Really, consider that every election cycle we sit around sweating over the results, pinning our hopes and dreams on a favorable outcome, and we do this like some gambling addict in Vegas.
“If only we win this election, we can start fixing things.”
Compared to:
“If only I get that one card, I will be rich.”
Or,
“One more pull of this handle, and if it hits, I can pay my rent.”
In my proposal, there are several concepts that are original, and I have never seen discussed, much less implemented.
However that may be I find that way too much focus is centered on the ‘democracy’, and not nearly enough on the process which supports, defines and constrains that democratic process.
Most important, is the divorce of the authority of congress to determine, without constraint, which issues they will address by enacting a federal law, and the authorization to enact those laws they choose to consider.
Congress would be best suited to considering for solution, issues presented to them by an outside authority exclusively.
Their role would be limited to studying that problem they are tasked with and concentrating on that single issue. They would be able to use whatever means they deem needed to find a resolution, and even to promote a range of solutions rather than a single monolithic solution.
When they have constructed a “bill”, or range of bills for consideration by a deciding authority, they are done, job completed. Good job. Way to go, you are heroes!!
That bill, or range of bills, is then passed to a court.
the court considers all of the elements for legality.
This is done on EVERY bill. No law will even be considered for decision unless it has been adjudicated as legal.
That court has no interest in whether the solution will work, how much it costs or whether it will be popular. Only the actual legality, is in question.
Are the rights of the individuals and states preserved and protected as enumerated in the amendments? Is there a contravention of standing law? Was the process outlined in the constitution followed correctly? (if congress added a gold paint for congressional bathrooms in a law to stop pollution, then they did not follow the process, which requires them to ONLY consider the problem or issue presented by the tasking. That would be unconstitutional.) Any law not legal, would be rejected and returned to congress for rework.
Then the bill is passed to the executive, and now that the court has passed the bill, we, the people, and the executive are assured that the law, if enacted will be, in fact legal.
The executive considers and reviews the proposed law, for plausibility. Is the proposal likely to work to solve the problem?
There is no consideration of how popular that law may be, or how outlandish it may seem, the only question is would it solve the problem.
Also, the cost, not how much or little the cost, but rather the accuracy of the cost specified by congress. The bill may require that every person at age 18 receives a new ford truck. If the problem considered is the inability of young people to find reliable transportation. THAT solution WOULD solve the problem.
However, if congress specified that the cost to the nation would be no more than about 20 cents per person, per year, that cost accounting would NOT be accurate, the cost of that solution would likely be FAR more expensive. that bill would be rejected for inaccurate cost accounting. NOT because it’s a silly idea.
A rejected law, would be sent back to congress for rework.
If a proposed law, a bill written by congress, passes judicial and executive review, then and ONLY then would it be passed to some body authorized to make the decision of enactment.
The body that decides whether to enact that law needs to be separate from each of the other branches.
Now, I like the idea of putting that directly to the people, and that is why I designed the outline of chosen representative system.
However, I am not adamant on that concept. I have never seen it in practice. I would like to see testing, improvement and debugging.
Regardless of the makeup of that body, it could be a house of reps, or some other public body of the will of the entire population, but it must be separate entirely and uninfluenced by the previously discussed branches. That body must also be prohibited from involvement with the other branches.
That is the essence and outline of salience, to focus on the deciding body is simply disregarding the relationships, required and defined by the process that serves that deciding body with consistent, rational and relevant decisions for consideration.