Find us on facebook

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

A NEW POLITICAL SYSTEM: THE “CITIDENT” SYSTEM

This is the intellectual property of NK Sayer. Permission is not given for any commercial use or sale of this material. No parts of this document can be copied or used without the written consent of the author (NK Sayer).

Thomas Edison's first patented invention was an electric vote recorder which was never used by public! It allowed votes to be recorded automatically & sped up the voting process & prevented errors in counting the votes. The Congress was NOT happy with this invention and was so unimpressed with the FAST speed with which the instrument could record votes!! They told him: "if there is any invention on earth that we don't want down here, that is it." 
The slow pace of manual voting enabled members to allow more fraud in counting votes, filibuster legislation or convince others to change their votes... 
Edison was very much disappointed!


A NEW POLITICAL SYSTEM: THE “CITIDENT” SYSTEM
by NK Sayer

Foreword
The current democracy systems used in many societies are not perfect and clearly have a lot of flaws and problems; they are no longer effective since many people are constantly dissatisfied and disappointed with their governments and presidents. Furthermore some of these democracy systems have become more of a monarchy due to the amount of power given to one person- the president of the country.

In the current democracy systems, elections are the foundation for choosing a president. The election system itself has its own issues and negative points, for example the political campaigns that the candidates run prior to the elections are unnecessary, expensive, time consuming and misleading. The amount of money, resources and time that is wasted to run such campaigns is enormous and most of the time, they are filled with empty promises. Many people later complain that the promises made to them during these campaigns were not delivered when their elected president came to power. It is clear that these campaigns have become more of a popularity contest, such that whoever has more fame and popularity (although often based on illusive promises of wellbeing to the people), will be elected. This popularity also creates another dilemma: many of these candidates rely on the financial support of investors to generate fame for themselves during these expensive campaigns. These favours will of course have to be returned once the upcoming hopefuls become presidents. Essentially they become puppets for their masters. So at the end of the day, the puppet masters are the ones actually running the country and at times obvious corruption happens in a government because of this.

It is the 21st century; the world has changed tremendously and there is a desperate need and demand for change in our current political systems. The current systems are no longer effective or practical and we need to come up with new and innovative ways to solve our problems. We need a fresh political model to bring true democracy back to our societies. My “citident” system described here is one such structure that can be created to give a new meaning to governments.

Description
Citidenty is a new political system in which selection is the method for choosing future ruling person(s) instead of the current election methods used by most democratic countries. The selection methods that would be used, would choose people from the populace randomly and hence give a fair chance to any eligible person to be trained to serve his/her country as a citident (citizen president), regardless of their profession, status, fame and financial support.

The citident system
A citident panel performs a role similar to that of a president (citident means citizen-president). The panel consists of 114 primary citidents and 14 alternate citidents. Majority vote among the 114 primary citidents is the final verdict. In the case of equal disagreement among the primary citidents, alternate citidents will be summoned to vote. A full new panel of Primary citidents and alternate citidents are re-selected every 5 years. Completion of a 3 year training program is compulsory for the prospective citidents (and alternate citidents), and final examination must be successfully completed to qualify for the 5 year citidenty service.

Principles
The idea for this new political system has been inspired by the following systems/concepts:
  • Democracy, Athenian democracy, Direct democracy
  • Presidential roles
  • Jury system, Sortition or Allotment
  • Lottery, Drawing of lots
Citident selection
There are a variety of methods that can be used to choose the people who will stand to serve on a 5 year citidenty period. The potential candidates are randomly selected from a pool that contains eligible individuals residing in the country; eligibility is considered with respect to age, mental health, education, etc.

Using methods as described below, 150 eligible individuals are randomly selected from the pool as prospective citidents to enter the first stage of qualifying assessments. The education level, physical wellbeing, mental health, IQ (intelligence quotient) and EQ (emotional quotient) of these individuals are then evaluated using relevant tests and assessments. Depending on the outcome of these tests they may be disqualified or qualified to proceed to the next stage of the process, which is to undergo training. If a selected individual is disqualified, a new one must be randomly selected from the pool and evaluated until 150 suitable prospective citidents are obtained that can proceed to the training stage.

