task and really the main thing is to determine a location, a point of focus, from which an election can emanate across the wider group. In a sense all the oldest and wisest have to do is sit around the camp fire, and ask some younger people to please get it done. If the oldest and wisest decide against the election, one could go ahead with it anyway: the task of creating a point of focus has been achieved, the election can be coordinated from there. :-) The oldest and wisest can offer their wisdom if they so choose, but if they don't then so be it. The important thing is that the oldest and wisest have a good time. A minimum training needed: 4 people in the national council to make 1 chairman and 3 able to make majority vote decisions, 4 national councils imply 4 geographic areas meaning 4 local Governments at least. Each local Government can do with 4 people, so that each representative is elected say by 3 people able to make a majority vote (let's say that in a tie seniority rules). That makes: 4 local gov * 4 delegates in each * 3 voters per voter group: 4 * 4 * 3 = 48 persons. 10 of those double as EC who can't be elected into local/national representative governments (that is illegal for the EC), and minimum 3 double as the judges. realistic training: - - - - - - - - - A more reasonable training: scaled down 1:10. Voter groups of 10 persons instead of 100. Government councils with 5 instead of 50 persons minimum. At minimum this requires 5 distinct local Governments to group in one of the 5 national sectors: 5 * 5 * 10 voters: 250 persons. When there are a few more persons some of the voter groups have more then 10 persons, if there are significantly more people some local Governments have more representatives because you have more total number of voter groups, if you have much more people you can end up with more then 5 local Governments. But you still have to divide those local Governments in 5 sectors. Unless you decide you can run the exercise with more persons in the (national) council(s). The EC probably does not have to be reduced in size, that election could be done full scale. Typically: the more people, the more voter groups, the more representatives, the more local Governments. But you don't get more delegates per council and you don't get more sectors voting for national Government councel (CC). A 10-5 scheme can deal with 250 persons or more. It may be a good idea to spread this exercise out over many days, there is no reason that it should be run in a matter of hours when all are assembled on some field somewhere. A useful aspect of having the exercise go through in the midst of real life and spread out over days is that it is more realistic. How do voter groups meet up ? How do representatives find each other ? How does one know where when to vote, who are the candidates and why ? Doing all that in a larger area of many people who have no clue this training is being done and have never heard of these things presents realistic problems that would occur when doing it for real. A second important benefit of the lower volume, spread out exercise: less vulnerable to state terrorism. If one were to assemble 250 000 strong in an area "to train for setting up of democratic Government," those people currently having control over Government might not be able to resist the urge to react with violence, either at that point or by gathering intelligence for later violent activities. Keeping the training small, not making lists of who participates, ignoring some of the rigors of voter-group voter verification, this could help to reduce potential dangers during and after exercises. It should be noted that the whole affair is not meant as a coupe, much to the contrary of what todays Governments are used to doing whenever they get the chance. It is only supposed to go through when the majority of the entire Nation is already in explicit support. Secondly: a person that participates in this exercise is doing nothing more but participating in an exercise. Some people practice shooting with arrows, some of these people may later use those skills to fight crime, others to commit crime. Participating in this exercise as such does not imply loyalty to anything at all. People may simply participate in such an exercise because they are curious or bored, and may later decide that they think it is a bad idea all in all. Doing an exercise would be a great way to find out why (if) it is wrong (people and their assumptions ...). Bottom-up method: ---------------- The reverse method is to start with the local voter-groups, let them establish local Governments, then the National Government. Then that National Government appoints the judges and sets up the EC elections, establishing a Queen or King. If the People are capable of doing that out of the blue on their own initiative, then that could also work. This method slowly builds a focus from the ground up, therefore the initial problem of determining focus does not exist. Perhaps this second method is a good second training exercise (or first). With these two trainings done, those people having participated should have a rather good idea about what this scheme means (whether it works, what it needs to make it work), and do it in the real, being able to help more people getting it done. See http://www.socialism.nl/~joshb/sheet2.txt