Require legislatures to debate any citizen proposal with enough signatures, and to publish their decision and reasons
Steps to make it happen
- A citizen writes up a topic they want the legislature to discuss as a proposal.
- An office independent of the legislature helps with the wording and checks that the proposal does not harm human rights.
- People collect a set number of signatures in support, on paper or on the internet.
- After checking that the signatures are real, officials delete records such as names.
- The legislature invites the citizen who made the proposal and hears them in a session open to everyone.
- The legislature decides within a set period of time whether to adopt the proposal.
- Whether it adopts the proposal or not, the legislature explains its reasons in clear words.
- Between elections, it becomes normal for citizens to put topics on the legislature's agenda.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal creates a system that obliges national and local legislatures to treat any proposal backed by a set number of residents' signatures as a formal agenda item. Unlike a referendum, it does not let citizens make the final decision. It lets them decide what gets discussed. It covers matters the legislature has the power to decide, such as making or changing laws and local ordinances, reviewing how budgets are spent, and changing government policy. The number of signatures required is set as a fixed share of the voters in the area, so the burden is not extreme for either a small town or a large country. Signatures are accepted on paper or online. Identities are verified, but personal information is deleted once verification is finished, so that neither the government nor other people can later trace who signed. Before signature collection begins, an office independent of both the legislature and the government helps polish the wording of the proposal and checks that it does not take away the basic rights of particular groups of people or go beyond the legislature's powers. For a proposal that has gathered enough signatures, the legislature holds a public hearing with the people who made it. Within a set period, it votes to adopt it, adopt it with changes, or reject it, or else it issues a formal reply. Whatever the conclusion, it must publish its reasons in words ordinary people can understand. To keep the same proposal from being submitted again and again in a short time and clogging the legislature, a waiting period is set before a rejected proposal can be submitted again.
BenefitsCitizens' voices reach the agenda between elections too
The biggest benefit is that citizens can put issues that lawmakers and parties overlooked on the legislature's table with their own hands. Even matters that rarely become election issues, such as problems with new technology or problems that trouble only a few people, get formally discussed if enough people back them. Because the legislature must publish its conclusion and reasons, the reason a proposal was not adopted stays on record and gives voters something to judge by at the next election. Unlike a referendum, the final decision stays with the legislature, so there is room for expert review and revision, and citizens' ideas can be put to use while avoiding a two-sided fight. The cost is also much smaller than a referendum. For the people who made the proposal, even a rejection comes with a reply that gives reasons, which can ease the distrust of feeling ignored after speaking up. For the legislature, it is also a clue to which issues are drawing growing concern in society at an early stage, giving it a chance to act before a problem grows large.
DrawbacksVoices of the organized and wealthy may grow stronger
The biggest worry of opponents is that the ability to collect signatures is itself not equal. Groups and industries with money, staff, and advertising power can gather many signatures in a short time, while people with little time or information find it hard, so the legislature may end up with mostly the topics of those who were already loud. Businesses that collect signatures for pay may appear, and the legislature's time may be taken up by well-organized campaigns. The legislature's workload may grow, squeezing the budget and law discussions that deserve careful attention. Also, because the legislature still makes the final decision, if many proposals are rejected, it risks deepening citizens' disappointment that the whole thing was only for show. A proposal that is unfair to minorities could slip past the human rights check, become an agenda item, and stir up conflict in society. In addition, if the personal information collected to verify signatures is not properly deleted, it could become known who backed which proposal, which leaves a worry about pressure based on political views.
Learn the background
In many societies, the only formal way for citizens to bring their views into politics is almost entirely the election held once every few years. Even when new problems appear in between, they may never reach the legislature's agenda unless lawmakers or parties take them up. Many countries have petitions and signature campaigns, but it is not rare for the signatures to be simply received and the matter to end with no reply at all. On internet petition sites, lots of support can now be gathered easily, but it is unclear how that connects to actual politics, and this can spread a feeling that speaking up is pointless. Referendums, meanwhile, can reflect citizens' voices directly, but they cost a lot and tend to be reduced to a simple yes-or-no choice. The middle path between elections and referendums, where citizens put forward topics and their representatives answer properly, remains narrow in many societies. Parts of this path have been tried in some countries and regions as systems for proposing agenda items, but few include a duty to answer and to publish reasons.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes