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 the 'community' officers would be done by all the members voting for their choice of those wishing to serve. Groups of 'communities' (a 'ward', for want of a name) could be formed with adjoining communities. The senior community representative being on the 'ward' 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.
Voting to be done on the basis of declaring the 'community '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.
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 (parish) web-site publishing 'community'/'ward'/'parish' 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/grants/fund raising/etc.
Chairperson to be the 'ward' representative on the next level, 'community' duties being shared with the number 2 candidate. 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.
* Electing a representative from those wishing to stand.
* The candidates must be resident in the constituency.
* They must be nominated by residents.
* They must declare own, & family, interests.
* Marking is done on 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc choice. If a candidate fails to get OX votes, then another candidate should be looked for.
* The term of office should be 4 years.
* Elections to be done on a rotational basis, NOT nationally, so that a continuity could be maintained.
* If, because of illness, death or misdemeanour, the
elected officer was incapable of carrying out the functions required of that
office, then the upward migration of 'Deputies' would automatically occur. For
misdemeanour's, it would be the responsibility of the 'council' that elected the
individual as to the course of action.
1:- A 'Ward' is made up of 'X' number of 'communities', selection by the committee for the 'chairperson', who then becomes the representative on the 'Parish' 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 'ward' representative should serve a minimum of one year before being eligible for 'parish' office. Their duties to include:
Canvassing for opinions on issues.
Schemes such as 'Neighbourhood Watch'.
Maintaining the upward, and downward, flow of information.
2:- The 'Parish' council members elect 'chairperson'
who become the representative for the 'District' council, No2 becomes the vice-
'Chairperson', No3 becomes the 'Deputy'.
3:- The 'District' council elect an MP, No2 becomes the Chairperson' who is the representative on the 'County' council, No3 the vice- 'chairperson', No 4 the 'Deputy'.
4:- The 'County' council elect the representative 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 'Ward' status, and their 'Deputy' would take that responsibility. If one was selected for 'Cabinet', then the 'Parish' 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, Ward, Parish, 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
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).
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' voting/setting appropriate controls on the basis of the committee's findings. If the implications, of any 'council' decision, had an effect on neighbouring 'councils', then the investigating procedure would be passed to the high authority, i.e. 'Parish' to 'District', or 'District' to 'County' etc.
The public having direct access to ALL levels in the hierarchy, but following a prescribed format, i.e. going through the hierarchy from 'Ward' representative upwards, but only using the upper levels if failing to receive a satisfactory response.
ALL elected members to have E-mail, in order to have rapid response to public opinion, "when I get round to it", is not good enough.
Holidays to be taken by arrangement with others in the hierarchy, so that continuous government is maintained.
Ward officers should know their constituents, and
have routine contact with them. The public should KNOW who their 'ward'