Reimagining the United Nations: A 40-40-20 Vision for a Democratic World Order

Reimagining the United Nations: A 40-40-20 Vision for a Democratic World Order

The world is in crisis. As of 2025, the number of displaced persons worldwide has surpassed 120 million—the highest in recorded history. Wars rage in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, and Myanmar. Climate refugees flee submerged coasts and scorched farmlands. Authoritarian regimes suppress dissent with impunity. Global inequality festers. And yet, the institution meant to uphold international peace and justice—the United Nations—remains paralyzed, outdated, and structurally biased.

Is it time to dissolve the UN and start over?

This post explores a bold and controversial proposal: dissolve the United Nations and rebuild it from scratch, requiring each member state to convene a democratically elected constituent assembly within five years to gain admission. Thereafter, countries would be required to repeat this constitutional renewal every 50 years to maintain membership. The redesigned UN would operate on a 40-40-20 voting formula: 40% GDP, 40% population, and 20% equal country vote. This model aims to usher in a truly democratic, responsive, and just global order.

---

I. The Deficiencies of the Current UN System

1. The Veto Power Problem

At the heart of the UN’s dysfunction is the UN Security Council, where five permanent members (P5)—the U.S., China, Russia, the U.K., and France—wield veto power. This structure, a relic of World War II, gives disproportionate weight to a small group of nations and renders meaningful global consensus nearly impossible. Russia can block condemnation of its own invasions; the U.S. can block criticism of Israeli policies; China can silence mention of Uyghur repression.

2. Disempowered General Assembly

The UN General Assembly provides every nation a vote, but its resolutions are non-binding. Small countries have symbolic voice, but not material power. The imbalance between actual power and formal equality breeds cynicism and irrelevance.

3. Global Problems, Local Solutions

Most of the world’s pressing issues—climate change, pandemics, war crimes, refugee crises, corporate tax evasion—require global coordination. But the UN lacks enforcement authority, financial leverage, and institutional innovation to tackle these problems at scale.

---

II. Rebuilding the UN from First Principles

1. A Clean Slate

Imagine the UN dissolved and replaced by a new, democratic World Assembly, built with legitimacy and accountability at its core. Every country that wishes to be part of this new order must hold elections to a constituent assembly within five years, guaranteeing foundational participation by its people. Every 50 years, this exercise in democratic renewal would be repeated to prevent fossilized constitutions and entrenched elites.

This is not just about regime type—it’s about legitimacy. A government that has been recently affirmed by its people, through a constitutional convention or equivalent, earns its place at the global table.

2. The 40-40-20 Voting Formula

Representation in this new global body would follow a hybrid formula:

• 40% GDP Weight: Reflects a country’s economic contribution and capacity to act.

• 40% Population Weight: Ensures the global majority—the citizens—have voice.

• 20% Equal Vote: Maintains the spirit of sovereign equality.

This formula rewards both responsibility and human dignity, preventing both great-power domination and tokenistic equality.

Let’s take an example:

• The U.S. might get 15% of the vote (high GDP, medium population).

• India might get 12% (lower GDP, massive population).

• Nigeria could have more weight than Belgium.

• Small island nations still retain baseline representation.

This system aligns power with people and resources—balancing democracy, capacity, and sovereignty.

---

III. Democratizing Membership: The Constitutional Requirement

The idea of requiring countries to hold a constituent assembly every 50 years may seem radical—but it is a powerful mechanism to institutionalize democratic evolution.

Why every 50 years?

• Constitutions grow outdated.

• Power tends to concentrate.

• Generations change.

• Reinvigorating the social contract ensures relevance and accountability.

By linking UN membership to constitutional renewal, we catalyze internal democratization through external incentives—without military intervention or regime change campaigns.

---

IV. Addressing Displacement and Statelessness

The current system has failed the stateless and the displaced. There are over 10 million stateless persons with no passport, no rights, no future. Refugees linger for decades in limbo, as seen in Syria, Palestine, and South Sudan.

A new UN must guarantee:

• Right to nationality for all

• Global refugee rights charter enforceable through economic sanctions

• Digital global citizenship ID system for stateless individuals

• Binding climate relocation treaties funded by the largest emitters

---

V. Challenges and Criticisms

1. Who decides when a constitution is legitimate?

There must be a UN Constitutional Oversight Body composed of jurists, civic leaders, and scholars to audit the legitimacy of constituent processes.

2. Would authoritarian states boycott?

Perhaps. But economic and reputational incentives to join a powerful global body—with real voting power—might push even reluctant regimes to reform.

3. What about cultural diversity in governance?

This model does not impose Western liberal democracy—it demands deliberative legitimacy, transparency, and participation, in culturally sensitive ways.

---

VI. A Bold Vision for the Future

The stakes are high. Humanity faces existential threats—from climate collapse to AI disruption to nuclear war. A weak, compromised, veto-paralyzed UN cannot lead us through this era.

We need:

• A democratic global body

• A legitimacy-linked membership model

• A voting system that blends power and people

• A moral commitment to the displaced, the stateless, and the silenced

Rebuilding the UN isn’t just about changing institutions. It’s about restarting the social contract of the planet—between peoples, between generations, and between humans and the Earth.

---

Conclusion:
The 40-40-20 formula and the constitutional renewal mandate offer a bold but grounded framework to create a just, efficient, and inclusive global governance system. A new world is not only possible—it is necessary. The dysfunction of today must give birth to the legitimacy of tomorrow.

The world doesn’t just need a better United Nations. It needs a United Peoples of Earth—built on truth, inclusion, and democratic renewal.

Unitary States with Populations Over 10 Million
Trump’s 50-Day Ultimatum to Putin: Strategic Options, Risks, and the Road Ahead
A Roadmap to Peace in Ukraine: A Neutral UN-Led Path Forward
Toward a Federated World: Rethinking Sovereignty, Representation, and Rights in the 21st Century
Timeline of Tibet's History
The Russia Ukraine Stalemate And The Way Out
Lalu Prasad Yadav: The Paradox of Indian Politics – A Railway Miracle, a Bihar Tragedy
Xi Jinping’s Power Struggles: Fact, Fiction, or Fog of Speculation?
Fewer Than 100 Companies Are Warming the Planet — And the Himalayas Are Paying the Price
From Colonial Empires to Data Empires: Understanding the Power Differential Then and Now
FDR To Reagan To AOC: The Half Century Pendulum Swings
Land Reform Is the Magic Bullet for Bihar’s Future
Reverse Surveillance: When Democracy Watches Its Watchers
What Delhi Can Learn from Beijing About Cleaning Its Air
Rethinking Migration: What the U.S. Can Learn from the World’s Best Guest Worker Programs
Open Primaries and the Future of American Democracy: A Cure for Polarization?
Ending Gerrymandering in America: Toward Fair Representation Through Federal Reform
American Politics and the Weaponization of Investigation: From Clinton to Trump
Can the UAE Be Considered a Meritocratic Governance Zone?
A New United Nations Will Cut Military Budgets—and Unlock Trillions for Humanity
The WTO Is Broken — Let’s Reform the UN and Rethink Global Trade from the Ground Up

Toward a Federated World: Rethinking Sovereignty, Representation, and Rights in the 21st Century

 🌍 Toward a Federated World: Rethinking Sovereignty, Representation, and Rights in the 21st Century

The concept of the nation-state is a relatively recent development in the long arc of human history. For most of our past, human societies were organized around tribes, kingdoms, empires, and loosely defined territories. The rigid, bordered, and centralized idea of a nation-state emerged primarily in Europe after the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and globalized in the wake of colonialism, industrialization, and world wars. Yet today, as humanity grapples with transnational challenges, the limitations of the traditional nation-state have become increasingly apparent.

It is time to imagine and design a post-Westphalian global order rooted in justice, cooperation, and layered federalism—both globally and domestically. This means rethinking how we govern ourselves across borders, manage diversity within countries, and ensure that no human being remains stateless, undocumented, or disenfranchised.

---

🧭 A World Beyond the Nation-State

The Case for a Genuine United Nations

The current UN system, while a valuable forum for diplomacy, is structurally skewed. The Security Council’s veto power, permanent membership, and one-nation-one-vote rule in the General Assembly render it inequitable and often ineffective in preventing conflict or ensuring global cooperation.

A reformed UN voting model based on the 40-40-20 formula—where:

• 40% of voting power is based on GDP,

• 40% on population, and

• 20% on equal country representation

—offers a path to balanced representation. It respects the weight of economic and demographic power, while retaining equality of sovereignty. This would give a voice to both populous developing nations (like India, Nigeria, and Indonesia) and smaller nations that fear being dwarfed in a purely majoritarian world order.

Such a reform could usher in:

• Global taxation mechanisms to fund common goods (climate mitigation, AI safety, global health).

• A World Parliament with democratic legitimacy.

• Universal legal standards on labor rights, environment, and digital data.

---

🌐 Regional Federations: The Middle Layer of Governance

Between the global and the local, regional unions provide an intermediate scale of integration and cooperation.

Examples already exist:

• European Union: A successful prototype of political and economic integration.

• African Union: Aspires toward continental free movement and a shared currency.

• MERCOSUR, ASEAN, SAARC, GCC: Economic and cultural blocks with untapped potential.

Expanding these into full-fledged federations with shared governance, digital IDs, common infrastructure, and collective security would allow:

• Shared sovereignty over critical domains (like climate, cybersecurity, migration).

• Strong local autonomy, while buffering against global shocks.

• More resilient economies through regional specialization and solidarity.

---

🏛️ Federalism Inside Borders: From Uniformity to Pluralism

Domestically, many modern states are plagued by centralization, ethnic tensions, and regional underdevelopment. A shift toward multi-layered federalism—with 2 to 4 levels of governance (federal, state/provincial, district, local/village)—is necessary.

This can include:

• Cultural federalism: Where ethnic or linguistic minorities get control over education, media, and local administration.

• Fiscal federalism: Letting regions control taxes and budgets while contributing to national pooling.