Prospective citident eligibility requirements:
  • Must be between 32 years of age and 62 years of age
  • Must be mentally stable with no mental illness (medical clearance required)
  • Must be in good physical health with no life threatening conditions (medical clearance required)
  • Must be educated; i.e. must have at least an undergraduate degree from a university, a postgraduate college degree or a similar tertiary education
  • Must be a permanent resident or citizen of that country
  • Must have resided in the country for a minimum of 5 consecutive years prior to the selection procedure
  • Must have no criminal record, felony conviction or pending felony charges
  • Must have an IQ score of at least ..... points
  • Must have an EQ score of at least .... points
Methods of selection
Prospective citidents are selected from the eligible population residing in the country. The first step of citident selection is creating a pool from which prospective citidents will be randomly chosen. Two methods can be implemented for creating a pool: a random pool or a nomination/volunteering pool.

Random pool: a pool is created by gathering names from electoral rolls, lists of registered voters, licensed drivers, or other broad-based lists of residents in the community (e.g., tax rolls, public utility consumers, etc).

Nomination/volunteering pool: a pool is created by allowing individuals that are interested in becoming citidents, to nominate themselves or volunteer for this opportunity, and register as a candidate for the position. This process can be done online.

In either case, the pool should represent no less than 10% of the residing population in the country. The selection is then carried out via a process of allotment or sortition*.

* In politics, sortition (also known as allotment or the drawing of lots) is the selection of decision makers by lottery. The decision-makers are chosen as a random sample from a larger pool of candidates. In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the primary method for appointing officials, and its use was widely regarded as a principal characteristic of democracy. It is commonly used today to select prospective jurors in common law-based (Anglo-American) legal systems.

* In Athenian democracy (around 508 BC) Selection by lottery (allotment or Sortition) was the standard means as it was regarded as the more democratic: elections would favour those who were rich, noble, eloquent and well-known, while allotment spread the work of administration throughout the whole citizen body, engaging them in the crucial democratic experience of, to use Aristotle's words, "ruling and being ruled in turn". The allotment of an individual was based on citizenship rather than merit or any form of personal popularity which could be bought. Allotment therefore was seen as a means to prevent the corrupt purchase of votes and it gave citizens a unique form of political equality as all had an equal chance of obtaining government office. The Athenians believed sortition to be more democratic than elections and used complex procedures with purpose-built allotment machines (Kleroteria) to avoid the corrupt practices used by oligarchs to buy their way into office.

Note: In case of a random pool selection, if a selected individual does not want to accept the offer for becoming a citident, he/she has the option to decline i.e. it is not compulsory to accept the position. Therefore individuals who qualify for citidenty service, are not compelled to serve- they can be exempted or have the option to decline the citidenty service. The most common types of exemptions would be for people whose job in some way precludes them (for instance, surgeons, scientists, police officials, or individuals whose unique skills & services are so indispensable to the community that their absence for an extended period would create a hardship for the community).However once the position has been accepted and sworn in, it is not possible to reject it or resign without a legitimate reason. In case of a nomination pool however, this situation should be far less prevalent since individuals have already volunteered and shown interest in becoming citidents by registering as candidates.

The Process
150 eligible individuals are randomly selected from a pool and evaluated for the minimum eligibility requirements. After qualifying from the eligibility evaluations, they will proceed to the next stage which is to undergo a 2 year training program. They will have to pass a set of final examination and assessments in order to qualify to proceed to the final year of training to become citidents. Based on grades, the top 128 individuals will proceed to the final year of training while the remaining 22 individuals will return to their normal lives. A certificate of completion for the program is awarded to the unsuccessful candidates, which counts as a valuable education diploma that they can apply to their careers, or day-to-day lives.

Note: In case of failing the examination, an individual will have to repeat deferred examinations until he/she passes, in order to receive the certificate of completion.

The final year of training for the 128 incoming citidents, will prepare them for their respective duties and responsibilities as citidents. This will be a more focused and specialized training to prepare them for their decision making responsibilities in different sectors or divisions. There will be an assessment at the end of the final year training to determine who will become primary citidents and who will become alternate citidents. Based on their performance and score in the final year assessment, the top 114 will become primary citidents and the remaining 14 individuals will become alternate citidents. Ranking does not apply to primary citidents but in case of alternate citidents, they are ranked based on their score. Hence alternate citident 1 will have priority (in decision making, etc) to alternate citident 2 and so on.

