my idea of democracy
to create a new law ~>
- collect at least 100 signatures, digital or otherwise for your proposed law
- submit the proposed law to a local political officer, whereby it enters the system
- proposed law is put up for public scrutiny on the government website
- the new law then competes for its survival
in a period not to exceed two weeks, the public votes on the new law, yes, no or amend
- garner more than 1000 no votes and the law dies
- garner more than 1000 amend votes and the author gets the chance to modify said law for re-assessment
- garner more than 1000 yes votes and your proposed law becomes a bill
- the new bill enters the next echelon, whereby it floats to the top of the system
- the bill is assessed for constitutional and international law validity
- the bill is put to the peoples vote via the website
- 30 days of voting occurs - yes, no, amend
- garner more than 150,000 yes votes and it becomes law with a twilight clause, (ie the law remains in place for a period of two years unless it is revoked, or voted on again to become permanent)
- garner more than 75,000 no votes - bill dies
- garner more than 75,000 amend votes and its a rebuild
Problem with something like this is -
a) the sheer number of laws folks will try to put through, it would have to be very, very carefully filtered and managed to make sure we don't end up with some seriously silly or flat out WRONG laws. there is also a chance that some vocal minorities could push through some shit legislation, that's why the built in twilight clause is a good idea.
b) it makes politicians effectively extinct overnight, ergo, no sane politician is going to vote himself to death
c) getting the numbers right - how much consensus do you need to build at each level to progress. This is one real devil to be found in the details.
- collect at least 100 signatures, digital or otherwise for your proposed law
- submit the proposed law to a local political officer, whereby it enters the system
- proposed law is put up for public scrutiny on the government website
- the new law then competes for its survival
in a period not to exceed two weeks, the public votes on the new law, yes, no or amend
- garner more than 1000 no votes and the law dies
- garner more than 1000 amend votes and the author gets the chance to modify said law for re-assessment
- garner more than 1000 yes votes and your proposed law becomes a bill
- the new bill enters the next echelon, whereby it floats to the top of the system
- the bill is assessed for constitutional and international law validity
- the bill is put to the peoples vote via the website
- 30 days of voting occurs - yes, no, amend
- garner more than 150,000 yes votes and it becomes law with a twilight clause, (ie the law remains in place for a period of two years unless it is revoked, or voted on again to become permanent)
- garner more than 75,000 no votes - bill dies
- garner more than 75,000 amend votes and its a rebuild
Problem with something like this is -
a) the sheer number of laws folks will try to put through, it would have to be very, very carefully filtered and managed to make sure we don't end up with some seriously silly or flat out WRONG laws. there is also a chance that some vocal minorities could push through some shit legislation, that's why the built in twilight clause is a good idea.
b) it makes politicians effectively extinct overnight, ergo, no sane politician is going to vote himself to death
c) getting the numbers right - how much consensus do you need to build at each level to progress. This is one real devil to be found in the details.