Constitutional Revolution - a path to true democracy

In light of the world events of the last few years one must conclude that there is something rotten in our 'democratic' system of government.  I have come to the conclusion that it is time for a NON-VIOLENT Revolution; I call it CONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION.  The reason for this title is that nearly every country in the world has Constitution that, among other things, defines the system of government in that country and the manner in which the representatives are elected for the representative bodies, collectively called The Government.

My proposals for the revolutionary changes are, in short, the following:

[1] Abolition (not prohibition) of the political parties;

[2] Replacement of the periodic elections with the "Perpetual Elections", that is, instead of having an election every 3, 4, 5... years for every (or half) of a representative body, have an election (say) every week in (say) one single electorate;

[3] Abolition of the traditional process of "forming the government" where we have the "government" and the "opposition".   Once the members of the representative body (or bodies) are elected they ARE the government (mind you: there are no political parties); the members so elected will elect from among themselves as many ministers (and their deputies) as they think fit.

This is for the start.  Once, and if, the discussion develops, I will present the reasoning behind my proposal and (attempt to) explain the advantages of the proposed system, the way to get started and the way to adapt the existing constitution in order to enable the change.

Methusellah

I like your thinking, and no RM, that is not sarcasm.

I'm doubtful of the idea,

But I suppose one 'can make the argument that with modern technology, people have the 'ability to be constantly informed, and able to vote.

How about some examples?

How would job security work?

Term limits?

Pay for people elected?

Thank you guys for your interest.
First, some terminology:
Assembly - body of the elected members, some call it Legislative Assembly or Congress or Lower House or Parliament… just a few names in English.
Member – person who has been elected to the Assembly.
Electorate – geographic area from which a set number (usually 1) of Members is elected for the set term.
 
Since in the proposed system the elections would be held for individual members as if each one is an independent, with no regard for his/her political affiliations, if any; those would be ‘invisible’ to the electorate.  Each candidate would be given equal opportunity to present his/her platform to the electorate.
 
There is no need to change the electorate boundaries currently in place and the method of setting the boundaries, usually in order to confine each electorate to a set number of eligible voters, as close as possible.
 
There is no need to change the number of members in the Assembly as currently practised.
 
It is suggested to set aside 40 weekends each year for the elections in order to accommodate the usual holiday seasons and the public/cultural/religious holidays.
 
For example, if the number of members in the Assembly is 160 and the term for each member is 4 years, it would mean that each year there would have to be elected 40 members.  With 40 weekends set aside for the elections, there would be one election every week in one of the electorates.
 
If the numbers are not as convenient as the above examples, then a simple way to adjust them would be to divide the set number of members in the Assembly by 40 (weekends set aside) and proceed with electing one member every week.  That would make the term for each member not a round figure of years but rather some odd number: say 200 members divided by 40 weekends, comes to 50 members, with two options: [a] elect one member each of the 40 weekends, in which case the term would stretch to 5 years; or [b] in order to keep the term fixed at 4 years, on 10 occasions elections would be held in two electorates the same weekend.
 
Each elected Member is equal in status, benefits, perks (if any) and whatever else comes with it, in order to avoid the bickering for positions for own personal benefits.  It is proposed not to limit the number of times an individual may nominate him/her self as a candidate in an election.
 
Each Member would be entitled to be elected by the whole Assembly to the position of a minister or the deputy minister; it is proposed to have as many deputies as possible.  It is also proposed to rotate the ministers and deputies periodically (as the Assembly determines) so as to enlarge the members’ experience and to minimise the chance of corruption or other undesirable ministerial conduct.
 
It is proposed not have a person who would be the “head of state” or the “president” or the “prime minister” or the “premier”… The whole Assembly is the “Government” and, ideally, each member plays a role in one of the ministries, as the Assembly determines.  If, from time to time, a person arises whom the whole Assembly considers to posses the qualities of a stateman, as opposed to a politician, there is nothing stopping the members from considering him/her as the “leader” – as long as his/her performance and reputation continues as at first – and, as long as he/she is not making decisions without the approval of the Assembly.  Some discretion may be afforded for the decisions of limited impact on the country.
 
The reasons for the Constitutional Revolution
To be continued…

And who controls and administers?

The ministers.  No difference to the most of the current systems - except there is not "top boss" (usually an individual) who usually does the bidding for those who $$$upport his/her party.

Rich lobbyists don't care about parties. Most lobbies donate to both parties depending on what support they can get from individuals in either party.

Abolishing parties won't fix that. What will fix that is revoking the unlimited powers government has to manipulate the markets. The only way to get rid of "pay-to-play" is to abolish the game.

That would be extremely hard to regulate. How would you regulate that? Imagine having presidents with an average term shorter than Harrison. That is probably how displeased we are with the US politics.

Once again, having no parties will be a disaster because that would mean anarchy. What is wrong with 1 party?

And you think that everyone will agree.

I would suggest, that we have already learned that humans do not behave in that way.

"The ministers" can only control if the ministers agree......Which they won't.

Unless you have a one party tyranny, which can only be maintained by force.

Or a democratic structure, whereby there must be an ultimate decision making body......Or "the ministers" will just argue and achieve nothing.

And money being the basis and representation  of power within human societies, is an unavoidable expectation and necessity.

Very few people are happy to do something for nothing.

And the more one expects from people, then the more those people will expect in return.