Training / set-up a new Government
==================================
Top-down method:
---------------
A new Government has different things that can be trained for, such
as local Government and National Government, the various Courts of
Justice, the King or Queen and the Electoral Committee.
King or Queen:
- - - - - - -
Since it is a method of the proposed Constitution ( www.jhwh.be/law )
that
the King or Queen takes control over representative Government when the
representatives are in chaos, and since the Government representatives
initially are in chaos because the whole representative mechanism doesn't
exist yet, it makes sense to first elect a King or Queen, so as to have
a fall-back Government in any case. The King or Queen is a singular focus
point in the Nation, even if it does not assume power. It can often be
useful to have a focus point and have it emanate some widely heard
opinions
and recommendations, even if the opinions/recommendations are moderately
competent. Like a car drives better with a steering wheel regardless of
who is behind it, and once someone is the m***** have a mechanism of
affecting its direction. Without a steering wheel everyone could be
screaming left and right, but nobody is being heard, which leads to a
danger of violent groups assuming local control.
Judges
- - -
After the King/Queen has been elected it is potentially a good idea to
set up the Judges so that the Law is operational, and the police can
carry on maintaining order and Justice. Finding Judges should not be
very difficult. Since the Judges do justice based on existing law their
activities are predictable and help to restore calm in the Nation. They
regulate the power of the King or Queen, and help with the setting up
of representative Government because that is described in the law.
There is a problem with this: according the Constitution the
representative
Government selects the Judges, but there is not any yet.
Representative
- - - - - - -
After this the representative Government local and National can be set
up, which is probably by far the most difficult process. Because it is
the most difficult it will be helpful if there are already systems
working that are easier to set up: electoral-committee, King/Queen,
Judges.
King or Queen:
-------------
The King or Queen is the oldest of the 10 members in the Electoral
Committee (EC). Is the EC (Electoral Committee) elected, then the
King or Queen is known. The task of the EC is to set the date for
elections for the National Government. It always has to have a
strength of at least 6 members in order to make election date decisions,
therefore if 5 step down there is no EC, causing EC elections, which may
result in a different make up of the EC producing a different King or
Queen. The EC regulates who is King or Queen. The EC must achieve its
full strength of 10 members at least every 30 years in the constitution
proposal ( www.jhwh.be/law ). Because the King or Queen ages, his/her
chance of again becoming oldest in the EC increases, as does this
chance increase with being more widely known and popular. The King or
Queen therefore has a quite stable position, which is the point of
having a King or Queen.
1. Ask some people, at least 10, to make themselves available for
election into the EC. When training for this and having fewer
then 10 people reduce the size of the EC to at least 2. It
should be known when people are born in order to determine
who is oldest.
2. Every person who got votes but has not made it into the top 10
(or top 2 if the EC size is reduced, etc) can give their received
votes to someone who did make it into the top 10.
3. The difference between the person having won most votes and having
won second-most votes has to be computed.
4. The person who has most votes can now give these votes to anyone
he/she likes, someone in the top 10, someone who was on the election
list to be elected for the EC, or someone else entirely.
5. After that the persons who are the top 10 of having most votes are
the EC.
6. The oldest person of those 10 must be found: that is the King or
Queen.
Judges:
------
Determining the Judges is a procedural conflict because the
representative
Government determines who is a Judge. On the other hand it is probably
very simple to find people who want to be Judges and who have been Judges
before or who are sufficiently aware of the law to tem****arily act as
Judges.
The procedural conflict can be solved by having the King/Queen assume
all representative power, which is legal because of practical
representative
chaos (they do not do their job). Then the King/Queen can appoint the
necessary Judges or decide how judges are to be found. If the King/Queen
assumes this power tem****arily there will be new King/Queen elections
after the King/Queen gives this power to the Government representatives,
or maximum after one year.
This seems to be a good mechanism, and immediately puts the King or
Queen to good use. The King or Queen will assist in the setting up of
the necessary Courts of Justice: the factual Courts, the appeal Courts,
and the singular National Law Court. The Law Court handles interpretation
of the Law; it is the supreme Court of Justice also handling the case
whether the King or Queen legally has assumed Government power "because
the representatives are in chaos."
These tasks are all rather straightforward, even if the King or Queen
does not know what to do it should be easy enough.
In a training exercise some people would volunteer to the King or
Queen to be Judges in the 3 different Courts. At least one for the
factual court, which determines who is lying and not, has something
been stolen, is a legal procedure followed, etc. One for the appeal
court where the Justice in the factual Court can get a second
examination. At least one for the Law Court which interprets the
Law and handles the most difficult Constitutional cases. The Judges
all wear the same clothes which ought to relate their objectivity
and lack of personal preferences. In a training exercise one could
give them all a shawl of the same color.
