Reply: Direct Democracy??

[donald at mich.com]

Mike wrote on Fri 25 Oct 1996

Mike: >
>I prefer direct democracy, and that very likely would be easier to
>get than Parliamentary govt, or even PR. Especially considering the
>stong anti-politician sentiment of the public. Good, let the public
>take responsibility for govt, and give up their politician scapegoats.


Donald: I am in favor of more democracy but I am not ready for direct
democracy. I would need to know and feel right about the mechanics.

When I say I favor more democracy I mean that I favor more political
control to more people. For example: I favor a reform of multi seat
elections because then more votes will end up electing lawmaking bodies.

I favor reform of single-winner elections because then the majority of the
people will always determine the election.

I favor the use of Conclusive Majority (some call it supermajority) to be
used by lawmaking bodies when they pass laws.

I favor a means by which the people can pass laws - by Conclusive Majority
of course.

MONEY: Most laws seem to deal with money.

I believe that the people who pay the taxes are best qualified to say how
the money should be spent.

I believe that the people have more back bone to make the hard decisions.

I believe that the government has the right to tax people for the services
that they are receiving.

I believe that the government has no right to tax the people for benefits
to others.

I believe that in a democracy the people have the right to tax themselves
for benefits they want to give to others - in other words I believe that
the people should vote on all tranfer funds.


Mike: >Of course there'd still be an executive system, completely accountable
>to & replaceable by the public at any time. But the public would have
>the power on all policy issues.

Donald: I believe that the mechanics to do this is to create a fourth
branch of government. Why a Fourth Branch of Government - because it seems
to be the best solution to a host of problems. Problems that need a means
of being solved. Problems like the conflict of interest of a lawmaking body
regulating itself - deciding their own wages - their own perks and deciding
what their ethics are to be if any. It is wrong for them to define what is
and is not a bribe. It is a conflict of interest for the same branch of
government to both tax and spend. All elected officials should be
accountable to the people but we have the problem that the people are not
able to organize and act. The people do not have the necessry mechanics in
which to control elected officials.

The solution is to have a set group that has the power to act for the
people in all issues concerning the current branches of government. This
group would be a Fourth Branch of Government. If we define it correctly it
would work. All officials of the first three branches of government would
be regulated by this created Fourth Branch of Government.

In a city this branch would be a commission and would work as follows:
The salary, benefits, perks, and conduct of all elected and appointed
persons  would be determined by the voters by way of this elected
commission. The commission would be elected city wide using a Total
Representation Method to insure proportional representation and can be
elected at the same time as the council. Membership on this commission
could be a part time nonpaying position. The size of the commission should
be several times larger than the council. I suggest an age requirement of
fifty years of age. A time when children are grown and careers are stable.
Not unlike the elders of the community.

The commission would not need a separate meeting place. They could be
connected together by a subscription list or they could use the entire city
council space if they needed to get together.

Duties of the commission would have to be determined but here is a partial list:
Establish the ethics and money rules of candidates in elections.
Establish the ethics and compensation of all elected and appointed officials.
Establish the internal rules and policies of lawmaking bodies
Promptly punish any official for wrong doing.
Draw up tax measures and submit them to the people for a vote.
Settle disputes between the other three branches of government.

The commisssion would establish a set of ethics for all elected officials
and have the power to enforce these ethics by removing an official from his
position if necessary. How many times have we seen some official stand up
in front of the television cameras and say "I didn't do anything wrong"?
Well, by the their rules they did not do anything wrong. That is the
trouble - they make their own rules of right and wrong.

Action on criminal wrong doing by an elected person should not have to wait
for the voters. The voters are physically unable to act promptly. A Fourth
Branch Commission can suspend the elected person without pay when felony
charges are filed against the person. If the elected person is found
innocent the person is restored with back pay. If the elected person is
found guilty the commission shall remove the person from office and then
decide if and when the council position is to be filled.

The commisssion would have the power to rule in the area of separation of
powers between the other three branches of government. If one branch is
overstepping its authority and attempting to take power in the realm of
another branch the commission shall rule on this and have the power to
enforce its decision.

This commission would be regulated by the voters by way of ballot
proposals. Funds for the commission would be voted on by the people.

The county Fourth Branch of Government would be elected county wide similar
to the city commission.

Each county of a state would have a Fourth Branch Commission. On issues
that included the entire state each county commission would decide
separately and a state wide conclusive majority would rule. These county
commission would be connected together by eMail and US-Mail. This same
arrangement would also apply to Federal districts.

Most states in the United States have two lawmaking houses. I would like to
suggest that we do away with these second house and replace them with all
the commissions in all the counties. The best argument given for having a
second house is that it is another hurdle that a measure must get over in
order to become law. I approve of another hurdle but it does not have to be
a second house. Total Representation and Conclusive Majority and a good
form of item veto are hurdles. Any one of these three is a better hurdle
than a second house. A second house can have the same political makeup as
the first house. This makes the second hurdle the same as the first. If a
measure can get pass one it can get pass the other.

Donald