Nationalist Socialist review democracy

The goal of Review Democracy is to solve the Principal-agent problem by forcing the agent to serve the principal more closely. Politicians constantly betray the voters who elect them and so Review Democracy solves this with a continuous performance review.

To recap: the actions of the government are continuously reviewed by tens of thousands of citizen-juries around the nation. These citizens approve or disapprove of every action their government has taken: all votes by elected officials, all executive orders, and any other actions they deem necessary to review. This then generates an approval ranking score where every politician is ranked from first to last. Voters then fire the lowest ranking ones and promote (by making eligible to run for the next higher office) the highest ranking ones. This is accomplished by choosing an "eviction rate" for politicians ranging from 10% to 50%, with the voter choosing in 10% increments and the median score of all voters determining the outcome. This median determines both the percentage to kick out while the percentage eligible to move up is equal to 40% minus the eviction score. If the resulting number is zero or less then that electoral district simple does not field any candidates eligible for the higher level offices.

This means that the system continuously sheds hated politicians while promoting well liked ones.

A part of solving the principal-agent problem means excluding outside influence from corrupting the system. You want the system to let citizens influence it without letting money or activists influence it, so let's talk about some systems.

In the Catholic Church the Cardinals elect the Pope and the Pope (Bishop of Rome) appoints the Cardinals. The term Cardinal is like the term voter, it is not a rank like bishop or archbishop but a role one performs that overlaps with whatever other rank they have. This system is infamous for being resistant to outside pressure. It is both resistant to reform and (outside induced) decay.

In the corporate world businesses conduct internal performance reviews of their employees to decide whom to promote and do a performance improvement plans when they want an excuse to fire them. Corporations also demonstrate resilience against outside influence. This can be observed when looking at bureaucracies themselves, which, at least in the Anglo world are run very cleanly. Other places (like Russia) have hierarchies of bribes where the local cop demands a bribe and then turns around to bribe his boss to keep his job, who then bribes his boss to keep his job, and so on up the system. Vertical bribe chains are the norm in societies where this happens and while one can say that represents outside influence it is the kind of influence that only exists because the government not only tolerates, but demands it at the highest level. Your local cop is not taking a bribe unless his superior allows it, and if his superior does allow it then he is demanding a cut, and if the superior does not allow it then the FBI is going to find out soon and a lot of people are going to prison. The point is, bribery is very much an activity that politicians can prevent their subordinates from doing if they want to. This is in contrast to the politicians themselves who can never seem to stop each other from financial influence.

China has hierarchical elections, meaning that the "municipal" politicians vote for the "county" politicians, and the county politicians then vote for the "state" politicians, and the politicians at the "state" level then vote for the national level. Replace the terms municipal/county/state with village/county/province and call each level a "People's Congress" and you've got an understanding of the basic structure.

In theory this system should be airtight against corruption but in practice it is saturated with it. This is because firing people is not easy. Commies love doing things by committee and the group structure diffuses accountability and responsibility. It is even harder to remove politicians when they all elect each other.  And it's hard to fire people for corruption when they are hard to remove and can point the finger at each other. Pure corporate hierarchies can be more resilient to outside influence because every person is in charge of their own duties and can be fired at will. This creates a direct path for responsibility and blame.

My readers are probably very well acquainted with the American system of government and how it has failed to prevent outside financial influence. If you really want a deep dive into that you can read this. The European Union may have a high reputation among Americans for being a bastion of democracy but it's own estimates say it is somewhat corrupt.

The simplest system for eliminating outside influence while guaranteeing voter control is to stack two systems of review on top of each other—kind of like how the military stacks a hierarchy of officers on top of a hierarchy of enlisted. In this case the voters become the higher ranking officers while the politicians fill in for the enlisted. One is the review democracy which sits on top of the corporate review system. Basically the voters review their politicians while the politicians review their staff. In fact one might even replace the system of elections with a typical corporate governance style where personnel are promoted from the inside and becoming president of the nation involves rising up the hierarchy. In this iteration of Review Democracy POTUS appoints two competing successors to run for election and replace him at the end of his term, and the people then vote for one of these two successors. The Congress goes through the normal process of being elected with reviews determining who is eligible to run for office and who gets fired. There is still a Supreme Court and separation of powers, but the executive candidate is themself chosen through promotion rather than primary election. This could be replicated across all government agencies with all agency heads appointed by POTUS and fired when given a negative citizen review.

This means that while corruption might play a part in some appointments once a well-loved agency head gets into power they cannot be fired unless the citizens change their minds. This creates a more nuanced form of government where the military and immigration might be right wing while things like healthcare policy are left wing. It makes the form of the government—even its exact contours—follow the popular will. If the agency heads are the only ones allowed to propose bills then the entire apparatus of state is effectively a populist deep state; a kind of NSRD that combines the rights inherent in the Bill of Rights with the policies natural to a populaist socialist right-ring government. It could create a marriage of the vision of The Founding Fathers (with emphasis on personal rights) with the policies of a NacSec government (sans genocide). After all, the people have always been against immigration and for socialism. They have always been right wing on race and left wing on economics. This is why I believe a true democracy—one that serves the populist will, can give you the best results. The people always serve their own genetic interests even when they don't serve their economic interests.

For further reading on this issue see my explainer here.