[Jolly (OP)]

I've called it Representative democratic Parity, and combined Local/national parlimentary system

Feminists actually inspired me to consider the issue of Parity in political representation- and this is my answer:

Basic concept below for a new type of democratic system that actually allows almost all groups that make up a society to be represented:-

SOOO


Basically the idea is to make local parliaments, which would take over the responsibilities of local councils.


In England there are 533 Parlimentry constituencies, and for councils there are 269 'lower tier' authorities and 353 principal authorities, So 533 constituencies to 622 councils.


So as a basic example all of the councils and there responsibilities would be absorbed by the Parlimentary constituencies, and then each constituencies would have itīs own parliament.


The seats on these new constituency parliments would be pre-allocated- to say as a simple example, If 50% of the constituency were female then 50% of the seats in the constituency parliment would be pre-allocated for a women to hold.


So how does that work. Well simplistically put, women for example, are, as a group are diverse, some are of an older gereration, some of a younger, some stay at home, others work. So you look at all the sub groups which make up the main group "women", and then allocate a seats to represent those sub groups- the members of that sub group then vote for who they want to hold that seat.

So as an example middle aged working women would vote for a person to represent them and their group in which ever constituency they live.

Meaning that after you analize all the diverse groups with-in a constituency you see how many seats you need, and which different group/s each seat should represent. Then each group represented votes for their representative.


Ofcourse we are all either male or female, members of different ethic groups, with different faiths or no faith at all, we all have different classes, different status. And we can be members of different groups all at the same time; that reality adds some complexity but still as complex as that is, it is certainly not too difficult to organise a system that will to a large degree represent fairly, all the different groups that live in a constituency.

There are ofcourse voice less people in any area, to say people that cannot vote, Children, the mentally or psyically dis-advantaged, and members of a sub group too small to be allocated a seat, in the local parliment- In this instence a seat or seats can be alloted and all voters would be able to vote for who they want to hold the seat or seats.


Party politics would still be present as each political party could put a candidate forward in each election for each seat, of each group.

So what you would hopefully end up with is a democratically elected local Parliment, which as best as possible, fully represented all the diversity within that parlimentary constituency, and then continued over the whole country, it would give you a situation where all peoples would be represented.


That would be a foundation, moving from that;

Each parlimentary constituency would then elect one of itīs members to represent them in the house of commons - the main Parliment in London.


The main benefit I see in the idea of local parliments sending one of their members to represent them in the commons-

1. Currently we elect one person who then votes and decides by themselves- what to vote for, which policies to introduce and which questions to ask- with this new idea, all members of the commons would have the support, critic and assistence of the other members of their local parliment-

2. The member of commons would vote as their parlaimentary constitiuency wants them to, leading to a better form of representation in the voting process.

3. Debates would have to take place, currently when there is a vote in the commons, the Mps do not even have to turn up and vote, they do not need to read the white papers, they can vote without having any understanding of what is actually being voted on.

With this new idea, the members of the local parliment will have to discuss issues comming up for a vote in the commons. True not all members might be interested in certain topics yet, for the local parliment to have a position on a vote, a discussion and debate would be needed, currently that all happens in the mind of a single person, your MP.


So this is my answer to the questions of representational-parity in the democratic processes.


If you have an questions or suggestion or comments feel free to pose them.

[Jolly (OP)]

So a local parliment with 100 seats (I say 100 just as an example as it easier)

Should have a percentage of seats reflecting an equal percentage of the different members groups.

Basic example

51% of constituency are female, 51 seats should be allocated to women, leaving the other 49 for men.


25% of the constituency are buddhist 25 seats should be held by buddhists representatives, leaving the other 75% for athiests, christians.

50% of the constituency are working class(you'll love this one) 50- seats should be held by representatives for the working class

25% of the constituency are middle class 25 seat are to be held by representative of the middle class

There you get the cross overs


So as an example you would end up with something like, working class buddhist women holding arround 13 seats or 13% of the seats.

Ofcourse who the Group "working class buddhist women" vote for, is another issue, hopefully they vote for the people they feel will represent them best.

This is a very basic example, that I hope gives you all an idea of how it would work in practice.

Bascially you access the entire population in a constituency, and allocate seats to represent them all, as fairly as possible.

Then each group votes for the people/persons that they want to represent them.

Then the elected officals of the local parliment, vote amoungst themsleves for who they will send to represent them and the constituency in the national parliment. 

The local parliment also takes over the current work of local councils, but with more democratic control and representation, I would argue.

[alancalverd]

Usual confusion due to the word "represent" having two meanings.

To some extent, any man or woman can be said to represent all men or all women: represent meaning "having the same essential characteristics". But that isn't the function of parliament.

The function of a democratic representative is to speak on behalf of and promote the interests of all the inhabitants of a geographical constituency - the other meaning of "represent". 