• Legal pluralism: Allowing customary or religious law to coexist with civil law (where compatible with human rights).

In some cases, full autonomy or asymmetric federalism (e.g., Hong Kong pre-2020, Scotland, Catalonia, Kurdistan) might be necessary to preserve peace and justice.

---

🛂 No One Stateless: A Moral and Legal Imperative

Today, over 10 million people around the world are stateless—denied citizenship by birth, discrimination, or legal complexity. They lack basic rights: schooling, healthcare, banking, legal protection. Meanwhile, migrant workers—often the economic backbone of their host societies—face exploitation, deportation threats, and invisibility.

Needed Reforms:

• Global Treaty on Statelessness: Ensure that every human is entitled to citizenship by default in the country they are born or reside long-term.

• Universal Digital ID system: Verified by an international body, interoperable across borders.

• Remote Voting for Migrants: All migrant workers should be able to vote in their home countries via secure digital platforms or embassies.

• Standardized Labor Protections: Enforceable global labor laws to protect migrant workers from wage theft, abuse, or deportation.

• Right to Legal Status: All migrants, including undocumented ones, should have a path to documentation and eventual regularization.

---

⚖️ Rule of Law Across All Levels

A federated, multilateral world must operate with strong adherence to rule of law:

• International tribunals for human rights, environment, war crimes.

• Regional courts for economic disputes and minority protections.

• Independent national judiciaries with constitutional oversight.

Only with enforceable rights and legal accountability at every level—local, national, regional, and global—can we move beyond the tyranny of power and the failures of bureaucracy.

---

🧩 Toward a Just, Networked Future

In an age defined by climate crises, AI revolutions, mass migration, and cross-border capital flows, the 20th-century model of sovereign, sealed, unitary states is no longer fit for purpose.

We need:

• A genuine United Nations, not just a club of states.

• Regional federations as engines of shared growth.

• Internal federalism to accommodate diversity.

• A world where every person is counted, protected, and empowered.

This is not utopia. It is necessary—and increasingly inevitable—as our problems outgrow our politics. The tools exist. The ideas are maturing. What’s needed now is the courage to reform the architecture of governance itself.

---

A New United Nations Will Cut Military Budgets—and Unlock Trillions for Humanity

Five Languages for a New United Nations: Mandarin, English, Hindi, Spanish, Arabic
If the UN Can’t Reform, It Must Be Replaced: Time for a New United Nations That Reflects Today’s World
The WTO Is Broken — Let’s Reform the UN and Rethink Global Trade from the Ground Up
A New United Nations, A New Partnership: How Reform Can Unite the U.S. and India as Equals
The Small Country Coalition: How Nations with Fewer than 30 Votes Could Shape a New United Nations
Imagining A New United Nations
A G30 (Or G40) For A New Global Trade Architecture

A New United Nations Will Cut Military Budgets—and Unlock Trillions for Humanity

---

The world spends more than $2.2 trillion annually on the military. That’s over $6 billion a day on weapons, soldiers, tanks, drones, and nuclear arsenals. Yet wars continue. Refugees flee. Climate disasters worsen. Pandemics threaten. And over 700 million people still live in extreme poverty.

Why?

Because the global security architecture is broken. The current United Nations, created in 1945, is supposed to be the place where nations resolve disputes, prevent wars, and build peace. But instead, it has become largely symbolic, powerless to act, and paralyzed by outdated veto politics.

We don’t just need to reform the UN.

We need to build a new one.

And when we do, the world will finally be able to shift resources from destruction to development, from militarism to humanity.

---

🌍 The Problem: A Dysfunctional UN in a Dangerous World

The UN Security Council—the body responsible for maintaining global peace and security—is dominated by five countries (P5): the U.S., China, Russia, the U.K., and France. Each of them holds veto power, which means that any one of them can block any action, even in the face of genocide, aggression, or climate catastrophe.

This system is unfit for today’s challenges:

• In Syria, action was blocked repeatedly

• In Ukraine, the aggressor holds a veto

• On Palestine, paralysis has lasted decades

• On climate, there is no enforcement mechanism

• On AI and pandemics, there is no global authority at all

As a result, countries increasingly rely on militarization and unilateralism—because they don’t trust the system to protect them.

---

🔁 The Solution: A New UN With Teeth

Imagine a New United Nations—one built not on privilege, but on shared responsibility and proportional power. A system where:

• Vetoes are abolished

• Every country’s vote is weighted using a fair formula:

  • 40% based on GDP

  • 40% based on population

  • 20% based on equal representation (1 country = 1 share)

• A new Security Council reflects today’s world (with China, the U.S., India, Japan, and Germany as rotating anchors—not permanent overlords)

• There are functional, empowered councils on:

  • Climate Action

  • AI Safety

  • Trade Justice

  • Global Health and Pandemics

This new UN wouldn’t just talk. It would act—with real authority, rapid response mechanisms, and financial firepower.

---

💰 The Peace Dividend: Trillions in Savings

A functional global governance system creates trust—and trust reduces the perceived need for arms.

With a trusted, representative, and effective UN in place:

• Nations could cut military budgets by 25–50% over a decade

• The U.S. alone could save over $400 billion per year

• Global military spending could drop by $1–1.5 trillion annually

This “peace dividend” isn’t hypothetical. It’s the largest untapped source of global funding we have.

And what could we do with that money?

---

❤️ Humanity’s Wishlist—Now Fundable

Trillions in freed-up capital could transform life on Earth:

• Universal healthcare in every country

• Free, quality education from pre-K to college

• Green infrastructure and clean energy transitions

• Global basic income pilots to end poverty

• Food security and regenerative agriculture worldwide

• Affordable housing, sanitation, and internet access for all

• Resilient supply chains and pandemic-ready health systems

Everything we claim we "can't afford" suddenly becomes very affordable.

---

🔐 Security Through Cooperation, Not Competition

Real security in the 21st century will not come from bigger bombs or more submarines.

It will come from:

• Preventing climate collapse

• Regulating AI before it outruns us

• Ensuring equitable trade

• Stopping the next pandemic before it spreads

These are shared threats, requiring shared solutions. Only a New UN—modern, inclusive, empowered—can coordinate that at scale.

---

✊ Final Thought: Replace Fear With Vision

Right now, every nation is trapped in a logic of fear:
"If I don’t arm myself, I won’t be safe."

But that fear is rooted in a broken system—one that no longer works, and never will without fundamental change.

A New United Nations will restore faith in global cooperation. It will replace vetoes with voices. And it will shift trillions from war to welfare, from paralysis to progress.

It’s not just possible. It’s necessary. It’s overdue.

Let’s stop maintaining the illusion of peace through arms.
Let’s start building real peace through justice, democracy, and shared power.

---

Author: Paramendra Bhagat
Global peace and governance advocate. Author of “Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy.”
#NewUN #GlobalPeace #MilitaryBudgets #UNReform #TrillionsForHumanity #PeaceDividend #GlobalGovernance

एक नया संयुक्त राष्ट्र, जो सैन्य खर्च घटाएगा और इंसानियत के लिए खरबों डॉलर की धनराशि मुक्त करेगा

---

दुनिया हर साल $2.2 ट्रिलियन डॉलर से ज़्यादा रक्षा पर खर्च करती है।
यानी हर दिन $6 अरब डॉलर, हथियारों, सैनिकों, टैंकों, ड्रोन और परमाणु हथियारों पर।

फिर भी युद्ध होते हैं।
शरणार्थी भागते हैं।
जलवायु आपदाएँ बढ़ती हैं।
महामारियाँ जानलेवा बनती हैं।
और 70 करोड़ से अधिक लोग अब भी अति-गरीबी में जीते हैं।

क्यों?
क्योंकि हमारी वैश्विक सुरक्षा व्यवस्था टूटी हुई है।

संयुक्त राष्ट्र, जिसे दुनिया में शांति बनाए रखने और युद्ध रोकने के लिए बनाया गया था, आज दंतहीन, निष्क्रिय और पुराने ढांचे में फंसा हुआ है।

अब केवल सुधार से काम नहीं चलेगा।

हमें एक नया, सक्षम और शक्तिशाली संयुक्त राष्ट्र बनाना होगा।

और जैसे ही हम ऐसा करेंगे, दुनिया के पास विनाश से विकास की ओर मोड़ने का ऐतिहासिक मौका होगा।

---

🌍 समस्या: एक अक्षम संयुक्त राष्ट्र और बढ़ते खतरे

UN सुरक्षा परिषद, जो शांति बनाए रखने के लिए ज़िम्मेदार है, वहाँ पाँच स्थायी देश (P5)—अमेरिका, चीन, रूस, ब्रिटेन, फ्रांस—वीटो का अधिकार रखते हैं।

इसका मतलब है:
कोई भी देश किसी भी प्रस्ताव को अकेले ही रोक सकता है, चाहे बात नरसंहार की हो, आक्रमण की हो या जलवायु संकट की।

आज के दौर के लिए यह ढांचा पूरी तरह अनुपयुक्त है:

• सीरिया में बार-बार कार्रवाई रोकी गई

• यूक्रेन में खुद आक्रांता के पास वीटो है

• फिलिस्तीन पर दशकों से कोई हल नहीं

• जलवायु परिवर्तन पर कोई कार्यान्वयन नहीं

• AI और महामारी जैसे मुद्दों पर कोई वैश्विक प्राधिकरण ही नहीं

नतीजा?
देश अपने-अपने तरीके से हथियारों पर निर्भर होते जा रहे हैं—क्योंकि उन्हें भरोसा नहीं है कि UN उनकी रक्षा करेगा।

---

🔁 समाधान: एक नया संयुक्त राष्ट्र, जिसके पास शक्ति हो

कल्पना कीजिए एक नए संयुक्त राष्ट्र की—जो विशेषाधिकार नहीं, बल्कि न्यायसंगत भागीदारी पर आधारित हो। ऐसा ढांचा जिसमें:

