at some point people decided that they should have Global Elections and choose their New Leaders to represent them on the Global Scale. since this was an unprecedented event they decided that new rules must govern this type of election. so they inscribed it that each citizen of a country must vote for one candidate from another country, and against one other. so as an example a citizen from country x would vote for a candidate from country y, and against candidate z which also is from another country beside the one on whom behalf he is voting. now the list of candidates is made up of all types of persons singers, actors, politicians, businessman and so further. so the list is big, really big since we are talking about Global Elections. then again as another rule they decided that this vote could be changed or modified only on a daily base if the voter so choose. this is all I could think up so far. how do you think the two lists would look and how would you cast your vote? remember one vote for someone and one vote against someone else but neither is from your own country
pull down to refresh
I don’t agree with your premise. Supranational organisations are fiat minded and centralist.
Look to the following as to the future; The Zapatista communities in Chiapas, Mexico. Rojava in northern Syria. The Marinaleda commune in Spain. The Cherán community in Mexico.
it's just a thought experiment. all those voted positive or negative would not have any real power beside the one they already have within their own organization whatever type it may be. but beside that centralization can't and won't be eliminated.
With a few modifications I think it could actually result in something better than what we have - but not without sacrificing national and individual sovereignty, which is a non-starter.
It might work well for an advisory committee that has no authority whatsoever, but just can't trust the politicians who would be voted in by the people to stay in their lane and not seek additional, further power.
Additionally, allowing a vote in the first place, much less for a global heirarchical authority, even in the best of implementations, would still be assuming unassumables - such as that it would not be gamed, and that identities can be verified with respect to human rights using currently accepted technologies.
If it were possible (it's not) to count votes properly and allow only one per human and have the vote not be cheated, (again, not possible) I would add the idea that all people with zero or one votes are eliminated after the first round, and the second round everyone votes again, only among those that had received 2 or more in the round prior.
this is Google's Gemini AI take on the subject:
The two lists in a global election with your unique voting system would likely be:
This list would be massive, potentially containing millions of candidates from every participating nation. It would encompass individuals from diverse backgrounds like: Politicians: Current or former leaders, representatives, and prominent figures from various political parties. Business Leaders: CEOs, entrepreneurs, and influential figures in the global economy. Celebrities: Actors, singers, athletes, and other widely recognized personalities. Activists: Individuals known for their advocacy on various social, environmental, or human rights issues. Experts: Specialists in various fields like technology, science, healthcare, and education.
This would be identical to the candidate list, showcasing the same individuals. The purpose is to allow voters to express disapproval of any candidate on the main list.
Casting your vote:
Under this system, you would:
Research: You would need to dedicate significant effort to learn about the candidates' backgrounds, positions on various issues, and their potential impact on a global scale. Given the sheer number of candidates, this could be a daunting task. Shortlist: Based on your personal values and desired direction for global leadership, you would need to shortlist candidates you support and those you oppose. Vote: You would then cast your "for" vote for one candidate and your "against" vote for another, ensuring both are from different countries.Challenges and considerations:
Information overload: Researching millions of candidates effectively is practically impossible for individual voters. This could lead to uninformed decisions or reliance on limited information sources. Popularity bias: Celebrities and individuals with high public recognition might have an unfair advantage due to preexisting familiarity, even if their qualifications for global leadership are questionable. Campaigning logistics: With such a vast pool of candidates, traditional campaigning methods would be ineffective and potentially chaotic. New and innovative ways to inform voters about candidates' platforms and qualifications would be crucial. Strategic voting: Voters might choose their "for" and "against" votes strategically, aiming to eliminate undesired candidates instead of genuinely supporting the most suitable for the role.Overall, while this system offers an interesting thought experiment for a global election, its practical implementation faces significant challenges. It raises questions about voter information access, fairness, and the effectiveness of promoting informed decision-making on a global scale.