for some bottom-up default coordination ideas, which establishes some locations and times for people to meet, reducing the initial problem of how local voters and delegates can find each other. Visual reference card: --------------------- Here is a visual reference aide that can be used to explain/understand: http://www.socialism.nl/~joshb/aksie/vote-reference.jpg The first part is for all voters on how to vote for a delegate, second for delegates on how to assemble local Government, third for all delegates on how to elect National Government, last bit only for Nationally elected delegates. Further training: ----------------- See www.socialism.nl/~joshb/david-sim.html for a simulation of the DAVID economy model, which could also be converted into a training. See also www.socialism.nl/~joshb/aksie/newretailbanking.txt on how that DAVID simulation could be outfitted with a fiat money system. A DAVID economy model training will be quite hard to do since before soil has a real meaning you are typically growing crops on it. On the other hand this DAVID model training can be done on a smaller scale, since it merely involves: a soil distribution system, exchange money system, social investment system, democratization of businesses. This could already be attempted with 10 persons. The remaining point in DAVID: democratic Government, was trained for above. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes: *note*) The words `delegate' and `representative' mean the same thing. *note**) When a government representative is chosen to become part of the National Government, but there were only 50 delegate in that local Government which is the legal minimum, what then ? If there are only 49 delegates in that local Government, it is no longer a legal Government council ! (I just realize this problem now by the way...). A solution can be: that delegate which is elected into the National Government remains a member in the local Government she/he is in. If there are only 50 delegates in that local Government then at least most of the time they would convene with 49 members, one of which is the chair person (48 voting members). This would be a sort of dispensation, pretending that the Nationally elected member is still a member of the local Council thereby making the 50 members requirement, only that member is absent a lot (or all the time). There is not much difference between 50 and 49 debating people, a Government council can make decisions with 49 persons. When there are more delegates in that council available the gap can be filled in easily, bringing the total people deciding again to 50 or more. The voter group who stood behind that delegate would be losing its local representation, and have it replaced by a National representation. If that is unwelcome that representative could be forced by its voter-group to either remain local, or find a new voter group to support him/her at a National level. That presumably won't be too difficult: it only takes 100 persons in that 50th sector of the Nation, producing by definition one local Government representative that coalesces in one of the Government councils. A solution could also be that the person elected in the National Government delegates his local authority to a deputy delegate who takes the task of representing him/her at the local level. The Constitution does not say such delegation is illegal, although it also does not directly supports it. If the law allows it than it can be done. The most elegant way to select a deputy is certainly that the original voter-group comes together to vote on a deputy. The local Government deputy delegate could then operate effectively as any other delegate, only officially it is in the name of the Nationally elected delegate. That means the Nationally elected delegate still has the official power, the power to order the deputy how to vote and what to do, or to immediately replace that deputy with him/her-self. The benefit of this is that the voter group does not lose its local representation. The benefit of this is also that the council actually works with a minimum of 50 persons, 49 of which voting. It is also a way in which that National delegate keeps a line of potential communication and influence between one of the local Governments in his/her 50th sector, aside from the line to the originating voter-group. (The voter-group is not allowed to replace the Nationally elected delegate at will, because to be elected Nationally requires to be elected by all delegates in one 50th sector.) *note***) Maybe it is useful to decide on a focus point ahead of time, so that one could emanate a National election from there. Willing oldest & wisest (mentally healthy) can be brought together there. One would not need that many to impact the situation positively. The most logical and simple place is the center of the National territory, the old people care home (if any) nearest to the territorial center of the Nation. The territorial center can be computed using a weight model, where sea has no weight. If the point ends up in the sea then one could still compute the closest care home. If two old people homes are at the same distance, then the people in either can decide, or the one where there are already most counts. This works for a Kingdom like Holland, but not for an