Representative
--------------
This is the difficult one. But now at least there are Judges, there
is a King or Queen, there is an EC with the power to order elections
immediately. One could say: at this point the EC orders elections,
sets a date for that. In the Constitution proposal this is a sovereign
task of the EC, it can not be appealed or changed, not even by the EC.
It will have to be carried out. Hopefully the EC will make a wise
decision and allow for the People to understand the mechanisms beforehand
so that it would actually work out. The EC decides per public majority
vote, the King or Queen has one of these votes.
vote groups:
- - - - - -
The basic voting principle is that people group per 100 people, they
elect someone to organize a vote among them, and through that vote
they produce one representative, representing these 100 persons. They
can choose someone who is not in their group, therefore they can for
instance vote for someone who has made it known he/she would like to
get elected by some group.
The person that organizes the vote ("voter group housekeeper") should
ideally make a record of who voted in that group, these records can
later be verified to prevent people to organize in multiple groups
sending in too many representatives.
In a training exercise one could reduce the size of these voter-groups
to at least 2 persons per group. Everyone can participate in them, also
the Judges and the EC. There is only a minimum size per voter group,
but every groups produces one representative.
If this process proves hard for the People it can be assisted by
helping people establi****ng groups of 100 or more, even to invite
people in in exchange for coffee/tea or soup, who haven't voted.
It is not necessary that everyone votes. Only people who are
interested need to vote. In theory this may produce a thin Government,
then that is the way it is. It can always be changed both ways if
the People want it. A voter group can always change their representative
any moment, people who have not yet voted can organize later and send
in their representative later, people who have voted can also retrieve
their representative and not send a replacement. The representative
Government is a dynamic business, not everything depends on that
one voting moment. Then again: in practice it takes effort to change
the representative, a new vote must be organized by that voter group.
Changes in representative Government will not constantly happen on
a large scale, presumably.
Now everyone willing has determined a representative, someone they
could know and have met personally, the bond voter and representative
is strong, mutual knowledge high.
local government:
- - - - - - - -
The representatives are now to group in groups of 50 or more, forming
local Government (in a training one could reduce this size to at least
4.) This is flowing from geographic proximity of the voter groups. If
none can be determined the representatives can select a location for
themselves, either where they work or live, or fantasy in a training
exercise. Once the groups of representatives have coalesced, they each
are to elect a chair person, who will only chair meetings but has no
vote in decisions. Once that is done each groups determines its own
name, and seals that procedure with the question whether everyone is
in agreement that the procedure was followed correctly. That should
ideally yield a unanimous agreement, from then that local Government
has been formed: it is the legal local Government with associated power.
If one local government ends up with a very large amount of delegates
*note*), there are two options: split into multiple local Governments
each with a different territory, or to group within that group of
delegates in 50 groups of delegates, each of which works the same way
as a voter group: determine someone who will run the vote in the group,
elect a representative. That yields 50 representatives/delegates over
a larger area, 50 is a number of people who can have a meaningful
debate and make decisions, reducing size so it can work. How the various
smaller delegate groups work they can determine for themselves, some
might leave the one chosen in charge, others might rotate constantly,
others might even want to decide things by their own majority vote and
have their representative react to that.
national government:
- - - - - - - - - -
All these representatives chosen by voters are to be divided into 50
groups, each group should have (about) the same amount of
representatives,
they are grouped geographically. It is in principle the responsibility
of the delegates to do this grouping, however the Queen or King can make
recommendations or decisions if in power. (In a training exercise
one could reduce the amount of groups to 4.)
These groups of representatives choose from between themselves one
representative for the entire group, this again can be done by first
electing someone who will run the vote. Once those representatives have
been chosen, have come together, they are to elect a chair person.
This chair person will not have a vote, but who is the chair person
can be changed later. The same things happen as with the local
Governments:
they decide on a name, and decide whether the procedure has been met.
At that point they become the national Government with the associated
power.
government procedures:
- - - - - - - - - - -
The government can not simply debate and make decisions: it has to
put up a public agenda, and debate those points. A point has to be
at least 7 days on the agenda before it can be discussed. A point
to change laws must be longer on the agenda: for 2 month. Only
emergencies can be discussed immediately, and what should be on the
agenda.
King or Queen, again:
--------------------
If the above has happened to satisfaction of the Law Court, if anyone
were to challenge the King or Queen its rule over the Government, the
combined Judges of the Law Court will determine that the King or Queen
is no longer in possession of this power: the `state of chaos' has ended.
That implies re-election of the EC, because the King or Queen is always
re-elected after having taken over Government power (Constitution
proposal, article 1.4.a: "One month after the end of the state of chaos,
new elections for the Electoral Committee are being held (...)")
Therefore the King or Queen will be elected again which means EC
elections,
the same as described above. No doubt if the Queen or King has done a
good
job she/he stands a chance of again becoming the Queen or King.
