*New Political System*








The hierarchy

The current political hierarchy

The NEW political Hierarchy 

Prime Minister President
Parliament Legislature
House of Commons Congress
House of Lords Senate
 Member of Parliament    Representative 
Lord Senator

The NEW political system


A community could consist of a:-

The main criteria being that the number of people should be small enough for everyone to know the other members. (The stumbling block of the current election procedure, is that multiple checks have to be made to validate an elector, hence nobody knows the individual and computers have to be used to check the qualifying status, which can leave the system vulnerable to corruption).

Electing Community Officers

Electing the 'community' officers would be done by all the members voting for their choice of those wishing to serve. Some of the community representatives being elected on to the Parish committee. Election of the 'chairperson' being done by the committee, all levels of representatives being the spokesperson for their group, not making arbitrary decisions. As an individual climbs the structural ladder, the voting power of the individual is carried forward by virtue of the accumulated votes ('for' & 'against') of the committees they represent. The representatives (at all levels) only have their vote at the 'community' level, eliminating the potential of being influenced by other interests and compromising the community vote.  

Communications between groups etc, could be done via the internet, voting to be done exclusively with a paper trail to give full trace-ability.   A level three (Ward) web-site publishing community/parish/ward news and results etc. plus information coming down from higher levels. Whilst this may seem to exclude the members of population without internet access, we are talking about a community concept, the probability of no one in a community having internet access is unlikely, and it should be a pre-requisite of being a community representative. If the 'community' members elected someone without access, then the group could investigate ways of accessing the required equipment via shared/fund raising/etc.

Chairperson to be the 'Parish' representative on the next level, 'community' duties being shared with the number 2 candidate.


Political hierarchy

1:- A Parish is made up of 'X' number of 'communities', selection by the electorate for the 'chairperson', who then becomes the representative on the 'Ward' council. The 2nd candidate becomes the deputy etc. Each elected person to maintain contact with the 'communities', and they with their constituents on a rotational basis so that effectiveness of the representatives can be made. A  representative should serve a minimum of one year before being eligible for next level office. Their duties to include: 

  1. Canvassing for opinions on issues.

  2. Constituents concerns.

  3. Schemes such as 'Neighbourhood Watch'.

  4. Maintaining the upward, and downward, flow of information.

2:- A 'Ward' could be a town, large village, or a group of rural Parishes. The electorate elect a 'Ward' council member to become the 'chairperson', who becomes the representative for the 'District' council, No2 becomes the vice- 'Chairperson', No3 becomes the 'Deputy'.

3:- The 'District' elect an MP from the committee, No2 becomes the Chairperson' who is the representative on the 'County' council, No3 the vice- 'chairperson', No 4 the 'Deputy'.

4:- The 'County' elect the  representative from the committee for the 'House of Lords', No 2 the 'Chairperson', No 3 the vice 'chairperson', No 4 the deputy.

5:- The MP's elect the 'Cabinet' on the basis of their qualification to be the head of a department (including the Prime Minster as head of the cabinet).

In each case the 'Chairperson' should be the 'Spokesperson' of the unit, NOT dictating the policy.

Logic would indicate that there would be a limit to the number of 'Councils' that one could represent, therefore, when one was selected for MP or County representative, they would be removed from 'Parish' status, and their 'Deputy' would take that responsibility. If one was selected for 'Cabinet', then the 'Ward' status would go, for the 'House of Lords' or 'Prime Minister' the 'District' status would be removed. 

Yet the qualifying factors, that put them there, remain. If they move out of the Ward then they lose ALL of their status, a timely reminder as to their origins.

The highest office (Prime Minister/President) would have six levels of control i.e. Community, Parish, Ward, District, First Chamber, Cabinet. The Second Chamber (House of Lords) would have five i.e. Community, Ward, Parish, District, County. The person holding office would have to be re-elected for ALL levels at the end of their term. This may seem a daunting prospect, in reality it would not be, we are not talking about a change in government, just an individual who is a representative, a part of a continuous government that doesn't 'about-turn' every 4 years (that should frustrate the media).


Any proposal's being put forward, should be presented in a common format, itemising advantages/disadvantages, cost/return, how it's to be funded etc. Whilst the probability of being able to complete the form at proposal time, is extremely unlikely, it would remind people that everything has a cost, and that cost has to be justified, as it comes out of someone's pocket.

Proposals for action should be submitted to an investigative committee only if passed by the proposing community i.e. preliminary screening. It should also have a 'revision' period attached, what maybe 'good' for a short period, can be disastrous if run unchecked without a specified end/revision. Whilst 'for' and 'against' committees would/should pick up most potential problems, nothing is perfect, and 'unforeseen circumstances' do happen.  


Each level would have a structure for conflicting issues, a sub-committee 'for' and one 'against' each issue, each to quantify and submit it's reasons to each other, and the 'Council'. 
The sub-committees to be made up from the public, and 'chaired' by a 'Council' member with the public submitting comments to both. The prime function of these groups, is workout the long-term consequences of any proposal which could over-ride the short-term advantages.
The 'Council' setting appropriate controls on the basis of the committee's findings, then resubmitting the proposal to the public. If the implications (of any proposal) had an effect on neighbouring communities, then the investigating procedure would be passed to the high authority, i.e. Ward to District, or District to County etc.

Voting on Issues.

Voting to be done on a three mark system,

A minimum 75%(?) response, with 51%(?) of them voting 'Yes' is required in order to pass a motion/law etc. The number of votes required in order to reject a local issue could be different from an issue that was being passed as having local support to be passed to the higher level (this being lower so that the 'baby was not thrown out with the bath water').

Voting to be done on the basis of declaring the community's 'for' & 'against' votes, thus eliminating the need to equate 'community' population numbers.   Community decisions (numbers for & against) to be recorded in a register and subject to scrutiny, and a slip issued to the elected representative for voting use. Members reservations (regarding any proposal) should be recorded and passed to the higher committee so that procedures can be investigated, and used to control any resulting actions.



Public access
The public having direct access to ALL levels in the hierarchy, but following a prescribed format, i.e. going through the hierarchy from 'Parish' representative upwards, but only using the upper levels if failing to receive a satisfactory response. 


None of this is written in 'tablets of stone', what actually happens is for the public to decide, this is my suggestion as to a potential way that democracy could be given to the public. I've tried to assess the potential for corruption in each part of the election of delegates, and for the voting of issues, this does not mean it's 'bullet-proof', or that I haven't missed anything. Building up from 'communities' should allow potential weaknesses to be found before it's to late.

I've not chosen electronic voting as the medium, there are too many elements that are not under public control in the initial stages, this does not eliminate it's use when fully installed, that again is for the public to decide, but I would warn that there are higher levels of potential corruption than national politics.