A System of Government I Thought of

Post Reply New Topic

Hello, I identify as a primitive traditionalist and tribalist. My opinions don't really fit into the left-right/authoritarian-libertarian spectrum, so I usually just tell people I'm an independent to keep it simple. I won't go too into them since I think some of my ideas conflict with the rules of the site. Anyways, I thought of this hypothetical system of government, and I was wondering what people here thought of it. My boyfriend and I want to found a micronation someday once we're moved out and own our own property, and we want to implement a system similar to this one, but we want to refine it as much as possible to avoid corruption. Obviously ours won't likely get big enough for many of these aspects to be implemented, so it's mostly hypothetical. Criticism is welcome and encouraged! (As long as you're not outright attacking me for my beliefs)

When the population is below 25 people, there is just pure direct democracy. Once the population reaches 25, three officials are elected and four are chosen at random. One of the elected officials must be male, one must be female, and the other can be of either gender. Besides them, two men and two women are chosen at random. This ensures against a dictatorship of the elite while making sure the state isn't controlled completely by commoners. All of these people have equal power and decide on issues, but the popular vote of the entire voting population can overthrow any of them at any time. The one elected person of either gender serves for a term of two years; the elected man and woman serve one year; and the randomly selected people serve six months, so there is a constant rotation of different backgrounds and opinions. When the population reaches 50, one more man and one more woman will be elected, and one more of each will be randomly selected, and so on for every 25 new citizens; the one leader of either gender remains one, but for every 25 his/her vote in assembly counts one vote more. So if there's a population of 100 people, they will be led by 9 men, 9 women, and one person of either gender whose vote is worth 4, totaling 19 leaders and 23 votes. When the population reaches a thousand individuals, the state will grow and split off geographically based on circumstance like an amoeba, and there will then be two entirely distinct and independent states. This way, people are always governed by their own kind, and there is no risk of an unrepresented minority.

Votes are based on the population of legally designated districts. The popular vote of a district with a population less than 25 will count as one vote, and this grows exponentially. So in a district of 26-50 voters, the popular vote will count for two, a district of 51-100 counts for three, and a district of 101-500 counts for four. Any more than 500 counts for five. This makes sure urban districts don't have an unfair advantage over rural ones based on population size alone.

Ah! A tyranny!

Bog off, it's got bells on.

With such frequent turnover of leaders, how do you overcome the issue of short-term-only planning? This is a problem in my nation where governments have a three year term and may be reelected.

Notice the signpost up ahead? It reads: "The Future, Not for Males and Females Anymore."

Your system of government doesn't account for transgenders, etc. Are they not welcome?

Also, there's the assumption that enough men and women would be available for leadership. It could very well be an Amazon-type society where the majority of voting-age people are women and the men are either less than 18 years old or so old that they could care less about politics.

There's also the possibility that your government would host a two-party system, but the available candidates are either all male or all female, rendering your male-female system moot.