hi-

Our government is causing the suffering of millions of people.  It is
doubtful that I will ever be able to do anything to fix it from within,
Yet I feel that by doing nothing, I am consenting to it's existance, and
hence there is blood on my hands.  Therefore, I feel I have no choice but
to examine why the current political system is out of control, and to
devise a new one, and put my faith into it.  This is probably the quickest
and perhaps only way to make real, lasting change.  So below is my
attempt at begining a dialogue on making a new political system.  Comments
welcome. If this sounds interesting to any of you, and you would like
start an organization to put it in place, let me know.

steve

-------

The fundamental question facing society is not an economic one, but
a political one. How do we organize millions of people so that the laws
and institutions of that society are made in a way that benefits the vast
majority, if not all, of it's members. As far as I know, no one is
answering that question. Or if they have, they are not doing anything
about it. (If I am wrong, please let me know where I can find some other
movements). There are a bunch of philosophies on how society should
be, i.e. socialism, anarchism, etc.. But nobody has addressed
how we should organize the political process to get there. They just say
go organize.. :)

Right now, our current political system is organized as a representative
democracy. Unfortunately, it cannot function without the aid of
political parties. It takes an enormous amount of resources to get a
candidate into office. And no amount of campaign finance reform is ever
going to change this logistical fact. As long as we have millions of
people voting for one political office, we will always have political
parties.

The problem is that these parties, and the candidates themselves, have
to simplify themselves down to a few basic "issues" so that they appeal
to as many people as possible. But things aren't that simple. The issues
facing society are extremely complex, and cannot be boiled down to a few
generalities. Government is about problem solving. But unfortunately,
our electoral system has nothing to do with finding responsible
officials. The best, brightest, and more trustworthy usually don't run
for public office because they refuse to make the compromise between
doing what's best for the people versus staying in power. Ideally, it
would be nice if doing what was right was the sole factor in staying in
power. But again, trying to convince millions of people that you are
doing a good job takes a lot of people and a lot of money. So the public
officials we are left with are many times those who are willing to "sell
themselves out", so to speak, to "special interests" who will provide
the resources they need to campaign.

But how can they get away with this? Because no one is watching what
they are doing. There is no accountability system in place. Of course,
there are plenty of public interest groups, consumer groups, etc., but
the problem is that these groups focus on one specific set of issues.
They represent only a narrow segment of society, since it takes an
enormous amount of resources to let the general public know, it is very
difficult for these organizations to do anything about the abuses that
are occurring.

To fill this vacuum, the news media have claimed the role as the public
"watchdog", to ensure that the government is doing it's job correctly.
But this is like leaving the wolf to guard the sheep. The news media are
private corporations whose primary concern is making a profit. Informing
the public is secondary, if it is done at all.

So, in answer to this, many people say we need direct democracy. Let us
vote on all the issues. But this solution avoids the original question.
How do we get this directly democratic system functioning in the first
place? We still need some sort of organization that holds the elections,
frames the laws, interprets the laws, enforces the laws, etc. If we
leave these responsibilities up to the control of political parties, why
wouldn't they still try to influence the decisions to their own ends?

This aside, direct democracy has an even bigger problem. With the
enormous amount of knowledge being created every day in our
technological society, how can everyone can be up to date on every
issue? It's not possible. That in itself is a full time job. So knowing
human nature, people are not going to take the time to research these
issues. They will end up using advertising and sound bites to reach
their decisions. We end up being no better off than before, because
money will again lead to influence.

So, it would seem that we need a new style of representative government.
But one that does not need political parties to function. Because in the
end, parties are destructive to society. Parties end up being a corrupt
priesthood who, to keep their power, preach a divisive ideology to turn
the people on themselves. So if representative government can exist, it
must be set up in a fashion as to eliminate the need for political
parties.

-----------

Representative democracy is based on two essential features. One is the
electoral system, where we find qualified, trustworthy people to run our
affairs, and the other is the accountability system, where we can be
informed of what these officials are doing. In our current political
process, both of these systems are seriously flawed.

Our electoral system does not find the best individuals to represent us.
Instead it is the individuals who seek the position. This leaves the
public in the hands of fate, waiting for a responsible individual to
come along. Though this may happen in local government, this rarely
happens in state and national government because nobody can become a
viable candidate without having an enormous amount of resources. Since
most people don't have these resources, they must sell themselves out to
those who have them. Hence, trustworthy individuals will never seek
these positions because they refuse to take part in the system of legal
bribery that is part of getting there in the first place. So by process
of elimination, the people who do get in office are more than happy to
do the bidding of the people or organizations who put them there. The
results, as everyone can see, are disastrous.

The system of accountability is also completely twisted. Access is
bought. Since an elected official represents far more people than he
could realistically talk to, he offers his time up to the highest
bidder. If someone wants an official to hear them out, or would like to
ensure that a decision made in their favor, they can buy it. The
officials can get away with it because they are so far removed from the
people. No one really knows what they are up to.

So how can we organize our society? The answer begins with looking for a
democratic process that works, and asking why. Communities with at most
only a few thousand individuals seem to be able to function
democratically. Why is simply because there are normal human relations
between the people who live there. The electoral process does not
require money or any sort of political organization to function. People
vote for individuals because they know them. They are not influenced by
television ads, or campaign literature, or the comments of the news
media. Accountability exists as well. You can communicate with your
officials because you have access to them. In local government, anyone
in the community can participate. They can go to the town meetings and
ask what is going on and get a response. The local officials can't hide
behind their remoteness from the public. They have to answer to them.
And if they don't listen, it is very easy to let the other people in the
community know about it.

The some extent, our current democratic system used to work for the same
reasons. Years ago, before the television became such a potent political
force, political parties needed a lot of people to help campaign. So in
order to garner this support, the elected officials were forced to
listen to their concerns. Precinct captains and labor organizers would
hold monthly meetings to listen to the concerns of organization members,
and inform them of what is going on. And if people wanted things
changed, the local organizers would let the elected officials know. But
this system has broken down in. People no longer want to be identified
with a narrow organization. As these organizations lost membership and
vitality, so our political process was left to be run by whoever would
be willing to cough up enough money.

So if we want to fix things, we need to bring the human element back as
a permanent part of the political process. In so doing, we not only can
set up a system of accountability, but eliminate the need for political
parties as well.

--------------

The idea is that each community has a liaison between them and the
larger government. So not only do they speak on behalf of their
community, but they are empowered to elect the officials in the
government. If someone in the community has a problem, or wishes to see
some sort of change, there is someone they can turn to who can make the
elected officials listen. Also there is someone keeping an eye on what
is happening higher up. Keeping the people in the community informed as
to what is going on. So government officials are now accountable to
someone. And this system of accountability eliminates the need for
political parties as a means for getting public officials into office.
Since the liaisons deal with the government on a regular basis, they are
in a unique position to evaluate the job that the higher officials are
doing. The high degree of interaction between the lower and higher
levels will mean that campaigning, and hence political parties, will no
longer be necessary. The local liaisons will put people in the higher
positions who qualified and trustworthy for the simple reason that their
job depends on it. And the people in these positions will be judged on
the job they do, not on how much money they were able to raise.

Of course, if there is not a sense of community between the local
liaisons, then this system won't work. A sense of community can only be
fostered by communication. How can a bunch of individuals, spread across
many communities, be in constant contact with each other? Up until now,
this has been difficult. But here technology can be a solution. The
Internet provides a great way to communication between groups of people
who are far apart. Any one who has been part of a Internet discussion
group knows the sense of community that is created. No infrastructure
needs to be created, no great costs need to be incurred. This system is
already in place, is cheap, and it works. The local liaisons will have
the ability to be in touch with each other and various parts of
government. This constant communication will ensure that both the
accountability and electoral system will work efficiently.

So we can envision government having three levels. Local liaisons, a
regional government, and a nation government. The local liaisons elect
and hold accountable the regional officials. The local liaisons also
elect regional liaisons who elect and hold responsible national
officials. Government is structured as a bottom-up hierarchy, where the
lower level of elects the higher level. Since there is a community at
each layer of government, political parties are no longer necessary and
the role of money and special interests is circumvented. Also, the
reverse chain-of-command makes the highest office holders accountable to
someone. They cannot hide what they are doing from the people below
because the lower officials are dealing with the decision made above
every day.

But none of this is possible without having a new way to vote.

---------------

Currently, a few citizens put themselves forward as candidates for
office. We, the voters, each go to the polls and select the one
individual we feel is best qualified. There are a number of flaws with
this way of voting.

The first is that the public is not really involved in the nomination
process. The public is at the whims of fate, waiting for a qualified,
trustworthy individual to put themselves forward to serve the community.
But this rarely happens. Why probably varies from individual to
individual, but it probably has a lot to due with the time and effort
required not only to qualify as a candidate, by filling out paper work
and collecting signatures, but then to try and get the people of the
community to vote for them. Who would go through all the trouble to
become a candidate, and then not put forth all the campaigning needed to
outwit the other individuals vying for the position?

The other problem is we are given only one vote for a group of
candidates. Since we don't want to vote for someone no one else is
voting for, any individuals who do end up running are forced to
campaign, because it the campaigning that gives the candidate the aura
that they have a chance. That voting for them won't be a wasted vote.
The result is that instead of finding the best individual to serve the
community, the election process becomes divisive. This turns off a lot
of individuals from public service.

