Superior Standard of Lawful Conduct

In comparing two differently constituted bases (plural of basis) for law, a superior standard of lawful conduct is one where, if You are adhering to the laws as prescribed, then You are providing a better guarantee of fair and respectful treatment toward your fellow human Beings, and/or your actions are less restricted, than in the other basis. That is what the Interactive Sovereign Society Constitution is to the Crown’s Canadian Constitution: a superior standard of lawful conduct, in both of the above ways. Forcing some One who is willing to abide by the laws of the Interactive Sovereign Society to remain under the governance of the Crown, especially if you have not even discerned for yourself whether the above is true, is blatant tyranny, and a crime against Humanity.

Are You aware of reports comparing the level of democratic principles being available to members of different nations, such as transparency and accountability, in which Canada is dropping not only on an objective scale, but even on a scale of comparison to other nations in the world? Does the thought of the word “tyranny” being more and more reasonably applicable to Canada’s governance concern You? Do You believe that a superior basis for lawful conduct in Canada should be adopted for Canadians if one is irrefutably available for practical and viable implementation?

2 thoughts on “Superior Standard of Lawful Conduct

  1. I am aware of Harper’s autocratic conduct, and it definitely does concern me. I think one of the greatest flaws of the current system is a lack of accountability; once a person is voted into power, there is little that can be done about it should he or she begin abusing their power. Accordingly, a system of RECALL needs to be implemented in order to keep these “representatives” honest in accurately representing the will of the people who put him or her into power in the first place…

  2. I have worked with the interactive electoral system in two different environments before founding the Interactive Sovereign Society. The first was a prototype on facebook, just as an experiment, to observe how people responded to this system in a place where it wasn’t having any effect, and thus couldn’t introduce instability or indecisiveness into a place where this would cause any detriment to any important functions, as these are the qualities that most people immediately cite as dangers when hearing about the interactive electoral system. I started a group called the ODDS (Ongoing Demographic Democracy System) group on facebook, and had it up to 200 members. The prime rep had 12 votes, and there were about ten other candidates. It was a lot of work putting it all together. It probably is the single most important factor that cost Me a relationship with a wonderful woman that I lived with for five years, but sacrifices in politics for the interest of relieving tyranny in one’s nation are the only reason that progress is ever made, and I believe I have done what needed to be done. The result? I discovered my theories to be consistent with practice. The system was NOT unstable. The decisions were NOT inconsistent or impossibly delayed. The candidates were NOT hostile toward each Other.

    The second environment in which I worked with the interactive electoral system was the Canadian Action Party, a federal party founded by Paul Hellyer, former deputy prime minister of Canada under Pierre Trudeau, as Canada’s anti-NAFTA, pro Bank of Canada party. As party Secretary, I introduced the system to this party and again, had the system functioning for several hundred voters. Again, no instability, no indecisiveness. The only problem was that the people accustomed to being able to wield unaccountable positions of power and glory, and who had pursued politics with this agenda in their minds, saw Me as an enemy, and rallied against Me personally. Then when they finally amassed enough numbers to get rid of the system based on allegations that I, with all of the character flaws they had managed to manufacture to put fear into party members of my Self, introduced the system to fulfill my own hidden agenda, I resigned. I learned from this experience that using a political party to further the interactive electoral system’s existence is a bad idea, because political parties simply attract power hungry people, while those who do not enjoy wielding power shy away from them.

    The question now is how much You, or any One else, trusts my skills at extrapolation. I would argue that the interactive electoral system is the best, simplest, most stable, most functional system of electoral democracy that includes a form of recall built right into it. I have seen other forms of recall, and I certainly believe recall is a great idea, but I haven’t seen anything that compares to the interactive electoral system.

    I have a bachelor’s degree, with a major in mathematics and a minor in computing science, and two course short of a minor in physics. In high school, I came first in the province of BC every year in mathematics competitions, right up until grade 12, when I came second in the province (bummer). Extrapolation is a mathematical skill. If We trust my judgement that I can extrapolate from two different experiences with 200 People that the interactive electoral system would work for 35 million, then it is worth encouraging new members to join the Interactive Sovereign Society, since it is the only opportunity in Canada to participate in an interactive electoral system. It is also the only organisation in Canada which recognises that, on any day when there is not an election, our rights under section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are being denied. Violated! As the Interactive Sovereign Society continues to build, the results of my theoretical predictions for the interactive electoral system in populaces larger than several hundred will become apparent. If the result is an electoral system that includes the recall mechanism right in its own inception, and which takes less time and resources to manage than any other electoral system presently on the books, and never denies its members the right to vote, then I hope that We can agree that this is an entirely worthwhile effort!

    The thing about the interactive electoral system is that it is more than just a system of recall, because it attracts candidates with different personality characteristics than a periodic electoral system does. The competitiveness of periodic elections does not find its way into the interactive system, because the candidates are the type of People that communicate and reason with each Other. The fact that recall is built into the system, and even the need for recall in the first place, becomes a bit of a distant memory once the system has attracted enough participating members, because no One can recall a moment where a candidate tried to deceive or overpower any One. It just doesn’t happen!

    So with regard to recall, I would certainly like to know, based on your experience so far, how You find that the interactive electoral system compares with any other form of recall You’ve ever heard described, or better yet, experienced. I would also appreciate any updates from You as the membership increases as to whether the elected prime representative of the ISS, and the collection of other candidates that function as the council, or coalition, that manifests the will of the People of the society as a whole, is doing this job with sincerity, integrity, and transparency. If the story of the ISS is presented to voters in Canada who are given their little part in the direction of their nation once every FOUR YEARS, perhaps They will begin showing some interest in seeing this form of democratic election used in their government.

    Would that be grand?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *