The voters elect only three presidents (or six if the city is split into two sectors), to make it practical for the voters to put a lot of time and effort into analyzing candidates, providing job performance reviews of the presidents, and passing judgment on which president should be replaced.

Voters are among the most important leaders of society, and there are only five voters for the same reason that there are only three elected officials. To summarize the concept, as we reduce the number of voters, we can increase the standards that they must meet, and we make it easier for everybody to observe and pass judgment on their performance and determine which of them should be replaced.

If the voters cannot agree on who to elect as a president, such as when there are five or more candidates, and five of the candidates get one vote, then they must vote again within a week for one of those five candidates. If the second vote also results in each of the five candidates getting one vote, then they must remove one of the five candidates at random. Then they repeat the voting process with one fewer candidates.

If there are five or more candidates, and two candidates each get two votes, then they vote again for one of those two candidates, and since there are five voters, a stalemate will be impossible in that situation, so one of those two candidates will be elected.

The democracies regard voting as a trivial task that people can do during their leisure time, and without any education. People are allowed to vote even if they are illiterate or senile.

This constitution promotes the concept that voting is such a difficult and important task that it must be a full-time job, and that voters must meet very high intellectual and emotional standards.

Voters are selecting our leaders, and those leaders determine our future, so voters must be able to put a lot of time and effort into analyzing the presidents so that they can make wise decisions about which of them should be replaced.

Voters must be able to provide useful analyses of the presidents. Voters must make better-than-average decisions about which president is providing us with the most useful guidance, and which are most incompetent, dishonest, selfish, or abusive.

Analyzing a president requires analyzing his policies, the ministers that he is selected, the ministers that he has fired, and his effect on the attitudes and behavior of the people in the city. It's a complicated analysis that takes a lot of time. It is as difficult and time-consuming as a zoologist who is observing a group of prairie dogs or chimpanzees, and is trying to understand the relationships, leadership, and social activities.

In order for a voter to provide us with useful analyses of our presidents, a voter needs above-average intelligence, self-control, and education, and he must be able to put a lot of time and effort into the analyses.

In the democracies, voters are not required to produce analyses of the candidates, the officials that they elected, or any of the policies that the officials created. Most of the people who vote spend more time whining about the candidates and government officials than on analyzing them. Many people vote for whoever their political party suggests, rather than make a decision for themselves.

This constitution regards voting as an intellectually difficult scientific field. The people chosen to be voters need the attitude and abilities of a zoologist. Their job is to provide "scientific" analyses of presidents, not "emotional" descriptions.

Each voter is required to occasionally provide us with a document or video that provides an analysis of the presidents and their policies. They must judge the presidents by the effect that they have on society, not by their popularity with the public or with the other government officials.

The voters must analyze how a president has influenced the attitudes and morale of the public; how he manages his ministers; and whether he has made wise decisions about which of his ministers to replace. This task is as difficult as it is for a zoologist to observe a group of wolves and provide an analysis of the leader of the group, and the effect the leader is having on the other wolves.

The voters must regularly replace the worst performing president, so they must compare the effect the presidents are having on society, and pass judgment on which of them is the least beneficial.

The voters will spend virtually all of their time on analyses, and almost no time on voting. They will resemble full-time scientists, not the voters of democracy who spend only a few moments every few years to vote.

The five voters will choose one of them to be their Director, but it is not a "formal" job, so he can quit whenever he pleases and return to being a voter, and then the voters will select somebody else to be their Director.

The Elections Director is not a position of importance because there are only four other voters for him to deal with, and each voter is essentially an independent scientist who does his own research and analyses. The Elections Director is a part-time job because there is not much work for him to do.

One purpose of having an Elections Director is to give one of the voters authority to decide whether to arrange for discussions among the voters when one of them wants to discuss something, and to decide whether to interview a candidate when one of the voters makes such a suggestion.

The other purpose of the Elections Director is to arrange and supervise the elections, which will be a simple task because there are only four people for him to to supervise. Also, the election is a simple process because the voting is not secretive or anonymous. Instead, each voter posts a document in the Elections category for who he votes for, and his reasoning.

The concept of voting creates a problem that repeats itself forever. This problem can be visualized as looking into two mirrors that face one another (discussed here in regards to the creation of the universe).

Specifically, the concept of voting is that a group of people select some government officials, but that creates the problem of who selects the voters. We need a group of people to select the voters, but that creates the problem of who selects those people, which in turn creates the problem of who selects those people. This problem repeats itself forever.

