I want to hear your experimental ideas for forming a government and society no matter how stupid...

little functional relevance, you are not deciding who should occupy a position, just polling opinions
An industry would develop to scam them out of their money or otherwise get them to spend it unwisely. There are more efficient ways to spend that money in welfare.
Similar arbitrary changes imposed on people (ignoring the intricacies of agriculture and people's lives) to the cultural revolution, would probably see similar nonsense arise.
Sound like that black mirror episode "nosedive"

>the nation's top priority for the coming half decade is finding out what colour this dress is
I just don't understand why you'd want to give that kind of power to the moronic masses whos political attention is nonexistant beyond 'gotcha' articles and whatever movement is the fad of the month.

>Any public servants will receive direct payment for their services from service users, thereby eliminating the need for taxation.
Sounds exactly like bribes.

If you seriously think that people will vote for a debate on the colour of a dress (its blue) by their elected and paid for government then why even bother having a democracy to begin with? Choosing a candidate would be done with just as uninformed an opinion as the dress.

intelligent people are not necessarily good or properly educated people
would present obstacles to a modern economy of scale, very quickly localities would lower their standards for "ingraining" "merchants" to prevent obstacles to businesses and try to stop them going under

local govs would also quickly get to together to set up national defence and other nation-wide projects, disagreements in would result in factions boycotting each other

>Any public servants will receive direct payment for their services from service users, thereby eliminating the need for taxation.

The local police will literally start going door to door extorting you for money and if you refuse you will get your house burglarized. Police will even stop you for a traffic search that will waste your time until you give them a bribe to fuck off.

Similar scenario for fire fighters and all relevant organizations.

I dont think you thought this through

No one becomes Prime Minister, President, Chief of Staff, etc... without some degree of intelligence. No one in any important country on this planet. Even in a shitty 3rd world country, the African dictator is probably one of the smarter people in his land.

Intelligence by itself is not a guarantee of success.

I think its more of a payment for service. Like the sanitation guy gets paid directly by the bloke who wants to have his shit disposed of. Or teachers are paid directly instead of by the state (as in a state run model say).
Because elected officials will need to have a means of main employment and will only be responsible for shit like dispute resolution, they hopefully will not be subject to hardcore bribary.

>Choosing a candidate would be done with just as uninformed an opinion as the dress
That's literally how elections work today. People vote for parties that they've always voted for, if they were read the party program of an opposition party but were told it was 'their' party they'd say it sounded fantastic regardless of what it actually contained etcetra. People live in echo chambers and are fiercely loyal to parties they've never properly investigated, but it's the default party of their social cliqué so that's what they and all their peers will vote for anyway.

Look at the 2016 American presidental elections and tell me it's anything but a popularity contest. 90% of people don't know what a fucking Benghazi is, they've already picked a side and are just egging their candidate on.
>why even bother having a democracy to begin with?
Universal suffrage was a mistake

Political Parties should be abolished

Its fine if a coalition rallies around specific issues but it should be temporary.

Well because everything is based locally, I think you'd know the cop and his family, and so he probably they wouldn't want to piss you off because then you could easily neglect X or Y service that you provide them. The idea is that you interconnect people so that they would be inconvenienced if they were jerks in such a way. Ideally, therefore there would be no cops.

This is an idea I've had kicking around in my head for a few months

I'd want to see legislation devolved to private, industry-specific parliaments made up of key stakeholders. It's an idea I've been thinking of for a while, basically split three ways between the owners of the means of production, the workers and unions, and a third segment made up of citizen interest groups, experts, economists, etc. to break deadlocks between the worker and the business owner.

So for instance, the medical industry could have:
>Big Pharma and owners of hospitals, pharmacies, etc. on the 'owner' side
>Nurses, allied health, doctors, and unions on the 'worker' side
>Government economists, university researchers, and #DUDEWEED Group for Legalisation of Drugs on the third side

You'd have parliaments that covered major, domain-specific sectors like education and research, construction and utilities, hospitality, banking and finance, etc.

There'd be some sort of petition system probably similar to the Swiss referendum system, where say a two-thirds vote could dissolve the industry parliament and return their legislative powers to the government, or two-thirds of a public vote could force the government to relinquish legislative powers to a newly-created industry parliament.

Basically it's a way so that people can be politically involved in their specific interests, without shitting up general politics, because democracy as it is today, you simply vote for a candidate but you might only agree with half of what they say. It also means that politicians can't take as much credit for shit they didn't do, because politicians are scumbags and should all be... Treated with respect...

Trigger warning that image, damn it.

Number and concentration of political parties are a direct result of whatever voting scheme decides elections.

Better to devise an ideal election system, then the "natural" types of political parties will form to game the system.

Yes, definitely I agree that the modern reality of a naturally globalised economy would probably make this system not-feasible. But i wonder if there's any happy solution.

I was thinking a Monarchy with a parliament, with parliament governing as in a democracy but the Monarch has absolute power and is there to observe and make sure corruption doesnt rot the government. He can involve himself in anything he wants and veto parliaments decisions.
Also a strong military is important so 2 year service is required.

I do actually like the idea of a clear, transparent plan for the government to undertake, but i'm not sure if it should be open to a vote, instead, why not attempt to form a culture where politicians do set out their plans for the X number of years they'll be in office, when and how they'll implement things, and have third party agencies that hold them to account and a checks and balances system, it would be much better than mere promises with little planning behind them, make the election process a part of being in office, not merely the act of getting elected independent of the running of the state.

So then who enforced legislative decisions? Wouldn't that be government? You'd run the risk of government vetoing both other parliament's.

Interesting though.

So exactly like any Commonwealth country but with compulsory military service? Yeah it works pretty well in Australia imo. Whitlam and such.

>So then who enforced legislative decisions? Wouldn't that be government? You'd run the risk of government vetoing both other parliament's.
Well, it'd be the police and judiciary, same as today. I have other ideas to divest government control on that, but it's not nearly as well developed in my mind.

I'm also Australian, and working from that perspective. I assume you're talking about a presidential veto, which doesn't really exist here. If it gets passed by parliament, there's nothing the leader can really do.

A republic where people in positions of power are allowed only the social benefits (such as Healthcare and Legal opportunities) that the poorest demographic of the realm can afford, of which is updated via a country wide and mandatory census every X years conducted by an unaffiliated and uninvolved third party. Those in power are not allowed to have private social benefits, and must shed them before they are legally allowed to campaign for office.

Interesting but it could get complicated with the Health Parliament, the Military Parliament, the Judicial Parliament... etc... People have a hard time focusing on one topic at a time, if there are 4 or 5 occurring the people would not be able to keep track I believe.

What would the main government government do?

An Absolutist regime? Would there be ANY checks on the monarchs power? If there is an it is a constitution then overtime the role of the monarch will become largely ceremonial. If not then whats stopping some retard fucking everything up with royal prerogative?

Create a chemical and nutritional stack that contains all the antidepressants/stimulants/vitamins/caffine/whatever that creates peak physical and cognitive function. Mandate this regimen in all citizens. something something gladiator games.

>implying the monarch has any power in australia

To be able to vote, you must
>Be over 25 years of age
>Be a citizen
And most importantly, go through a year or two worths of training, much like boot camp is now, to make sure that you're deemed mentally fit to vote.
This camp would be free to attend, and the only privilege gained from it is the right to vote. It'd be extremely tough, and as said, would take up a year or two of the persons life, so it is a huge commitment. This ensures that only the people interested in politics with the nescecary mental faculties will be able to decide.

I would take the elective aspects of it and turn it more towards a public speaking forum if you will. An officially sanctioned and funded organization for facilitating debates on various subjects ailing the nation.

Experts, philosophers, industry magnates, leaders of movements get to debate popular topics to sway public opinion. Every Sunday have 3-5 separate topics randomly chosen.

>People have a hard time focusing on one topic at a time, if there are 4 or 5 occurring the people would not be able to keep track I believe.
That's kind of the point, when it comes to voting, most people don't care about most issues, only a few specific issues.

>What would the main government government do?
Same as what it does now, minus the devolved powers. It's not like those powers need to exist anyway, I'd imagine some sectors would prefer not to take direct control of their own legislation and regulation, because it would be a lot of extra work for them.

>keep the general public poor and desperate for work
>nobody but the rich elite can now afford to throw away 2 years to be allowed to vote
>it is now the USA except somehow you made it even worse

If you personally disagree with a law you should be allowed to ignore it.

Okay bear with me here, i know it sounds a bit wonky.

There is a vote and political parties are assigned points based on the number of votes they received.

Political parties can then "bid" to be head of a particular government department and get to set the agenda there. Those who win get points deducted but those who have not get to carry their votes to a later position.

The lesser ministries go first until we get to the head of state position. So if you want to you could blow your points on collecting many ministries but give up the position of president or you could save up for one special ministry. So the conservatives might want to spent alot on the military or the greens save up for the environment.

The Parliament still proceeds as usual with the votes even if a party wins zero positions. But the ministries will have to deal with whatever legislature comes out our parliament.

Yeah I'm Australian as well. I like it, but in my opinion departments of government really have the opportunity to slow down or obscure legislative requirements through their portfolios if it benefits them. So id be interested to hear your elaborated thoughts.

I'm pretty sure it'd be a solid investment for most poor people if they didn't have to support themselves or their children while in this camp.
Similarly, it's common sense that companies would favour someone that spent the nescecary time in the camp over someone that did not, considering that it means that the ones that passed it are disciplined and clever and just in general a good employee to have.

Well the governor general fired the prime minister back in the 70s soooo...

>but in my opinion departments of government really have the opportunity to slow down or obscure legislative requirements through their portfolios if it benefits them
I don't really understand what you mean.

But a lot of the problems with government departments is due to the minister in charge of that portfolio and their direction to the department, which would be absent in this case.

>rich elite see some people are going to voting camp
>Blackball them from any job that lets them earn more than a meager subsistence livingwhen they get out to preserve the status quo

Direct democracy on the local level, representative democracy on the federal level.
No taxes, just donations from people after the direct local democracy votes that something should be done and a budget is (directly) voted.
Alternatively, if you have taxes, only people who are net payers, as in they give more money than they take in various benefits, can vote.

In a primitive moneyless society, manhours can be used for tax and barter, and the state can vouch for any transactions of manhours.

>you have to work 60 hours on this bridge project because of taxes
>you trade 20 hours of garden work to the roof guy to fix your roof

>No, we must not have good and able worker bees in our company! Think of the economic mobility! We must work against these able bodied plebs so that they don't make double their wage and still a tenth of ours!

There is no incentive whatsoever for a company to punish people for completing an education that makes sure they're able bodied, able minded, and willing to be put into labour. I hope you realize this. I mean, if you were a porky, would you select your employees based on how bad they were, to keep some poorfag you have no personal investment in whatsoever from being rewarded for his work?

Hours =/= Effort

Standardized Hourly Effort Credit Kicker Labor Earning

In my system i would replace votes with fellatio

Anyone is allowed to become the leader, it all just depends on how much dick you can suck, this would ensure that only the most depraved of people would have a chance to win.
All candidates would also be shaved, stripped of all possesions and sterilised

I call it dickenomics

Ofc the dick sucking can be replaced with shit eating or something just as vile

The idea is to remove all respect for politicians, they would become untouchables in our society, the bottom rung citizens.

I belive this would create an interesting power dynamic where the elite would respect the common man as they are nothing in comparison and the common man would not abuse these 2nd class people because they would be leading them and making decisions.

