Elite rule


Young people are screwed over by democracy
The focus in a democracy is to get votes but you need to be a citizens at age 18 (or older) to exercise your power to vote, thus it doesn't directly matter how many people under 18 that disagree with a policy since these people cannot vote anyway.

What often will happen is that politicians get pushed to provide more and more resources to old dying people while young parents are not getting the support they need.

Furthermore young people are subjected to totalitarian social control including being locked up at institutions despite not breaking any law. Sexual relationships become legal landmines to to AoC legislation where you can go to jail over having a relationship with someone a few years younger.

Even when effort is put into making sure young people get support (such as good education) that often end up as a failure due to government incompetence.



Televised elimination games
The executive council can be selected via very brutal elimination games similar to the astronaut selection process.

Then there is only 2 people left citizens (such as C2 and higher) can be given the final say.


Why the US constitution is bad
If we just look at united states as a country now we see that it's really not a nice place to live in, by all meaningful metrics it's bad. It's a rather nasty police-state where taxes goes to propping up increasingly totalitarian states and the central government while mothers are not given the support they should be entitled to.


The fertility rate is a total disaster.

A lot of problematic policies end up being implemented by individual states and in many cases there isn't a single viable state to flee to. In 13 states you can be jailed for fucking a 17 year old girl even if she agreed to it and enjoyed it, this is not acceptable.

The supreme court
It does not properly serve as a check to the legislature since it can be packed just by passing a law, currently this is viewed as wrong but when you need it the most is when a party do not care about these things.

We also have the issue of political appointments to the courts.

The presidency
The entire executive branch is controlled by a single individual (the president). In addition the president also have the power to veto new laws and to pardon people.

This was supposed to act as a check to the power of the president but its way to slow in the case of nuclear war, when it's time to have the trial in the senate the war will already be over. Giving just one individual the power to send nukes is really dangerous but it may also work as a scare tactic against other countries (madman theory).

The party in power will be very unwilling to turn against their own president so it thus takes a lot to remove a president from office, if the democrats where serious about removing Trump from office they would have built a better case before sending it to the senate.

In practice the president will get away with doing clearly impeachable acts, at most the other party can send it to the senate to make the ruling party look bad but it may also backfire, this is why the republicans never tried to impeach Obama.

For the house of representatives people are elected from state-districts which is far from ideal. One obvious issue is that then the states can draw districts in a such way that the party in power will get most of the seats



Fixing the US constitution
The founding fathers understood that the constitution they drafted were temporary and thus allowed it to be amended, this currently require the approval of 38 of 50 states.

One good start would be to require 60% majority in both houses to pack the supreme court (up to 15 justices).

The house of representatives should be replaced by a single board where the smaller states are grouped together


If the result is not approved by every individual state in the district it will go directly to the supreme court.

States should not be allowed to legislate at all.

Once congress has passed a law it will be sent directly to the supreme court for final approval, if the supreme court say no then congress can override that veto with 2/3 majority in both chambers.

Both the supreme court and congress will be given impeachment powers.

Congress can impeach (remove and replace) anyone with 2/3 majority in both chambers. The supreme court can impeach someone with 2/3 majority (such as 6 of 9 justices) if it isn't blocked by the senate (will require 60% majority).


The Chinese system
The most powerful body is the polit buro standing comitee which consists of 7 people

Mathematically concentrating the power to just 7 people isn't really ideal and it might be even more concentrated in practise due to xi jinping having a cult following. In addition each member of the polit buro standing committee has a field he specializes meaning the other members will not provide a proper check to his power.


The stated reason for not having all 25 members of the polit buro govern is that then they would be unable to meet often enough but they do not actually need to meet all at once, they just have to be 13 or more so they will be able to make a majority decision.

China does have a rubber stamp parliament that meets for 2 weeks every 5 years



Analyzing the chinese system matematically
For the polit buro standing committee we get the following


x = probability of a polit buro standing committee member making one decision
y = probability of the polit buro standing committee making said decision

For the entire polit buro we instead get the following


For the national peoples congress standing committee (175 members) we get



The chinese system is clearly outperforming western democracies
This is not only when comparing to stagnant western developed nations but also when you compare with developing countries like india.