Whether a person has a penis or a vagina has no obvious bearing on that person's ability to persuade the government to invest in new sewers for Birmingham Central rather than a new runway for East Acton. What matters is his/her ability to summarise and present a case, or scrutinise the arguments in favour of another course of action, and to make deals and decisions with other representatives for the mutual benefit of all.

If accused of murder, would you want to be represented in court by a convicted murderer, or by a professional lawyer?

I have interests in common with scientists, musicians, aviators and heterosexuals, but the decision to spend my taxes on warfare or welfare must be made by someone with an intelligent appreciation of politics and economics and the needs of all my neighbours: the fact that she is a left-handed lesbian is of no consequence.

[Jolly (OP)]

I see the general gist of you point.

But notice please that one person cannot really represent all the different groups that exists within a geographical space of a consituency.

This idea calls for all the different groups to choose a person to represent their group, not one person to represent all of them.

It also calls for each local parliment to debate and discuss new laws, before there is a discussion and or vote in the main national parliment.

Currently one person votes as they see fit, under this idea an entire group of locally elected MPs would discuss new laws and make a collective decision together, that surely is a better form of debate and democracy, compared with what we have now- one person thinking about it and then voting.

If accused of murder, would you want to be represented in court by a convicted murderer, or by a professional lawyer?

I really have trouble seeing the point you are trying to make with this question. Just because someone is convicted of a murder, doesnt actaully mean they actaully did it(there are plenty of examples of innocent death row inmates). Niether does someone having been convicted of murder, mean they are not intelectually capable of representing a person in a court of law: but I suppose if he couldnt get himself off. It suggests he probably would'nt do so well, defending someone else.

So to answer your question, Err not really.

Still, I dont think people will just go voting for murderers- Sorry scrape that they do now.

 

[alancalverd]

I see the general gist of you point.

But notice please that one person cannot really represent all the different groups that exists within a geographical space of a consituency.

This idea calls for all the different groups to choose a person to represent their group, not one person to represent all of them.

But there are as many groups as there are people. As a  lefthanded lesbian dentist with blue eyes, do I get four votes or one? If one, can I choose which group to assign it to? Are Christians a group? If so, will the Catholics accept a Protestant representative?

It also calls for each local parliment to debate and discuss new laws, before there is a discussion and or vote in the main national parliment.

That can (and in my opinion should) be achieved by  a pyramidal system based entirely on geography.

If accused of murder, would you want to be represented in court by a convicted murderer, or by a professional lawyer?

I really have trouble seeing the point you are trying to make with this question. Just because someone is convicted of a murder, doesnt actaully mean they actaully did it(there are plenty of examples of innocent death row inmates). Niether does someone having been convicted of murder, mean they are not intelectually capable of representing a person in a court of law: but I suppose if he couldnt get himself off. It suggests he probably would'nt do so well, defending someone else.

It is simply to point out the two different meanings of "represent". Imagine you are uneducated, unemployed, and accused of murder.  A convicted murderer, whether guilty or innocent, has at some time stood in your shoes, faced with evidence of a crime that he has apparently committed, and if he has no legfal qualifications, is therefore far more representative of you than a trained barrister who has never broken a speed limit. Who would you want to conduct your defence?   

Still, I dont think people will just go voting for murderers-

Oh but they do. And not just convicted single murderers, but populist dictators who have personally killed several and ordered the death of thousands.

[Jolly (OP)]

I see the general gist of you point.

But notice please that one person cannot really represent all the different groups that exists within a geographical space of a consituency.

This idea calls for all the different groups to choose a person to represent their group, not one person to represent all of them.

But there are as many groups as there are people.

No there are not as many groups as there are people, you need a few people atleast to make a group.

As a  lefthanded lesbian dentist with blue eyes, do I get four votes or one?

You'd get one to vote for someone to represent you and all other lesibian dentists- if that was considered valid as a group that needed representation. There would always be certain, very small nieches of people that would not be big enought, to deserve holding a seat, yet they could all as a small group colective vote for a person to represent them.

If one, can I choose which group to assign it to?

These are questions to consider.

Are Christians a group?

They are, yet you'll find all Christians are also male or female, working, middle or upper class. There are groups that interconnect and as such you would get a situation that, gives a seat to each of these sub groups.

It'll never completely match all the different groups in an area, but it doesnt have to, this is more about giving as many as possible a representative. And currently we all vote for one person, this idea means voting a local parliment, it's a far more democractic ideal, then what we currently have.

If so, will the Catholics accept a Protestant representative?

Some would some wouldn't, not an issue, both would be allowed seats to represent them.

It also calls for each local parliment to debate and discuss new laws, before there is a discussion and or vote in the main national parliment.

That can (and in my opinion should) be achieved by  a pyramidal system based entirely on geography.

Your point I am not sure I folow you'll have to explain better. All democracies work on geography.

If accused of murder, would you want to be represented in court by a convicted murderer, or by a professional lawyer?