This infinite loop problem also occurs with the creation of the universe. For example, the people who believe a god created the universe have the problem of explaining what created that god, and that in turn requires an explanation of what created that entity, and so on, forever. Likewise, the Big Bang theory has the problem of what was here before the Big Bang, and what created that, and so on.

There is no "correct" method of solving the infinite loop problem in regards to determining who should be a voter. This constitution resolves the issue by giving the Voters Ministry the authority to select and replace voters, and the Director of the Quality Division has the authority to select and replace the Voters Minister.

Citizens are also encouraged to post a document in the Suggestions category about which voter they believe should be replaced, and why.

Creating a Voters Ministry to select voters is not intended to be a "good" solution to the infinite loop problem. Rather, it is only intended to be an improvement over the method that nations are using today. Specifically, the democracies allow the government to determine who becomes a voter, but since the government officials are submissive servants rather than leaders, that means that the voters indirectly determine who qualifies to be a voter.

Since most voters are ignorant about these issues, and have no initiative to get involved with society, giving submissive government officials the authority to determine who qualifies as a voter is as idiotic as giving the students in school the authority to determine which of them qualifies to graduate. Specifically, the voters will not demand that voters meet high standards. Instead, they will want very low standards so that they, their family, and their friends can vote.

Another problem with letting the voters decide who qualifies as a voter is that most voters are of average or below-average intelligence and education, so they make stupid decisions, and are easily manipulated by criminals. For example, most people believr that our governments will improve as we allow more people to vote.

The concept that allowing more people to vote will improve our government has reached such an extreme that some nations require almost every adult to vote, and in some cities of the USA, illegal immigrants are allowed to vote. Nations are also allowing elderly people who are mentally incapacitated to vote, and people can vote even if they are illiterate or do not understand the nation's language.

By having only five voters, the Voters Ministry can set standards so high that only a tiny percentage of the population can qualify.

In order for a person to qualify as a voter, he must demonstrate an above-average understanding of evolution, genetics, and the theory that humans are a species of animal. It is absurd to expect a voter to provide an intelligent analysis of a government official or his policies if he believes that we are the creations of a supreme being, or that we are pieces of clay that can choose whether we are heterosexual or homosexual.

The people who cannot understand that humans are apes, or who refuse to accept the evidence, are analogous to a zoologist who is studying wolves, but who believes that wolves are the creation of a Wolf God, or that wolves are like pieces of clay, and that they can choose whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

As with presidents, the voters are restricted to men between the ages of 50 and 65.

A free enterprise system does not have leadership, but the more money a person has, the more influence he has over the economy. Likewise, a democracy does not have leadership, but the more popular a person is with the public, the more influence he has over the nation.

There is no concern in a free enterprise system for how a person gets his money, and there is no concern in a democracy for why a person is popular. There are no standards for anybody to meet in order to become influential. The end result is that both of those systems favor the people who are selfish, anti-social, deceptive, and willing to join crime networks. It also favors the people who are more interested in material wealth and status than human relationships and society.

To improve our leadership, this Constitution requires the Behavior Ministry to pass judgment on the characteristics of everybody's mind, and for the Database Ministry to maintain a social credit system. The only people permitted to get into influential positions are those who have been judged to have above-average mental characteristics, and are considered to be one of the City Elders.

The problem with this concept is that each person has a different idea on who has a higher quality mind. For example, some people regard the Pope as one of the highest quality people, whereas other people regard Sigmund Freud, Carl Marx, or Lady Gaga as high quality people.

Although passing judgment on who among us should be considered "high quality" will create a lot of arguments and emotional trauma, it is better for us to make that decision than to do what is happening in the world today, which is allowing people to become influential simply because they have lots of money, or because they are admired by the public.

Furthermore, the existing cultures allow organizations to promote people as high-quality people by giving them awards, such as Nobel prizes; the Academy Awards, and the awards given by the ADL, such as the Courage to Care award, the Helene and Joseph Sherwood Prize for Combating Hate, and the SHIELD Awards. By allowing organizations to give people awards, we allow selfish and dishonest organizations to manipulate and deceive people about who they should look to for advice.

The document about Social Credit Systems points out that every person, organization, and nation has always had an informal social credit system. Likewise, every person, organization, and nation routinely passes judgment on the quality of other people's minds.

For example, when we meet a person, we pass judgment on their intelligence, education, clothing, honesty, hair, manners, voice, odor, and other characteristics. Businesses pass judgment on the mental and physical characteristics of the job applicants.

