Suppose we have direct democracy. Individuals vote on every significant policy decision-- at the *policy* level. This would be carefully worked out-- what is "policy", what is the structural level versus what is administration.

And we could, with the Internet, be enabled to change and update our votes on a continuous basis over time. So you would have direct polling probably 100 times a year. again, over the Internet. Imagine if a policy starts to fail, people logging in and changing their votes.

I mean, abolish the 1787 Constitution, abolish the Congress and president. And set up a more effective decisionmaking structure. as follows.

Since the world is complex, individuals can't actually make competent, rational choices on all the policies that affect us. It's too complicated and interrelated. Let's face the fact-- NONE of us. This is what's driving the anti-intellectual, anti-science movement. This problem must be corrected by formal, constitutional process quite different from "the 1787". so here's a solution:

For example, the federal government might be composed of 30 different agencies, similar to existing departments of transportation, environment, education, food, public health, defense, etc but many more, for example, budget, and public information. Each agency would be governed by a congressional committee which would be "tightly coupled" with its agency. All policy for each domain of knowledge would be authored by the relevant agency and its governing committee, not a general "congress".

There might not be any president at all. Who needs that guy? And there might not be any general "congress", at all, pretending to understand, know and guide everything as a whole. Which they never did, very well. I recommend approximately 30 governing committees or agencies for different aspects of governance-- including most of the present cabinet level agencies in the US but restructured into maybe twice as many agencies.

Furthermore, voters who are voting directly, for the first time, on these complex and detailed policies would *need* the right to appoint specialists we trust-- experts --as proxies to vote our votes on complex things like technology, telecoms, medical care, pharma, the monetary system, finance, foreign policy, etc.

There would be no elections for these proxies-- you could appoint anybody you like, but they might need to meet some qualifications, for the sake of everybody else in the country, not just your religious leader, your mother, etc. They could be accountable to professional licensing boards for each 30 domains, to pass tests, take continuing education, etc like other professions. No duopoly Party could block your choice.

Basically I want all significant policy *choices* to be thoroughly well explained and documented in the clearest, unambiguous language. The development of this semantic framework is one of the biggest tasks. This would require literally a "Department of Truth"-- some formal structure of linguists, perhaps lawyers, but deeply wise people to define the legal meaning of words, and phrases and the underlying realities of legislation. They would develop the wording on the 'referenda' we vote on. Do you understand the goals of this? It is to make voters' policy guidance exactly clear, making it enforceable upon the agencies of government-- not optional. And this would require very significant amounts of money for staff, continual investigation/auditing of agencies.

Because legislation would be exact, there would be less need for courts or high level apparatus in federal agencies to interpret or implement the law. The constitution and legislation would be properly written to anticipate problems and resolve them up front, or kicked back by the 30 agencies to their Committees' to clarify.

Basically I want to *see* the real legislation and have the right to vote on it, and expect this to happen about 100 times a year. I also want the right to delegate my vote or proxy, to experts in particular domains of expertise who I trust, for 20 or 30 categories like medical, transportation, military, foreign relations, energy, housing, toxics, climate change, etc. We MUST stop appointing one single politician for long terms of years, to decide EVERY policy that affects our lives, since they cannot possibly be expert in more than one or two of those domains.