I really have trouble seeing the point you are trying to make with this question. Just because someone is convicted of a murder, doesnt actaully mean they actaully did it(there are plenty of examples of innocent death row inmates). Niether does someone having been convicted of murder, mean they are not intelectually capable of representing a person in a court of law: but I suppose if he couldnt get himself off. It suggests he probably would'nt do so well, defending someone else.

It is simply to point out the two different meanings of "represent". Imagine you are uneducated, unemployed, and accused of murder.  A convicted murderer, whether guilty or innocent, has at some time stood in your shoes, faced with evidence of a crime that he has apparently committed, and if he has no legfal qualifications, is therefore far more representative of you than a trained barrister who has never broken a speed limit. Who would you want to conduct your defence? 

Interesting yet it is a very different subject, the court of law compared to a parliment. As such it bares little regard to what we are discussing here, people voting for who they want to represent them in a parliment, to dicuss new laws and solutions to current problems, a court room is a totally different circumstance. So your question is really unrelated.

Still, I dont think people will just go voting for murderers-

Oh but they do.

Yeah they Voted Obama and bush in again, but they would'nt consider themselves murderers, regardless of what some people think about War or drone attaks.

And not just convicted single murderers, but populist dictators who have personally killed several and ordered the death of thousands.

In the current system certainly. There is a lot of centralised power in the current system. Local parliments fragments that.

[Jolly (OP)]

I have interests in common with scientists, musicians, aviators and heterosexuals, but the decision to spend my taxes on warfare or welfare must be made by someone with an intelligent appreciation of politics and economics and the needs of all my neighbours: the fact that she is a left-handed lesbian is of no consequence.

Hey alancalverd, I was just looking at this again and I have to say that, I would argue that people should be allowed to decide for themselves where their taxes go. Those that do not agree with paying Tax should be allowed to keep their money- ofcourse they would not be allowed to use public services if they did so and would have to pay privately for health care, waste disposal, fire service(or pay the public fire service expenses if they ever call on it), To say I would argue to fully democratize taxation.

Those that want a National health service would pay the tax for it, those that do not would either go Private or pay at cost if they ever decided to use the National health service.     

There is ofcourse the social contract, which itself does come with a tax, for police and ect, but people could also choose to opt-out, that would be a crazy decision in my oppinion but, some might want that choice.

As an add on I was watching this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOZQDZNBy3I

The issue discussed namely that the politicians have become an echo chamber where they no longer hear the people and their concerns at all, which would never happen in the democratic ideal I am proposing, simply because far more groups and members of the society are included in all political discussions from the begining of the process.

[alancalverd]

The usual (Civil Service College, and first year undergraduate politics and economics) response follows from Lincoln's definition of a country: a defined area defended by an army. Now if you don't want to pay the army tax, we will have to evict you. But where will you go? Every other bit of land is defended by someone else's army, paid by the local taxpayer. No road tax? Then you can't drive on our roads, but more to the point, you can't benefit from anyone else driving on the public road, so no deliveries and no access to anything that has ever moved by road.

[Jolly (OP)]

The usual (Civil Service College, and first year undergraduate politics and economics) response follows from Lincoln's definition of a country: a defined area defended by an army. Now if you don't want to pay the army tax, we will have to evict you. But where will you go? Every other bit of land is defended by someone else's army, paid by the local taxpayer. No road tax? Then you can't drive on our roads, but more to the point, you can't benefit from anyone else driving on the public road, so no deliveries and no access to anything that has ever moved by road.

No thatīs a rather over simplification, You do not "have" to evict pacifists that do not agree with the military, that is a threat and form of intimidation, surely all taxes should be justified rationally, I agree there should be a consiquence if a person refuses to pay for a public service, but those consiquences should not be pay of leave, rather those that pay should be priviledged in some way over those that refuse- the same theme with a health service you dont want to pay the taxes then you dont get to use it, and have to pay privately.

It goes without saying that if you want to Drive a car then you have in some way pay for the car and the road maintence, but if you do not want to drive, then why should you? If you say people that do not pay road tax are not allowed to recieve deliveries of a business by road- then you are just hurting a business that is paying the road tax, but wont be allowed to deliver on a road they have paid to use- hence what you are saying makes no sense at all.   

[alancalverd]

OK, so when the hun horde invade, the army protects me first, then you. That certainly used to be the case with private fire services, and some old houses still display the "fire plate" over the door, but it makes air and sea warfare very complicated. The question does arise from time to time as to what to do with pacifists in wartime, and the civilised response is to offer them noncombat duties in the emergency services, which most seem happy with, but the penalty for not paying taxes can be imprisonment without the option of public service.

The problem of putting hauliers out of business is nonsense. They can use the road they have paid for, but you can't receive any benefit you haven't paid for. I don't have a moral duty to buy anything from anyone, but you can't accuse me of  impoverishing the makers of Cartier watches or any other crap I don't wish to pay for. Speaking of which, I note that advertisements for expensive watches all depict competitive speed: racing cars, fighter jets, skiers.... but the point of a watch is surely that it goes at exactly the same speed as everyone else's?  But I digress.