Definitions
Citident panel: a sworn body of 114 citidents (and 14 alternate citidents) convene to serve a 5 year citidenty duty. These are ordinary eligible citizens that have been randomly selected to collectively govern the country for a period of 5 years. They collectively play a role similar to that of a president. They must undergo a 3 year training program and pass the examination before starting their 5 year citidenty service.

Primary citidents: these citidents are the primary decision makers and collectively make decisions. They are allowed 2 rounds of 5 year service but are not eligible for a 3rd round of selection i.e. as citidents they are still eligible for random selection from the citident pool at the end of their 5 year service and if selected again, may become citidents for a 2nd round. This is to ensure circulation of citidenty power in society. If randomly selected for a second time, they do not need to re-do the first 2 years of the training program; however they must re-do the 2nd year examinations, as well as final year training and examinations to obtain one of the top 114 scores in order to qualify for primary citidenty status again.

After the citidenty period has finished, retired primary citidents may become trainers, coaches and advisors at the citident training centres for the 3 year prospective citident training program. In this way they can help with improving the training program, providing better education and teaching better skills to the future citidents, whilst continuing to participate in the system and pass on their experience, skills and knowledge to the next generation citidents.

Summary:
  • Maximum number of primary citidenty rounds allowed: 2 rounds
  • Training needed for second round? Not the first 2 years of general training, but they must pass all 2nd year examinations again, and re-do the final year of the training program and participate in final examination.
  • Are Primary citidents allowed to become trainers? Yes, after retiring from their citidenty duty; the maximum number of years that they are allowed to teach is 6 years only
Head Citident: this is also called the "foreman" or "presiding Citident". The foreman is one of the 114 primary citidents and is often appointed before the 5 year citidenty begins or upon the beginning of it. Choosing of the head citident can be done by voting among the citident panel or it can be based on the score obtained at the final assessment, such that the primary citident who obtained the highest score in the final year examination can be chosen for this position. Or it can be a rotational status system among the primary citidents where each primary citident is appointed to be the head citident for a period of 2 months at a time. The role of the foreman is to deliver speeches and talks on behalf of the citident panel, facilitate media and press discussions, and read the verdicts and decisions of the panel. He/she has duties similar to that of a spokesperson and is the face of the panel. He/she may not make any decisions alone, and are given no power except as the representative of the panel.

Alternate citidents: these are 14 citidents that have attend the training program and passed the final examination but were not within the top 114 finalists. Alternate citidents have a ranking based on their final score and based on that ranking they can participate in decision making processes if summoned to do so by the primary citidents. In essence, they provide a supporting role for the panel of 114 sworn primary citidents and remain on standby to replace a primary citident in case of emergency or need such as sickness or death. Also in case of equal disagreement among the primary citidents, alternate citidents may be consulted or summoned to vote during the decision making process.

Alternate citidents are eligible to participate in future selections and become citidents for 1 more round only i.e. their names can be put back in the pool for random selection at the end of their 5 year service and if randomly selected again, may be allowed to become citidents for a 2nd round. If this happens, they do not need to re-do the first 2 years of the training program, however they must re-do the 2nd year examinations, as well as final year training and examinations to obtain one of the top 128 scores in order to qualify for citidenty status again.

Summary:
  • Maximum number of alternate citidenty rounds allowed: 2 rounds
  • Training needed for second round? Not the first 2 years of general training, but they must pass all 2nd year examinations again, and re-do the final year of the training program and participate in final examination.
  • Are allowed to become trainers? No
Note: Only individuals that have been primary citidents, qualify to become trainers/coaches at the training centres; individuals that have served as alternate citidents do not qualify to become trainers and coaches.

The training program
This is a 2 + 1 year training program in which necessary skills and useful knowledge is taught to the prospective citidents to equip them with crucial and important abilities. At the end of the 2 year general training, all 150 individuals will undergo examinations and evaluations and only the top 128 will qualify to proceed to the final year of training to become citidents; the remaining 22 individuals will receive a certificate of completion and will be dismissed. The certificate of completion will be valuable as an education diploma that they can apply to their careers, or day-to-day lives.

The top 128 individuals are the future citidents and will have to then undergo an intense and comprehensive 1 year training program to prepare them for their duties and roles as citidents. Evaluations and assessments taken at the end of this 1 year training will determine who will be on the primary citident panel and who will become alternate citidents.