Despite being at a disadvantage (the infection was first discovered in china) they were able to quickly get the covid-19 situation under control while western democracies wasted months doing what exactly?



Why the china system is outperforming western democracy
The more people you involve in the decision making process the harder it will be to govern*
The advantage of having a system of voting is that then if someone make an incorrect decision he/she can be outvoted by the others in the ruling elite and thus you reduce the probability of a bad decision.


By giving all/most power to a small number of people you can quickly get done what needs to be done.

Western democracies are popularity contests where people get elected by saying what people want to hear, Donald Trump is the best example of that. When in power politicians are mostly focused on getting re-elected instead of doing what's good for the country.

Western democracies over-rely on the private sector, it is believed that capitalism will magically solve the issues we face but of course that doesn't work out to well. Instead companies like google and facebook grow so powerful they overpower the government. Instead of censorship by government we end up being censored by google, twitter, reddit and facebook. Sure you can have your own website (which is costly and can be difficult to set up) but then getting visitors will be hard.

The end result of the libertarian/ancap insanity is corporation gaining totalitarian control, a pharmaceutical company may force people to take their drugs "for their own good"


Most western countries failed to properly manage covid-19 due to incompetent leaders and the notion that we should try to limit government power. My country Sweden ended up going for the "herd immunity" insanity and now over 10000 people have needlessly died here and we still have to socially distance, our economy took a bad hit, tens of thousands still suffer from the complications "long covid".

*collective leadership can also allow for instant decisions 24/7 by always having a majority of the ruling board awake (having them sleep at different times) but i am not aware of any implementation of that.


China vs USA totalitarianism
One argument against the Chinese government is lack of human rights. The issue with this reasoning is that having a weak government isn't sustainable anyway so you just end up with more and more totalitarianism

Age of Consent is 14 in china which is more liberal than the US (which has it at 16 to 18 depending on state).

The prison population/capita is 6 times higher in the US.

Due to the amount of laws in the US they are able to arbitrary throw anyone in jail, they can always find some crime to pin on you.




China vs USA government projects
The chinese infrastructure is more modern, they have high speed rails and they are building new ones.

China recently returned material from the moon while the US keep spending money on the Space Launch System that keep getting delayed.




According to the pisa test China is #1 while the US is #37 (mathematics)



How many do you need present?
Even if many senators are asleep it might still be possible to get to a majority without any senators having to be woken up.

if 10 of 15 are present we get the following

x = probability of a senator making a decision
y = probability of the senate making said decision just with 5 of 15 senators absent.

for 16 of 25 senators present we get

x = probability of a senator making a decision
y = probability of the senate making said decision just with 9 of 25 senators absent.

For 30 of 45 senators present we get

x = probability of a senator making a decision
y = probability of the senate making said decision just with 15 of 45 senators absent.

for 28 of 45 senators present we get

x = probability of a senator making a decision
y = probability of the senate making said decision just with 17 of 45 senators absent.

for 27 of 45 senators present we get

for 26 of 45 senators present we get

for 25 of 45 senators present we get

for 24 of 45 senators present we get

for 23 of 45 senators present we get


Is china changing for the better?
It could be argued that while there has been many bad policies the chinese central government is over time figuring out what works while scrapping harmful policies such as the one child policy.


Upcoming elite rule in the united states
Whats likely to happen is that tech companies gain more and more power, this could remain informal but we might also see the following polit buro standing committee taking over in the united states



If the appeal require at least one of the seven judges to request it we get the following


x = probabily of a judge appealing
y = probabilily of at least one judge (of seven) appealing)

If appeal require at least 2 of 7 judges we get the following

x = probabily of a judge appealing
y = probabilily of at least two judge (of seven) appealing)

For a court consisting of 9 individuals we get the following

y = probability of at least (1,2,3,4,5) senators appealing.
x = probability of a senator appealing.
Here is an example of a system with 315 A-citizens in control.