Parents pass judgment on the mental and physical characteristics of their children, and they also pass judgment on how those characteristics change as the children grow older. Parents use those analyses to determine whether their children are developing properly, and to determine when the child is ready to help with certain chores around the house, or to learn how to ride a bicycle.

This constitution treats the judging of a person's mental and physical characteristics to be as necessary as passing judgment on the characteristics of a bicycle, drone, or refrigerator.

However, unlike existing cultures, which allow every person and organization to make judgments secretly and anonymously, the people who contribute information about a person to the People database must identify themselves and be held accountable for their information. This allows us to pass judgment on the accuracy and honesty of the information that people have provided about us.

We cannot expect anybody to create "perfect" analyses of us, but we can pass judgment on who is creating the most intelligent and least biased analyses.

The Behavior Ministry is the only group of people who are permitted to publicly pass judgment on whose minds are higher quality. Every citizen will always pass judgment on other people, but they must keep their analyses to themselves and their friends. None of the citizens, businesses, or or other ministries are allowed to promote some people as superior, or criticize others as inferior.

If a citizen wants to make a public statement about somebody's mind or behavior, he must post a document in the Suggestions category. In that case, his document is expected to be a serious analysis that is intended to help society, as opposed to the biased, deceptive, and manipulative remarks that citizens and organizations are making today.

For example, the American and European culture allows the ADL to give awards to the people they want to promote as superior people, and condemn their critics as anti-Semites, Nazis, white supremacists, or Holocaust deniers.

Likewise, Journalists are free to create documents that criticize people's clothing choices; the Norwegian Nobel Committee is free to give awards to the scientists that they want to promote as superior scientists; and the entertainment businesses are free to have thousands of award ceremonies every year to promote certain people as superior.

This Constitution prohibits organizations from creating awards, and from promoting people as superior or inferior. The Behavior Ministry is the only group that can make public accusations of inferiority or superiority, and they must provide documentation for their decisions so that they can be held accountable for them.

This makes the judging of a person a formal and serious activity, similar to how Consumer Reports passes judgment on the value of washing machines or bicycles.

Furthermore, nobody is permitted to publicly promote an activity as superior, or condemn an activity for being stupid. An example mentioned here is that the organization that creates rules for soccer claims that soccer is the "greatest sport".

Nobody is permitted to claim that certain foods as better than other foods, either, or that certain foods are stupid or bad tasting. Nobody can claim certain television programs are the best, or criticize programs as being stupid or disgusting.

Everybody has preferences, and so each person is free to pass judgment on which activity, television program, clothing style, and food they consider to be the best or worst, but nobody is free to claim that their opinions are superior to other people's opinions, and nobody is free to push their opinions on other people.

Everybody must realize that what they consider to be the best and worst is their personal opinion, and only for that moment in time. Years later they might change what they consider to be the best or worst.

When we push our particular opinions about the best or worst on other people, we encourage fights and bad attitudes. Furthermore, the attitude that certain things are "the best" discourages us from enjoying the wide variety of pleasures in life. (I made a video about that concept.)

Our social environment will be more pleasant if we control our arrogance.

We benefit when we discuss issues with each other, but not when we arrogantly push our opinions on other people, and especially not when we try to hurt other people by insulting them or their activities.

The Leisure, Social Clubs, and some other ministries will pass judgment on which social activities, holiday celebrations, and recreational activities are acceptable, and which are prohibited, but they must have reasons for their decisions.

They experiment with activities, and they make decisions according to the effect that the activities have on our attitudes and life, not according to what they personally like.

When a business needs to hire a plumber, carpenter, scientist, engineer, or nurse, they pass judgment on the mental and physical characteristics of the job candidates. This constitution treats the government officials as city employees, and we must pass judgment on their mental and physical characteristics just as if they were applying for a job as a technician or a farmer.

Every culture has set high standards for certain jobs, such as pilots and doctors, but no culture has set high standards for voters, government officials, journalists, religious leaders, or the leaders of think tanks, charities, hospitals, universities, or schools.

For example, the people who create and manage school systems do not have to meet any qualifications. This allows religious fanatics to create thousands of variations of religious schools, and it allows other, anti-evolution people to create a variety of school courses about the human mind being like a piece of clay, and that white people have white privilege.

Likewise, the people who write school books do not have to meet high standards, and this results in books that are full of nonsensical theories about human behavior, and lots of Zionist propaganda about the Holocaust, Nazis, and other historical issues.

We must be generous in giving people job opportunities so that they can test their skills, but this policy requires that we fire a lot of people. This requires judging a person's job performance, and it requires everybody be able to remain calm as a result of being judged and being fired.

Everybody today must be able to acknowledge the fact that each of us has slightly different physical and mental abilities, and that all of us will be mediocre or below-average in certain jobs. We are so arrogant that we like to believe that we would be above-average in every job, but if we lived long enough to be hired for every job, we would get fired from many of them.

It is fairly easy for us to determine whether a person working on an assembly line should be fired because it's easy to determine whether he is capable of doing his job properly. However, the people in leadership positions are much more difficult to judge because they do not do anything tangible, so determining which of them is the most useful, and which should be fired, requires analyzing the effect that they have on other people and society, and trying to figure out which of them has the most beneficial or detrimental effect.

In a free enterprise system, the people are judged according to their ability to make profit, so an engineer will be considered successful if he can develop products that are profitable, even if they are shoddy, worthless, or as idiotic as an Ouija board.

Likewise, a manager will be considered successful if he creates advertisements that manipulate children into desiring the particular candy bars or toys that his company sells.

With this Constitution, a person in a leadership position is considered successful in his job only if he can do something that is beneficial to society, such as improving people's attitudes or education, or improving a product, a swimming pool, or the city's transportation system.

The dilemma that this policy creates is the same as that mentioned earlier; specifically, each person has a different idea on what is an "improvement". To some people, we improve a city park by decorating it with "modern art", and we improve the lives of the people when we permit the "neglected population" of "minor-attracted persons" to satisfy their sexual cravings.

This Constitution requires the voters and other government officials to use the City Elders as guidelines to determine what is an "improvement". If we can provide ourselves with appropriate voters and City Elders, then we will create a city in which the engineers, technicians, teachers, farmers, and other people are competing to find improvements that we appreciate.

The voters are responsible for setting standards for the presidential candidates, but after they have been set, the voters are expected to occasionally review the standards to determine whether they can improve them. It is foolish to assume that we can create such perfect standards that never need improvement.

This constitution starts the process by specifying the following three standards:

1)		Must have been successful as leaders The candidates for president must have had above-average success in some type of leadership job. The voters should not assume that a man who was an ineffective leader of a business, social club, or other organization, will be a successful president.
2)		Must treat people like a drill sergeant The presidents are supposed to do what is best for society, not pander to any particular citizen or group of people. This requires presidents who have the emotional ability to resist becoming intimidated by the complaints and whining of people and organizations. They need the attitude of a drill sergeant, not the attitude of a submissive representative or retail store clerk who gives people whatever they want.
3)		Must have produced intelligent analyses The presidents are responsible for analyzing people and cultural issues, and experimenting with culture, so the only men who should qualify as a presidential candidate are those who have demonstrated an above-average ability to produce intelligent analyses about some type of cultural issue, such as in an analysis of a government official, historical event, recreational activity, holiday celebration, or work environment. A man must be older than 50 in order to be a president, so that gives the men plenty of time to produce at least one intelligent analysis of some cultural issue. Every man, and every woman and child, is free to produce analyses of any cultural issue they please, and whenever they please, just as everybody has the freedom to produce intelligent scientific and mathematical analyses; create new inventions; find an improvement to a product; or provide an intelligent analysis of a historical event. Everybody is encouraged to post their suggestions and analyses in the Suggestions category. Nobody can use the excuse that they have been prevented from doing something intelligent because of sexism, racism, ageism, or lack of opportunities. The men who do not take the opportunity to do provide an intelligent analysis of some cultural issue should be assumed to be lacking the ability or desire to do so, in which case they should be regarded as unacceptable as a president. We should not assume that a man who has never shown an interest in analyzing some aspect of human societies will suddenly develop that interest when he becomes president.

The voters are required to elect the presidents every five years. They can reelect a president, or replace him.

Since the presidents must be between 50 and 65 years old, and they must retire at age 70, they can only be president for a maximum of 20 years, so there is no need to be concerned about a president remaining in office throughout his entire life.

The voters observe and pass judgment on the presidents, and they are required to routinely replace the worst performing president. They have the authority to replace any of the presidents whenever they please. They do not have to wait for a scheduled election. If they replace a president before the five-year election, then the next five-year period starts from that point.

The purpose of this requirement is to force the voters to give other people a chance to try their abilities as president.

The executives of businesses do not hire their lower level managers on a schedule because they have the initiative to occasionally review the performance of their managers, and replace a manager whenever they feel it is beneficial to the organization. Ideally, the voters would have the same initiative and attitude. In such a case, they would not need scheduled elections.

The ideal situation is for the Voters Ministry to restrict voting to the people who have the same initiative as business executives. That would give us voters who routinely analyze the presidents, and routinely replace those that are inferior, without any need for scheduled elections.

Scheduled elections are necessary when the majority of people are allowed to vote because most people do not have the initiative to replace or select government officials.

The scheduled elections might be useful when the voters have selected presidents that are so equal in their abilities that none of the voters can decide which of them should be replaced. In that case, they are forced to replace one of them, and give somebody else a chance to test his abilities.

The voters must judge a president according to his effect on the lives of the people, rather than his popularity with the public or other government officials. The reason is because a leader is supposed to provide guidance, not be our spouse, friend, lover, or emotional support person.

In order for the voters to judge the effect the president has, they must spend enough time analyzing the behavior of the citizens and culture that they can notice subtle changes as the presidents are replaced. The voters must have a good understanding of what is going on in the city, which is another reason why voting is a full-time job rather than a brief leisure activity.

One of the lessons that we should learn from our history is that the people in influential positions have a significant effect on our attitudes, goals, and behavior. For example, in the USA, the people in influential positions are suppressing discussions about the differences between men and women and between different races, and they manipulate and intimidate people with such accusations as racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, climate change denial, and Holocaust denial. One of the more recent of their idiotic accusations is Election Denial.

They also encourage the showing off of material items; the belief that scarce foods, such as caviar, are "delicacies"; the attitude that our lives will improve if we have servants to pamper us like babies; and the attitude that we need a mansion, private jet, and yacht in order to fully enjoy life.

Our leaders should encourage beneficial behavior and attitudes, but the current world leaders are encouraging idiotic and detrimental behavior.

The voters must pass judgment on which of the presidents have an excessive number of employees, or use excessive amounts of resources. As mentioned many times, when humans and other animals are not under any type of competitive pressure, they become arrogant, lazy, spoiled brats. Therefore, the voters must put the government officials under pressure to be efficient and beneficial. The voters must take an active role in ensuring that the government is not becoming excessively large, or using excessive amounts of resources.

The presidents cannot operate in secrecy, so the voters and everybody else can find out exactly what they are doing. Everything that the government does is public knowledge, so the voters can easily produce reports to show them the number of employees in a ministry; what their working days and hours are; what each employee is doing; and how much electricity, water, and other resources the ministry is using.

US government agencies and corporations provide financial information about their operation, but it is often deceptive. Some of the deceptive information is referred to as "creative accounting", or "unethical accounting," and some of it is so abusive that it is classified an "accounting scandal".

This deception is another example of how democracies and free enterprise systems allow people to play a "cat and mouse game". In order to reduce this problem, the voters must be intolerant of bad behavior. The voters must be as strict as what we expect of military leaders.

Presidents that are deceptive about their work must be regarded as potential dangers. The voters must replace them, and add a remark in their entry of the People database that they are prohibited from other influential positions.

All of the existing government officials are regularly failing to solve problems, but most voters don't show any concern. For example, government officials are frequently promising to reduce taxes and the size of the government, but they never do either. Most voters complain about the failures, but they don't have the initiative or ability to do anything about it.

In order to reduce this absurd problem of government officials who repeatedly fail at their tasks, this Constitution requires voting to be restricted to the men who will not tolerate failure. The voters should have no pity for presidents who fail, and they should not tolerate excuses, such as officials who blame the problem on other officials, or on foreign nations.

When a president fails to solve a problem, the voters should have the initiative to investigate him and the problem. They should then pass judgment on whether:

a)		The president failed because of his mental limitations. If the voters believe that it is possible to reduce or solve the problem, and that the president failed because he doesn't have the mental characteristics to succeed, then they should look at his history to see if he has been failing more than the other presidents, in which case they should replace him so that somebody else can test his abilities to deal with such problems. For example, in the USA, the government officials are unable to enforce the do-not-call list, and it is possible to reduce that problem because we have the technology to identify the telemarketers who violate that law. Therefore, those government officials should be considered as failures, and they should be replaced.
b)		The problem is beyond our abilities. If the voters determine that the problem is beyond our abilities, then they should consider whether the president should have realized that at some point in time, and stopped wasting labor and resources trying to solve the problem. For example, if a president supports a program to develop fusion reactors that has failed to achieved any significant progress for 50 years, the voters must investigate to determine whether the goal is beyond our current level of technology, and, if so, whether the president should have realized that, and either suspended or terminated the program. The voters should not ignore or tolerate presidents who waste labor and resources on projects that never accomplish anything.

The voters create analyses of the presidential candidates, the presidents, and the policies of the presidents. Their analyses can include graphs, videos, sketches, and interactive charts. The post their analyses in the Explanations category. Their analyses will help everybody understand our society. They will be similar to the analyses that "investigative reporters" provide for magazines and newspapers, except that they will be serious and intelligent, rather than Zionist propaganda. Some examples of the type of analyses the voters will provide:

•		A president might make a change to foot paths or bicycle paths in order to reduce congestion in certain areas. Therefore, a voter might analyze whether the changes were truly successful in reducing congestion, and if so, by how much. The analysis might have comparisons to the congestion in other neighborhoods, or other cities. The analysis might also have speculations on how to reduce congestion even further, or how on the construction workers could have made the changes with less disruption to the people, or with less labor or resources.
•		A president might approve of a change to a holiday celebration, in which case a voter might provide an analysis of the celebration to determine what effect the changes have had on the people and the city. The analysis would be a comparison of the city before and after the changes have been made. The voter would try to determine if the changes have improved something, such as helping some people become more relaxed or sociable; reduce the waste of food or other resources; improve the attitudes or behavior of the children; or provide the people with pleasant memories that they enjoy reminiscing about.
•		A president might approve of a change in the school curriculum regarding marriage and sex education. A voter might analyze the effect the change has on students by observing their relationships after they graduate to determine whether the changes have reduced the arguments they have with their spouse; reduced divorces; or improved relationships between men and women in some other manner.

Those type of analyses are difficult to do, but a city needs only five voters, and it should be possible to find five men who can provide intelligent analyses of government policies and government officials.

Their analyses will be useful for the government officials who are trying to improve the culture and leadership of the city, and they will be useful for the citizens and students who want intelligent analyses of their city and their leadership.

Many citizens will not be interested in such serious analyses, but some citizens will be interested in some of the analyses because they would be intelligent versions of the reports in the "news magazines", (such as Bloomberg Businessweek and the Wall Street Journal), and in some television programs (such as 60 Minutes, Dateline, and Frontline).

The Journalism Ministry provides news reports, and some of the journalists provide analyses, but the voters should provide the most intelligent analyses. If a journalist shows exceptional talent, then he would be qualified to be a voter. The voters should be among the most talented analysts.

The voters do not compete to attract the public, so the popularity of their analyses is irrelevant. The voters are scientists, not entertainers. Instead of trying to titillate the public with emotionally titillating analyses, they try to impress the government officials, especially those in the Voters Ministry, with analyses that are useful in helping the government officials improve the city's culture and leadership.

The citizens are encouraged to analyze policies and presidents, and if they believe they have something intelligent to say, they can post their document in the Suggestions category. Only a few citizens will post a useful analysis of a president or a policy, but we only need a few of their suggestions in order to improve our leadership and culture.

The citizens who provide useful analyses of presidents and policies will have a greater chance of becoming a voter and a government official. The voters and officials are restricted to people who have a history of providing intelligent analyses, so the children who are interested in becoming a leader should put some effort into testing their ability to analyze people and issues.

A person who has never provided an intelligent analysis, or who has created idiotic analyses, is not qualified to be a voter or a government official.

Each voter has the authority to hire people to help him with his analyses. This can be useful for when they are analyzing attitudes or behavior of the people, and need help gathering or processing the data. However, when they do this, they are expected to produce reports that are superior to what a single person would have been able to do.

Since there is no money, and there is a limit on the number of people in the city, the voters must be able to justify using that labor.

In a democracy, the government officials frequently hire people and create new agencies without anybody passing judgment on whether the increase in government employees has resulted in a benefit to society.

None of the existing governments are held accountable for what they do, and they all have a lot of secrecy to hide their activities from the public. Most voters do not know or care how many employees the government has, or how much tax money they collect, or how they spend the tax money.

In order to reduce the chances that a voter wastes labor and resources, the voters are required to identify all of the people they hire, and the total hours that those employees work. For example, if a voter hires five people to collect data, then each of the five people must be identified as contributors to the analysis, and the total hours each of them spent must be included in the analysis that they produce.

The voters post their analyses in the Elections category so that everybody can see what the voters are doing, and pass judgment on whether the voters are doing something of value, or wasting labor.

It is not easy to pass judgment on whether a voter is using labor wisely, or whether a voter is providing us with intelligent analyses of the presidents, but it is better to make that judgment than ignore what the voters do.