A Proposal for Decentralized Governance and Informed Public Voting

I'd like to share a proposal I'm drafting, purely for the fun of brainstorming and I'm curious about how this might fit with Libertarians. Discontent with the current state of governance worldwide, I believe that many governments are inefficient, relying on outdated systems destined for failure. If I'm going to critique the existing system, it's only fair that I present my own ideas for improvement. The core of this proposal revolves around decentralized governance for a country. The objective is to eliminate outdated political elements and emphasize accountability, scientific progress, and fairness. I'll delve into the specifics of the voting system, complemented by ideas on how taxation could align with it. To kick off, I suggest abandoning the traditional voting for political parties. Instead, voters would cast their ballots across a range of key industries. Here's a sample breakdown: 1. Economy and Finance 2. Education and Research 3. Health and Social Services 4. Environmental Sustainability 5. Infrastructure and Transportation 6. Justice and Legal System 7. International Relations 8. Defense and Security 9. Housing and Urban Development 10. Cultural Affairs 11. Labor and Employment 12. Agriculture and Food Security 13. Technology and Innovation To decentralize power, each industry would have ten positions, organized hierarchically with the top holding the most influence. A balanced weighting system, such as: * Top Candidate: 25% * Next Two Candidates: 15% each (30% total) * Next Three Candidates: 10% each (30% total) * Remaining Four Candidates: 5% each (20% total) To become a candidate, individuals must submit essential documents for public scrutiny. This includes a one-page summary of primary goals, deadlines, and an overview; an extensive plan detailing everything; and a document listing credentials, conflicts of interest, and funding sources. Voting would involve the public reviewing candidates' plans and allocating a limited number of points across all industries. For instance, each voter might have 25 points, with a maximum of 5 points per industry and 1 point per candidate. This prevents skewed results due to mass voting on hot topics. Annual reviews, akin to a peer-review process, would scrutinize candidates' plans publicly. The public would decide whether to continue supporting a candidate or plan for the following year. For long-term projects, a proposed review schedule by the candidate could be subject to voter approval. Candidates breaking laws would face consequences, and those meeting goals outlined in their plan would receive the benefits specified. As an addition, an optional taxation system could be integrated, giving the public control over where their taxes are spent. Each voter might be given, for instance, 25 points to allocate based on industries or specific candidate plans. Non-voters could opt out of taxes, potentially leading to premium or restricted access to tax-funded services. It's worth noting that not all industry candidate plans need to be tax-funded; alternative funding methods are possible as long as plans outline costs and benefits.