A0: 35 (high court)
A1: 19 (executive council)
A2: 15 (science board)
A3: 15 (legislature)
A4: 13 (financial board)
A5: 11 (board of education)
A6: 9 (confidential research board)
A7: 7 (open research board)
A8: 7 (board of arts & aesthetics)
A9: 7 (board of recreation).
A10 to A168: 1


A0: 45 (high court)
A1: 19 (executive council)
A2: 19 (science board)
A3: 15 (legislature)
A4: 15 (financial board)
A5: 13 (board of education)
A6: 9 (confidential research board)
A7: 7 (open research board)
A8: 7 (board of arts & aesthetics)
A9: 7 (board of recreation).
A10 to A152: 1


A0: 15
A1: 15
A2: 15
A3: 15
A4: 15
A5: 15
A6: 15
A7: 15
A8: 15
A9: 15
A10: 15
A11: 15
A12: 15
A13: 15
A14: 15
A15: 15
A16: 15
A17: 15
A18: 15
A19: 15
A20: 15


Segregated elite rule
The ruling elite will be seperated from each other (different locations) each having their own advicors/specialists helping them make the correct decision at a very high frequency (over 90%) or make a decision for him/her when he/she is sleeping (or be waken up if there is significant disagreement).

If the vote ends in a draw then the lowest numbered voting body will decide (usually A0).

Each A-citizen have full control over their voting organisation and will decide who will be able to wake him/her up if he/she is sleeping (can be other A-citizens too).

When someone is sent to court there will be one judge from each organisation present.

A: ruling elite
B: selected by A-citizen (part of their organisation).
C: citizen
D: slave
E: non-citizen
F: enemy of the state

If the numbers of members of the ruling elite are N then
B0 = first successor to the A0 seat
B1 = first successor to the A1 seat
B2 = first successor to the A2 seat
BN = second successor to the A0 seat
BN+1 = second successor to the A1 seat
B2N = third successor to the A0 seat

If N=15 then the successors to the A0 seat will be B0, B15, B30, B45, B60 and so on.


Deciding draws
In the case a vote among the A-citizens ends in a draw there has to be a deciding mechanism.

The solution is to look at a certain odd number of a-citizens that voted (such as the 9 of the lowest rank) but is there any general way to always get to an odd number?

One method is to divide the total number of votes by 2, if you still are at an even number you divide by 2 again and continue like that until you get an odd number


O = vote
Ø = one of the deciding votes in the case of a draw



Another way to decide draws is to have the following
total Votes   deciding votes
2 to 4        1
6 to 12       3
14 to 36      9
38 to 108     27
110 to 324    81
330 to 972    243
974 to 2916   729
2918 to 8748  2187



If the only voting senators are (A0, A1, A5, A6) then A0 will decide the outcome unless (A1, A5, A6) are unanimous.


How pointless votes can be avoided
In the case of court-cases you can simply focus on hearing cases where a significant number of judges dissented, that way your vote as one of the judges can be very meaningful even if you didn't vote with the majority decision. Thus most easy decisions will be made on lower level without reaching the senate.

There might still be cases of easy decisions that has to be made by a senate vote, for that reason there will be 4 types of senate votes that can be made.


Once a majority consensus has been reached the matter is finished and the other senators will not have to even bother with it (they might be asleep missing the whole thing). This means that if you as a senator disagree with the outcome of a quickvote you can just abstain from voting.

Full open vote
Everyone will cast a vote (for, against, neutral) but they not have to hide how they vote from senators who have not voted yet. If you do not want to disclose your dissent you have the option to wait and see if a majority consensus is reached and then after that you can just vote along the majority since your vote will not effect the formal senate decision.

But minority dissenting votes can be meaningful since the president will be stronger if the decision was made by overwheling majority (such as 315 to zero).

Full closed vote
In a full closed vote the senators will not see how other senators voted until everyone has cast their vote.

Full senate trial
A formal trial is held that will include experts giving their opinions and senators doing research on their own to prepare for the final vote.