Done:
----
From then on the Government has been established, it can now solve the
problems that it is to solve. This would initially be to establish and
consolidate the DAVID legal system in the Nation in some form or the
other.
That requires: distribution system for natural resources, establi****ng
the correct owner****p for already existing companies, initiating and
managing the financial infrastructure and setting up its potential private
sectors. Once that is done the task of Government becomes carrying out
the will of the People.
training:
- - - -
For a full scale training needed: 50 for national Government, implies
50 local Government sectors meaning at least 50 distinct local
Governments.
That requires at least 50 representatives per local Government at 100
voters per representative: 50 local gov. * 50 representatives each *
100 voters per representative = 50 * 50 * 100 = 250 000 persons *note**).
That would yield a very realistic exercise, as the group is so large
that genuine mass problems would occur. Electing a Queen or King first
to reduce the lack of coordination may seem right, but how do you out
of nowhere start an election with 250 000 persons ? In a way that already
requires the existence of some coordination, which is precisely what
would be missing at first. Somehow the whole group is going to vote on
a list of people, but who even knows who they are voting for, nobody
knows all 250 000 persons.
One idea is to find the oldest people, because it is easy to find the
oldest and wisest people. Bring them together, and make them organize
the vote: They could determine who stands on the ballot, so that voters
would place a mark by a name and it would be clear who that person
is because it is a ballot made in advance. That way the votes can be
counted properly, which is hard if people write names on paper out of
their own initiative. To get on the ballot different people would need
to present sufficient sup****t of people to the oldest and wisest group.
Those people with most sup****t get on that ballot, up to a certain total
amount of people to be determined by the oldest and wisest then.
From then on the election can be held in a coordinated way, counted
and the procedure run through, yielding an EC and Queen or King. From
then on the group has a defined single person focus and the mass problem
could have been solved.
It would presumably be an idea that those on the ballot in some way
present themselves to the wider group, although in principle that is
not even necessary.
I don't know whether this set up would work on a National scale: can
you gather the oldest and wisest together and have them determine
a ballot ? That would already be hundreds of thousands of people,
all across the Nation and often unable to move. But one could select
those oldest and wisest people who are willing to come and do that
task. It is not a very difficult task and really the main thing is
to determine a location, a point of focus, from which an election
can emanate across the wider group. In a sense all the oldest and
wisest have to do is sit around the camp fire, and ask some younger
people to please get it done. If the oldest and wisest decide
against the election, one could go ahead with it anyway: the task of
creating a point of focus has been achieved, the election can be
coordinated from there. :-) The oldest and wisest can offer their
wisdom if they so choose, but if they don't then so be it. The
im****tant thing is that the oldest and wisest have a good time.
A minimum training needed: 4 people in the national council to make
1 chairman and 3 able to make majority vote decisions, 4 national
councils imply 4 geographic areas meaning 4 local Governments at
least. Each local Government can do with 4 people, so that each
representative is elected say by 3 people able to make a majority
vote (let's say that in a tie seniority rules). That makes: 4
local gov * 4 delegates in each * 3 voters per voter group: 4 * 4
* 3 = 48 persons. 10 of those double as EC who can't be elected
into local/national representative governments (that is illegal for
the EC), and minimum 3 double as the judges.
realistic training:
- - - - - - - - -
A more reasonable training: scaled down 1:10. Voter groups of 10
persons instead of 100. Government councils with 5 instead of 50
persons minimum. At minimum this requires 5 distinct local
Governments to group in one of the 5 national sectors: 5 * 5 * 10
voters: 250 persons. When there are a few more persons some of the
voter groups have more then 10 persons, if there are significantly
more people some local Governments have more representatives because
you have more total number of voter groups, if you have much more
people you can end up with more then 5 local Governments. But
you still have to divide those local Governments in 5 sectors.
Unless you decide you can run the exercise with more persons in the
(national) council(s). The EC probably does not have to be reduced
in size, that election could be done full scale. Typically: the
more people, the more voter groups, the more representatives, the
more local Governments. But you don't get more delegates per council
and you don't get more sectors voting for national Government councel
(CC). A 10-5 scheme can deal with 250 persons or more.
It may be a good idea to spread this exercise out over many
days, there is no reason that it should be run in a matter of
hours when all are assembled on some field somewhere. A useful
aspect of having the exercise go through in the midst of real
life and spread out over days is that it is more realistic. How
do voter groups meet up ? How do representatives find each other ?
How does one know where when to vote, who are the candidates
and why ? Doing all that in a larger area of many people who have
no clue this training is being done and have never heard of these
things presents realistic problems that would occur when doing it
for real.