• वीटो पूरी तरह समाप्त हो

• हर देश की वोटिंग शक्ति तय हो इस न्यायपूर्ण सूत्र से:

  • 40% GDP के आधार पर

  • 40% जनसंख्या के आधार पर

  • 20% समान वोट (प्रत्येक देश को 1/195 हिस्सा)

• नई सुरक्षा परिषद बने—चीन, अमेरिका, भारत, जापान और जर्मनी के साथ—जो स्थायी नहीं, बल्कि घूर्णन नेतृत्वकर्ता हों

• तीन नयी शक्तिशाली परिषदें बनें:

  • जलवायु कार्रवाई परिषद

  • AI सुरक्षा परिषद

  • वैश्विक व्यापार न्याय परिषद

यह नया UN सिर्फ चर्चा नहीं करेगा—यह सकारात्मक, त्वरित और प्रभावी कार्रवाई करेगा।

---

💰 शांति लाभ (Peace Dividend): खरबों डॉलर की बचत

अगर वैश्विक स्तर पर एक विश्वसनीय संस्था बन जाए:

• देश अपने रक्षा बजट में 25-50% की कटौती कर सकते हैं

• अकेले अमेरिका हर साल $400 अरब डॉलर बचा सकता है

• दुनिया भर में सैन्य खर्च में $1–1.5 ट्रिलियन डॉलर की वार्षिक बचत संभव है

यह "शांति लाभ" केवल एक विचार नहीं है—यह मानवता के लिए सबसे बड़ा आर्थिक अवसर है।

और इस धन का उपयोग कहाँ हो सकता है?

---

❤️ मानवता की आवश्यकताएँ—अब पूर्णतः संभव

अगर ये धनराशि हथियारों से हटाकर मानव कल्याण में लगाई जाए, तो हम कर सकते हैं:

• हर देश में सार्वभौमिक स्वास्थ्य सेवा

• निःशुल्क गुणवत्तापूर्ण शिक्षा, बचपन से कॉलेज तक

• हरित ऊर्जा और टिकाऊ बुनियादी ढांचे में निवेश

• ग्लोबल बेसिक इनकम जैसी योजनाओं से गरीबी का अंत

• हर परिवार को भोजन, आवास, इंटरनेट और स्वच्छ जल

• महामारी से लड़ने के लिए मजबूत स्वास्थ्य प्रणाली

जो आज असंभव लगता है, वह सब संभव हो जाता है।

---

🔐 असली सुरक्षा: सहयोग से, हथियारों से नहीं

21वीं सदी की असली सुरक्षा हथियारों से नहीं, बल्कि:

• जलवायु संकट को टालने

• AI को नियंत्रित करने

• न्यायपूर्ण व्यापार सुनिश्चित करने

• अगली महामारी को रोकने से आएगी।

ये वैश्विक समस्याएँ हैं, जिनका हल केवल साझा प्रयासों से होगा।

---

✊ अंतिम विचार: डर की जगह दूरदृष्टि

आज हर देश डर की मानसिकता में है:
"अगर हम हथियार नहीं बनाएंगे, तो हम सुरक्षित नहीं रहेंगे।"

लेकिन यह डर एक टूटी हुई प्रणाली में भरोसा न होने से पैदा होता है।

एक नया संयुक्त राष्ट्र, जिसमें पारदर्शिता, भागीदारी और कार्य करने की शक्ति हो—वही दुनिया का भरोसा बहाल कर सकता है।

वही प्रणाली हथियारों की होड़ को रोक सकती है, और मानवता के लिए नई शुरुआत कर सकती है।

अब समय है—भय नहीं, सहयोग चुनने का।

अब समय है—युद्ध नहीं, शांति में निवेश करने का।

---

लेखक: परमेंद्र भगत
“Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy” के लेखक और वैश्विक शांति के पैरोकार
#NewUN #GlobalPeace #MilitaryBudgets #UNReform #PeaceDividend #मानवता_के_लिए_धन #विश्व_सुरक्षा

If the UN Can’t Reform, It Must Be Replaced: Time for a New United Nations That Reflects Today’s World

The WTO Is Broken — Let’s Reform the UN and Rethink Global Trade from the Ground Up
A New United Nations, A New Partnership: How Reform Can Unite the U.S. and India as Equals
The Small Country Coalition: How Nations with Fewer than 30 Votes Could Shape a New United Nations
Imagining A New United Nations
A G30 (Or G40) For A New Global Trade Architecture

If the UN Can’t Reform, It Must Be Replaced: Time for a New United Nations That Reflects Today’s World

---

The United Nations, born in the aftermath of World War II, is no longer equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century. While crises multiply—climate collapse, AI disruption, forced migration, and rising inequality—the UN remains trapped in a system designed for a bygone era. The five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council—U.S., China, Russia, U.K., and France—continue to wield veto power, blocking meaningful change.

Yet here’s the core problem: reforming the UN requires the consent of the P5, and they have no incentive to give up their privileged position. It’s a Catch-22. Reform is necessary—but impossible from within.

The solution? If the UN cannot be reformed, it must be peacefully dissolved and rebuilt from the ground up.

---

🌍 A New United Nations: Democratic, Decentralized, Decisive

We call on all 195 nations to come together and establish a New United Nations, grounded in legitimacy, equity, and action. This new institution would:

• Abolish the veto

• Use a weighted voting formula based on:

  • 40% GDP share

  • 40% Population share

  • 20% Equal vote share (1/195 per country)

• Replace archaic power structures with functional councils and democratic mechanisms

• Serve as the platform for rethinking global security, trade, climate action, and AI governance

---

🔁 A New Security Council Reflecting Today’s Realities

The New Security Council should be composed not of WWII victors, but of the top five vote-holding nations under the 40-40-20 system:

1. China

2. United States

3. India

4. Japan

5. Germany

These countries reflect current economic and demographic realities. However, they would not have veto power. Instead, they would rotate leadership responsibilities and serve as coordinating anchors in a more agile, equitable, and responsive council.

---

🧹 From Bureaucracy to Bold Action

Today’s UN suffers from institutional bloat. Endless summits, countless reports, and minimal impact. The new organization must flip the script.

We need:

• Lean governance

• Clear mandates

• Direct implementation

• Annual action scorecards

• Problem solvers—not just policy scholars

---

🗳️ Electing a Real Secretary-General: Transparent and Fair

The office of the Secretary-General should no longer be decided behind closed doors. In the New UN, the Secretary-General would be elected through a transparent, democratic process using the same 40-40-20 voting formula applied across all decision-making:

• A candidate must be nominated by one country and seconded by another

• Each candidate must present a public platform and policy vision

• There will be a one-month global campaign period

• If no candidate secures over 50% in the first round, a runoff will occur between the top two

The Secretary-General would serve a five-year term, renewable once only.

This system would ensure that the world’s top diplomat has legitimacy, vision, and public accountability.

---

🔧 New Global Councils for 21st Century Challenges

The reformed UN must create specialized, empowered councils to address the world’s most urgent issues head-on.

1. Council on Climate Action

Enforce global emissions limits, manage carbon finance, and coordinate disaster response.

2. Council on AI Safety

Set global standards for AI development, risk audits, and algorithmic transparency.

3. Council on Global Trade

Architect a new multilateral trade system—one that includes migrant labor, digital goods, supply chain justice, and climate safeguards—guided by the blueprint in Rethinking Trade.

Each of these councils would operate under the 40-40-20 voting framework, ensuring fairness, representation, and actionability.

---

⚖️ Toward a World That Governs Itself Fairly

The old UN represents a world that no longer exists.

The New UN would be:

• Democratic: No veto, weighted votes

• Representative: GDP + Population + Equal Voice

• Action-Oriented: From paralysis to performance

• Future-Ready: Equipped to deal with AI, climate, digital economies, and human displacement

• Accountable: Elected leadership, transparent reporting, and people-centered progress

---

✊ Final Thought: It’s Time to Rebuild, Not Patch

The international community cannot afford to keep patching an outdated institution. We must do what previous generations did after global upheaval: build anew.

Let the next United Nations reflect the world as it is—and guide us to the world we aspire to become.

It’s time to dissolve with dignity—and rebuild with purpose.

---

Author: Paramendra Bhagat
Global democracy advocate and author of “Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy”
#NewUN #UNReform #GlobalGovernance #SecretaryGeneralElection #TradeJustice #ClimateAction #AISafety

यदि संयुक्त राष्ट्र में सुधार संभव नहीं, तो उसे भंग कर एक नया वैश्विक संगठन बनाया जाए

---

संयुक्त राष्ट्र (UN) की स्थापना द्वितीय विश्व युद्ध के बाद शांति और सहयोग सुनिश्चित करने के लिए की गई थी। लेकिन आज, जब जलवायु संकट गहरा रहा है, AI बेकाबू गति से आगे बढ़ रहा है, प्रवास और असमानता चरम पर हैं—UN एक ऐसे ढांचे में जकड़ा हुआ है जो बीते युग का अवशेष बन चुका है।

संयुक्त राष्ट्र सुरक्षा परिषद के पाँच स्थायी सदस्य (P5)—अमेरिका, चीन, रूस, ब्रिटेन और फ्रांस—वीटो शक्ति के ज़रिए किसी भी बदलाव को रोक सकते हैं। और यही सबसे बड़ी विडंबना है:
UN में सुधार करने के लिए उन्हीं देशों की सहमति चाहिए जिन्हें सुधार से अपना विशेषाधिकार खोने का डर है।

यह एक कैच-22 स्थिति है। सुधार ज़रूरी है, लेकिन मौजूदा प्रणाली में असंभव है।

समाधान? अगर संयुक्त राष्ट्र सुधर नहीं सकता, तो उसे भंग कर एक नया, न्यायसंगत, लोकतांत्रिक वैश्विक संगठन बनाया जाए।

---

🌍 एक नया संयुक्त राष्ट्र: लोकतांत्रिक, विकेंद्रीकृत और प्रभावी

हम आह्वान करते हैं कि सभी 195 देश मिलकर वर्तमान UN को भंग करें और एक नया वैश्विक संगठन बनाएं, जिसकी नींव निम्नलिखित सिद्धांतों पर हो:

• वीटो का पूर्ण अंत

• वोटिंग प्रणाली इस सूत्र पर आधारित हो:

  • 40% GDP के अनुसार

  • 40% जनसंख्या के अनुसार

  • 20% समान वोट (प्रत्येक देश को 1/195 हिस्सा)

• पुरानी ताकतों की बजाय कार्यशील परिषदें और लोकतांत्रिक निर्णय प्रणाली

• वैश्विक सुरक्षा, व्यापार, जलवायु और AI से जुड़े मुद्दों पर स्पष्ट और त्वरित कार्रवाई

---

🔁 आज की वास्तविकताओं को दर्शाने वाली नई सुरक्षा परिषद

वर्तमान सुरक्षा परिषद WWII के विजेताओं पर आधारित है, न कि आज की वैश्विक शक्ति संरचना पर।
नई सुरक्षा परिषद में वे पाँच देश शामिल हों जिनके पास 40-40-20 वोटिंग प्रणाली के अनुसार सबसे अधिक मत हों:

1. चीन

2. संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका

3. भारत

4. जापान

5. जर्मनी

इन देशों को कोई वीटो शक्ति नहीं होगी। वे घूमते हुए नेतृत्वकर्ता बनेंगे और वैश्विक समन्वय को गति देंगे—आज की बहुध्रुवीय दुनिया के अनुरूप।

---

🧹 रिपोर्टों से निकलकर ज़मीनी कार्यवाही तक

वर्तमान UN अत्यधिक नौकरशाही से ग्रसित है। सम्मेलन पर सम्मेलन, रिपोर्ट पर रिपोर्ट—लेकिन ज़मीनी कार्य बहुत कम।

नए संगठन में चाहिए:

• सरल, परिणामोन्मुखी शासन

• सटीक लक्ष्य, स्पष्ट ज़िम्मेदारियाँ

• तकनीकी और फील्ड विशेषज्ञों की भागीदारी

• वार्षिक कार्यप्रदर्शन रिपोर्टिंग

---

🗳️ महासचिव का सीधा, पारदर्शी चुनाव

अब समय आ गया है कि महासचिव का चुनाव बंद कमरों में नहीं, बल्कि पारदर्शी प्रणाली से हो।

नए संयुक्त राष्ट्र में महासचिव का चुनाव उसी 40-40-20 वोटिंग फॉर्मूले के तहत हो, जो अन्य निर्णयों पर लागू होता है:

• कोई भी देश प्रत्याशी नामांकित कर सकता है, जिसे किसी दूसरे देश द्वारा समर्थन दिया जाना चाहिए

• प्रत्येक उम्मीदवार को सार्वजनिक घोषणापत्र और एजेंडा प्रस्तुत करना होगा

• एक एक महीने का वैश्विक प्रचार अभियान चलेगा

• अगर पहले चरण में कोई 50% से अधिक वोट नहीं पाता, तो शीर्ष दो के बीच दूसरे दौर का चुनाव होगा

• कार्यकाल पाँच वर्ष का, अधिकतम दो बार ही अनुमेय होगा

यह व्यवस्था सुनिश्चित करेगी कि महासचिव में हो दृष्टि, जनसंपर्क, और वैश्विक वैधता।

---

🔧 21वीं सदी की चुनौतियों के लिए विशेष परिषदें

नए संयुक्त राष्ट्र को चाहिए तीव्र, विशेषज्ञ और ज़िम्मेदार परिषदें, जो आज की ज़रूरतों के अनुरूप काम करें:

1. जलवायु कार्रवाई परिषद (Council on Climate Action)

• उत्सर्जन नियंत्रण, आपदा प्रतिक्रिया, ग्रीन फाइनेंस और जवाबदेही

2. AI सुरक्षा परिषद (Council on AI Safety)

• वैश्विक मानक तय करना, जोखिम मूल्यांकन, और नैतिक विकास सुनिश्चित करना

3. वैश्विक व्यापार परिषद (Council on Global Trade)

• नए व्यापार ढांचे का निर्माण, जिसमें प्रवासी श्रम, डिजिटल उत्पाद, आपूर्ति श्रृंखला न्याय और जलवायु मानक शामिल हों
  (इस विषय पर विस्तृत मार्गदर्शन पुस्तक Rethinking Trade में उपलब्ध है)

इन सभी परिषदों में निर्णय 40-40-20 प्रणाली के अंतर्गत होंगे—जिससे निर्णय न केवल निष्पक्ष बल्कि प्रभावशाली भी होंगे।

---

⚖️ एक ऐसी संस्था जो आज की दुनिया को दर्शाए

पुराना संयुक्त राष्ट्र अब हमारे युग के अनुकूल नहीं है।

नया संयुक्त राष्ट्र होगा:

• लोकतांत्रिक: वीटो नहीं, वास्तविक वोटिंग

• प्रतिनिधित्वशील: GDP + जनसंख्या + समानता

• प्रभावशाली: रिपोर्ट नहीं, वास्तविक कार्य

• आधुनिक: AI, जलवायु, डिजिटल अर्थव्यवस्था के लिए तैयार

• उत्तरदायी: चुनाव, पारदर्शिता और नागरिकों के प्रति जवाबदेही

---

✊ अंतिम विचार: अब मरम्मत नहीं, पुनर्निर्माण की ज़रूरत है

दुनिया को अब पैबंदों वाला संयुक्त राष्ट्र नहीं चाहिए।

हमें वही करना चाहिए जो पिछली पीढ़ियों ने वैश्विक संकटों के बाद किया:
नया संस्थान बनाना।

नया संयुक्त राष्ट्र हमारी हकीकत को दर्शाए, और हमारे साझा भविष्य की दिशा तय करे।

अब समय है कि हम पुरानी संस्था को सम्मानपूर्वक विदा करें—और एक नई, प्रभावशाली वैश्विक संस्था साहस और उद्देश्य के साथ खड़ी करें।

---

लेखक: परमेंद्र भगत
“Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy” के लेखक, और वैश्विक लोकतांत्रिक शासन के पैरोकार
#NewUN #UNReform #GlobalGovernance #SecretaryGeneralElection #TradeJustice #ClimateAction #AISafety

A New United Nations, A New Partnership: How Reform Can Unite the U.S. and India as Equals

 

A New United Nations, A New Partnership: How Reform Can Unite the U.S. and India as Equals

---

For decades, the United Nations has served as a forum for global diplomacy, but its outdated structure—anchored in the post-World War II order—has often limited its relevance in a rapidly changing world. Five permanent members of the Security Council (P5)—the U.S., China, Russia, the U.K., and France—wield disproportionate power through their veto rights, while major global players like India remain sidelined, despite their enormous contributions to peacekeeping, economic growth, and global stability.

But now, a powerful reform proposal—outlined in the blog post Imagining a New United Nations—offers a radically fair and forward-looking model. And at the heart of this reimagining lies a promise: a chance for the United States and India to stand shoulder to shoulder as true equals, working together to address humanity’s greatest challenges.

---

🌐 The New Formula for Global Voting Power

The reform proposes a weighted voting system based on three metrics:

• 40% GDP Share

• 40% Population Share

• 20% Equal Vote (1/195 per country)

This model replaces the outdated Security Council veto system with a proportional and transparent method of global representation.

Such a formula does two critical things:

1. Recognizes economic and demographic realities of the 21st century

2. Elevates democratic legitimacy over historical privilege

And in this new system, the U.S. and India emerge not as competitors, but as complementary powers, ideally positioned to co-lead a multipolar world.

---

🇺🇸 + 🇮🇳: Complementary Strengths

The United States:

• Still the world’s largest economy

• Unmatched military and technological capabilities

• Home to major multilateral institutions

• Global standard-setter for innovation and democratic governance

India:

• World’s most populous democracy

• Fastest-growing major economy

• Strategic location in the Indo-Pacific

• Moral voice for the Global South and developing nations

In the current UN structure, the U.S. stands at the center of power, while India remains outside the permanent circle.
This has created an artificial gap between two natural allies.

---

🧩 A New Equation: Shared Leadership, Shared Responsibility

Under the proposed formula, India gains rightful influence based on its population and rising GDP. The U.S. retains strong voting weight due to its economic might and global stature. This balance creates the conditions for:

• Joint leadership on climate action, especially technology transfers, green finance, and climate resilience in the Global South

• Coordinated global health strategies, from pandemic prevention to pharmaceutical equity

• Reform of global financial institutions, such as the IMF and World Bank, where both countries push for fairer terms for developing nations

• Responsible AI governance, ensuring safety and access without stifling innovation

• A strong Indo-Pacific security architecture, promoting peace and sovereignty in a turbulent region

---

🤝 Why the U.S.-India Equation Matters Now More Than Ever

In an era of geopolitical fragmentation, rising nationalism, and climate breakdowns, no single power can tackle global challenges alone. A U.S.-India partnership at the center of a reformed UN:

• Counters authoritarian influence

• Bridges the Global North and South

• Elevates democratic values on a global scale

• Reorients the world order away from zero-sum rivalry toward collaborative multilateralism

---

⚖️ Equality Unlocks Potential

The genius of this proposed voting model is not just its mathematical logic. It’s the diplomatic reset it enables. India no longer has to knock on the Security Council’s door for a permanent seat. The U.S. no longer has to choose between unilateralism and gridlock. Both countries meet in the middle—as peers, not patrons and petitioners.

This mutual respect creates fertile ground for transformative cooperation.

---

🚧 The Path Forward: What It Will Take

Of course, such a bold reform will not come easily. The current P5 will resist any dilution of power. But the following steps could accelerate progress:

• A joint U.S.-India declaration endorsing the reform formula and pledging to co-lead on UN transformation

• Mobilizing the G20 and Global South behind the new voting system

• A global civil society campaign to raise public pressure

• Linking reform to urgently needed results: pandemic prevention, AI regulation, digital equity, and climate action

---

✨ Conclusion: A New Architecture for a New Era

The proposed UN reform is more than a bureaucratic adjustment. It’s a geopolitical opportunity—a chance to unlock the next phase of global governance with two of the world’s most important democracies leading the way.

The U.S. brings institutional power. India brings demographic power.
Together, they can model ethical leadership, fair representation, and shared responsibility.

And perhaps, for the first time in UN history, we would see not a council of the powerful—but a council of the committed, rising to meet this century’s challenges. Together.

---

Author: Paramendra Bhagat
Advocate for multipolar democracy, author of “Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy”
#UNReform #USIndia #GlobalGovernance #MultipolarWorld #NewUN

नया संयुक्त राष्ट्र, नई साझेदारी: यह सुधार कैसे अमेरिका और भारत को बराबरी का मंच देगा

---

संयुक्त राष्ट्र दशकों से वैश्विक कूटनीति का मंच रहा है, लेकिन इसकी वर्तमान संरचना—जो द्वितीय विश्व युद्ध के बाद की विश्व व्यवस्था पर आधारित है—तेजी से बदलती दुनिया की जरूरतों को पूरा करने में असमर्थ रही है। सुरक्षा परिषद (UNSC) के पाँच स्थायी सदस्य (P5)—अमेरिका, चीन, रूस, ब्रिटेन और फ्रांस—आज भी वीटो जैसी असाधारण शक्ति के स्वामी हैं, जबकि भारत जैसा बड़ा और ज़िम्मेदार देश आज भी बाहर खड़ा है, जिसकी अर्थव्यवस्था, जनसंख्या, और वैश्विक योगदान किसी भी मापदंड पर कम नहीं है।

लेकिन अब एक नया और साहसिक प्रस्ताव—Imagining a New United Nations नामक ब्लॉग पोस्ट में प्रस्तुत किया गया—इस असंतुलन को ठीक करने का अवसर देता है। यह सिर्फ संरचना को नहीं बदलता, बल्कि एक नया युग शुरू करता है, जिसमें भारत और अमेरिका बराबरी के साझेदार बनकर वैश्विक चुनौतियों का समाधान कर सकते हैं।

---

🌐 नया वोटिंग फॉर्मूला

इस प्रस्तावित मॉडल में मतदान शक्ति को तीन आधारों पर तय किया जाता है:

• 40% - GDP हिस्सेदारी

• 40% - जनसंख्या हिस्सेदारी

• 20% - समान वोट (प्रत्येक देश को 1/195 हिस्सा)

यह प्रणाली पुराने वीटो अधिकार की जगह एक पारदर्शी, संतुलित और लोकतांत्रिक वैश्विक प्रतिनिधित्व प्रदान करती है।

और इसी प्रणाली के अंतर्गत, भारत और अमेरिका प्रतिद्वंद्वी नहीं, बल्कि साझेदार बनते हैं—जो मिलकर एक बहुध्रुवीय विश्व का नेतृत्व कर सकते हैं।

---

🇺🇸 + 🇮🇳: पूरक शक्तियाँ, साझा नेतृत्व

अमेरिका:

• अब भी दुनिया की सबसे बड़ी अर्थव्यवस्था

• असाधारण तकनीकी व सैन्य शक्ति

• अंतरराष्ट्रीय संस्थानों में गहरा प्रभाव

• नवाचार और लोकतांत्रिक मूल्यों का वैश्विक प्रतीक

भारत:

• दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा लोकतंत्र

• सबसे तेजी से बढ़ती प्रमुख अर्थव्यवस्था

• इंडो-पैसिफिक क्षेत्र में रणनीतिक स्थिति

• ग्लोबल साउथ की नैतिक और विकासशील आवाज़

आज की UNSC संरचना इन दो देशों के बीच कृत्रिम असमानता पैदा करती है।
यह नया वोटिंग फॉर्मूला उस दूरी को खत्म करता है।

---

🧩 एक नई समानता: साझा जिम्मेदारी, साझा भविष्य

इस मॉडल में भारत को उसकी जनसंख्या और बढ़ती अर्थव्यवस्था के अनुसार उचित प्रतिनिधित्व मिलता है, और अमेरिका को उसकी वैश्विक शक्ति के अनुरूप भूमिका। इससे दोनों देश मिलकर कर सकते हैं:

• जलवायु परिवर्तन पर नेतृत्व, विशेष रूप से टेक्नोलॉजी ट्रांसफर, ग्रीन फाइनेंस, और ग्लोबल साउथ के लिए जलवायु लचीलापन

• वैश्विक स्वास्थ्य रणनीति, वैक्सीन समानता और महामारी रोकथाम

• अंतरराष्ट्रीय वित्तीय संस्थानों का सुधार, जैसे IMF और विश्व बैंक में न्यायपूर्ण प्रतिनिधित्व

• AI और डिजिटल गवर्नेंस, जिससे नवाचार भी हो और सुरक्षा भी बनी रहे

• इंडो-पैसिफिक में शांति और स्थिरता का निर्माण

---

🤝 भारत-अमेरिका साझेदारी की आवश्यकता आज पहले से कहीं ज़्यादा

आज के भू-राजनीतिक बिखराव, बढ़ते राष्ट्रवाद, और जलवायु संकटों के समय में, कोई भी देश अकेले समाधान नहीं दे सकता।
एक नया भारत-अमेरिका गठबंधन, एक पुनर्गठित संयुक्त राष्ट्र में:

• अधिनायकवादी ताकतों को संतुलित कर सकता है

• ग्लोबल नॉर्थ और ग्लोबल साउथ के बीच पुल बन सकता है

• लोकतांत्रिक मूल्यों को वैश्विक मंच पर सशक्त कर सकता है

• सहयोगी बहुपक्षीयता को बढ़ावा दे सकता है

---

⚖️ बराबरी से उभरती है संभावनाएँ

इस वोटिंग मॉडल की खूबसूरती सिर्फ गणितीय नहीं है। यह कूटनीतिक रीसेट की भी पेशकश करता है।
भारत को अब सुरक्षा परिषद की स्थायी सदस्यता की याचना नहीं करनी पड़ेगी।
अमेरिका को अब एकतरफावाद या वीटो जड़ता के बीच नहीं झूलना पड़ेगा।
दोनों देश अब एक-दूसरे से बराबरी पर मिल सकते हैं।

और यह सम्मान से भरा संबंध बड़े परिवर्तन का आधार बन सकता है।

---

🚧 आगे की राह: क्या करना होगा?

बेशक, इतना बड़ा बदलाव आसानी से नहीं होगा। P5 देश अपनी शक्ति कम करना नहीं चाहेंगे।
लेकिन यह कदम उठाए जा सकते हैं:

• भारत और अमेरिका की एक साझा घोषणा, जिसमें इस वोटिंग फॉर्मूला का समर्थन और संयुक्त नेतृत्व की प्रतिबद्धता हो

• G20 और ग्लोबल साउथ का समर्थन जुटाना

• वैश्विक सिविल सोसायटी द्वारा सुधार के पक्ष में जनचेतना

• इस सुधार को जरूरी परिणामों से जोड़ना: जलवायु, स्वास्थ्य, AI, और डिजिटल समानता

---

✨ निष्कर्ष: एक नए युग के लिए नया ढांचा

यह संयुक्त राष्ट्र सुधार सिर्फ एक प्रणालीगत बदलाव नहीं है—यह एक भविष्य का निमंत्रण है।
एक ऐसा भविष्य जिसमें भारत और अमेरिका लोकतंत्र, साझेदारी, और न्याय के प्रतीक बनें।

अमेरिका लाता है संस्थागत शक्ति।
भारत लाता है जनसांख्यिकीय शक्ति।
मिलकर वे दुनिया को साझे नेतृत्व, न्यायपूर्ण प्रतिनिधित्व, और वैश्विक समाधान दे सकते हैं।

शायद पहली बार, UNSC एक सत्ता परिषद नहीं, बल्कि प्रतिबद्ध देशों की परिषद बन सकती है।

---

लेखक: परमेंद्र भगत
“Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy” के लेखक, और बहुपक्षीय लोकतंत्र के पैरोकार
#UNReform #भारत_अमेरिका_साझेदारी #नया_संयुक्त_राष्ट्र #विश्व_गवर्नेंस #समानता_का_युग

The Small Country Coalition: How Nations with Fewer than 30 Votes Could Shape a New United Nations

 

The Small Country Coalition: How Nations with Fewer than 30 Votes Could Shape a New United Nations

---

In the proposed reimagining of the United Nations outlined at Barackface.net, a new global voting structure replaces the antiquated veto system. This model combines GDP (40%), Population (40%), and Equal Representation (20%) to assign each country a weighted vote total.

While this framework increases fairness by accounting for both size and economic capacity, a striking feature emerges when the numbers are analyzed:

A large majority of countries—over 130 of them—would receive fewer than 30 votes each.

At first glance, this may appear to marginalize them. But in reality, if these smaller countries were to coordinate and vote as a bloc, they would wield extraordinary collective power, particularly on issues that disproportionately impact them—climate change, migration, global inequality, debt restructuring, resource rights, and digital access.

---

🔍 The Numbers Tell the Story

Let's consider this:

• The total number of UN member countries: 195

• Countries with <30 votes each in this system: Roughly 130–140

• Average vote count in this group: 5–25 votes

• Combined voting power: Well over 30% of total votes—potentially decisive in majority voting outcomes

In other words, what they lack individually, they can command collectively.

---

🤝 What This Coalition Could Do

1. Shape Global Agendas

Small countries are often most affected by global problems they did not create—rising sea levels, global inflation, AI-driven job disruption. By banding together, they can place these issues front and center at the UN.

2. Block or Amend Resolutions

Even without a veto, a 130-nation bloc can stop any resolution that doesn't align with their interests by leveraging their collective weight in new-vote-based procedures.

