My dear daughter,
As we were saying, representativeness is an issue. I don’t think this would be possible right now, but in the future maybe we could skip representatives altogether and vote for budgetary propositions.
Allow me to explain: authority seems to work better when it is as diluted as possible, and the risk of corruption or stupidity might be avoided if there are as few people as possible between the decision makers and its implementation, while still allowing for social and political control and transparency.
About elections and representatives, instead of voting for populists with catchphrases, we could present areas of expenditure, so people could decide between things like Education – 35%, Health – 35%, Security – 20% and Government payroll – 10%, for example. One could argue the act of voting would become too complex, but it is a complex and serious act and it should be treated as such – there can be no citizenship without responsibility. Perhaps the election could present a few major areas of concentration and a well-written software would dilute it between smaller programs, where elected committees could decide about specifics. So there would be a Health Committee, Security Committee, etc. – and they would scale into minor committees till the regional level.
Any software used by the Administration would have to be audited by a congress of specialists and academics, which in turn would have to present their plans and conclusions to the scientific community, like a scientific paper, to reach consensus. Those things don’t have to be slow, like the acceptance of a new theory by the community, if it is implemented correctly. The congress and revisers would have responsibilities and deadlines.
It would be preferable if any power was held by groups instead of individuals. Not like the American congress, but more akin to the Swiss Federal Council.
I also feel it should all start with a Constitution or Constitutional Amendment which would recognize scientific advancement and political and humanitarian progress as inexorable. I mean, social well-being shouldn’t be subject to the humors of right-wing or left-wing governments; it should be a principle, since historical evidence shows developed societies favor social well-being. Neoliberalism shouldn’t be considered just another valid political view when History has shown on many occasions it produces misery and concentrates wealth. Scientific research funding should be steady because it is proven to be linked to individual well-being and a healthy economy. Threats to laicism should be criminalized because History has shown tragedy is the outcome of religious meddling in State affairs.
The entire electoral process and representative system should be structured to not raise emotional responses in citizens, but to encourage and emphasize rational thinking, rational decision-making and rational debates.
Politics should turn away from personal icons, like charismatic presidents, and private economic interests.
This is a work in progress, there is much to think about and to propose.
Love,
Dad
Aspergers Dad 