ITT: We decide on a good succession system

Noocracy FTW.

A board of 8-12 people to govern. No cult of personaility, differents background.

Referundum each quarter to consult the population on specific subject

A self learning AI that always knows what is best gets complete power over everything

>Smooth sailing
Jesus you're stupid.

Considering we not even close to know what a strong AI could be, fuck this, i will never trust it to pilot my toaster.

Kill yourself.

So that is what hell looks like

Adoptive Monarchy, it's the only system that successfully churns out benevolent dictators.

>benevolent
>dictator
Pick one.

This one.

It was working so well up until Fuck Face here decided not to go along with the plan.

Hereditary absolute monarchy
/thread

No.

Did you learn nothing from Rome?

You mean aside from all the other times the Roman system fucked up?

Every time the Empire fucked up it was because they tried to do hereditary, not adoptive. At least until the military gained too much power it was just whoever could afford to pay the legions, or at least claim that they could pay the legions.

I learned massive empires are unsustainable

AI maintenance/update every 5 years.

why can't they be sustained

Democratically elected government that completely mimics the popular will with no power. Behind the scenes 100 experts and power officials who are not elected by anyone but the members of the council make all the decision and "persuade" the Democratic government to enforce their will.

>that pic

I like this idea.

Elected kings
A council of elders
A Council of the Judiciary/magistracy

OH WAIT

>a bunch of greek cities
>super small
>they break up in a couple of years

so minuscle empires are unsustanaible too right?

This is idiotic.
Take the expert consensus on socio-economical-technological-ecological-whateverogical matters at any point in time. They're wrong. And not like, a bit wrong, no, extremely wrong, and there's no reason why people 200 years from now will not think the same about us.
There are no "experts" in matters political like there are experts in physics or chemistry.

100 people are selected randomly and whoever can bench the most is declared god emperor for life.

t. illuminati

No empire is sustainable you retards. There's only so much """greatness""" you can eek out of the backs of the suffering, starving peasantry before fractures happen.

The people vote for experts in their profession, so if you're a doctor you vote for people in the Ministry of Healthcare, if you're a civil engineer you vote for people in the Ministry of Infrastructure, these ministers, being the people with governmental experience, then elect a leader who will handle the executive decisions. If the leader does a bad job than he can be deposed with a 2/3 majority vote by the ministers. Money is kept out of politics, no bribes, sponsoring, fundraising, or donations.

>not randomly choosing officials and direct democracy

>Country is controlled normally by a group of 20 elected officials from a select pool of qualified people who can pass a series of aptitude examinations that ensure advanced understanding of politics, economics etc.
>Said officials are, on top of normal political duties, required to pick a child who shows high aptitude for leadership among the countries population
>Said child is then educated specifically to lead the nation as an appointed 'monarch' in case of emergency or if there's an internal power struggle that threatens civil war.
>The monarch rules the nation until he dies or is deemed unfit to lead by a unanimous vote and ousted by the elected officials.
>Upon his death, the process begins anew and a new child is chosen.

Hello Switzerland.

I like this but instead of each party the male population elects a president of the males and the female population elects a president of the females and they have to have anal sex to be broadcast on CSPAN every day

Yeah especially one we can redpill to exterminate the Jews within a day

That's a huge assumption though

>Perspective leaders are put into a lottery. They rule for 4 years. If they do a bad job, they're assets are seized and they are jailed.

For the US:
>4 citizens chosen at random from each state

>the council of 200 is the legislative body for 4 years.

Since we're stuck with the current two party system:

>Every year the parties nominate ten people, the opposing party's legislative group gets to choose from that pool who will be co-consul for the year. i.e. Repubs nominate ten men, Dems choose from those ten who should be co-consul and vice-versa.

I personally should choose who become the absolute dictator.

I choose myself and whoever is choose to be my successor is the next dictator

Everyone has to vote. Everyone.

what if the dictator abolishes the so-called constitution with his absolute authority? Didn't think this one through did you

this was practiced throughout history and it always ended with a succession of miserable civil wars.

For members of parliament: voting for individuals, and holding them accountable for their planned program (can be kicked out if they voted differently than their campaign).
Lessening the impact of the will of political parties. 3 year term
Requirement to run: Degree
Voted by universal suffrage (high school education is compulsory)

Upper house: MPs represent regions. Regions are strictly administrative divisions, no gerrymandering. Again, voting for individuals and holding them to their campaign. 6 year term
Requirement: At least Master's, residency in the region he/she represents.

Perfect bicameralism.

Now for the executive:
Individual ministers are voted for by the people of their profession.
Requirement to run at least master's, to vote, at least a degree in the field you're voting for.
PM must have a phd in economics or law. Is the head of government, must mediate with the ministers.
5 year term

As for the head of state i'm thinking either a monarch, or president with 7 year term. Mediates between the houses and the executive, signs laws, etc.

That's actually a good plan. I can't see anything wrong with it. Democratic, Technocratic, Fair. Has anyone found a flaw?

this is corporatism

Switch job-holding to finishing high-school and I'd agree with this.

So basically the EU.

here, it was one of the elements behind italian fascism but mussolini purposely failed to implement it properly because he didn't want to share power and because corporatist ideas spooked the economic elite which he became increasingly reliant on

the flaw I find, though, is that the economy is not so static anymore that lawyers or engineers or other kinds of people remain in their professions for life. In earlier industrial societies classes were more rigid than the current white collar service/post-industrial economy we have

This would lead to hundreds of referendums every day. Do you realize how many decisions are made in a government daily?