Id imagine this to be very humbling for the politicians who take part and thus only the pure of heart could come out on top

You would have to be willing to literally become a walking shell of a man for the sake of your people

Who do we send to international meetings as diplomats?

Your mom.

What kind of boot camp are you thinking about? 12-hour sessions on political philosophy?

>need a driving license to buy, own or drive a car, proving you are trained to do so, renewing it every X years
>need a driving license to buy, own or shoot a gun, proving you are trained to do so, renewing it every X years
>need a driving license to vote, agitate others to vote, or run for public office, proving you are trained to do so, renewing it every X years

There we go, minimum voters standards. Socrates would be proud, our boat is running well.

We send our armies

>driving license
Forgot to rename the various licenses here, but you get the point.

>needing a writer's licence to post, contribute, or discuss things online
FUND IT!

Only if we determine that posting online has the same risks to the well being of others as driving a car, shooting a gun or voting irresponsibly.
On that note, breeding licenses should be added to the list, irresponsible parents hurt others (the child) and should be trained before they can raise one.

>politicians are shiteaters
>military officials in charge of state representation

Sounds juntastic.

Nah, probably only once a week. The rest is standard army stuff, except without the whole firing of a gun. Survivalism, marching for no good reason, working out and get screamed at for no real reason. Teaches an adherence to authority. Not too much though, assuming that the >12 hour sessions on political philosophy would be more like some old academic dude screaming down anyone who isn't able to argue for their opinions

Nothing is stopping him, thats why the previous ruler should make sure to leave a worthy heir.

Unlike that fool Manuel Komnenos, such a good emperor but so stupid sometimes...

>implying that isnt the system we live under

>16th-century pikes fighting against 12th-century steppe bros
Love the art but wtf

History has clearly shown that even competent genius leaders can leave incompetent or unmotivated heirs.

Our society is just too complicated for one man to have all that power to do willy nilly.

Its from a medieval fantasy comic series called Artesia. Characters arent that interesting but the world is very compelling.

Long story short: Artesia the witch sword master and her merry band of fantasy not scotland alliance rush to the aid of their arrogant and weak southern allies to repel an invasion from this Byzantium/Caliphate hybrid. Shit starts to fall apart.

>build social media-esque website
>list every politician at local, state, and federal level
>list how they voted, what their declared stances are, and their accomplishments in an easy to understand interface
>demolish parties
>keep voting similar (maybe integrate technology to make it easier)
>people can stay relatively more informed about candidates and select one that is most similar to their views
>elections are done by amount of votes basis
>Congress is elected like normal
>the house representatives from your state have to match the top x amount of candidates that won (if your state has 10 representatives, the top 10 most voted for candidates get in)
>top two presidential candidates get elected
>use computer algorithms to deduce what issues people are most concerned about and make those a priority in the legislative process
>allocate public funds (set amount) to top 10 presidential candidates to live on while they're doing debates and Q&As

This will hopefully get rid of backroom politics and party pressures. As a candidate, you are not beholden to any one entity besides the people. The allocation of a set number of public funds will kill the advantage of having a shitload of lobbyists lining a candidates pocket. This is a very rough outline, but technology needs to be incorporated. Maybe not to vote, but at least to see who the fuck is available to vote for.

thanks user, i had the same idea but stumbled on how to get rid of political parties.

the only thing i would add is that all politicians have at lest five years of military service or were seriously wounded in combat.

>The rest is standard army stuff, except without the whole firing of a gun. Survivalism, marching for no good reason, working out and get screamed at for no real reason. Teaches an adherence to authority
I don't really see the point of this

>all politicians have at lest five years of military service or were seriously wounded in combat.

Military Juntas are ALWAYS awful at running countries. It never works out and the generals just become oligarchs with shiny medals.

Same reason as why you'd do it in the army. Also, difficult on purpose so that only the fit can vote in the end.

