A theorical system of government: Stevecracy

This is an essay and I will email it to my teacher.

Stevecracy is a system which advocates that should be 2 pairs of groups which support each other. Both groups in both of the pairs, not the pairs just the groups, are organized.

Before I can talk more you need to know the pairs and the groups inside of the pairs. Here I go:
PAIR ONE:

• The government
• The people

PAIR TWO:

• The wealthy
• The working class

The reason why they are organized is to stop a leak of power. For example, if the government persecutes the people it will the right and duty of the people to stop. Since they have equal power they could do that.

I do not promote the idea that a government should use Stevecracy without some form of testing to see if it not only good in theory. Of course, like the lottocrats, the stevecrats have the problem "How do we test it?".

It would be honest to say I don't support or oppose this idea and that it will have flaws, like all systems. Of course, the issue in stevecratic debates will be "Does it have a lot more benefits than bad side defects and do the benefits have more value in a stevecratic system?".

I came up with the idea when I was thinking about the current systems of government and thinking "Could there one better than the best one?" and I came up with this. In theory, extreme balance of powers(which is the main ideology of Stevecracy) is a very good thing but what about in practice?

I think that democratic Stevecracy, where the organized groups are democratic, is the best type of Stevecracy. I want people to make up there own mind about Stevecracy.

Here some theoretical benefits and side defects that a Stevecracy would bring:

• In a Stevecracy, a group that is persecuted could stop the persecution with there power.
• If both groups in one pairs supports a bad issue that pair regards they could use there equal powers to enact it.

I am sorry but that is all I can think of. So, I want to know what you think.

THE END