The 2+1 year training program will be multidisciplinary and cover courses and issues such as: politics and public policy, people management, finance, entrepreneurial strategies, creative thinking, strategic thinking, history, foreign affairs, war tactics, practical application, conflict resolution, leadership skills, communication techniques, international relations, internal affairs, behavioural psychology, diplomacy, legal studies, economics, global ecology, lateral thinking, negotiation skills, organisational change, etc.

In the final year training program for the 128 future citidents, there will be more focus on analysing and studying the current problems in the country, and current and theoretical techniques of approaching them e.g. Internal and neighbourhood problems, family crises, crime, HIV/AIDS, unemployment, etc. It should include an open and unbiased discussion on the current problems, by analysing all the methods that are currently being used to solve them locally and worldwide, and thinking about other innovative ways that could be used to solve these problems. There could also be a module on successful case studies of international techniques that are working.

After this final year of training, the prospective citidents will be assessed and examined through a series of tests, evaluations, and practical projects. The individuals that have obtained the top 114 scores will become primary citidents and the remaining 14 will become alternate citidents. Ranking applies to alternate citidents; hence alternate citident 1 will have priority in decision making, voting or any other duty to alternate citident 2 and so on.

Advantages of the citident system
This system has many advantages, some of which are listed below:
  • A fair chance for any eligible person in society to be considered for citidenty service
  • Circulation of citidenty power ensures a better, more truthful and transparent democracy
  • A group of 128 citidents run the country; not 1 president (that could treat it as monarchy)
  • People from varied and diverse backgrounds will work together to govern their country
  • The diversity among citidents ensures that all segments of society can participate in decision making and hence problems or issues of all segments of society are taken into consideration when making decisions or plans
  • The selection methods used (instead of the current election methods) eliminates the need for political campaigns hence no time and money is wasted for such campaigns
  • No voting system is needed hence it saves time and money and reduces rigged voting
  • Less corruption – no puppet masters running the country
  • Presidency is no longer a popularity contest and ordinary eligible citizens have the potential to become citidents
  • No vast financial backing is required, even an individual from a poor segment of society can become a citident (provided he/she is eligible)
  • The training program adds value to society through education
  • The training program ensures that the future citidents are equipped with all the essential knowledge, and crucial skills to carry out their duty in the best interest of the country.
  • Citidents are well educated, trained and prepared for their roles as decision makers and planners - to improve the quality of life in their country
Conclusion
In closing, the citidenty system has many advantages and should be seriously considered. More planning is required in order to create a more detailed plan of action, but the foundation of the system has been broadly described here. A smooth transition from the current democratic (presidential) systems to the citident system is possible with thorough planning and careful preparation. If such preparation, random selections and training were to commence immediately, in a period of as little as 4 years the old systems could be removed and the new citidenty system could be fully implemented.

***


Please don't forget to comment below; thanks :))


This is the intellectual property of NK Sayer. Permission is not given for any commercial use or sale of this material. No parts of this document can be copied or used without the written consent of the author (NK Sayer).

politics, world politics, global politics, revolutions, protest, Spain revolution, Spain protest, Arab awakening, middle east politics, Iran politics, Egypt politics, Egypt revolution, Egypt protest, Obama politics, American politics, eastern politics, western politics, 2011 revolutions, 2011 protests, 2011 politics, democracy

23 comments:

  1. woooOOoooOooow!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting idea.. well done!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very Nice. It's so simple, I think it would work. I love the idea about actually training the citidents, something which most presidents have preciously littly of.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I feel there are some flaws to the system.
    1. The lottery system could be rigged. (as the current system could be rigged too)
    2. The rights of minorities could be at risk because they would never have a fair representation in the lottery system. Lets say this system existed prior the 13th.14th, 15th and 19th Amendments... could women and african americans have achieved equal rights?
    3. Does this system elminate the two party system.. or filabustering.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the comment anonymous..
    1. the lottery system can be computerized and independently monitored or it can be a typical lotto system in which names are selected/drawn manually from the pool by chance and it can be done in front of a live audience..
    2. the rights of minorities are not affected at all, the same way anyone in society can win the lotto.. its completely by chance... its random selection of individuals in society.. so if the chances of being selected and winning the lotto is for example 1 in 1000, then it is 1 in 1000 for everyone, regardless of race, background, gender, etc
    3. there are no parties.. this is a brand new fresh system..

    ReplyDelete
  6. Note: In Athenian democracy (around 508 BC) Selection by lottery (allotment or Sortition) was the standard means as it was regarded as the more democratic: elections would favour those who were rich, noble, eloquent and well-known, while allotment spread the work of administration throughout the whole citizen body, engaging them in the crucial democratic experience of, to use Aristotle's words, "ruling and being ruled in turn". The allotment of an individual was based on citizenship rather than merit or any form of personal popularity which could be bought. Allotment therefore was seen as a means to prevent the corrupt purchase of votes and it gave citizens a unique form of political equality as all had an equal chance of obtaining government office.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Of course 80% of the population has no interest in bureaucracy and administration. Establishing an isolated school (free tuition and learning material) to create the pool of candidates is far more efficient and circumvent mandatory 'civil duty'.

    ReplyDelete
  8. i don't like the fact that you must be college educated to be eligible. that would give the poor a disavantage. education level is not an indicator of inteligence. however i do agree a change in the current system is needed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is a very interesting concept and could be useful as a representative government panel. In practice, however, it would never work as a primary government, and would not be fair to everyone. You keep saying that everyone would have an equal chance, but your system eliminates 99% of the people from eligibility. Only the rich would have the opportunity to serve based on the fact that they are the only ones that can get away from a real job for 2 years for training just to be eligible. Certain states would have no representation and certain economic and social groups would have no representation based on the fact that none of them could ever be eligible. There are many more issues with this plan. In 508 BC, government was simple and local. Teaching average people all they need to know about global ecomomy, education, health, war, etc, ect, ect, would take way more that 3 years.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Firstly college education is an indication of the person's competency and intelligence and i disagree that you think poor people can not have college education since there are many options available for a person to study if they really want to, such as loans, bursaries, etc. Secondly, in the current political systems only the super elite are afforded presidential roles and the poor with no financial support to fund their expensive campaigns are certainly not able to become presidents; in the citident system however this is a lot more achievable.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't think as much as 99% of people would be ineligible, but at the same time you would want the people running the country to be of a minimum capability. As you mentioned with the complex issues that they have to deal with, in terms of economy, education, health, etc of course it would take considerable training so offering a presidency to someone with no literacy or education is unwise. Furthermore the 2 year training can be a salaried position as anything would have been in goverment service, hence rich or poor should be able to attend.
    At least with this system you ensure that eligible educated people get proper training before they start citidenty; in the current systems often people from wealthy and famous backgrounds come to power simply due to the financial support they have, even though they are not trained in all of these versatile fields. Furthermore, in the current systems a president is one person from one social group; at least in my system more social groups will play presidential roles because this is done by 114 individuals who have been randomly selected from the population of all social groups.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I would like to highlight that the details of the citident system can and should be adjusted to accommodate the needs of the specific country in which it is being implemented. For example:
    1. The minimum eligibility requirements such as the education prerequisite can be modified depending on the overall literacy rates in that country.
    2. The number of citidents might need to be increased for countries of larger population sizes such as China or India.
    3. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If any person wants to be able to get a job as an architect, or a doctor, or an engineer, they have to meet a minimum amount of eduction in order to fullfill that job. In fact, in order to be accepted to even study architecture, engineering, or medicine, they have to meet a certain minimum standard. That standard is not dependent on social groups, but rather capability; and of course we find architects, engineers and doctors etc. from all the different social groups. So I think it is completely reasonable to expect the leaders of a country, who will have to deal with all these isues of economy, health, diplomacy etc to have met a minimum level of education. We're trusting our entire social livelyhood to these people. We would expect no less from the aeronautical engineers who design the planes we fly in, or the doctors who operate on us. Why then is it a problem to require similar high standards from our leadership?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes, but would you be comfortable selecting your heart surgeon by lottery and schooling him/her for 2 years? You people need to look into meritocracy. It's not about everyone having an equal chance to administer, it's about having the best of the best doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Anonymous: and how do the current political systems choose the best of the best? With all the disappointments and political chaos happening around the world, it is obvious that the current systems don't work well all the time and fail to deliver promises.

