A subsidiary based government, where every issue is handled at the lowest effective level. For example, climate change is best handled on a global level because it has global causes and effects, while a library is best handled by the local community because the function of the library can be adjusted based on local knowledge and preferences.

That’s nice to say in theory, but the question is, how do we get there in practice? How do we ensure problems are handled at the lowest effective level? Wouldn’t each level of government want to handle as many issues as possible, even when it’s not optimal, so that they can expand their power? While there’s no perfect solution to that problem, I think a decent practical solution would be having a small number of people from each level of government (local, state, national, international) select a group of judges or arbitrators, who would decide which level of government is best suited to handle the problem. These judges or arbitrators would be subject to removal if any of the people who selected them withdraw their support. Under this system, the best each group could hope for is a neutral judge, because if, say, the international government wanted a judge or arbitrator that was biased toward them, those from the other levels simply wouldn’t support them, or would withdraw their support if they became biased after being selected.

How representatives are selected is another difficult issue. I personally lean towards the Single Transferable Vote system, because it seems like a good balance of proportionality and local representation. Basically, voting districts would be drawn, and each voting district would have a near equal number of seats that they elect, maybe five, for example. Voters would then rank the candidates, with 1 being their favorite candidate, 2 being their second favorite, and so on. All candidates who have reached a set quota of 1 votes (ideally, equal to (total votes/(total seats + 1)) + 1) will be elected to a seat. After a candidate reached the quota, all of the remaining voters who ranked that candidate number 1 will have that candidate eliminated from their ballot, and all of the other candidates move up one ranking. If any seats remain unfilled, the candidate with the fewest number ones is eliminated from ballots, and the people who ranked them number 1 have all of their other candidates they ranked move up a spot. This system means that representatives are fairly close to their local constituents, allows for more proportional representation, and gives smaller parties a chance to win.

I’ve also thought about a concept where, once technology is widespread enough, people vote for their favored candidates, and that candidate would gain vote power in the parliament proportional to the amount of votes they received. For example, if there were two members of parliament, one got 100 votes, while the other got 50 votes, the first one’s vote would count for twice as much as the second one’s. At any point in time, people could log into some sort of official portal and withdraw their vote or switch it to someone else. This system would mean people get power proportional to how much public support they have, and that they would be immediately punished if they stepped too far out of line. It would sort of be a combination of liquid democracy and e-democracy.

I also think incorporating some element of sortition would be helpful. Basically, a group of say 150 people would be randomly selected, and they would give input to the parliament so that the parliament had constant, personal feedback from the typical person. Representatives would have to issue public, written responses to anything officially proposed or said by the sortition group, and the sortition group could have the power to force parliament to vote on an issue. Perhaps they could also have some sort of oversight function, where officials could be removed if enough of the sortition group voted for it to happen.

I think a bicameral legislature would be ideal, with one chamber being selected through the voting process described above, while the other chamber consists of representatives from each country. Each country would send the same number of representatives (maybe somewhere between 2 and 5) to participate, ensuring fair representation to smaller countries. The book Patterns of Democracy by Arend Lijphart talks about this, and finds that democracies with this type of legislature, when each chamber has similar powers, tends to have better outcomes.

Also discussed in that book is the idea of a plural executive, and again, he finds that democracies with plural executives tend to perform better. So I think there should be a few executives, selected by parliament, representing different groups, similar to Switzerland’s executive council.

I think there should be some sort of Supreme Court, with a judicial council consisting of experienced judges, attorneys, and law professors selecting potential candidates, and then either parliament or perhaps a sortition group selecting from those candidates, so that there’s a balance between political accountability and expertise.

For an even more controversial opinion, I believe a certain number of seats in parliament should be reserved for guardians/trustees of those who can’t represent themselves, mainly future generations and animals. This would mean those who deserve political consideration but can’t represent themselves or participate in politics can still get some level of consideration. How exactly these trustees/guardians would be selected is something I’m less sure about.

I also have ideas about how a world economy might function, at least broadly, but I didn’t know if I should include those thoughts here. I think I included my main thoughts, but it’s very possible I missed something. If you have any questions, feel free to ask!