.
.
Subject: people control through subcouncil-2-subcouncil system with immediate representation
.
.
.
.
.

Two mechanism:
 1. Groups of people (per 50) elect one representative, and can replace
    him/her for anyone through another election at any moment.
 2. These delegates group (per 50) to form one legal decision making
    state council in that area (competent in all matters that don't
    belong to individuals or businesses or larger areas). They group
    in subcouncils of 10 persons. A proposal entering the council is
    discussed by one subcouncil, then bounces back/forth to other
    subcouncils until they are all in agreement.

All proceedings are public and published, and typically (if not legally
as well) bouncing a proposal to another subcouncil takes time; typically
in the order of a day or even a week (just for one bounce.)

Now for a little example scenario in this model:
Proposal: A new line of trees along side a road.
Proposed by: 5 persons, who wrote a letter to the delegate of the
             delegate of the voter group one of them is a part.
Council: local area council with 50 persons, 5 subcouncils: Red, Blue,
         Yellow, White and Brown.
Last general election: 1.5 years ago, during a time when there where
                       big questions about local and provincial taxes.
Complication: a school is at the end of that road, many children ride
              on bike on that road which is unsafe. Another proposal
              is already humming around the parents of that school
              that there should be a bike-road on that same route.

Because of the taxation issues quite a few voter groups decided to
vote for someone who they thought most likely to deal with the taxation
problem. But - the council is meeting only part-time one day in the week
- all but one of these are still on the council. They do however not
have a special affinity with nature.

The proposal enters through that delegate at the subcouncil meeting
of which he is a part, which is the red subcouncil. They agree, there
should be put a line of poplars there on both sides. They eye the
yellow subcouncil since they know there is someone who loves nature a
lot too, they pass the proposal to the yellow council, who will discuss
it in 2 days. At this time too few people take notice of the subcouncil
proceedings to notice anything, although it is all published freely,
the minutes of the meeting and the proposals. The proposal passes the
yellow council with the ammendment that there shouldn't just be trees
but also underbrush planted. Therefore it passes back to the red
subcouncil, who agrees. The so ammended proposal is now to go toward
the blue subcouncil by the decision of the red subcouncil. That 
council meets every monday and since it is now thursday that will be
next week.

On saturday one parent is bored on Saturday and is trolling through
the council proceedings and hits on the tree proposal. The local
newspaper hadn't yet said anything about it since it only comes out once
a month. The issue is far too small for the daily regional, certainly
at this stage of discussions. A child of the school also hears about
the proposal by chance from one of the 5 who proposed it. That child
tells it to her parents on Sunday. Through the usual chatter channels
the information ends up with the people who are thinking about a
bike-road for their children along the same route. They get startled
because they worry that once this proposal is through the council
it may be hard work to undo it and get a bike-road passed somehow.

Sunday evening they find out by searching through the red subcouncil
proceedings that the proposal will next go to the blue subcouncil.
The next day some of these parents talk a bit back & forth at the
school about the issue. They decide to inform the blue subcouncil
about their plan for a bike-road there, noting the possible contradiction
between both plans. But the blue subcouncil was still awash with tax
worried persons, who quickly compute that young trees there is a
fraction of the cost of a new bikeway. The blue subcouncil even makes
a point that no bike-road should be build there because it would 
stress the budget further.

At this point some more people start to hear about it, because the
parents of the children put up a flyer at the super market about the
issue, asking for people to support the bike-road rather then the trees.

Some people who are in the voter-groups for the blue subcouncil get
upset, actually very angry, that budget concern go over the safety
of children. They read the minutes of the meeting for the person that
represents their voter group. They realize these actions by their
delegate directly reflect back on them ! But they do not support
this policy one bit, in fact is has made them angry. Duly motivated
they get in touch with their representative. Of the 3 who caused the
proposal for the trees to pass, one of them is willing to pass an
abstention vote if the proposal comes around next time.

Meanwhile the proposal is back with the red-subcouncil, who by now
also has some delegates who are aware of the bike-contradiction, and
inform the subcouncil of the issue. The red subcouncil decides to
postpone the proposal for 2 weeks, to think about the contradiction,
and to allow for the public to have their influence in due process.

By next saturday the vote-administrators have messaged their
voter-groups for discussion and possible revote on their delegate.
One of these delegates are replaced because their intention does
not square with what the voter-group wants. Both voter-groups want
that bike-road, and they decide to use maximum pressure to that
end by electing different delegates. One of the parents who wants
the bike-road is now duly elected local council representative in
the blue subcouncil.

The week after that the blue-subcouncil decides to message the red
subcouncil that their previous finding is no longer valid due to
change of their membership.

...

(The above does not mean that you should re-elect new delegates every
time a new subject comes along, to elect specialists for that issue.
It only points out that such power does exist if things happen that
require a strong force from the people into the Government to change
an apparently fixated opinion not according to the will of those
represented.)

... One possibly further scenario is: the blue subcouncil decides
against trees on the bike road, and they send their proposal to the
brown subcouncil, and at the same time they issue a plan for a bike
road and send it to the white subcouncil. Say they both agree. Then
the plan is re-discussed in the red-subcouncil, who now in light of
the new situation retracts the proposal. The yellow subcouncil is
not happy though, they still want those trees and a simplified bike
road. White, brown and blue subcouncils end up 2 weeks later behind
a plan for the bike road, red is yet to discuss it, and yellow is
against in majority. Yellow passes their proposal to the white
subcouncil but it is rejected in total in favor of the existing
bike-road plan agreed with the blue-subcouncil. The same happens for
yellow with brown, and then with blue. The red-subcouncil is divided
equally.

Since the proposals have run their course through the subcouncils,
further bounces make no sense since no new evidence or arguments
are appearing, the blue subcouncil - who has a majority for their
plan - had contacted the council chairperson (part of the yellow
subcouncil). The issue is put on the agenda of the meeting of the
council, where all the issues relating to this road are to be
discussed. It ends up discussed on a Saturday, but since the debate
was somewhat heated, it was rescheduled for a second term the Saturday
after that. At this point it also seems to become public perception
that most people want that bike road for safety of children. There
seems like nothing can stop the bike road at this point.

The council decides 38 in favor, 5 abstentions and 6 against to
the intention-plan to build a bike road, details of which still need
to be discussed. 

(For the sake of this argument it is assumed that trees and bike road
are really contradictory.)

By the next week a proposal for trees on another location has entered
the red subcouncil. The blue subcouncil is working on the details of
the bike-road plan, such as cost, quality, contractor, etc. The brown
subcouncil is discussing the local and regional taxation burden because
they expect to get a budget proposal about a bike-road in their mail
box in the coming weeks ...

*

In the 'worst case' scenario, you could re-appoint every single member
of a council within 1 day. This does require some motivation and
mobilization of the voter-groups in question, but the more important
the issue and greater the disagreement with what is going on in the
council, the more voter-groups will be willing to be so motivated.
A majority-vote of a voter-group should be enough (I guess) to
re-appoint someone: if only 32 persons in a voter-group of 58 show
up, 29 of which vote for a new delegate (I guess knowing it is all
or nothing with that turnout), and 2 abstentions, then the remaining
people who didn't come are overruled and someone new is appointed.
If the vote-administrator doesn't show up, with enough votes you could
also re-appoint a vote-administrator; then all would be legal according
to the law of the land. This isn't a game or advice show: it is the true
power. If need be the police and judiciary will uphold it by force.