Yes, because having a bunch of dumb and unemployed people feeling powerless and disenfranchised by their society to boot has always ended well for the society allowing this to happen, and never results in things like, oh I dunno, the Khmer Rouge?

You end up with a bunch of professional class divisions that only serve their own needs, rather than those of society at large. It'd also result in industries effectively self-regulating, which leads to them believing their own lies, which leads things like the 2008 financial crisis.

in a way though it'd institutionalize lobbying. if you made rules of conduct maybe you can balance interests harmoniously? I don't think this system can work along without some kind of legislature that transcends professional/career interests. Maybe there can be bicameral legislature to accomodate this?

I think what you need is a system that self-perpetuates, much like your picture - not by law, but by the natural pressures of necessity.

Which, sadly, gets you exactly what we have now, as this system has developed rather organically, rising up out of a web of mutual and conflicting interests, each fighting for survival. Modern society is simply result of ideological and political evolution, subject to the same sort of haphazard natural selection as your forest.

But if you could artificially engineer similar pressures, to coerce the system towards a specific form, maybe you could create something better that would both self-perpetuate and self-reinforce, and therefore stand the test of time.

Problem is I've no idea how you go about designing such a beast, let alone create the circumstances required, especially without risking the sort of nightmare scenario that so many other utopian experiments have wound up as.

In the end, to really fix things, I think you need to fundamentally change the nature of man himself. Not just his cultural outlook, but his very being, at the individual level. Massive and fundamental human genetic engineering isn't too far off, so maybe that can yet happen, but if it goes wrong, you'd be looking at a nightmare of a sort mankind has hardly even begun to imagine.

>HR employees become the gatekeepers of enfranchisement
fuck no

I suppose, under that profession-class system, you could have an over government that everyone votes for, who in some nationally fascistic way, forces the other branches to work for the good of their nation collectively, rather than each for their own field's interest. Make it an executive branch with veto power over the ministries and the ability to impeach members, and the equivalent of judicial power to determine which measures are and are not in the collective nation's interest, but no legislative power nor power over the cross-ministry elected executive branch. That might mitigate the effect somewhat.

It'd still be a mess though, as each ministry would constantly vying with the others for more power, each, as human nature dictates, perceiving their profession as more important than the others. Plus you get into situations where ministries lay claim to hybrid fields (is cybernetics engineering or medicine?), or new fields arise and declare a need for a new ministry, which the existing ministries would naturally attempt to prevent, leading to discontent. Ministries would effectively become political parties, and as the executive would have to come from one of those parties, you may wind up in a situation where certain ministries deliberately attempt to sabotage the executive's efforts, simply because he's effectively from an "opposing party".

Political systems have to take into account loyalties that inevitably arise from the basic human tendency towards tribalism, and they have to use these tendencies to their advantage. The problem with the profession-class system proposal, is that it seems dead set on doing the opposite: creating teams that wouldn't otherwise exist that would each vye for their own interest, when normally, they'd just do their damned jobs without much in the way of special status or additional loyalties and responsibilities to speak of.

>Our system was pretty great if you exclude all the times it shit the bed.

I came up with one a while back. This is the barebones, and I'm still ironing out the details. There is a highly secure safe in the king's bedchamber. In it is a piece of paper bearing the name of the king's successor. It was put there by the king as soon as his predecessor left the throne. Nobody but the king knows what's on the piece of paper. Two people have the combination to the safe: the King (Who can change his nomination at any time), and the Keeper of the Vault (More on that later.) The keeper is exempt from succession, and not allowed in the safe room except after the death of a king, and when under guard. He is an official whose duty it is to open the safe on the death of the king, and change the code with the new king. He is appointed by the monarch, after which he cannot be removed from office except by his death, or the next king. There's numerous failsafes and redundancies in the system, as well as a vanilla line of succession if all else fails, but I won't post it here, because I'm on my phone.

I like this. But turnout would be shit unless mandatory.

> There is a highly secure safe in the king's bedchamber. In it is a piece of paper bearing the name of the king's successor. It was put there by the king as soon as his predecessor left the throne. Nobody but the king knows what's on the piece of paper.
The Yongzheng Emperor of the Qing dynasty literally did this on account of the terrible succession crises before him. It worked.

yeah, thats why in my view a lower house consisting of professional classes and a popularly elected upper house could work out. The popularly elected upper house would be more like conventional politicians working along party-lines (not sure how many parties would be good in this case) and maybe has power of the purse. They would work with the lower house to draft legislation. The lower house would have different committees according to profession to draft legislation (on behalf of their interest) and an upper house would blunt the most blatant acts of self-promotion. In general, I'd like to see an executive council of 5 or so. The council would be drawn by lot from a list of candidates drawn up by each political party in proportion to their support (according to polls or their proportion in the legislature or in accordance with how many states they control maybe). I prefer executive councils because it'd be more deliberative than a hotheaded leader and there would be a greater pool of shared knowledge. I also think that in a democracy a king-like executive is not good for culture as a hope always arises for a "savior" and presidental elections turn into pageant contests that focus on personality over issues.

The government becomes a publicly traded stock and the shareholders get power depending on what percentage they own

Alternatively the list of candidates to be randomly appointed to the executive would be voted for by the electorate.

you boring faggot

completely random lottery selection of parliament, 500 ordinary citizens from factory workers to business magnates, no elections, 4 year terms