A couple of responses for Thorax
I did make a couple of errors.
I know that neutral deciders are extremely difficult to come by, if not impossible. However, it might be possible for a group of people, who have been extensively tested to have a complete balance of political views, or however much that is possible, to hold power.
Also, for religion, it isn't necessarily too difficult to convince people to be one religion, but still, it's not okay to shove opinions down people's throats. Christianity is still, as far as I know, the largest religion by far in this country. Science, I don't consider a religion; it isn't really even a belief system on its own, as it can coexist easily with religions. However, if anything, I consider it a distinct lack of religion. That can be atheism, agnosticism, or simply being areligious, like me. People have beliefs, and many are idiots for that, but it's okay to respect that most of the time. Also, radicals do attack their own, only slightly removed. Many religions will split into different sects, and violence will break out often.
Using fear as a motivator is not good. You're making people's lives worth with little reason. I strongly dislike Machiavelli's ideas. Though he was smart, his practicality did somewhat blind him to generosity, kindness, that kind of thing. A person who is constantly fearing is constantly stressed. Constantly stressed people, as I know from the experiences of my sister, do not fare well. Their lives become complicated, they become less willing to help others, and they are more easily frustrated. I cannot deny the effectiveness of a dictatorship, but we can all agree, as far as I am concerned, that dictatorships are not the way to go.
I was not basing this system off of the US' current system. It could not be properly implemented with the state we are in. This is merely theoretical. However, even if it breaks that one act, everyone who is sane, mature, and not overly mentally handicapped can still vote, albeit after some formalities. The formalities are in place to make sure that the person knows about what they are doing. If people don't know what they're doing when they vote, it can seldom lead to a good place.
Also, about the council of morality, I know that morality can be considered in a number of ways, but it is still arguable in a certain direction. They would only be a safeguard, just in case anyone's actions were too much. They wouldn't all need to agree, but they would debate and eventually come up with a majority.
So yeah, you make strong points, but I still don't accept your views.