excessive sized Empire like China, India, the USA. Some default proposals then: - Europe uses its old National borders, the EU is simply ignored. Yugoslavia can use the borders exactly as they are at the moment of doing this, and then fix the possible border problems there later using the New Territory laws. The same for other contested territories, such as Northern Ireland, Baskenland, etc. Russia is very large, but it might be better to keep it one Nation at first, then later use the Constitution law to split it. Perhaps there are some parts around the edges or in the east that want to split away, reducing total population size. One idea is to use the Ural as a new border for instance, splitting it in a Western (Geographic Europe) and Eastern (Geographic Asia) Sovereign state. - Asia: China and India are way too large. As a starting solution for China all the various provinces could become Sovereign Nations: Hebei, Nei Monggol, Heilongjian, Shandong, Shanxi, Ningxia, Gansu, Henan, Jiansu, Sichuan, Hubei, Anhui, Hubei, Hunan, Guizou, Jiangxi, Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Xizang, Yunnan, etc (this list might be wrong, just the basic idea). Ideally not one Nation ends up with more then 100 million people. If there are too many people then ideally a Province is split roughly along cultural lines, using geographic barriers where available. The borders can later be made better if it goes really wrong, using the law. That is 22 new Nations, more or less enough to split 1200 million people. For India the same recipe, grouping roughly 30 million people per Nation, maximum 100 million: Kerala, Nadu, Tamil, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Maddya Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat; about 15 new Nations, it is more or less enough to split about 1000 million people in good sized Nations that will function. If living conditions improve for the poorest, it is possible that eventually negative population growth results, reducing the population problem. Indonesia with 200 million people is in theory too large. Pakistan with 140 people is also very large. Japan with 125 million could stay one Nation and later use a splitting protocol or not; Japan could quite easily split along some of the island sea borders. Bangladesh has many people, but it is also very small therefore it might work; perhaps better living conditions reduce population over time; otherwise it could be split east/west along the river, or north/south inland/coastal, depending on similarity. - South Amerika: Brazil is too large. It could split along province borders, thus producing Nations of a convenient size, which is presumably better defended against corruption: Maranhao, Ceara, Rio Grande do Norte, Piaui, Pernambuco, Parajba, Alagoas, Bahia, Minas Gerais, Espirito Santo, Parana, Tocantins, Mato Grosso, Para, Amapa, etc. Some provinces could combine if they like each other and/or are similar. A somewhat larger size can help make Government more objective. - Middle east (Palestinians, Israelis; Iraq, Kurdistan) can also this mechanism, which means that Palestinians and Israelis vote together for one Government since they are both in one sovereign Nation, and then later the borders can be adjusted if that seems useful. Kurdistan can also split away sooner or later. - Africa: no countries there with more then 100 million people, all of them could set up a new Government using (then) current borders. - North America: here is one possible scheme: http://www.socialism.nl/post/000/035.gz which results in 4 Nations. A reason to make those Nations so large was to prove that the reason is not to crush American power in order to make other areas of the world dominate. There may be better schemes, typically grouping people with most social similarity, so that the National laws can reflect that. - Antarctica is mostly uninhabitable, I suggest that it is not owned by any other Nation. If it ever becomes habitable by more then 1 million people, they should perhaps consider forming their own sovereign Nation. As long as no Nation is sovereign there one might as well say they are all sovereign there, so the law would be something depending on the Nationality of the persons involved, some kind of average generally agreed to things (like no murder & theft, and such, laws enforced throughout the world). - Tribal areas: one could make them Sovereign if they behave sufficiently according to general law standards. If they don't, but are a very violent tribe, then one might take exception to them and not allow them any power. I'd suggest: wait 10 years with again changing the borders, trading a problematic border situation for short term stability. Then after 10 years review the border problem and see whether who wants to split out, and then split away using the Constitutional protocol. During the 10 years people who think about splitting away can start moving their homes and jobs together, preparing a potential split. Note how if you start living together, you are able to easily have a majority in local Government, which will at least allow for some autonomy already. With the territorial areas at some default positions, it is easier to debate changes relative to that position, and to establish their center to emanate an election from quickly and unambiguously.