3. Champion Equity in Global Rules

From trade to internet governance to environmental treaties, small nations could push for development-focused frameworks, universal digital rights, and debt relief mechanisms.

4. Reinforce Global Norms

This bloc could become a guardian of international law, human rights, and multilateralism—values often bulldozed by major powers acting unilaterally.

---

🌍 The Moral and Political Power of Unity

There is already precedent for this:

• The G77 (Group of 134 developing nations) has historically shaped discussions on development finance.

• The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) has been a powerful voice in climate negotiations.

• The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) once represented a third of humanity.

In this new model, such cooperation would not only be moral but numerically and procedurally powerful.

---

⚠️ Challenges to Coalition Building

Of course, forging a coalition of 130+ nations is no easy feat. Some barriers include:

• Geopolitical alignment differences (e.g., small U.S.-aligned nations vs. China-aligned ones)

• Language, culture, and regional divides

• Dependence on foreign aid, which can create pressure not to oppose major powers

• Lack of diplomatic infrastructure in many microstates

But these can be overcome through:

• A formalized caucus of <30-vote nations

• Shared digital platforms for coordination

• Rotating leadership with clear guiding principles (sustainability, sovereignty, equity)

---

📌 Final Thought: The Power of the Many

This new UN voting system doesn’t just dilute the veto—it democratizes power. And in this new system, small countries don’t have to stay small—not in voice, not in influence, not in legacy.

If the coalition of <30-vote nations rises, the next century of global governance could be written not in the halls of five capitals, but through the wisdom of 130 diverse, determined voices.

---

Let the small countries lead—together.
They may hold the key to building a just and balanced future.

छोटा देश, बड़ी ताकत: कैसे 30 से कम वोट पाने वाले देश मिलकर संयुक्त राष्ट्र में बदलाव ला सकते हैं

---

Barackface.net पर प्रस्तावित संयुक्त राष्ट्र के पुनर्गठन मॉडल में एक नया वोटिंग सिस्टम सुझाया गया है, जो पुराने वीटो सिस्टम को समाप्त करता है। इस प्रणाली में किसी भी देश की वोटिंग शक्ति इस सूत्र के अनुसार तय होती है:

कुल वोटिंग शक्ति = 40% GDP हिस्सा + 40% जनसंख्या हिस्सा + 20% समान वोट (हर देश को 1/195)

यह प्रणाली अधिक न्यायसंगत है क्योंकि यह अर्थव्यवस्था, जनसंख्या और संप्रभुता तीनों को ध्यान में रखती है।

लेकिन जब इस फॉर्मूले को गहराई से देखा जाए, तो एक रोचक और शक्तिशाली बात सामने आती है:

195 देशों में से लगभग 130–140 देशों को इस प्रणाली में 30 से कम वोट मिलेंगे।

पहली नजर में यह कमज़ोरी लग सकती है, लेकिन अगर ये सभी देश एकजुट होकर एक ब्लॉक बना लें, तो ये संयुक्त राष्ट्र में एक निर्णायक शक्ति बन सकते हैं—खासतौर पर उन मुद्दों पर जो छोटे देशों को सबसे ज़्यादा प्रभावित करते हैं, जैसे जलवायु परिवर्तन, ऋण, पलायन, वैश्विक असमानता, और डिजिटल अधिकार।

---

🔍 आँकड़े क्या कहते हैं?

• UN सदस्य देश: 195

• जिन्हें <30 वोट मिलते हैं: करीब 130–140 देश

• इन देशों की औसत वोट संख्या: 5 से 25

• सामूहिक वोटिंग शक्ति: कुल वोटों का 30% से भी अधिक—यह एक निर्णायक शक्ति हो सकती है

मतलब यह कि जो शक्ति इन्हें अकेले नहीं मिलती, वह संगठित होकर हासिल हो सकती है।

---

🤝 यह गठबंधन क्या कर सकता है?

1. वैश्विक एजेंडा तय कर सकता है

छोटे देश अक्सर ऐसे वैश्विक संकटों से सबसे अधिक प्रभावित होते हैं जिनमें उनका योगदान न्यूनतम होता है—जैसे समुद्र स्तर में वृद्धि, मुद्रास्फीति, या AI से नौकरियों का नुकसान। एकजुट होकर वे इन मुद्दों को UN की प्राथमिकता बना सकते हैं।

2. प्रस्तावों को रोक सकते हैं या संशोधित कर सकते हैं

बिना वीटो के भी, अगर 130 देश किसी प्रस्ताव के खिलाफ खड़े हो जाएं, तो वह पास नहीं हो पाएगा। यह एक संयुक्त शक्ति है।

3. विकासशील दृष्टिकोण को आगे बढ़ा सकते हैं

ट्रेड, डिजिटल दुनिया, पर्यावरण समझौते—हर जगह ये देश न्याय और समानता आधारित वैश्विक नीतियों के लिए दबाव बना सकते हैं।

4. वैश्विक नियमों की रक्षा कर सकते हैं

यह समूह मानवाधिकारों, अंतर्राष्ट्रीय कानून और बहुपक्षीयता का संरक्षक बन सकता है।

---

🌍 नैतिक और रणनीतिक शक्ति का उदाहरण

ऐसे उदाहरण पहले से मौजूद हैं:

• G77, जो 130+ विकासशील देशों का समूह है

• AOSIS, छोटे द्वीप देशों का जलवायु संघर्ष में मजबूत आवाज़

• NAM (गुटनिरपेक्ष आंदोलन), जो एक समय पर एक तिहाई मानवता का प्रतिनिधित्व करता था

अब नई प्रणाली में यह गठबंधन सिर्फ नैतिक नहीं, बल्कि संख्यात्मक और रणनीतिक रूप से भी ताकतवर होगा।

---

⚠️ चुनौतियाँ भी हैं

• राजनीतिक असहमति: कुछ देश अमेरिका के करीबी, कुछ चीन के

• भाषा और क्षेत्रीय विविधता

• विदेशी सहायता पर निर्भरता, जिससे दबाव बनाया जा सकता है

• डिप्लोमैटिक इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर की कमी

लेकिन समाधान भी हैं:

• <30 वोट वाले देशों का औपचारिक ब्लॉक

• डिजिटल प्लेटफॉर्म से समन्वय

• घूर्णन नेतृत्व और साझा सिद्धांत (समानता, स्थिरता, संप्रभुता)

---

📌 अंतिम विचार: संख्या में शक्ति है

यह नया वोटिंग सिस्टम सिर्फ वीटो को कमजोर नहीं करता, यह सत्ता को लोकतांत्रिक बनाता है।
इसमें छोटे देश भी “छोटे” नहीं रह जाते—न विचार में, न प्रभाव में, न इतिहास में।

अगर <30 वोट वाले देश एकजुट हो जाएं, तो अगली सदी की वैश्विक राजनीति 5 राजधानियों से नहीं, बल्कि 130 विविध देशों की एकता से लिखी जाएगी।

---

छोटे देश, एक साथ चलें—तो भविष्य की दिशा तय कर सकते हैं।
#UNReform #GlobalSouth #SmallStatesBigImpact #UnitedNations

Rethinking the United Nations: Abolishing the Veto and Empowering All Nations

The WTO Is Broken — Let’s Reform the UN and Rethink Global Trade from the Ground Up
A New United Nations, A New Partnership: How Reform Can Unite the U.S. and India as Equals
The Small Country Coalition: How Nations with Fewer than 30 Votes Could Shape a New United Nations
Imagining A New United Nations
A G30 (Or G40) For A New Global Trade Architecture

Rethinking the United Nations: Abolishing the Veto and Empowering All Nations

By: Paramendra Bhagat

---

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC), as it stands today, reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945, not 2025. The five permanent members (P5) with veto power—the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France—were victors of World War II and the major powers of the mid-20th century. But the world has changed dramatically since then. Today, countries like India, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Germany, and Japan have far greater populations, economies, or diplomatic weight than several of the P5. The current structure is outdated, increasingly undemocratic, and a major source of global disillusionment with multilateral institutions.

Is Veto Power Necessary?

The veto power, held by the P5, allows any one of them to unilaterally block any substantive resolution, regardless of global consensus. This has often paralyzed the UNSC, particularly on issues like:

• The Israel-Palestine conflict, where the U.S. has consistently used its veto.

• The Syria war, where Russia (and sometimes China) vetoed resolutions on humanitarian corridors and war crimes.

• Ukraine, where Russia, as a party to the conflict, has vetoed condemnations of its own actions.

The original rationale was to prevent another world war by ensuring great power buy-in to all major decisions. But in practice, the veto has become a geopolitical weapon to stall action, protect allies, and obstruct justice.

A New Formula for Global Governance

A proposal outlined at Barackface.net introduces a promising alternative:

Total Voting Power = 40% GDP Share + 40% Population Share + 20% Equal Vote (1/195 per country)

This formula balances:

• Economic contribution (GDP Share),

• Democratic legitimacy (Population Share), and

• Sovereign equality (Equal Vote).

It envisions a Security Council—or perhaps an entirely reimagined General Assembly—where every country gets a weighted vote based on these three components. No vetoes. No absolute power. Just proportional global democracy.

---

Pros of This Reorganization

✅ Democratization of Global Governance

Every country, from India to Iceland, would have a voice that reflects its size, economic strength, and sovereign status. This would increase legitimacy and global trust in the UN.

✅ Ending UNSC Paralysis

Removing veto power could unblock years of stalled progress on critical issues—climate change, genocide prevention, nuclear disarmament, and humanitarian intervention.

✅ Reflecting Modern Power Realities

The emerging multipolar world—with rising powers like India, Brazil, and Indonesia—deserves representation aligned with 21st-century geopolitics, not the post-World War II order.

✅ Better Global Cooperation

Weighted voting based on transparent metrics could encourage responsible policymaking, as countries know they have to work with the consensus of the majority—not just please one of the P5.

