Best form of democracy?

My best form of democracy is rule of council of 999 members.

No presidents, no nonsense campaigns.

People just vote, and the top 999 of those who get votes become members of council.

This is more efficient, because each member of council has equal powers.

Of course, I would prefer a rule of council without democracy, where council elects its own members like in Star Wars.

No presidents

The country needs someone to negotiate on its behalf in geopolitical affairs, with the ability to back up what they say.

People just vote, and the top 999 of those who get votes become members of council.

This could cause an issue with vote splitting.

The country needs someone to negotiate on its behalf in geopolitical affairs, with the ability to back up what they say

Of course, a council can pick someone and instruct him, or negotiate directly.

This could cause an issue with vote splitting

Okay, so?

Of course, a council can pick someone and instruct him, or negotiate directly

Well that's what my system does.

This could cause an issue with vote splitting

Okay, so?

So people might only go for well known candidates because they're afraid of splitting the vote on minor ones, and hence minor candidates who are better than the existing ones don't ever get a fair chance.

So people might only go for well known candidates because they're afraid of splitting the vote on minor ones, and hence minor candidates who are better than the existing ones don't ever get a fair chance

This argument depends on assumption that majority even knows who is best candidate to vote for. If they know, what you are saying wont be true because majority will vote for best candidates. And if they don't know, then really, no voting system is better than random guessing.

If they know, what you are saying wont be true because majority will vote for best candidates. And if they don't know, then really, no voting system is better than random guessing.

Just because the majority knows doesn't mean they can coordinate. It could be that more people would rather have Candidate B than Candidate A, but if they don't realize they are the majority they will be afraid of wasting their vote and fail to coordinate.

Just because the majority knows doesn't mean they can coordinate

If majority knows who best candidate is, they can vote for him. Nothing prevents them. In fact, there are even surveys on what majority thinks best candidate is, before elections. Usually a lot of surveys are done.

I'm not saying that a majority of people all agree on the same candidate, just that they can compromise. If the Red team all wants the same guy and the Blue team wants two guys and the Blue team is bigger, I'm saying let the Blue team coordinate to select a single guy so that the median voter is represented.

It's too bad America ruined the original idea behind the Poll Tax before it was subverted to support segregation.

It was rooted in older political philosophy: that suffrage should be tied to property, taxation, or financial contribution. A voter should have a tangible stake in the system they’re helping to govern. Early American voting rights were often restricted to property-owning men anyway. The poll tax was just a simpler, more scalable version of that mindset.

Oh, and repeal the 19th is also a thing.

Norway is consistently ranked as having the best democracy in the world . Other top performing nations often include New Zealand, Finland, Sweden and Denmark.

Hmmmm.

Isn't it just another way of stirring the pot and coming up with exactly the same soup?

I would suggest that for any system to function effectively then it requires a certain level of tyrannical leadership.

Because I'm not sure that anarchy would be a preferential alternative.

And I'm also not sure that the more tyrants there are will make things any merrier...Rather it would probable make administration extremely ponderous and therefore less effective.

I say let people make mistakes. If people can't figure out how to vote when there are 2 guys they want, then really, their intelligence becomes questionable, and thus their voting choice.

Rank up voting is incredibly difficult when you have over 999 candidates.

Electing one president is difficult. Electing 999 members of council? Very difficult unless done by area (one area elects 10 members, for example).

And again, you are here running on assumption that majority even knows what they want.

But my system allows something more superior to rank up voting.

It allows voting for multiple candidates.

So the problem of Split votes doesn't exist.

Because council has 999 members, voters must elect 999 people, not 1.

Thus, can cast one vote per candidate.

So if they like two guys, they can vote for both of them, and both of them will become members of council.

Maybe,

Oath of Loyalty required for right to vote.

Oath of Loyalty can be given before and again after Federal Service.

Federal Service required for person to have a vote.

Require people vote or delegate their vote to another person.

States Rights.

Redrafting and explicit stating of the Constitution every 100 years.

Federal gets ???Percent of all generated wealth of a state.

Immigrant to a state from one state to another or from a foreign state, must receive ???% of the vote of citizens, to immigrate.

Either Term limits of X years, or prevention of people from having successive terms in a row.

Wacky Idea,

Winner and Runner up are both equal Heads of State.

Two Heads of State? Both must agree on action for it to take place. If they cannot agree, then congress can vote to remove them from office and put in the Vice Presidents.

Thinking,

I'm not sure how many members of congress there should be.

. . . 1 per 100 people?

1 per 50 people?

Pyramid. . . So that one knows their 50 constituents and their 50 members of government?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Rank up voting is incredibly difficult when you have over 999 candidates.

You have people vote for parties that publish lists of candidates. Ranked choice isn't needed electing legislature.

Every time RCV is tried in the real world it has more unfair practices than other forms of voting that preceded it. Terrible ideal

The criticism I've seen is that it's hard to understand, but in my system it's the legislature doing it not the public.

People are questioning the voting system only after Trump raised doubts about his loss in the 2020 elections. No fraud was found by his own attorney general William Barr.

In a legislature all the votes are public and you're counting hundreds of votes, not millions. It would be extremely hard to get the math wrong if it's all public and literally anyone can fact check. I'm not proposing the general public rank candidates, just Parliament.

of something doesn't work on the macro we shouldn't test it on the micro or visa versa

Why not? Representative democracy is effectively testing something on the micro (direct voting on every policy) that didn't work on the macro.

I'm not saying we should just implement this immediately. I'm not sure the best way to test this, but I think it's of some utility to come up with potential optimal forms of democracy, because someday people might get a chance to experiment and discover this works better.

It better be fixed before Trump wins a third term.