Voting rights are not given by default they are earned. After high school you can choose to pursue 'citizenship' which would grant voting rights. (It could be deferred to a later point) The path would involve some time spent in the military (lets say 2 years), time spent in education on both basic economic theory, philosophy and history (1 years worth, paid for by the gov't but after several years of other service) after this one would spend time in a different region of the country. Did you grow up in a liberal city? Now you've gotta spend another 3 years living in a conservative rural area. After both of those you spend 2 years working as a petty bureaucrat in the government in two different states (each for one year. After that you're done and you get voting rights, with the youngest you can be being 26. Having citizenship would grant you the ability to vote for a representative government but would come at an increased tax burden. This means that only those who are truly invested in the political future of the country would pursue the path since it saddles you with a greater financial burden although citizens would be given priority for government jobs and would comprise the officer corps of the military.

Nah, military service shouldn't be a prerequisite. We spend too much as it is. They should have stricter term limits and once they've done their time they can form advisory committees for the new representatives/presidents/etc...

I think American democracy can work if it is much more transparent with the public feeling involved in the process. If the majority should be involved at all is another matter entirely...

Politicians are elected via random lottery. In order to be selected a politician must apply to their position and get a number of signatures depending on the power of the office (the president may need 500,000 signatures, a senator 100,000 for a state the size of California, a mayor might not need any). Once all the candidates are in a winner is randomly selected and sworn in. Politicians aren't directly accountable to anyone and thus are more likely to vote based on their personal conscience and at the same time becoming a career politician is nearly impossible.

What do these creds do? Are they just money? Are they the only currency?

>I'm pretty sure it'd be a solid investment
How is it a solid investment? Voting doesn't benefit your financial situation in any way and taking two years off work for voting boot camp sure as hell doesn't help.

My neo-macedonian national socialist model

1)There is a Royal Family, single male king who runs everything
2)Only military men are allowed to vote
3)new monarchs must be confirmed by the voter
4)the voters can veto a order of the King

All the voting will be done on some sort of smartphone or something too so its instantaneous. If Monarch is bad the military can overthrow him with a new guy

this is the character creation system in that diceless amber rpg...

Most people fresh out of the one school that you graduate the year of your 19th birthday don't have a stable job.

What happens if someone hacks the smartphone system? Why only military men? This seems stupid and doomed to failure if you exclude over half the population from voting.

Id like to have that person be an embodiment of virtue and values and serve the state and the peoppe by safeguarding them, and leaving the decisions to the parliament, be able to override its decisions if its blatantly corrupt

>4)the voters can veto a order of the King
can a majority vote veto the king or could one just do it?

>everyone gets 100k when they graduate?
that seems like a real nice way to sink the economy. Like not collecting taxes and just printing more money

>intellect = success

And that is a good idea how?
>Be out of high school
>Have no work experience
>Spend two years doing nothing to help forward your career
>This helps your career prospects

I don't see how this is a good idea for anyone who doesn't have money to waste two years of their life right after high school accomplishing nothing.

As I already said in a post, it's common sense that such an education would be very much wanted in almost all workplaces, because of the inherent achievement that is completing it. Employers would rather hire someone who went there than someone who did not.

strong local gov is generally a good idea tho

It's called "Tom-ism". It's led by my friend Tom. Every day the people go to Tom's house and ask him a yes or no question regarding how they should govern themselves or what they should do, then leave. You can only ask one question per day, or he gets scared.

Any individual or individual who operates a business that collects more than $1,000 in rents monthly must donate blood once a month. Any individual who violates the spirit of this law (ie "Hey I'll sign this title over to you for a month so I don't have to donate blood") and is successfully prosecuted will undergo chemical sterilization.

bogdanoffs control us already desu

so, corporatism

I actually ripped it from the Eclipse Phase RPG of the Titanian Commonwealth

Sauce on that comic? And my crazy idea is that before anyone is allowed to vote, they take two tests, one on political knowledge, candidates, world events, etc., the other is on basic logic. If either are failed, then you can't vote. The problem I see is that the most educated people are also almost always the richest, and that this system would just lead to the rich oppressing the poor for personal gain.