---

Cons and Challenges

⚠️ Resistance from the P5

The biggest hurdle is the P5 themselves. None would willingly give up their veto—a symbol of their superpower status. Any reform of the UN Charter requires their approval. Catch-22.

⚠️ Fear of Majority Domination

Smaller countries might fear being overrun by large-population or high-GDP nations like China, India, or the U.S. The formula must ensure fairness without enabling new monopolies.

⚠️ Technical Implementation

Translating GDP and population into vote shares requires trust in transparent data. Disputes over metrics (e.g., nominal GDP vs. PPP) could delay implementation.

⚠️ Institutional Inertia

The UN is notoriously slow at reform. Even modest changes to Security Council composition have dragged on for decades. Overhauling the voting system would be a monumental bureaucratic task.

---

What Will It Take to Make This Happen?

🌍 A Global Coalition of Reformers

Middle powers like India, Brazil, South Africa, Germany, Nigeria, and Indonesia must unite behind this reform, rallying support from the Global South and democratic allies.

📢 Public Pressure and Civil Society Mobilization

Global citizens, especially the youth, must demand a more just UN. This could take the form of petitions, forums, or parallel "People’s Assemblies" that shame the current system into change.

🧠 Thought Leadership and Intellectual Momentum

Academics, economists, and policymakers need to develop white papers, simulations, and public campaigns around this formula to show that it is not just idealistic, but also feasible.

💡 Leveraging Moments of Crisis

Major geopolitical crises—wars, pandemics, climate disasters—often create windows for bold change. A future breakdown of UNSC credibility could force a “Bretton Woods 2.0” moment.

---

Conclusion: Time for a Bretton Woods of the 21st Century

The current UN structure is a relic. Reforming it with a formula that blends economic power, population size, and sovereign equality is not just fair—it’s necessary for peace and progress in a multipolar world. The veto is undemocratic. Abolishing it will be hard, yes—but not impossible. History shows us that old orders fall when the world demands something new. That moment is coming.

Whether it's five years from now or fifty, the pressure for a more just, representative global order will only grow.

And when it does, this formula might be the blueprint we’ve been waiting for.

---

Paramendra Bhagat is the author of "Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy" and a frequent commentator on global governance, technology, and political reform.

संयुक्त राष्ट्र का पुनःगठन: वीटो को समाप्त करें, सभी देशों को समान अधिकार दें

लेखक: परमेंद्र भगत

---

संयुक्त राष्ट्र सुरक्षा परिषद (UNSC) आज भी 1945 के भू-राजनीतिक यथार्थ को दर्शाती है, न कि 2025 के वैश्विक परिदृश्य को। पाँच स्थायी सदस्य देशों—अमेरिका, चीन, रूस, ब्रिटेन और फ्रांस—को वीटो पावर प्राप्त है, जो कि द्वितीय विश्व युद्ध के विजेताओं और उस समय की महाशक्तियों पर आधारित है। लेकिन आज की दुनिया बहुत बदल चुकी है। भारत, ब्राज़ील, नाइजीरिया, इंडोनेशिया, जर्मनी और जापान जैसे देश अब कहीं अधिक जनसंख्या, अर्थव्यवस्था और कूटनीतिक प्रभाव रखते हैं, फिर भी वीटो शक्ति उनसे कोसों दूर है।

क्या वीटो पावर आवश्यक है?

वीटो पावर का तर्क यह था कि महाशक्तियों के बीच सहमति के बिना कोई बड़ा वैश्विक निर्णय नहीं हो सकता, जिससे एक और विश्व युद्ध टाला जा सके। लेकिन व्यवहार में वीटो शक्ति ने निर्णय प्रक्रिया को ठप कर दिया है, विशेषकर इन मुद्दों पर:

• इज़राइल-फिलिस्तीन संघर्ष, जहां अमेरिका लगातार वीटो का प्रयोग करता रहा है

• सीरिया युद्ध, जहां रूस और चीन ने मानवीय प्रस्तावों को बार-बार रोका

• यूक्रेन, जहां रूस ने खुद पर आए प्रस्तावों को वीटो किया

अब यह शक्ति न्याय के खिलाफ एक हथियार बन चुकी है, न कि शांति बनाए रखने का कोई यंत्र।

---

एक नया सूत्र: निष्पक्ष वैश्विक शासन

Barackface.net पर सुझाया गया एक नया प्रस्ताव कहता है:

कुल मतदान शक्ति (Total Voting Power) = 40% GDP हिस्सेदारी + 40% जनसंख्या हिस्सेदारी + 20% समान वोट (हर देश को 1/195 हिस्सा)

यह सूत्र तीन मुख्य सिद्धांतों को संतुलित करता है:

• आर्थिक योगदान (GDP के अनुसार)

• जनतांत्रिक वैधता (जनसंख्या के अनुसार)

• संप्रभु समानता (हर देश को एक समान आधार वोट)

यह प्रस्ताव एक ऐसी संयुक्त राष्ट्र प्रणाली की कल्पना करता है जहां कोई भी देश वीटो नहीं कर सकता, बल्कि हर देश की वोटिंग शक्ति मापदंडों पर आधारित होती है—न कि इतिहास या सैन्य शक्ति पर।

---

✅ इस पुनर्गठन के लाभ

✔️ वैश्विक शासन का लोकतंत्रीकरण

हर देश की आवाज़ उसके आकार, शक्ति और संप्रभुता के अनुसार सुनी जाएगी। इससे UN की वैधता और लोकप्रियता बढ़ेगी।

✔️ वीटो की वजह से बंद हो चुकी परिषद को पुनर्जीवित करना

वीटो को हटाकर उन विषयों पर भी आगे बढ़ा जा सकेगा जिन पर वर्षों से ठहराव है—जैसे जलवायु संकट, युद्ध अपराध, और मानवाधिकार।

✔️ समकालीन शक्ति संतुलन को दर्शाना

21वीं सदी की बहुध्रुवीय दुनिया—भारत, ब्राज़ील, नाइजीरिया, जर्मनी जैसे उभरते देशों—को सही प्रतिनिधित्व मिलेगा।

✔️ बेहतर वैश्विक सहयोग

सभी देशों को यह एहसास होगा कि उन्हें बहुमत के साथ मिलकर काम करना है, जिससे सहयोग की भावना मजबूत होगी।

---

⚠️ चुनौतियाँ और नुकसान

❌ P5 देशों का विरोध

P5 देश (अमेरिका, रूस, चीन, फ्रांस, ब्रिटेन) अपनी विशेष शक्ति छोड़ना नहीं चाहेंगे। किसी भी चार्टर संशोधन में उनकी सहमति आवश्यक है—यह सबसे बड़ी बाधा है।

❌ बड़े देशों का वर्चस्व

कुछ छोटे देशों को डर हो सकता है कि बड़े देश—जैसे चीन, भारत या अमेरिका—बहुमत में हावी हो जाएंगे।

❌ तकनीकी व प्रशासनिक अड़चनें

GDP और जनसंख्या के आंकड़ों की पारदर्शिता और स्वीकार्यता को सुनिश्चित करना एक चुनौती होगी।

❌ संस्थागत जड़ता

UN जैसी बड़ी संस्था में कोई भी बड़ा बदलाव बेहद धीमा और कठिन होता है।

---

🔍 यह कैसे संभव हो सकता है?

🌍 एक वैश्विक सुधार गठबंधन

भारत, ब्राज़ील, दक्षिण अफ्रीका, नाइजीरिया, इंडोनेशिया जैसे मध्य शक्तियों को मिलकर इस बदलाव का नेतृत्व करना होगा।

📢 जनता और सिविल सोसायटी का दबाव

विश्व भर की जनता, विशेषकर युवा पीढ़ी, को इस मुद्दे पर आवाज़ उठानी होगी—याचिकाएं, सम्मेलन और डिजिटल आंदोलन ज़रूरी हैं।

🧠 बौद्धिक नेतृत्व और नीति विमर्श

शोध संस्थानों, शिक्षाविदों और नीति-निर्माताओं को इस नए फॉर्मूले को व्यवहार्य और प्रभावी सिद्ध करना होगा।

⚡ संकट के क्षणों का लाभ उठाना

भविष्य में कोई बड़ा संकट—जैसे जलवायु त्रासदी या युद्ध—UN की वर्तमान प्रणाली को नाकारा सिद्ध कर सकता है और सुधार की खिड़की खोल सकता है।

---

📌 निष्कर्ष: 21वीं सदी के लिए नया ब्रेटन वुड्स

संयुक्त राष्ट्र की मौजूदा संरचना पुरानी हो चुकी है। इस नए फॉर्मूले—GDP, जनसंख्या और समानता के मिश्रण—पर आधारित प्रणाली न केवल न्यायसंगत है बल्कि समय की माँग भी है।
वीटो अलोकतांत्रिक है। उसे हटाना कठिन है, लेकिन असंभव नहीं।

इतिहास बताता है कि जब दुनिया बदलाव की मांग करती है, तो व्यवस्थाएं बदलती हैं। वह क्षण अब बहुत दूर नहीं।

और जब वह क्षण आए, यह फॉर्मूला—शायद—हमारे पास पहले से तैयार हो।

---

परमेंद्र भगत, "Rethinking Trade: A Blueprint for a Just and Thriving Global Economy" के लेखक हैं और वैश्विक शासन, तकनीकी क्रांति, और राजनीतिक सुधारों पर नियमित रूप से लिखते हैं।

1/
क्या आज की दुनिया में संयुक्त राष्ट्र सुरक्षा परिषद (UNSC) की 1945 वाली संरचना तर्कसंगत है?
5 देशों के पास वीटो शक्ति हो और 190 देश बस देखती रहें?
अब बदलाव ज़रूरी है।
👇 @cpimspeak @ShivSena @haryanaINLD

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 10, 2025

5/
यह कैसे मदद करेगा?
✅ निर्णयों में गति
✅ लोकतांत्रिक प्रतिनिधित्व
✅ ग्लोबल साउथ को आवाज़
✅ शक्ति का संतुलन
✅ वीटो के आतंक से मुक्ति @samajwadiparty @INCIndia @jdsforchange

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 10, 2025

7/
इस बदलाव के लिए चाहिए:
📢 सिविल सोसायटी की आवाज़
🌍 भारत-ब्राज़ील-जर्मनी-जापान जैसे देशों की एकता
🧠 नीति विशेषज्ञों की योजनाएं
⚡ और संकट के समय अवसर की पहचान @OfficialSPGB @TheDemocrats @nitin_gadkari @NitishKumar

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 10, 2025

10/
वीटो इतिहास बनेगा।
प्रतिनिधित्व भविष्य होगा।#UNReform की शुरुआत अब होनी चाहिए।
आप इसके लिए क्या करेंगे?
✊
~ परमेंद्र भगत#UNSC #DemocratizeUN #GlobalGovernance @DrSJaishankar @MEAIndia @PMOIndia @narendramodi @RahulGandhi

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) July 10, 2025

Imagining A New United Nations

The United Nations needs to be organized. We don't need a separate WTO. The UN itself should itself create a new global trade architecture. 