No there are not as many groups as there are people, you need a few people atleast to make a group.

Au contraire. "O" level mathematics. Consider A, B and C. Three blokes. A;B;C;A+B;A+C;B+C;A+B+C = seven groups. If n>1 there are always more possible groups than members.

[GoC]

Why don't we let science and math using pilot communities figure out the best way for those in the community to balance service, compensation and enjoyment. Then every person vote on the rules that had the best results or results that favored their own talents. We do not need representatives with the technology of today. An ideal society is one where the needs of everyone are met. The nature of man does not allow for that nature to rule. Our technology is such that everyone could be fed and sheltered but that would need a change in future population growth. Religion and the emotion of man is excess populations worst enemy. There needs to be a big picture approach to life on the earth and not the free reign segregationists approach. Look at North Korea. Scientifically designed pilot communities with engineered population constraints needed so we do not destroy the life giving aspects of the Earth by over population. Lets for once get ahead of disaster. Nature made us to intelligent for it to destroy our over population but not intelligent enough to control our own emotions for the best results of balance. Trump is helping nature by refusing medicine for the weak and those that cannot compete in society. I do not agree with that approach but many turn a blind eye to the suffering this causes. Does any politician really represent the best solutions for society? Those that seek control are not necessarily the ones that can solve society problems. We do not need representatives to represent us we need representatives that represent a healthiest and happiest existence for life. 

[Jolly (OP)]

OK, so when the hun horde invade, the army protects me first, then you. That certainly used to be the case with private fire services, and some old houses still display the "fire plate" over the door, but it makes air and sea warfare very complicated. The question does arise from time to time as to what to do with pacifists in wartime, and the civilised response is to offer them noncombat duties in the emergency services, which most seem happy with, but the penalty for not paying taxes can be imprisonment without the option of public service.

The problem of putting hauliers out of business is nonsense. They can use the road they have paid for, but you can't receive any benefit you haven't paid for.

Ofcourse people can, you are saying if people do not pay road tax they should have no benefit from the road- which is rediculas.

I don't have a moral duty to buy anything from anyone, but you can't accuse me of  impoverishing the makers of Cartier watches or any other crap I don't wish to pay for.

No one suggested you did, my point was that if you say a person that doesnt pay road tax, should not be allowed any benefits from road use, or be allowed to recieve home deliveries,  then you just hurt delivery companies that home deliver.

Speaking of which, I note that advertisements for expensive watches all depict competitive speed: racing cars, fighter jets, skiers.... but the point of a watch is surely that it goes at exactly the same speed as everyone else's?  But I digress.

Your point? No two people are the same

No there are not as many groups as there are people, you need a few people atleast to make a group.

Au contraire. "O" level mathematics. Consider A, B and C. Three blokes. A;B;C;A+B;A+C;B+C;A+B+C = seven groups. If n>1 there are always more possible groups than members.

Yes people can be members of more then one group, but you still need more then one person to form a group. There will never be more groups then people- unless you count old groups with no members anymore.

[Jolly (OP)]

Why don't we let science and math using pilot communities figure out the best way for those in the community to balance service, compensation and enjoyment.

Well you already hit the hurdles of what is the "best" way, How is that decided? Why Choose Balence of service, compensation and enjoyment? 
Why Science and Math? Or better Said Scientists and Mathematicians?

Itīs sounds like you are proposing a scientific collectivism. or Authoritarian technocracy. 

Then every person vote on the rules that had the best results or results that favored their own talents.

Vote on Rules that had the best results? Everyone is different- what works for one group will not for another, simply because Groups dynamics change with each group.

We do not need representatives with the technology of today.

Well you are arguing that all people should be involved in all discussions and decisions, realtiy is that all people will not, only those interested will. You could make it compulsory- but that would mean all people would have to devote most of their time to discussion and voting.  And there are also issue of trust when it comes to technology.

An ideal society is one where the needs of everyone are met.

Is it? You sure, human needs are rather simple, some water, a biscuit and a tent- All you need- warm countries you donīt even need a tent, 

So you sound like a techno commie- I suppose a computer is in your needs list.

The nature of man does not allow for that nature to rule.

Not true- depends on the person, some people learn self disipline, and elevate themselves out of the animal side of our natures, other are walking pigs.

Our technology is such that everyone could be fed and sheltered but that would need a change in future population growth.

Why? Tents are small. and you dont need that much resourses- to make busicuts for everyone.

Seriously Protien mineral vitamin biscuists- "soylent someting".

Religion and the emotion of man is excess populations worst enemy.

OH that Loving Christian pest

There needs to be a big picture approach to life on the earth and not the free reign segregationists approach.

People segregate themselves- so you would force them-all to be the same?

Look at North Korea.

OK, Iīm looking at it.

Scientifically designed pilot communities with engineered population constraints needed so we do not destroy the life giving aspects of the Earth by over population.

