Come on in, enjoy the last of the soup and some good music. I've found a new love in Cage the Elephant and think I may have to pick up some of their discs. Also my friend Cenobyte has gotten herself hooked up with some right wing nuts and now her left wing nuts are mixing with them and it's quite a fun little bit of hilarity. And all this political talk has me reminded of a political system I'd much prefer to the one we have now.
So this is what I want to see. First off we're gonna toss out this whole majority rules thing. No one is happy with that. It makes some of the people happy some of the time but beyond that it sucks. It also doesn't work. If the majority enact an action plan that doesn't include everyone then someone gets marginalized and they will act counter to the plan and it won't succeed to it's full potential. Just doesn't work.
Next we're gonna stop calling elected officials our leaders. It goes to their head and they think that just because we voted for them once that means we're giving them our voice for every single issue and that is just not the case. From now on they will be referred to as Speakers. They speak for the individuals who elected them. There is no set term for how long these speakers may serve or have to serve, and they can be removed at any point that the community loses their confidence that the Speaker is working for their best interest.
Next, no more political parties. Communities will pick their speakers not because they follow an ideology but because everyone agrees to have that individual as their leader. Remember this isn't a case of majority rules. EVERYONE has to agree to that person. Total consensus. Trying to convince the majority isn't good enough anymore, you've got to achieve true consensus which means your goal will not be to gain power but to serve your community.
Oh yeah and it means that everyone has to participate. No more not voting. However your voting is limited to just your community. Maybe a group no bigger than 500-1000 people. I'm not sure what size would work best yet, but I'm guessing the smaller the better to start with. Your speaker will then move up and up and up until we have one speaker who will be our 'Voice to the World' but no longer the leader of the country.
Only women will vote on matters involving the military and warfare. I'd love to explain this, but I'm sure if you think about it you'll figure it out. Besides I'd rather hear why you think this is a good or bad idea.
Taxes will now be based on local use first then upwards. We will pool our money across communities if a bigger project is done. This may mean rethinking how our justice system works as well but that's another post.
Does anyone recognize this system yet? This is the system the Haudenosaunee used. Also known as the Six Nations, or the Iroquois Confederacy. They did things this way and held one of the largest sections of North America for a very long time. They were not the only ones who did this. Majority rules was not a part of their way of doing things. It took the consensus of every individual for major changes to their confederacy to change or to do something that would be life or lifestyle changing. Everyone was included.
The drawback to this is that sometimes it takes a little longer to actually work out a plan that everyone is happy with. On the flip side of that once that plan is put into place with everyone pulling for it it happens with amazing alacrity. And happens with a great deal of success.
In case you're wondering a great many First Nations around the Great Lakes region still use this model as how they rule themselves and works quite well. Think about it.
3 comments:
Well, I think it's an interesting idea. I don't think it would work, but I think it's an interesting idea.
I have *always* liked the idea of mandatory voting.
However, I can tell you from experience that consensus does not work. And in a country the size and complexity of ours, I don't think a consensus-style government would serve the people. I don't think we *have* a majority government system, because when less than 50% (or 60%, for that matter) of the populace votes, it's not a majority; it's the majority of a minority. But how do you motivate the populace to be engaged in politics? Other than mandatory voting.
I also like the idea of 'speakers' rather than 'leaders'. Semantic shifts can make a huge change.
The model you've suggested would be unwieldy - if every neighbourhood in Calgary, say, chooses (by consensus, which would never happen) their own speaker, and if you define those neighbourhoods as "500-1000 people", you'd have 1,000 - 2,000 speakers just for one city. You're then supposing that those 1,000 - 2,000 speakers will have consenus on any one issue. And that's just *for the city*.
I think this system works well for small populations or for small geographical areas, but I think it's limited.
I like the proposed tax system. It keeps the money local, where it will see the most use. A percentage of the tax money could be used to buy "Saskatchewan Services" or "Canadian Services", like international trade relations, or military protection. A lot of the power would have to filter down to the municipal level, and it would be more responsive to local needs.
Post a Comment