THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION PROTOTYPE PROJECT

Answers to Common Questions

Why elect three representatives from each election district? Why not just one or two?

In an election where there is only one winner, voters will ultimately fall into two camps: the winners and the losers. In areas where extreme political polarization exists, that often means that a large portion of the voters (potentially approaching 50%) will fall into the “loser” camp. However, in a “win, place, or show” election where ranked choice voting is employed, most if not all voters will have one or more of their preferred candidates elected. Note too that when the electorate is highly polarized, having three representatives rather than two ensures that the more popular political position will have greater “weight”, particularly when the results of many regional elections are aggregated.

1

Why use ranked-choice voting rather than first-past-the-post voting, which is and has been the most common voting system around the world?

While clearly the simplest voting system to understand and therefore the “default” voting system, first-past-the-post voting has many drawbacks. For example, it is well known that whenever there are more than two candidates in an election, one of the candidates can act as a spoiler by stealing away votes from the most popular candidate. That can then lead to a less popular candidate winning the election. Ranked-choice voting helps to ensure that the most popular candidate wins while also allowing potential “third party” or “independent” candidates to enter an election without fearing they will become a spoiler.

2

Besides the spoiler effect, what other problems are associated with first-past-the-post voting?

Let’s see. If you have an hour or two, we can discuss gerrymandering, the propagation of “fake news”, and campaign funding issues. But, if you are not looking for a comprehensive list, perhaps we can keep it simple and focus instead on low voter turnout and widespread political apathy. Low voter turnout and widespread political apathy can develop whenever voters believe their vote will have no impact on the outcome of an election. In fact, such apathy and low turnout is quite common in areas where the electorate is believed to heavily favor a particular political party or candidate. So, voters will often ask themselves why they should make the effort to vote when their preferred candidate is almost certainly going to either lose or even win (assuming the risk of a loss is low).

3

I do not see a “President”, “Prime Minister”, “Chancellor”, or similar executive mentioned in relation to the proposed government. Doesn’t a nation need a leader to inspire and direct it?

No. People are not sheep, nor should they be seen or treated as sheep. The citizens of a nation require public servants who serve the people. If people need inspiration, they should be inspired by those who truly inspire them, not by politicians seeking to increase their own political power.

4

What role do you envision political parties having in the proposed government?

Ideally, little or no role. Political parties are essentially employment agencies for politicians. On the positive side, they “screen” and promote potential political candidates. On the negative side, they systematically divide the nation’s citizens into cliques. And by dividing a nation in such manner, political parties, particularly in a so-called “two party system”, make the nation vulnerable to subjugation. As the adage goes, “divide and conquer”. Once you are divided, you are easily controlled.

5

Regarding term limited officers, why conduct two referendums? Why not have one and be done with it?

The purpose of the first referendum is to give critics an opportunity to raise their concerns about a government official and to give the electorate a heads up on the extent of the public’s dissatisfaction with the official. Having a second referendum gives the official an opportunity to rebut any criticism and recruit voters to support and defend them. Note that if an official’s critics are unsuccessful at recruiting sufficient voters to their side for the initial referendum, there is no point in holding a second referendum.

6

Instead of having referendums, why can’t citizens simply vote for the person they think should run a public service agency?

Anyone who has ever had to hire someone to work for them knows how extremely difficult it is to evaluate the applicants for a job opening. However, when it comes to terminating an employee, the decision is typically driven by clear performance inadequacies and/or conduct issues. The purpose of having an Appointments Board make the appointments is to segregate the hiring and firing functions, giving the firing function to the voters and assigning the hiring function to trusted individuals who, as a team, can work together to determine which job candidate should fill each job opening. The alternative—holding elections at the end of every term—merges the hiring and firing functions and turns the entire process into a carnival, where the contestant with the loudest megaphone wins.

7

If referendums are a great way for voters to voice their discontent, why not have referendums for the heads of every government agency?