So how can these problems be solved? First the nomination process must
be turned into an active one. Every citizen has the choice to nominate a
candidate. If a individual receives at least two nominations, they are
put on the ballot. Because it is so easy to get on the ballot, a lot
more people will be willing to run. Hence there is a broad group of
candidates to pick from.

Then election process needs to have more choice. When someone goes to
the booth, they vote for every individual who is running. The candidates
are listened by the number of nominations they received. The voter can
cast one of three votes for each candidate. They can vote for, against,
or stay neutral. The neutral choice counts as a half-vote, giving the
benefit of the doubt that the candidate could do a good job, but not
giving that individual outright support.

(To ensure the incumbent does not need to feel like they need to curry
supporters, they are automatically nominated with the same number of
ballots as the individual who received the highest total nominations.
Also, in order to keep voting from becoming cumbersome, the default
choice for a candidate is neutral. Therefore, the voter only needs to
punch individuals they feel strongly for or against.)

Results are determined by adding the number of nominations received with
the "neutral" and "for" votes. A nomination and a neutral vote are
counted as a half of a "for" vote. The individual who receives the most
votes is elected. In the event of a tie, a run off would be needed.

This system changes the electoral process from a game of winning and
losing, to a rating system, where the one who scores best is elected. It
seeks out neutral individuals who are popular in the community. People
who have more extreme positions will likely register more "against"
votes, making it much harder for them to get elected. This works to
eliminate factions, and transforms elections into a call to service of
the most qualified individuals.

--------------

So what would a government like this look like? We must take the concept
of indirect representation and put it into the mold of separation of
powers. Keeping the three branches, executive, judicial, and
legislative, with a system of checks and balances is good. The
separation of power can even be carried down into the local level,
having one official representing the executive branch, and one
individual representing the legislative and judicial branches. This
allows for a division between action and thought. (As an aside, in some
philosophical traditions, action and power have been feminine traits,
and thought and knowledge masculine ones. A division between thought and
action may lead women to assume a place beside men in governing our
society. Of course, this is just speculation, but I can envision things
turning out like that.)

The executive branch would actually consist of a number of independent
branches. This way power is not centralized into the hands of one
individual. It is really unnecessary to have, for example, the
department of streets and sanitation and the department of education
under the control of the same individual. Having each branch independent
allows for a cleaner division of responsibility. If the education system
is floundering, the person in charge can be booted from office without
having to boot other people as well.

The judicial branch would have the power to appoint judges and
administer the courts. Currently, our court system falls under the power
of the executive branch. This leads to a conflict of interest when the
executive branch gets in trouble.

The legislative branch would undergo the most radical transformation.
Essentially, parliaments are no longer necessary. They were needed at a
time when representatives from each district had to be in one place in
order to deliberate laws. But now, thanks to the Internet, people from
various regions can now effectively debate electronically. If we look at
Congress, the serious deliberation on bills are made in subcommittee,
because it is simply not possible to have a meaningful conversation with
one hundred, let alone four hundred thirty-five, individuals at once. So
if a legislative body has no more than 10 or 20 individuals, a radically
new way of creating legislation will develop, that is very efficient.
The legislative committee would appoint representatives from various
private and public interests to work together to craft a piece of
legislation. After the legislation has been crafted, they would put the
bill up for debate among the regional and local advocates who elected
them. Usenet or a listerv would be more adequate until something better
comes along. (plus this debate would be open to the public). The
legislative committee would then make whatever amendments or changes
based on the feedback that it feels necessary, and would enact it. The
process of hit or miss legislation that we currently have would come to
an end. The legislative process would be very direct. There would be no
wasted debate or effort.

Of course, there are some issues that no one is really empowered to make
a decision on, and to do so would very likely tear the governing system
apart. So, if the legislators elect, instead of voting on a piece of
legislation themselves, they can put these laws up as referendums.

So if we wanted to bring this all together, what would it end up looking
like? Things would turn out like this. Every locality (2000-5000
inhabitants) would elect a Representative (action) and an Advocate
(thought). The Representative and Advocates of each region (2 - 5
million inhabitants) would in turn elect the government for that region.
The Advocates would elect the region's Assembly (legislative) and High
Court (judicial). The Representative would elect the Administrators for
all the executive branches. For the national government, the local
Representatives and Advocates would elect Regional Representatives and
Regional Advocates who would act as liaisons between each region and the
national government. The Regional Advocates would elect the Senate and
Supreme Court, while the Regional Representatives would elect an
Administrator for each national executive branch.

---------

The result is that society ends up governing itself naturally. The
political system figures out on its own the most optimal way to organize
society, without the need for radical movements and ideologies to try to
put things in place when things begin to fall apart. Change happens
gradually, always moving toward a better way of doing things. The better
way is simply that which is to the benefit of the largest number of
people.