Dan,
I am stunned by the length of your post -- certainly the longest email I've ever read!
I have several major comments.
I am even seriously thinking that we Virians should start up a game of
Nomic, based on a minimal rule set, in order to create a future
political system that could be implemented. We even have a list
("virus-game") which could be used for the purpose.
Nomic FAQ
http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~chatham/nomicfaq.html
The rules of Garden Nomic: (just an example) http://members.xoom.com/gnomic/ruleset.html
The rules of Pumpkin Patch Nomic (another example) http://www-personal.umich.edu/~drwest/EdRules.html
There are lots of games of nomic out there with an evolved rule set -- perhaps it would be instructive for you to read them to see what *has* evolved. Most begin with democratic rule sets, but there are Imperial versions.
Major Point #2:
You seem to think that the final 'stable' point in the evolutation of
the political system will necessairly be the best point. In fact, it
isn't -- it is, instead, the Evolutationary Stable Strategy (ESS). A
common example of how this isn't the best point is the hawk/dove
analysis, in which it's clear a-priori that an all dove population is
best, but (of course) such a strategy is not stable, in that there is
vast benefit for any single hawk which emerges. So what's results is
a mixture of hawk and dove strategies in the population, with the
exact balance dependent on the prizes attached to each outcome. In a
rational world, a political system such as you describe would
hopefully emerge with the 'best' solution, but in practice, I suspect
we will find it ends up at the ESS.
Major Point #3:
I know you address this (and said it's a major problem), but I just
want to point out again that motivated special interest groups can and
will claim massive amounts of control. Much effort was spent in
constructing the US gov. to avoid the 'tyranny of the majority', and,
what with voter apathy, these same rules now help to safe guard
against vocal special interests. As I see it, much of the time spent
on your proposed system would be spent continuously shooting down
these special interest groups -- e.g. citizens of the state actually
have to seriously go out of their way to prevent the vocal 20% (or
whatever) from enacting terrible laws. It would be a huge waste of
time -- at least with a representative gov. we don't have to spend our
time voting against such silly things.
Major Point #4:
It was this: this many people are too busy or too apathetic to
participate in politics on the kind of scale that would be needed
I don't know if you were around when I advanced something like this
about a year ago, but you've clearly thought about it a little more
than I did. However, I have one idea that might be helpful.
(and since if *everybody* participated, totally, the volume of changes
would be too great to manage), it makes sense to have some kind of
system whereby individual can 'give' their vote to another (at least
temporairly). While this might begin with giving your vote to a close
friend whos opinions you agree with, it could *end* with 'professional
politicians', who spend all of their time working at politics, and
have literally thousands of votes given to them. The advantage of
this system over the representation we have now would be that
(a) you can always vote your own vote if you want
(b) you can change who represents you at any time (rather than every
four years...)
(c) you still have the right (responsibility?) to propose legislation,
if you so desire.
I don't know whether you'd see parties emerge, but I do suspect you'd see that a dynamic (ever changing) group of individuals would control the government -- and since every vote is given voluntairy, there is no chance that this group does not represent the people. (e.g. if people thought that the group was behaving incorrectly, votes would be "ungiven" and their power would quicklly collapse)
It would be quite possible to make these 'professional politicians' have a salary, if that was needed -- simply institute a rule which says that anyone voting over X votes is intitled to Y monies from the gov.
The advantages of this system over a pure 'one vote each' are numerous, but most have to do with the fact that the proposals made by these people will tend to have higher quality, and will also have a person dedicated to them in a way that the average Jill (becuase she has another job) could not be.
I think the best part of such a system is that it brings us back again to a Kinocracy.
That's about all the point on the tip of my tongue, but more may occur to me later...
ERiC