You want to engineer people to have "constraints" And this all ties into North Korea...- OH- ok I get it.

Lets for once get ahead of disaster.

Thatīs what Kim Yong-nam said.

Nature made us to intelligent for it to destroy our over population but not intelligent enough to control our own emotions for the best results of balance.

So what are the "best results of Balence"?

Trump is helping nature by refusing medicine for the weak and those that cannot compete in society.

Is He? I heard he was gonna try and make a more universal health system. You are bit contradictory here, I mean I thought you wanted everyone to get what they needed.

I do not agree with that approach but many turn a blind eye to the suffering this causes.

And as others turn a blind eye itīs ok for to do so also? Ok

Does any politician really represent the best solutions for society?

Well Iīm not sure any politican offers an overall solution- for society, then generally argue over different issues.   

Those that seek control are not necessarily the ones that can solve society problems.

No ofcourse not.

We do not need representatives to represent us we need representatives that represent a healthiest and happiest existence for life. 

Do you mean- we need leaders that lead by example? Is that another North Korea thing?

[GoC]

It sounds like you have access to your right side amygdala. Are your interests solving societies problems?

Why don't we let science and math using pilot communities figure out the best way for those in the community to balance service, compensation and enjoyment.

Well you already hit the hurdles of what is the "best" way, How is that decided? Why Choose Balence of service, compensation and enjoyment? 
Why Science and Math? Or better Said Scientists and Mathematicians?

Itīs sounds like you are proposing a scientific collectivism. or Authoritarian technocracy.

Neither, rules of engagement that include the greatest parts of the collective society. Kind of like a constitution that is actually observed based on society as it exists today.

Then every person vote on the rules that had the best results or results that favored their own talents.

Vote on Rules that had the best results? Everyone is different- what works for one group will not for another, simply because Groups dynamics change with each group. 

You cannot please everyone the best you can hope for is the greatest portion of the population.

We do not need representatives with the technology of today.

Well you are arguing that all people should be involved in all discussions and decisions, realtiy is that all people will not, only those interested will. You could make it compulsory- but that would mean all people would have to devote most of their time to discussion and voting.  And there are also issue of trust when it comes to technology. 

There are those able to compete in society and those that cannot. The best societies protect the weak. There are no trust issues with technology only human emotions that use technology to hurt others.

An ideal society is one where the needs of everyone are met.

Is it? You sure, human needs are rather simple, some water, a biscuit and a tent- All you need- warm countries you donīt even need a tent, 

So you sound like a techno commie- I suppose a computer is in your needs list.

To compete in society yes a computer is on the list for competition. Labels can be destructive if you like. Politicians use them to best advantage. The debate over free enterprise and communism is a debate over human emotions. The lazy prefer communism and the strong prefer free enterprise. When we work for others we are in a state of communism compensation although not fair to all employees based on there contributions.

The nature of man does not allow for that nature to rule.

Not true- depends on the person, some people learn self disipline, and elevate themselves out of the animal side of our natures, other are walking pigs.
 

We are all animals and subject to nature. You have obviously seen the worst parts of human nature. I have been more lucky than most and have associated with those of the same scientific minds.

Our technology is such that everyone could be fed and sheltered but that would need a change in future population growth.

Why? Tents are small. and you dont need that much resourses- to make busicuts for everyone.Seriously Protien mineral vitamin biscuists- "soylent someting".

You do not intend to feed natures desire to improve ones self. That causes the pig syndrome you are complaining about.

Religion and the emotion of man is excess populations worst enemy.

OH that Loving Christian pest
 

Christians from the past were some of the worst terrorists the world has known. Christians used to be ok with prostitutes until they found men were more interested in following women then religion. That is when Mary magdalene  was demonized.

There needs to be a big picture approach to life on the earth and not the free reign segregationists approach.

People segregate themselves- so you would force them-all to be the same?
 

Follow the same rules is not forcing all to be the same. Population control needs to be part of society's goal to protect the future. That by math is the biggest problem of the future. Science will not be able to feed the increased population if allowed to go unchecked.

Look at North Korea.

OK, Iīm looking at it.
 

How deeply?

Scientifically designed pilot communities with engineered population constraints needed so we do not destroy the life giving aspects of the Earth by over population.

You want to engineer people to have "constraints" And this all ties into North Korea...- OH- ok I get it.
 

Political speak again? I say designed society for needs to be met and people to be the happiest. You say that ties to NK. You appear to be damaged by society as it exists today. Sorry.

Lets for once get ahead of disaster.

Thatīs what Kim Yong-nam said.
 

With population control? I guess you are correct. He killed his uncle for falling asleep at a meeting. That is not a solution I would have approved of course. Political speak again?

Nature made us to intelligent for it to destroy our over population but not intelligent enough to control our own emotions for the best results of balance.

So what are the "best results of Balence"?
 

Health

Trump is helping nature by refusing medicine for the weak and those that cannot compete in society.