Artesia, theres a couple books out but the series is on hiatus for years now...

Still a good read

Everyone is nice to each other and nothing bad happens, bullying is outlawed. No homos.

Thanks senpai

Anytime!

>it's common sense that such an education would be very much wanted in almost all workplaces, because of the inherent achievement that is completing it
Why? How rigorous is this that accomplishing it is actually an achievement? If it is so rigorous what happens if you essentially flunk out? You just wasted a year or two of your life accomplishing nothing. Beyond that you are assuming that because something is seen as good it is essentially mandatory. Being an Eagle Scout looks good on a resume, but you don't see every boy becoming an eagle scout because doing otherwise makes them unhireable.

However the biggest issue is if it is de facto mandatory in order to succeed than what is the point? If it is so vital than everyone will do it anyway, meaning its just like college 2.0. You might as well make college 6 years standard and include two years of civic coursework, or even better just include this crap in high school.

Few questions (not trolling)
> how the hell would you implement that
> how is it different in practice from minarchy with private property
> dispute resolution seems like the most conducive arena for bribery of all
Digital direct democracy. All citizens get one vote. They can authorise a proxy to vote on their behalf, so most mundane legislation can still be ignored by normies in their day to day lives. The entire record of votes is stored via an open blockchain that anyone can view and verify, the entire process is open from end to end and trust-free.
The government should prioritise an online voting platform, including a smartphone app so that citizens can be engaged at all times and know what issues are up for discussion. Voting is not compulsory, and a person can choose to defer to one of their proxies (they can keep multiple proxies, for different subjects for example) or participate themselves. Legislation can be proposed or repealed, and results appealed by popular petition, but the thresholds for this are high. There is still an elected head of state with fixed terms and an appointed cabinet drawn from a pool of elected representatives with multiple voting rounds to ensure any elected representative has a majority mandate. Representatives serve 4 year terms but can be re-elected, head of state serves long terms and must disavow party allegiances before taking office. They can never stand for office after their term.
An appointed house of experts (Lords-style) with strict rules about membership compromises the upper house, who can debate and amend bills but never pass them.
There is strict rules about representatives overriding public votes and vetoes and above a certain majority threshold (~60%or more, you get the idea) the public vote always wins.
All of this is to provide a drop-in-drop-out style of citizen government, where most of the time elected representatives bounce bills around but the public can intervene whenever they want.

>Smartest man see no point in life
>nukes people out of fun

2
Also below certain minimum quorum the pubic ballot can be discarded (low turnout defaults to representatives to pass law).
The head of state is CinC, can make executive order style decrees but these can also be repealed by public ballot with a high enough majority and are designed as an immediate and necessary power. Otherwise, head of state is largely removed from day to day governance. And I'm a bong so keep the monarchy intact for symbolism somehow.
In practice:
>Bill proposed by (very) popular demand, or an MP
> debate held in the lower house, bill amended
> debate held in upper house, if amended back to lower house, if passed go to next step
> Bill appears on "Presently under Consideration" tab on the site/app/whatever, with a category (defence, technology, international etc.). It is presented in abstract (with full wording available) and a short informational video is provided by the civil service outlining both sides of the debate. And a moderated comment section.
>After one week of being available to vote on, the vote is tallied and the bill has passed because it has passed or no-one gives a fuck about paint solvent additive regulations, or returns to the representatives who decide whether or not to amend or ditch the bill.
> Bill signed in to law by HRH E2R or whoever the king is by then
> Bill is enforced / implemented by govt departments
People can get as involved in the process as they want, or don't want and can use a proxy they trust to represent them on any bill they do not feel confident voting on.