A second im****tant benefit of the lower volume, spread out
exercise: less vulnerable to state terrorism. If one were to
assemble 250 000 strong in an area "to train for setting up of
democratic Government," those people currently having control
over Government might not be able to resist the urge to react
with violence, either at that point or by gathering intelligence
for later violent activities. Keeping the training small, not
making lists of who participates, ignoring some of the rigors
of voter-group voter verification, this could help to reduce
potential dangers during and after exercises. It should be noted
that the whole affair is not meant as a coupe, much to the contrary
of what todays Governments are used to doing whenever they get the
chance. It is only supposed to go through when the majority of
the entire Nation is already in explicit sup****t. Secondly: a
person that participates in this exercise is doing nothing more
but participating in an exercise. Some people practice shooting
with arrows, some of these people may later use those skills to
fight crime, others to commit crime. Participating in this exercise
as such does not imply loyalty to anything at all. People may simply
participate in such an exercise because they are curious or bored,
and may later decide that they think it is a bad idea all in all.
Doing an exercise would be a great way to find out why (if) it is
wrong (people and their assumptions ...).
Bottom-up method:
----------------
The reverse method is to start with the local voter-groups, let them
establish local Governments, then the National Government. Then that
National Government appoints the judges and sets up the EC elections,
establi****ng a Queen or King. If the People are capable of doing that
out of the blue on their own initiative, then that could also work.
This method slowly builds a focus from the ground up, therefore the
initial problem of determining focus does not exist. Perhaps this
second method is a good second training exercise (or first). With these
two trainings done, those people having participated should have a rather
good idea about what this scheme means (whether it works, what it needs
to make it work), and do it in the real, being able to help more people
getting it done.
See http://www.jhwh.be/~joshb/sheet2.txt
for some bottom-up default
coordination ideas, which establishes some locations and times for
people to meet, reducing the initial problem of how local voters and
delegates can find each other.
Further training:
-----------------
See www.jhwh.be/~joshb/david-sim.html for a simulation of the DAVID
economy model, which could also be converted into a training.
See also www.jhwh.be/~joshb/aksie/newretailbanking.txt on how that
DAVID simulation could be outfitted with a fiat money system. A
DAVID economy model training will be quite hard to do since before
soil has a real meaning you are typically growing crops on it.
On the other hand this DAVID model training can be done on a smaller
scale, since it merely involves: a soil distribution system, exchange
money system, social investment system, democratization of businesses.
This could already be attempted with 10 persons. The remaining point
in DAVID: democratic Government, was trained for above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
*note*) The words `delegate' and `representative' mean the same
thing.
*note**) When a government representative is chosen to become part of
the National Government, but there were only 50 delegate in
that local Government which is the legal minimum, what then ?
If there are only 49 delegates in that local Government, it
is no longer a legal Government council ! (I just realize this
problem now by the way...). A solution can be: that delegate
which is elected into the National Government remains a member
in the local Government she/he is in. If there are only 50
delegates
in that local Government then at least most of the time they
would convene with 49 members, one of which is the chair person
(48 voting members). This would be a sort of dispensation,
pretending that the Nationally elected member is still a member
of the local Council thereby making the 50 members requirement,
only that member is absent a lot (or all the time). There is not
much difference between 50 and 49 debating people, a Government
council can make decisions with 49 persons. When there are more
delegates in that council available the gap can be filled in
easily, bringing the total people deciding again to 50 or more.
The voter group who stood behind that delegate would be losing
its local representation, and have it replaced by a National
representation. If that is unwelcome that representative could
be forced by its voter-group to either remain local, or find
a new voter group to sup****t him/her at a National level. That
presumably won't be too difficult: it only takes 100 persons in
that 50th sector of the Nation, producing by definition one
local Government representative that coalesces in one of the
Government councils.
[ http://www.jhwh.be/~joshb/aksie/training.txt
]
You think this world will go on forever as it has been going ?
This world will either be replaced by people willing to do the
necessary work, or it would eventually self destruct one way or the
other. How is that ? Because it is a world of war and fundamental
economic injustice always again producing war. You can't maintain
this level of "evil" in a high tech world, it simply can't happen.
The only reason this world survived was that it didn't have the
capacity yet to destroy itself (or transform into something even
more disastrous). But now it does, already for some time (about 40
years). Get over it, and get ready to replace the current failed
order. It doesn't have to be tough, it doesn't have to be bloody.
If you train for it, that could make it go smooth and quick. That
translates into good concequences. It is 100% democratic, meaning
that if a majority doesn't like it after it has been done, they
have many ways of quickly undoing/changing it by legal procedure.
--
_ _ /_\ _ _ http://www.jhwh.be
sign petition for Democratic
\ /v`vvv\ / Authorities Ventures Investments Demarcations
/_\_#_#_/_\ constitution today: http://www.jhwh.be/petition
\ / #157 http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/no-id-theft.html
|