Is He? I heard he was gonna try and make a more universal health system. You are bit contradictory here, I mean I thought you wanted everyone to get what they needed.
 

I see you are not above lying. A political maneuver to not quote the entire point.

Trump is helping nature by refusing medicine for the weak and those that cannot compete in society. I do not agree with that approach but many turn a blind eye to the suffering this causes. Does any politician really represent the best solutions for society?
 

I do not agree with that approach but many turn a blind eye to the suffering this causes.

And as others turn a blind eye itīs ok for to do so also? Ok
 

You would make a good politician. They all mislead for power. You are a natural!!!!!!

Does any politician really represent the best solutions for society?

Well Iīm not sure any politican offers an overall solution- for society, then generally argue over different issues.   
 

And generally argue out of personal interests over interests of society.

Those that seek control are not necessarily the ones that can solve society problems.

No ofcourse not.

We do not need representatives to represent us we need representatives that represent a healthiest and happiest existence for life. 

Do you mean- we need leaders that lead by example? Is that another North Korea thing?

 

Once again I am sorry for the damage caused by society.

[Bored chemist]

Sounds a bit like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

[Jolly (OP)]

Sounds a bit like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

Sounds a bit like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

Only "sounds" Proportional representation simply means as stated that- "characterizes electoral systems by which divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body" .

Firstly its an electoral system, and devides based on political position, So if 50% are conservate then 50% of the house should be conservative and so on, itīs a system which tries to get the elected more or less to politically match the population.

What I am proposing here is a completly different system. First the merging of Local government with the central government:- local government authorities with the consistuency- to create a local parliment, whch would take over the role of current local government, and elect one member to go and represent that local government- that consituency in the national parliment.

OK so when there is a vote- in the house of commons as we have today in Britian, each MP there(in the house) would vote as a representative of their local parliment- to say the local parliment would debate each issue to be voted on(in the house) and then tell their representative which way to vote. A big change from what we have currently, as currently the people in a consituency vote for one person to take a seat, and that person votes as he or she decides-

under this new system that one seat(in the house) has an entire local parliment behind it, with 10, 20, or 30 members, made up from the different groups that exist in that consistuency(that is where the representative element comes from).

That would mean there would be a debate in every local parliment, and a debate in the national parliment.  after which the local pariments vote and then their representative votes as agreed in the national parliment.   

Today that is conducted by one MP elected to represent their constituency- under this new idea all the local MPs and all the different people they represent would have a say in that discussion.

So this is very different to Proportional representation.  Democratic Representation is not so much about politics it seeks to represent all the different groups and thier interests, but not just in the political sense as we have today, in the form of conservative of Labour, but in a deeper sense of indenity. Would working class women want a Labour party woman to represent them? Maybe, but then maybe they would prefer a Working class woman with no political affiliations who they feel understand them better and would represent them better.   

[Jolly (OP)]

It sounds like you have access to your right side amygdala. Are your interests solving societies problems?

Why don't we let science and math using pilot communities figure out the best way for those in the community to balance service, compensation and enjoyment.

Well you already hit the hurdles of what is the "best" way, How is that decided? Why Choose Balence of service, compensation and enjoyment? 
Why Science and Math? Or better Said Scientists and Mathematicians?

Itīs sounds like you are proposing a scientific collectivism. or Authoritarian technocracy.

Neither, rules of engagement that include the greatest parts of the collective society. Kind of like a constitution that is actually observed based on society as it exists today.

What exactly is the "greatest parts of the collective?"  You need to be clearer in what you are trying to describe because kinda like a constitution isnt making much sense.

Then every person vote on the rules that had the best results or results that favored their own talents.

Vote on Rules that had the best results? Everyone is different- what works for one group will not for another, simply because Groups dynamics change with each group. 

You cannot please everyone the best you can hope for is the greatest portion of the population.

So you are a communist?

We do not need representatives with the technology of today.

Well you are arguing that all people should be involved in all discussions and decisions, realtiy is that all people will not, only those interested will. You could make it compulsory- but that would mean all people would have to devote most of their time to discussion and voting.  And there are also issue of trust when it comes to technology. 

There are those able to compete in society and those that cannot. The best societies protect the weak. There are no trust issues with technology only human emotions that use technology to hurt others.

No there are serious issues with tenchnology if you seek to use it as a means to make decisions, like voting, paper votes are kept becuase they are harder to fake, unlike with electronic voting where time and again manipulation has been found to occur. Ultimately with all technology those in power can use it to their benefit.

An ideal society is one where the needs of everyone are met.

Is it? You sure, human needs are rather simple, some water, a biscuit and a tent- All you need- warm countries you donīt even need a tent, 

So you sound like a techno commie- I suppose a computer is in your needs list.

To compete in society yes a computer is on the list for competition. Labels can be destructive if you like. Politicians use them to best advantage. The debate over free enterprise and communism is a debate over human emotions.

