The current Democratic system has become unacceptable. Here is an idea.
A nice variant would be this (it’s a bit contrivied but it might work)
1. You can vote any time. By voting you select another person – this can be anyone and express that vote for that person. This vote is secret. Voting does NOT occur in rounds – i.e. you can change your vote, say, every month or so. It isn’t called a vote as such – it is ‘electoral sponsorship’. All who are such elected are regarded as ‘tier 2’ people. i.e. you elect another person you’d trust with being responsible. Can be anyone – a popular singer, your mom, obama, anyone. Everyone is electable, whether they want to or not. Those who are elected with two votes pass to round 2. Voting is secret in all stages.
2. Tier 2 ‘sponsored’ people who receive 2 votes also express their electoral sponsorship. They can likewise withdraw their support, and change it. In the second round these people (which will be about 15-30% of the country) do the same – they in turn ‘express support’ for someone of their own ranks. They each have one vote. At some point only electable people (i.e. people who openly claim they want to govern) remain. There may also be requirements for running for certain offices; i.e. a certain level of training, but for actual parliament anyone should be able to qualify.
3. This proceeds in sequential rounds. The last ones remaining, i.e. the ones with the most votes at any time enter parliament. There should be a certain methodology to this, but all in all it should be fairly sure only the people most trusted and regarded as most respectable and responsible will be elected.
Parliament is hence composed of voting people. These votes are not organized per year – they occur continuous. To stay in parliament you need active support! If you lose sponsorship, you have to leave parliament after a set amount of time – say six months. So there will be a constant flow of people into parliament and out of parliament. Coalitions will be subject to constant public scrutiny. If the state enacts unpopular policies they need considerable support from the populace to push through these laws.
Also – to run for any job you might have to have a certain ranking of ‘popular approval’ and have to have scored several sequences of consecutive votes. A judge might have to have passed a certain number of approval votes to be able to function as a judge. People who do not receive the required prestige can not be, for example, be boss of police (or just police for that matter!) or act as major. A major who loses support at a certain tier of support may lose his or her job.
This mechanism should be tweaked in such a manner it produces a combination of stability as well as democratic oversight. Extending terms beyond the above (arbitrary) 6 months might make the system somewhat more resilient against demagogues and populists, but it may also keep some very popular but grossly incompetent politicians glued to their seat. On the other hand, a certain level of stability may be required to govern a country and take necessary yet impopular measures. But the good thing is this mechanism would be based on [b]trust[/b]. People don’t vote for a politico unless that person evokes trust in a solid slice of the population.
Government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around. This is a merciless system for incompetence.
1. everyone becomes a personal factor in politics. Everyone can be voted for. Nobody has to vote. Everyone can be deemed ‘trustworthy’ and voted to the next round
2. this allows for very flexible and fluid political organizations
3. politicians can run on special agendas
4. there is a very direct mechanism to get rid of politicians that lose support. Politicians have to make damn sure they don’t lose touch with their middlepersons, and the middlepersons in turn themselves need backing. An electoral pyramid of support can collapse before you know it!
5. Democracy would now be totally in the hands of the masses. VERY interactive and direct.
Imagine the day you find yourself one day in tier five or six in such a system. You’d have actual power, and it would be evidence lots of people respect your opinion and rationality and ability to select a qualified leader. You would actually be able to lobby for important things.