Source
SurfaceReflectionOP•

Ive wanted to publish this for a long time. Finally got around to it. Its not long and it keeps to the crucial points.

Looking for constructive criticism and improvements to the design.

btw, this is not a call for a revolution. As it says in the paper. Im just throwing this out in the wild. To see if it takes hold and survives.

1
SurfaceReflectionOP•

U.N. chief to world leaders: 'Inequality starts at the top'

reuters.com/article/us-un-rights-guterres/u-n-chief-to-world-leaders-inequality-starts-at-the-top-idUSKCN24J0LL

Right you are. Indeed.

And so does justice.

1
sluuuurp•

How would a vote against everyone work? What happens if nobody gets a majority?

1
SurfaceReflectionOP•

It would be counted as dissatisfaction and opposition to the proposed measures, programs and personalities or parties.

It would not be in any way relegated to any party or individual. Or used to ... not have anyone doing the required work, which would be completely idiotic. If thats what you were worried about.

It would be a clear measure of number of dissatisfied with the status quo and therefore, in case of large amounts of such votes a clear signal that a large part of people or a majority wants something else.

Until next election comes (which is also one additional reason why elections would be held every 2 years) any other party or individual who won the next biggest amount of votes would be considered a winner. Because someone needs to do the job and keep things running.

Then it would up to parties and individuals to figure out what those votes against mean and how to turn them into votes for until next election.

I think someone would always get more votes then someone else, even if just a few, doesnt need to be a majority.

All this would work even better in a more nuanced voting system like the Irish proportional single transferable system or similar ones. But does not require it.

If several parties win similar numbers of votes they can form coalitions and "goverments" like its done these days... or positions in the goverment can be split according to percentages.

Whatever works and is simple and efficient.

Mind you, the purpose of this kind of voting is not to have two binary extremes who are trying to defeat one another but instead to facilitate and accelerate adoption of experts and capable into job positions they are naturally fit for.

1
sluuuurp•

That sounds like it has exactly the same effect as not voting then. We already have a system that works like that.

Saying we’ll do “whatever works and is efficient” seems like it’s just promising that some new system will solve problems without actually saying what that system is.

1
SurfaceReflectionOP•

No, it has a completely opposite effect and you do not have a system that works like that at all. Currently - not voting - is meaningless and irrelevant.

edit: In my system this is an actual vote, not just an absence of vote. And it works together with all other measures - not on its own, which you apparently ... missed, right? Or dont want to see.

Saying we’ll do “whatever works and is efficient” seems like it’s just promising that some new system will

Nope, thats just how you translate it due to your own issues. I said it as a specific measure for a specific problem, not as some idiotic meaningless general idea.

Plus, you should have noticed the bolded parts about this being an open sourced system that needs further improvements.

This is not a finished complete set of measures. Its a start.

1
sluuuurp•

Voting for nothing is just as irrelevant as not voting. They are both ignored when doing the counting of votes in order to determine an outcome.

1
SurfaceReflectionOP•

Here is a link to a slightly updated and clarified version:

https://surfacereflection.blogspot.com/2020/07/a-new-improved-socio-political-system.html

1