    These current election-based systems are oligarchic (as Aristotle mentioned) and power effectively rests with a small number of people (distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, corporate, or military control, etc). Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who pass their influence from one generation to the next; they usually force their own way of thinking on the rest of the population and think about their own selfish desires and benefits.

    We need people from all backgrounds of society to be involved; not just a few rich, famous and powerful greedy ones that try to keep the power and control among their own group, generation after generation.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I didn't say elected officials are elected based on their competence (rather the incompetence of the general public), neither did I vouch for the current system. I have been a opponent to the current system for years and years.

    The world is what it is due to incompetence. The public doesn't know what is in their best interests. For all I care a dictator would be acceptable provided he is an expert at all areas of administration and ensures the prosperity, development and freedoms of the people.

    A country is like a big corporation, it must be optimized for efficiency to maximize profits.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous, I think we both agree that the current systems are a problem that need changing, and in fairness, a single all intelligent god-like figure would be ideal if they were able to keep everyones best interest at heart. The only problem is that we are not in such a world, and in order for everyones interests to be heard, it would require a spectrum from the population to voice their opinions with authority. However, to run a country like a corporation to maximise profits is certainly not the way to do this. As in any corporation, the corporation exists specifically to benefit the owners, and in order to maximise profits, the employees are certainly not considered as a priority.
    Of course I agree that 3 years may not be enough for a person to learn all that is required, but it is certainly better than the current presidents who basically learn on the job, and training people who have already aquired tertiary education is far more efficient than training those who have none.

    ReplyDelete
  18. JR - Yes, our difference in opinion actually highlights the major flaw in any democratic system. One of us will be represented and the other not. A spectrum is merely a small sample and can even represent only 1% of the population (overlooking probability). We are far more likely to be able to pick out people experts at the job than to represent a whole population by random samples.
    It is an error to mistake opinion for interest. If I had told you to buy Apple shares back in the 90s you'd had scoffed at the idea. Now not so much.
    Like you say, a corporation benefits the owners, naturally the population would be the equal share holders and thus owners.

    ReplyDelete
  19. how is the citident system you are proposing better than a democratic system?

    ReplyDelete
  20. President Jones, did u read the article properly? The Citident system is a type of democracy.. it is people's democracy, direct democracy.. I have explained the advantages in the article.. I know many think its better to not have a political system at all in a country but that is not realistic and society needs some sort of structure.. it would be ideal if we could all just peacefully live together and the country somehow magically operated efficiently but realistically this is not achievable! There will always be greedy people, selfish people and evil people in the world.. so we can't just not have any type of political structure in society.. That's why a system like the citident system can at least be a right step towards some sort of change by getting people involved more actively with running their country.. if we dont start thinking about doing things differently, things may never improve.. we need to start making changes creatively and with every step in the right direction we can get closer to the final goal which is for everyone to live in peace and harmony and care for one another. Until then a realistic solid plan is better than just a dream and a wish!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Good for you!...these things really need to be looked at in the 21st century now that we can see what went wrong with so many systems. In my belief it's people and how we behave, and how, too often, systems allow the greedy and psychotic to rise to the top.
    Here are some quick thoughts that come to mind. I absolutely agree that we need new systems, but have problem with the 'education' qualification as educated people are usually middle class +up, and many have no understanding of the problems of the poor..or the phenomenal potential of the poor,or the cultures of minorities, which would not be best served in this way.You would miss out on all that potential,skills and knowledge.I consider my refuse disposal person as vital to my well-being as my doctor.
    Personally, I think that if ALL are educated in citizenship..rights, duties, structures and laws,negotiation and conflict resolution etc then you can start at community level. It becomes apparent which activists have potential to take greater leadership roles, and it is here that systems of checks and training come into play to ensure that maximum potential is realised, that cliques and egos don't dominate,and that young and new activists are constantly engaged.
    A tier system -regional?(this needs more thought so that it accommodates diversity) of accessible groupings, all with appropriate checks and training would generate a pool from which candidates for training in government would be, if you like, randomly selected.
    Canvassing could be done on specifically designated channels, sites and print media,with ALL candidates given equal shares of the time. Attempts to break that rule would mean instant disqualification.
    Government from the bottom up, rather than the top down is far likelier to be truly representative, but only if all people are given the opportunity to engage as citizens.

    ReplyDelete