__This document has been communicated to the staff of the Justice section by Tordt Schmidt, Asgardian. We are posting it on his behalf.__ Dear fellow Asgardians I am writing this, because I have concerns about the direction we are heading with current constitutional drafts. I am neither a politician nor ...
__This document has been communicated to the staff of the Justice section by Tordt Schmidt, Asgardian. We are posting it on his behalf.__
Dear fellow Asgardians
I am writing this, because I have concerns about the direction we are heading with current constitutional drafts.
I am neither a politician nor a lawyer and I am not a native english speaker, so I am missing a lot of vocabulary for this. Therefore I am going to use an example to make clear what I want to say.
My main concern is that I am seeing representative democracies all over the world being taken over by groups whose only intentions are their own benefits, may it be power or money or both of it. So if we are setting up another representative democracy, we will be facing the same effect sooner or later.
I am well aware, that my alternativ will have it's own problems, but I think it might better fit the term “democracy”
I would summarise my idea as an “expert panel supported direct democracy”
And here comes the example:
Someone wants a new law to be established.
He writes down the idea and names a number of experts (not lawyers) he thinks would support and refine his idea. These experts will then be assigned with the same number of randomly selected lawyers and normal citizens. The lawyers and citizens shall be half pro and half contra the idea. This panel is then asked to create a draft for that law, they may ask other lawyers and/or experts to join, but they have to keep the level of experts, lawyers and normal citizens equal. The finished draft is then put up for public vote. If it is declined it may be modified and put back to vote. After every third declination an election will be held if the public wants to drop the idea altogether.
Citizens do not have to take part in the public votes, if an election fails to reach the minimum of 30% of the adult population to take part, it is considered a declination, otherwise the result shall be treated as if 100% of the population had voted.
If a drop vote fails the 30% the idea is dropped.
By public votes I mean that every citizen is allowed to vote, not that one's voted option wasn't private.
This way we won't have political parties that can be corrupted, there are no law giving institutions that could be corrupted, every law would have to reach the 30% minimum so the panels will be forced to write drafts that the public will be able to understand.
Ministers would only be speakers.
I hope you can understand my idea and it finds support.