Stop people in power from deciding their own terms, pay, and election rules
Steps to make it happen
- Lawmakers list every case where they can write rules that help themselves.
- Countries treat district borders, lawmakers' pay, and the length of terms as special rules.
- A committee of people who gain or lose nothing from the rules writes each proposal.
- The legislature only votes yes or no on the committee's proposal.
- A changed rule starts to apply only after the next election is over.
- The committee makes its talks and its reasons open for anyone to see.
- "Do not decide your own case" becomes a normal part of politics.
Water so far 💧 1
The proposal in detail
This proposal spreads the old idea that "no one should be the judge of his own case" to every part of politics and government. It covers rules that directly affect the position, income, or power of the people who make them. Specifically, these include how election districts are drawn, how voting works, the term lengths and re-election limits of lawmakers and chief executives, their own pay and pensions, the rules on political funds, and the staffing and budgets of the bodies that check power, such as courts, audit bodies, election authorities, and bodies that watch over public broadcasting. For these matters, an independent committee with no stake in the outcome writes the first draft. Members cannot be sitting politicians, their relatives, or people who held party posts until recently. Instead, the committee combines experts, citizens chosen by lottery, and people recommended from several sides, and even the way members are chosen is made public. The legislature does not amend the draft. It only accepts or rejects it, and if it rejects it, it gives its reasons. Changes take effect, as a rule, only after the next election, so that those in power now cannot use them for themselves. Corrections based on court rulings and fixes of plain mistakes are exceptions, and even then the process and reasons are kept on record. Each society can decide which body to trust with this job and how far the rules reach, but the shared principle is to separate those who decide from those who benefit.
BenefitsMore trust in the rules, and less lock-in of power
The biggest benefit is that people can regain trust that the rules of elections and politics are made fairly. When the winners can also set the rules for the next contest, the losers doubt the rules themselves and find it hard to accept the result. If those who decide are separated from those who benefit, even those who lost an election can think, "Next time we can compete on equal terms," which makes peaceful changes of government more likely. Also, making changes take effect after the next election means people write rules without knowing who will gain and when, so fair proposals for everyone tend to be chosen naturally. Problems like lawmakers' pay, which really need review but which no one wants to touch for fear of public anger, can be argued on the substance rather than in emotional clashes, because an independent committee presents them with its reasons. In addition, when the independence of courts and watchdog bodies is protected, the system that corrects abuses of power keeps working for a long time. Because this principle does not depend on any particular system, it can be applied in wealthy countries and in countries still on the road to democracy.
DrawbacksThe danger of leaving big decisions to unelected people
The strongest concern from opponents is that the center of decision-making shifts from a legislature that is elected and answers to voters to a committee that is not elected. Even if the committee judges wrongly, voters cannot vote its members out, so it becomes unclear who is responsible. The question of who chooses the members also remains, and if the people with the power to choose fill the committee with those close to them, only the label of independence remains while nothing changes inside. Drawing the line on what is covered is also hard. Almost every policy affects politicians' popularity or re-election in some way, so if the range is too wide, the work of the legislature itself is tied down, and if it is too narrow, loopholes appear. Delaying changes until after the next election might also delay the fixing of an unfairness that should be corrected quickly. If proposals keep pay low, there is also a worry that only people with money to spare will be able to become politicians. Further, since each society has its own history and systems, resistance to having one principle applied from outside cannot be ignored.
Learn the background
In many parts of the world, there are repeated reports of elected leaders or majorities using legal procedures to redraw districts in their favor, remove term limits, or take control of appointments to courts and bodies that watch over the press. Each change is legal and looks small, so by the time people notice, the base of fair competition may already be gone. Because such changes are less visible than a coup by force, they are said to be harder to stop. At the same time, anger at lawmakers raising their own pay, and the way needed reforms are put off to stay popular, show that letting people with a stake decide is itself deepening distrust of politics. In courts, it is a basic principle that a party to a case does not act as the judge, but this principle has not fully reached the places where legislatures and governments set their own rules. To protect democracy not from being broken from outside but from being slowly reshaped from inside, a common principle across all areas is needed.
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