On the surface, that seems like a good idea. However, most people would find it extremely difficult and time consuming to evaluate the performance of every government agency and its executive. So, it makes little sense to burden them with such decisions. Instead, citizens should be free to focus their attention on the agencies that deal with issues that impact them directly. And for the other agencies, the ones they would have difficulty evaluating, that is precisely why the proposed government includes a House of Representatives.

8

Shouldn’t there be a limit to how long an executive officer can oversee an agency?

Absolutely not. Why fire someone who is doing a good job and replace them with someone who has no experience at all doing the job? When someone stops doing a good job, that’s when you should fire them. Not before.

9

Besides the spoiler effect, what other problems are associated with first-past-the-post voting?

Let’s see. If you have an hour or two, we can discuss gerrymandering, the propagation of “fake news”, and campaign funding issues. But, if you are not looking for a comprehensive list, perhaps we can keep it simple and focus instead on low voter turnout and widespread political apathy. Low voter turnout and widespread political apathy can develop whenever voters believe their vote will have no impact on the outcome of an election. In fact, such apathy and low turnout is quite common in areas where the electorate is believed to heavily favor a particular political party or candidate. So, voters will often ask themselves why they should make the effort to vote when their preferred candidate is almost certainly going to either lose or win.

10

Shouldn’t a senior executive officer, like a president of prime minister, have the power to veto laws they don’t like?

The enactment of laws is a process that begins with the drafting of a proposed law (aka “bill”). The proposed law is then ratified on the basis that it is both reasonable and just. And then the law effectively undergoes testing in the real world to uncover whether the law contains hidden defects. Giving a single person the ability to squash a law that has been carefully crafted and then determined, through rigorous analysis, to be reasonable and just by a “jury” makes little sense as the true motivations of an individual for taking any action cannot be known with certainty. Note that the idea of having an executive veto power grew out of the desire of kings to have the ability to squash any law the parliament came up with that the king, for whatever reason, did not like. And the primary objective of such executive power was to ensure that the king retained the ability to prevent the parliament from limiting the king’s often tyrannical power.

11

Instead of having citizens vote on a dozen or more executives every year, would it not make more sense to instead have a single executive oversee all the “executive” agencies and then have citizens vote on that one person every year or couple of years?

The agencies of a government deliver different services to the public. To be performed correctly, such services require a significant amount of expertise specific to the services provided. The services delivered ideally should also align closely with the desires and expectations of the public. Lumping all federal services under the control of a single person effectively guarantees that some if not most of the services that the government agencies deliver will not align closely with the public interest. It is akin to being required to hire a single person to serve as one’s lawyer, one’s dentist, one’s gardener, and one’s financial adviser. Would you not want to be able to hire different people to perform those different services for you? Would you not want to be able to fire a bad gardener without also having to fire a great dentist? And would not your hiring decision in such a case be driven by your most pressing concern and that, as a result, your other concerns would have to take a backseat to that primary concern? So, if you answered “yes” to those questions, why would you want to impose such a limit on yourself?

12

Why ten voting members on each board? Would it not make more sense to have an odd number of board members, such as nine or eleven? That way there would always be someone to break a tie vote.

The reason for having an even number of voting board members is to make sure that the decisions reached by a board are passed by a supermajority, not a simple majority, or worse, a plurality.

13

Why is there a requirement that decisions reached by the House of Representatives, the States Assembly, and the eight governing boards must be passed by a supermajority? Why shouldn’t a simple majority be sufficient?

The goal is to prevent decisions being passed that are highly divisive. In theory, a supermajority requirement would help ensure that most if not all decisions reached by those government bodies would likely be broadly supported by the public and/or be supported by any jury of prudent persons.

14

Instead of the supermajority requirements, why not require a unanimous decision? Wouldn’t a unanimous decision be even more likely to be widely supported by the public than a decision passed by a supermajority?

Unanimous decisions are extremely difficult to achieve and can lead to undesired compromises. Note that only one person could intentionally block an important decision unless that person’s demands are satisfied, and the other members of the government body, desiring to have a decision pass, might then be compelled to acquiesce to such demands even though such demands effectively amount to extortion.

15

Our constitution was created by our founding fathers, who were inspired by and with enormous, nearly God-like, wisdom and foresight. They specifically divided the powers of the government up and cleverly built in checks and balances. Our nation has operated under it with enormous success for hundreds of years, and many have fought and died to defend it. Why on earth then would we ever want to replace it or substantially reform it?

If you are happy with your constitution, no one here is telling you to change it or replace it. The constitution prototype is intended only for citizens of nations that recognize significant deficiencies in their existing constitution and nations that lack a constitution, possibly due to a major social upheaval. Replacing a nation’s existing constitution—particularly when the nation is doing extremely well economically—should be undertaken with extreme caution. And unless there is nearly universal support for a replacement, such replacement should be avoided.

16

This sounds like some kind of communist or socialist propaganda. I believe in capitalism, free markets, and minimal government intervention.

The constitutional prototype is intended to be a political solution only. It is not intended to support or advocate any specific economic system (e.g., Communism, Socialism, or Capitalism) but rather be applicable to any nation regardless of its preferred economic system. That said, it is expected that any constitution based on the prototype would be accompanied by other foundational documents that would, for example, outline the nation’s economic tenets and the rights and freedoms of the nation’s citizens.

17

Many nations have suffered from years of racial and/or religious oppression. Many indigenous peoples have suffered at the hands of colonizers and immigrants. Shouldn’t the government take steps to address the adverse effects of such long-term oppression? In the "equal treatment" section of your video, you clearly appear to be advocating that the government should turn a blind eye to such endemic problems. Is that correct?

The intent of the project is to create a government that would treat all citizens equally. As soon as factors such as race and religion become justifications for special treatment for certain citizens by the government, the goal of equal treatment is defeated. Note also that such special treatment can engender long-term envy and hostility in those who do not qualify for such special treatment and who, in fact, may ultimately bear the cost of providing such special treatment. As the saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. And any remedy imposed to address past injustices may ultimately simply aggravate and prolong the injustices such remedies were meant to correct.

18

We just overcame the effects of a global pandemic. Our government required that everyone get vaccinated. In the inherent rights you mention, you appear to be implying that vaccination in such circumstances should be voluntary. Is that correct?

Absolutely. When carefully examined, the justification for mandatory vaccinations is extremely weak. Life is inherently risky. Forcing someone to undergo a potentially risky medical intervention to lower a risk faced by some other person or group of people is unethical. It does not matter what medical experts claim. Such experts have, in the past, prescribed many treatments that, on subsequent analysis, have later proven to be at best ineffective and at worst extremely harmful. One needs to draw a line regarding what a government can demand of you, particularly when it comes to your own body. And rather than compel people to undergo medical treatments, what the government should do instead is focus on building trust and making reasonable requests of its citizens. In fact, as a rule, the federal government should always tend toward advocacy over imposing mandates in relation to such issues.

19

In your example of inherent rights, you appear to potentially be advocating for abortions. Many feel abortions are immoral and tantamount to murder. Others see it as a matter of “privacy”. Should not the government weigh in on such important moral issues?

The proposed inherent right to have an abortion is an extremely divisive issue. Strong moral arguments can be made both against and in support of such proposed inherent right. Note that one can argue that the moral dilemma is in fact a personal dilemma born by the person considering an abortion and thus is not a matter for one's government or neighbors to decide. Furthermore, the federal government weighing in on such a highly divisive moral issue would only serves to needlessly handicap itself while simultaneously opening the door to the doctrine that the government has a right to decide what medical procedures someone can or cannot undergo. So, a federal government would be prudent to decline any invitation to weigh in on such a contentious issue that is not essential to its mission.

20