No it is not, communism and free markets are not emotions

The lazy prefer communism and the strong prefer free enterprise. When we work for others we are in a state of communism compensation although not fair to all employees based on there contributions.

The "strong" or "Lazy" could prefer either depending on their preference or situtaion. No working for others is not a state of "communism compensation" there could be many reasons why someone would work for someone else

The nature of man does not allow for that nature to rule.

Not true- depends on the person, some people learn self disipline, and elevate themselves out of the animal side of our natures, other are walking pigs.
 

We are all animals and subject to nature. You have obviously seen the worst parts of human nature. I have been more lucky than most and have associated with those of the same scientific minds.

Our technology is such that everyone could be fed and sheltered but that would need a change in future population growth.

Why? Tents are small. and you dont need that much resourses- to make busicuts for everyone.Seriously Protien mineral vitamin biscuists- "soylent someting".

You do not intend to feed natures desire to improve ones self. That causes the pig syndrome you are complaining about.

Why are they Natures desires? and not Yours? Or peoples?

Religion and the emotion of man is excess populations worst enemy.

OH that Loving Christian pest
 

Christians from the past were some of the worst terrorists the world has known. Christians used to be ok with prostitutes until they found men were more interested in following women then religion. That is when Mary magdalene  was demonized.

The science you love so much was developed by Christians like Darwin, Newton was a free Mason. But still science as we know it came out of Christianity and Islam. Do you have a reference to you claims about prositution?

There needs to be a big picture approach to life on the earth and not the free reign segregationists approach.

People segregate themselves- so you would force them-all to be the same?
 

Follow the same rules is not forcing all to be the same. Population control needs to be part of society's goal to protect the future. That by math is the biggest problem of the future. Science will not be able to feed the increased population if allowed to go unchecked.

Depends on the rules- Everyone must wear these clothes is a rule. And the earth could feed many more people, seems you have fallen into the propoganda of the current age about over population. You clearly do not know that over population is a non issue. 

Look at North Korea.

OK, Iīm looking at it.
 

How deeply?

Deeply enought to know what Kim Yong-nam said.

Scientifically designed pilot communities with engineered population constraints needed so we do not destroy the life giving aspects of the Earth by over population.

You want to engineer people to have "constraints" And this all ties into North Korea...- OH- ok I get it.
 

Political speak again? I say designed society for needs to be met and people to be the happiest. You say that ties to NK. You appear to be damaged by society as it exists today. Sorry.
 

People decide for themselves where their happiness lies, ergo your attempt to make a society that gives them happiness will just turn in a tyranny- With the dicatators asking "why arnt you smiling?"

P.S we are all damaged by society as it is today.

Lets for once get ahead of disaster.

Thatīs what Kim Yong-nam said.
 

With population control? I guess you are correct. He killed his uncle for falling asleep at a meeting. That is not a solution I would have approved of course. Political speak again?
 

Not sure If I should feel complimented or repulsed, a little of both.

Nature made us to intelligent for it to destroy our over population but not intelligent enough to control our own emotions for the best results of balance.

So what are the "best results of Balence"?
 

Health

 

Great and who gets to decide what that means?

Trump is helping nature by refusing medicine for the weak and those that cannot compete in society.

Is He? I heard he was gonna try and make a more universal health system. You are bit contradictory here, I mean I thought you wanted everyone to get what they needed.
 

I see you are not above lying. A political maneuver to not quote the entire point.
 

That is not a lie- Obama lied, Affordable care act was brough in to save the government money not provide affordable care to americans- hence why even with Obmam care around 37 million Americas I think the number is could be a few more are still with no health insurence, Obama care just gave a massive wind fall to the insurence industry, while Obama tried to cut medicade.

Trump has stopped it and is looking at ways to cut costs on drugs and takel the insurence industry- If he manages to bring in a singel payer system weīll see. 

Trump is helping nature by refusing medicine for the weak and those that cannot compete in society. I do not agree with that approach but many turn a blind eye to the suffering this causes. Does any politician really represent the best solutions for society?
 

I do not agree with that approach but many turn a blind eye to the suffering this causes.

And as others turn a blind eye itīs ok for to do so also? Ok
 

You would make a good politician. They all mislead for power. You are a natural!!!!!!
 

You wanna actually answer the question before you cast dispersions?

Does any politician really represent the best solutions for society?

Well Iīm not sure any politican offers an overall solution- for society, then generally argue over different issues.   
 

And generally argue out of personal interests over interests of society.
 

You mean the interest of those they represent, ofcourse currently business puts them in and funds their campaigns to they serve them.

Those that seek control are not necessarily the ones that can solve society problems.

No ofcourse not.

We do not need representatives to represent us we need representatives that represent a healthiest and happiest existence for life. 

Do you mean- we need leaders that lead by example? Is that another North Korea thing?

 

Once again I am sorry for the damage caused by society.

OK Thanks, Iīll tel the guy sitting next to me in the internet cafe, releasing what ever drug aerosol he is, that you said that.

[GoC]

The science you love so much was developed by Christians like Darwin, Newton was a free Mason. But still science as we know it came out of Christianity and Islam. Do you have a reference to you claims about prositution? 

Constantine

The rest of your discussion is to cause drama and that is unfavorable to solving problems. Demonizing women and not letting them into the men's club is a Christian issue from the past. Still do not let them into the club.

Were you going for pro-situation or prostitution?

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

it's a issue just like "Racism", it starts to exist at the moment you invented the word and started talking about it...
and it's sustained by the new perception of man kind that one needs to "give" or "be"...

 Like a model citzen walking trough the street.
 Sudently a Cop loose it's mind and shoot him on the arm once.
 Somehow the citzen managed to get in possession of the cops weapon.

Now the situation diverges: Talkign about myself, if the wond was not fatal, i would try to implement logic but wouldnt exitate to do wherever it takes to "ENSURE" my heath. That also includes injure or neutralize the agressor, despise being a autority or anything.

 Slavery happen or tried to take place on each culturetrough history of humanity. the only difference in between africans and chineses, is that:
"They did not unite themselves to ... all those irrational slavers.".
Not sugesting weakness on the race itself, all humans, africans by some aspects as resitence, inteligence, longevity even superior to most of us.
 It was cultural, somehow african culture was not based on war and conflict on that scale. they saw no purpose into die for the other.
 Of course not all of them but the sucssefull sįlavery itself is proof of this fact. "They slaved." The very sentence shouldnt be possible...

 Turning back to the elephant on the room.
 The Feminist concept as a reality is twisting many things. I myself admire strong womans.
 Altough I do not quite understand why?:

If a woman is not happy or satisfied with the fact that "the cop shoot her", why do not sacrificate the imediate peace and solve it right away?
Whitout ever consider "our" side of the issue?
 Intead most are trying to organize methos and law, which is admirable and surely does work, but some do not see the loss of their souls on the process....

 You're instaling "preventing laws" not for "change" but for protection, this right because your expectation seems to be that "never will" change...
 Is a hope insurance against the hopless man. Doesn't make any real sense...

The option B is to for getabout the "world" as a reality and fix wherever need to be fix when it need to be fixed. Imediatlly.
 No man will ever listent to a feminist that talk abut laws, it's a moral issue, we can only listen to someone that explains her desires and objectives to us, in a manner that she's completly ignoring our understanding or not, about what she is saying...

 Same way I'll never understand the model citzen that when shooted irrationality by a aleatory cop, will keep looking to the wond and perplex asking himself why, subsequently, begging for him to "give" him alternative, because he do not believe he "should" react to an "autorithy", this while he bleeds to death...

Cop is only a practical reference for example, of how twisted life can be, "the cop" is just a representation of any individual, male, that try to imposse some sort of autorithy that goes against your health. Why?

But take care to this detail:
 30 years old. i never had to apply this metology on real life,a few almosts but nothing relevant.
So, if someone come to me to me and say: DO IT! I'm the one whith the tools to think: "I wont"

In the other hand, the one hopping for the "giving".
  It'll read this, and stated to believe that is cold, insensitive or agressive.
 It'll b domain by it's own imaginary and may start to feel fear. At this moment I've become a menace.
It'll then slowly start to shape the world acting on my blind spot, by the meanings of commentary, conversations and more.
Eventually resulting in a twisted version of the reality, where everything that I represent, must be eradicated. IT'S AGAIN'S THE LAW!

There it's everyhting allowed to protect the LAW. the very laws I helped to forge to protect myself from "him", the man I "see"...
 Eventually thisvery law will as always turn against yourself, for there always will be someone else "imagining" you...

Any law builded over reality, no need to worry, it will be simple by logic...
Any law based on a lie that my ego wants to believe, will inevitable turn itself, eventually against myself...

why?

For i'll eventually have to face that I was a lair implementing over, in order to "feel control" over what I could not control...
 The last question of such culture will inevitable be:
"What will now protect me from myself?"

By the way most of my friends are women, that actually "became" my friends...
I consider anything that is illogical and unfair as something undesired and somehow incorrect.

 I just dont get it, why do not face the situation when it's real, rather than try to prevent something that not even the enemy can...

[Jolly (OP)]

The science you love so much was developed by Christians like Darwin, Newton was a free Mason. But still science as we know it came out of Christianity and Islam. Do you have a reference to you claims about prositution? 

Constantine

What about Constantine?

The rest of your discussion is to cause drama and that is unfavorable to solving problems.

Solving what problems? The porblem of not enough communism? and over population?

 Demonizing women and not letting them into the men's club is a Christian issue from the past.

What mens club? You mean the priesthood?

Still do not let them into the club.

The Priesthood? There are female priests today.

Were you going for pro-situation

Depends on the issue.

or prostitution?

No where, I have never been to and never will go to- a prositute.