A New Form Of Government

The book

A New Form Of Government : Rational Government

A new and revised edition is now available under the title:

A Second American Revolution: Creating Rational Government

By: Jamil Talaat Kazoun

Published March 5, 2006

Say you were driving a car and came to a fork in the road - one road to the left, and one road to the right - and only one of these two roads would take you to your destination, and you did not know which road to take. Now, assume that there are 100 congressmen standing at the fork of the road, and they decide they want to help you find your way to your destination. So you ask them: Which way do I go? Left or right? And the congressmen look at each other, and 49 percent decide you should take the right road, and 51 percent of them tell you they think you should take the left road.

Would you feel comfortable following the 51% vote? How much confidence would you have that 51% of congressmen are correct? Not much! After all, if it just happened that 2% of the congressmen had voted the other way, the 51% vote would have gone in the other direction. In other words, even if 51% percent are telling you to take the left road, the 51% are equally likely to be wrong as they are to be right. If the vote was 80% to 20%, you would feel much more comfortable about taking the left road, and following the 80%.

So, in reality, it is not how many people voted to tell you what road to take, but the difference between those who told you to go one way, and those who told you to go the other way. In this case, with 51% telling to go right and 49% telling you to go left you might as well toss a coin to decide which way to go! But, if 80% told you to go left, then 80% in favor minus 20% opposed equals a 60% difference between the two views. That would make you feel a bit more comfortable that your decision is likely to be a correct one.

Let us stay with this example for a while. What if 51% of these congressmen said you should go left, and 49% said go right, but your final destination was only a coffee shop that was 200 feet away? You would probably not be too concerned about how correct the 51% were, because the stakes are a lot lower. If they were wrong, about 200 feet down the road you could make a turn, come back and take the other road. Not much harm done. A small amount of your time lost, and there was very little gasoline spent. So you don’t even think about it. Either way is fine.

Now, let us assume that your destination is about 200 miles away. Are you going to be so quick to take the advice of the 51% of the congressmen telling to take the left road? Now, you are going to start to think: What if the 51% percent are wrong? Knowing the costs of making the wrong choice are higher, you are going to be very hesitant, and very worried, about taking their advise.

Now, let us assume that your destination is 200 miles away, and you are going to the hospital because you just got a phone call that your mom is in the emergency room in critical condition. Which advise would you take? Imagine making such an important decision in life on a confidence level as low as 51% versus 49%.

Would you flip a coin to decide whether to go join the army or go to college? Would you flip a coin to decide whether to see the doctor when you are sick? Would you flip a coin to decide whether to spend your budget on a house or on a vacation? I hope that you are starting to see the point. When you make a decision, it is not important how many people vote to tell you the decision is correct. What should be important is the percentage difference between those who are telling you to do one thing and those who are telling you to do the opposite. When 51% of the people tell you do something in this case, that means that 49% are telling you not to do it, and you have to look at how likely is each one of these two sides is to be correct in what they are telling you. A 2% margin, under simple majority voting, is not a margin that inspires confidence. When I seek the advice of someone, I want some assurance that their decision, is much more likely to be correct than not. I want a 30% margin or 60% or 90%. I also take into consideration the importance of the decision. Finding a coffee shop down the road is not that significant, but passing a law which in effect imposes restriction and costs on others is and should not be based on simple majority rule. How you spend your budget, and whether or not to go to war also should not be based on simple majority rule.

The arguments people have made for following a simple majority have focused on the 51% component of the decision, giving a false sense of legitimacy to the tiny 2 % (in effect, practically zero percent) confidence level that the decision is correct. Any one can make decisions, and lots of them. What should be important instead is correctness of the decision.

Democracy as it exists today, with its simple majority rules, is a flawed process that generates as its byproduct poor decisions and poor laws.

Under simple majority rule, 50% of the voters plus a single vote will win and determine the outcome of what person gets voted into office, and what law gets passed. In Congress and parliaments and state and city halls, the same is true for passing a law.

Let us say 50 percent of congressmen (or the population) plus one congressman vote for a law, and 49 percent oppose.

In this case of simple majority rule, the confidence level that the decision being made is correct, that is, the difference between those who believe the decision is correct and those who do not believe the decision is correct, is practically zero.

If you flip a coin to make this decision, the coin will serve equally well to make the decision. This is the process that the world today views as an ideal form of government.

And your rights: Rights to abortion or not, rights to smoke in a bar or not, or to eat healthy or unhealthy food, gun ownership rights, right to euthanasia, gay rights, drug legalization, woman's rights, man's rights, all kinds of rights being legislated, interfered with or taken away.

You’d think that this is bad enough; but under the guise and lofty titles of compromise, Democracy can often ensure that decisions are actually the wrong decisions.

You have been taught that compromise when creating laws is a great ethic, but this can be the essence of a bad system that is against the ideal of merit as the basis to create laws and govern.

Take congressman A with a law that he favors. But he only has 30 % of congressmen support for this law. This means the law is a bad law and should not be passed, since 70% of the congressmen do not think it is a good law.

Take congressman B with a law that he favors. But he only has 30 % of congressmen support for this law. This means the law is a bad law and should not be passed, since 70% of the congressmen do not think it is a good law.

Now, comes the democratic process, in which lawmakers talk with each other under the lofty ideal and practiced mechanism of "compromise". So they compromise, as they do all over the world. And they agree that if you vote for my law, I will vote for your law.

Now, congressman A with 30% supporters agree to vote for congressman B's law and his 30% percent supporters to pass congress B's law by a 60% majority (30% + 30%).

And Congressman B and his 30 % supporters will vote for the law of congressman A, also getting 60% majority.

Here is a very simple example that illustrates how bad the process that we live under is. Instead of getting neither law passed, we get two bad laws passed! And, you and I, and the rest of the world have to suffer and live under these laws, and this type of decision-making processes.

You have been taught that Democracy is about equality of vote. I will show that Democracy is in reality the equal chance to oppress.

You have been taught so many other fundamental ideas that are wrong and harmfull to a society's well-being, that reading this book will shake the very foundation of your believes about the government and laws we live under. You will also read the solutions.

Please contact me if you want to review the book on your website, newspaper, or publication.

I look forward to hearing your views on the ideas of the book, and I am available to discuss these ideas with groups and organizations and other interested parties. I can be contacted at: anfog @ AOL . c o m let me hear from you why you disagree, or don't understand, or agree with these ideas.

Encourage others to visit and become aware of this book and website by linking to the website and other means.