Change weighted proportionality

Israel is a Middle Eastern country and should be in Group 5 which is for obvious reasons impossible. Their best choice is to participate in Group 4 but they are not an Eastern European country. Because of that and the war in Gaza, they would have to go through a lot of negotiations in order to achieve their participation. If they succeed (provided that they want it which they should), they will be in Balkan Region A2 because of their geographic location.

Which countries should make the decision? Should it be only the Balkan countries in Region A2? Well, this argument has some merit but it is not entirely correct. Israel will not be just in Region A2 but also in Subgroup A. So, should the countries in Subgroup A make the decision? This is better but still not enough because it will also be in Group 4. So all the countries should participate in the decision making.

On the other hand, the decision of the countries in Region A2 should count more than that in the rest of Subgroup A. Also Subgroup A should have more weight than Subgroup B. We will use the case of Israel as an example to demonstrate the superiority of AntiNWO's plan, compared to the completely failed NWO - EU plan. The process could be used for admitting a country in any one of the four Regions.

Also it can be used for any type of decision. In Europarliement, members are elected with degressive proportionality. Smaller countries elect higher number of members than their proportion in the population. After that, each MEP has one vote. The proportionality will remain the same for the whole term and could only change in the next elections for Europarliament.

Europarliament is a total waste of taxpayers' money. Brussels is a big wasteland. Citizens elect their representatives for their national Parliaments. There is no need to elect representatives twice. Their representatives can decide on all matters, including those for the Group. In addition to being a total waste of taxpayers' money, Europarliament is extremely unflexible and dysfunctional while the system proposed by AntiNWO is very flexible and functional.

Parliament for the Group can be the aggregation of national Parliaments. There is only a small problem that can be fixed with some simple math. The number of representatives in countries is not proportional to their population. It was shown in Eastern Europarliament how easy it is to fix this problem. Every country will get a weight according to their population.

Then national parliaments can vote on any issue and all parliaments together can constitute Eastern Europarliament. To determine the weight, strict or regressive proportionality can be used. Actually the proportionality can change according to the decision. In different decisions there could be different degrees and different ways of assigning proportionality.

Suppose that countries in Group 4 want to decide for Israel's participation. For simplicity, we include all countries although trading partners do not participate in decision making. If at the time of the decision, some countries are trading partners or have not been admitted in the Group yet, they will not participate in decision making.

In Appendix 10 Column 1, the population of the countries in Group 4 is shown. In Column 2 there is strict or simple proportionality. Region A1 has 16,6% and Region A2 14,5%. Together they make the percentage of Subgroup A which is 31,1%. Suppose we want to give more weight in the decision of Subgroup A and even more in Region A2. We will give a weight of 3 to Region A2 and 2 to Region A1 while in Subgroup B it will remain 1.

So the population of the countries in Region A2 will be multiplied by 3 and the population of the countries in Region A1 will be multiplied by 2. In column 3, we can see how the percentages change. For Region A1 it will increase to 22,9% and for Region A2 it will increase to 29,8%. For Subgroup A it will be 52,9% which is a little more than half (1/2) instead of a little less than one third (1/3). Each country in the Group will vote on the issue.

Suppose Serbia's Parliament votes Yes 47% and No 53% while Bulgaria's votes Yes 55% and No 45%. This is only an example. We can't know how they will vote in the future regarding this or any matter. Serbia's result will be multiplied by 3,3% and Bulgaria's by 3,2%. So for Serbia it will be 0,033 X 0,47 = 0,015 Yes and 0,033 X 0,53 = 0,017 No. For Bulgaria it will be 0,032 X 0,55 = 0,017 Yes and 0,032 X 0,45 = 0,014 No. The same will be done for all countries.

The results will be added to get the decision of Eastern Europarliament. The percentages of Yes and No should add up to 1 or 100% . The weights assigned to Regions could be different than those given as an example. In Column 4, a new set of weights is used, 2 and 1,5 instead of 3 and 2. In this example, weights were assigned based on the Region countries are in.

There could be other ways for assigning weights. Degressive proportionality could be used. Smaller countries can get higher weights than what their proportion in the population gives them. Actually the level of degression can very easily change with a simple change in the mathematical formula. So for different decisions, different level of degression could be used.

This is a matter that concerns all Group because Israel (or any other country) will not be only in Region A2 only but also in Subgroup A and Group 4. Regions and Subgroups can do whatever they want internally. For regional matters, Regions can make their own decisions and for Subgroups' matters, Subgroups can make their own decisions. Also countries will decide on their own for national matters.

It would be too burdensome and unproductive if Eastern Europarliament makes all the decisions. Only important decisions should follow this process. For the rest, the Council of Ministers should decide. Each country will have a Ministry or Deputy Ministry for the Group's affairs. How decisions will be made in the Ministers Council is another issue. One way is if each country gets one vote, regardless of the size it has.

Another way is if the decision is proportional, strict (simple) or weighted. The process just described above for national Parliaments could also be followed for the Ministers Council. Each Minister could have the weight assigned in Columns 3 or 4. There is an important difference though. Each country can vote only one way, what their government chooses.

Perhaps different parties in a country may want to vote differently. Also different representatives (Members of National Parliaments) in the same party may want to vote differently. Taking the decision to Eastern Europarliament comprised by National Parliaments is more representative. It is better if this is followed in important decisions.

In the Ministers Council, for some decisions each country could have one vote while for others there could be some type of proportionality. Decisions could require majority or two thirds of the votes. Some decisions could require to be made unanimously. All these will be decided by Group 4 or any Group since the organizational model will be standard for most Groups.

This is another case that shows the superiority of AntiNWO's plan. It proves that NWO's vicious cabal are dinosaurs that will become extinct. They will be left behind because they are already very far behind AntiNWO. There is no point delaying what will with out any doubt happen. NWO's monsters can only delay AntiNWO's superior plan to be implemented but they can not stop the inevitable. Voters should not vote for NWO parties.