Issue by Issue Voting/Rating
Democratic governments are typically composed of 2 more elected political parties. This is used to reflect the various main views and beliefs on policies and issues in the country. While on the surface this method does help to represent such diversity, it does have a great misrepresentational and inaccurate potential. Take for example the wholesale way in which parties are voted upon. A party may have twelve different main policies and when a person votes for that party all of these issues are all at once either voted for or against, yet this wholesale approval may not even have been close to the voters desire. Take for example a voter who strongly approves of a party's stand against an issue like abortion, same-sex marriages and for some government reforms, as opposed to the other party's opposite views on these same issues, but greatly disapproves of that party's policy on e.g., the environment, social programs, healthcare and foreign policy, among others. This voters, because of the great value they have for the issues they approve of would rather vote for that party instead of others and resign themselves to "endure" the other policies they are against. The dilemma of this single voter may potentially be the same case for millions of voters and it is quite possible that a party be given a majority government while most of the people who voted for it only actually approved 3 out of twelve of their election platform policies. That certainly is not an accurate representation of the country's population.
Another shortcoming of a multi-party government is the wasteful "yo-yo" effect that can exists when different party from the preceding one comes into and radically goes on to undo some of the legislation and programs that were established by the previous leading party. Theses changes may not necessarily be because the previous laws and program were bad but simply because it differs from what the new party approves of. Because they are now the government, they can, and usually make these changes. The worst case scenario is that, in a next election, the party that had originally had established these policies comes back into power and reestablishes these laws and programs. Hence the wasteful, non-progressive, "yo-yo" effect. To make all of this worst, again the wholesale way in which parties are voted upon may not at all reflect the desire of the general population. They may have simply been "approved" of because they were a part of the party's platform and thus also got a seemingly "majority" approval.
To prevent such a situation from occurring in the NJK government, an issue by issue voting/rating system will instead be used. This system will allow for every issue and policy that is proposed to be independently voted upon, and that by using a scaled rating system (e.g., a cumulative scale of 0-100) for further accuracy. This will in effect mean that the NJK government will be a Partyless government where all issues that the general population favor the most will have an equal chance to be instantly implemented in government. The scaled rating system will help to eventually determine exactly how intensely this policy should be pursued and thus just how much of the country's resources should be used for its development. Using this method, the NJK will develop just like and at the preferred rate that the population would like to see. (Interestingly enough, a partyless system does in effect because government of many parties where each member can freely make their ideas and views heard by all).
The use of a Partyless system will also mean that the "temptations" to play wasteful political games and the popular personal attacks on individuals, which many times is irrelevant to the issue that they or their party are presenting, will be taken out of the equation. This means that a misconduct by a member of government will only have consequence upon himself and not the government as a wholesale whole. On the flip side this also means that, this misconduct would not be covered or condoned by anyone in government in order to maintain power or to be used later as a strategic move in a political campaign. Thus such issues will be brought forth and resolved around the immediate time when they occur with the risk of those who knowingly covered it up or condoned, all equally facing appropriate consequences, such as demotion, liability on related wasted expenses, and/or possibly criminal charges.
Of course, for the general public to be able to make knowledgeable decisions, they will have to be satisfactorily informed on "governmental" issues. What is interesting here is that, these governmental, by the great majority, originate as a general public issue, then they get discussed by members of government, and then when they are acted upon either, favorably and disapprovingly, the justification is then communicated back to the general public (through e.g., publications and the news media). Today's democracies usually have a dedicated "political (and/or a political news) channel (e.g., C-SPAN (U.S.) CPAC (CAN)) along with official newspapers to meet this need and this demonstrates that keeping the general public up to date and informed on ongoing political discussions and debate is quite feasible. As it will be seen in the next section, there are several advantages that the Christian society of the NJK and its Biblical economy will naturally supply the framework, technology and time to allow the direct representational system of the NJK government to be able to facilitate this advanced democratic system. May 28, 2008
Political Parties Political Parties of World Countries