---

Total Voting Power = 40% GDP Share + 40% Population Share + 20% Equal Vote (1/195 per country)

The country with the lowest voting power is assigned 10 votes, and all others are scaled accordingly and rounded to the nearest whole number.

---

Revised Methodology

1. Data Sources

• GDP Share: Nominal GDP (2023, USD) from the World Bank/IMF. Estimated world GDP: ~$106.172 trillion.

• Population Share: Population data from 2023 (UN/World Population Review). Estimated global population: ~8 billion.

• Equal Vote: 20% divided equally among 195 countries → each country receives approximately 0.102564% of the total voting power.

2. Formula

• GDP Share:

  $$\left( \frac{\text{Country GDP}}{\text{World GDP}} \right) \times 40\%$$

• Population Share:

  $$\left( \frac{\text{Country Population}}{\text{World Population}} \right) \times 40\%$$

• Equal Vote:

  $$\frac{20\%}{195} \approx 0.102564\%$$

• Total Voting Power:
  Sum of the above (in percentage terms)

3. Scaling

• Identify the country with the lowest total voting power.

• Assign that country 10 votes.

• Scale others using:

  $$\text{Votes} = \left( \frac{\text{Country Voting Power \%}}{\text{Lowest Voting Power \%}} \right) \times 10$$

• Round to the nearest whole number.

4. Assumptions

• 195 recognized sovereign states.

• Small nations (e.g., Tuvalu, Nauru) have negligible GDP and population, so their voting power is dominated by the equal vote component.

• For countries with missing GDP data (e.g., Andorra), estimates are applied.

---

Example Calculations (Using 2023 Data)

• World GDP: $106.172 trillion

• World Population: ~8 billion

• Equal Vote: ~0.102564%

🇺🇸 United States

• GDP: $28.781 trillion → 26.47% of world GDP
  → GDP Component: $26.47\% \times 0.4 = 10.588\%$

• Population: 331.9 million → 4.15% of global population
  → Population Component: $4.15\% \times 0.4 = 1.6595\%$

• Equal Vote: 0.102564%

• Total Voting Power:

  $$10.588\% + 1.6595\% + 0.102564\% = \mathbf{12.35\%}$$

🇨🇳 China

• GDP: $18.321 trillion → 17.26% of world GDP
  → GDP Component: $17.26\% \times 0.4 = 6.904\%$

• Population: 1.412 billion → 17.65% of global population
  → Population Component: $17.65\% \times 0.4 = 7.06\%$

• Equal Vote: 0.102564%

• Total Voting Power:

  $$6.904\% + 7.06\% + 0.102564\% = \mathbf{13.97\%}$$

🇹🇻 Tuvalu (Small Island Nation)

• GDP: ~$60 million → 0.0000565% of world GDP
  → GDP Component: $0.0000565\% \times 0.4 = 0.0000226\%$

• Population: ~11,200 → 0.00014% of world population
  → Population Component: $0.00014\% \times 0.4 = 0.000056\%$

• Equal Vote: 0.102564%

• Total Voting Power:

  $$0.0000226\% + 0.000056\% + 0.102564\% = \mathbf{0.102643\%}$$

---

Scaling Votes

• Lowest Voting Power (Tuvalu): 0.102643% → 10 votes

• Scaling Factor:

  $$\frac{10}{0.102643} \approx 97.45$$

Sample Votes (Rounded)

• China: $13.97\% \times 97.45 \approx \mathbf{1361}$ votes

• United States: $12.35\% \times 97.45 \approx \mathbf{1204}$ votes

• India: Estimated ~8.5% → $8.5\% \times 97.45 \approx \mathbf{828}$ votes

• Japan: ~4.1% → ~400 votes

• Germany: ~3.6% → ~351 votes

• Tuvalu: 0.102643% → 10 votes

• Other microstates (e.g., Nauru, Palau): 10–12 votes

---

Notes

• Full List: Computing votes for all 195 countries requires complete and consistent GDP and population datasets.

• Microstates: For countries like Andorra or San Marino, voting power will resemble Tuvalu’s unless population/GDP is significantly higher.

• Rounding: Small differences may arise due to rounding and estimation.

• Sources:

  • GDP: World Bank, IMF

  • Population: United Nations, World Population Review

---

Final Summary

Under the revised voting framework—40% GDP + 40% population + 20% equal vote—countries receive scaled voting power based on global economic and demographic weight, with equal representation maintained for fairness. China (1361 votes) and the U.S. (1204 votes) lead, while smaller nations like Tuvalu receive the baseline 10 votes. This model balances majority influence with sovereign equality and can form the foundation for reimagined global governance structures.

---

Creating a complete list of voting power for all 195 countries based on the formula 40% GDP share + 40% population share + 20% equal vote (where the equal vote equals 20% ÷ 195 ≈ 0.102564% per country), with the lowest voting power assigned 10 votes and all others scaled accordingly, requires comprehensive 2023 GDP and population data. Reliable sources such as the World Bank, IMF, and UN provide much of this information; however, data for some small nations (e.g., Andorra or Tuvalu) may be missing or imprecise. Where needed, I use estimates for small economies and ensure all calculations strictly adhere to the defined formula. Final vote counts are rounded to the nearest whole number.

---

Methodology

1. Data Sources

• GDP: 2023 nominal GDP (current US$) from the World Bank and IMF World Economic Outlook.

  • World GDP ≈ $106.172 trillion.

  • Sources:
    Worldometers GDP List
    Statista GDP Ranking

• Population: 2023 estimates from the UN World Population Prospects 2024 or World Population Review.

  • World population ≈ 8 billion.

• Equal Vote: 20% divided equally among 195 countries → 0.102564% per country.

• For missing data (e.g., Andorra, Nauru), I estimate GDP at ~$0.05–$0.1 billion and population ~5,000–50,000, based on comparable microstates.

2. Formula

$$\text{Total Voting Power (\%)} = \left( \frac{\text{Country GDP}}{106.172 \text{T}} \times 40\% \right) + \left( \frac{\text{Country Population}}{8 \text{B}} \times 40\% \right) + 0.102564\%$$

3. Scaling

• The country with the lowest voting power—likely Tuvalu—is assigned 10 votes.

• Votes for all other countries are scaled proportionally:

$$\text{Votes} = \left( \frac{\text{Country Voting Power \%}}{\text{Lowest Voting Power \%}} \right) \times 10$$

• Results are rounded to the nearest whole number.

4. Assumptions

• A total of 195 countries are used (UN-recognized sovereign states).

• Missing 2023 GDP values are supplemented with 2022 figures or regional averages.

• Voting power for microstates is effectively determined by the equal vote component due to negligible GDP and population shares.

---

Step-by-Step Calculation

Reference: Tuvalu (Lowest Voting Power)

• GDP: ~$60 million → $\frac{0.00006}{106.172} \times 40\% \approx 0.0000226\%$

• Population: ~11,200 → $\frac{11200}{8,000,000,000} \times 40\% \approx 0.000056\%$

• Equal Vote: 0.102564%

• Total Voting Power:

  $$0.0000226\% + 0.000056\% + 0.102564\% = 0.1026426\%$$

• Votes: Assigned baseline of 10.

Scaling Factor

$$\text{Scaling Factor} = \frac{10}{0.1026426} \approx 97.45$$

---

Example Calculations for Major Countries

🇺🇸 United States

• GDP: $28.781T → $\frac{28.781}{106.172} \times 40\% = 10.8376\%$

• Population: 331.9M → $\frac{331.9M}{8B} \times 40\% = 1.6595\%$

• Equal Vote: 0.102564%

• Total Voting Power:

  $$10.8376\% + 1.6595\% + 0.102564\% = 12.599664\%$$

• Votes: $12.599664 \times 97.45 = 1227.84 \Rightarrow \boxed{1228}$

🇨🇳 China

• GDP: $18.321T → 6.9064%

• Population: 1.412B → 7.06%

• Equal Vote: 0.102564%

• Total:

  $$6.9064\% + 7.06\% + 0.102564\% = 14.068964\%$$

• Votes: $14.068964 \times 97.45 = 1371.02 \Rightarrow \boxed{1371}$

🇮🇳 India

• GDP: $3.572T → 1.3456%

• Population: 1.429B → 7.145%

• Equal Vote: 0.102564%

• Total:

  $$1.3456\% + 7.145\% + 0.102564\% = 8.593164\%$$

• Votes: $8.593164 \times 97.45 = 837.40 \Rightarrow \boxed{837}$

---

Sample Voting Power Table

Country	GDP ($T)	Population	GDP Share (40%)	Pop Share (40%)	Equal Vote (20%)	Total Power (%)	Votes
🇨🇳 China	18.321	1.412B	6.9064%	7.06%	0.102564%	14.068964%	1371
🇺🇸 United States	28.781	331.9M	10.8376%	1.6595%	0.102564%	12.599664%	1228
🇮🇳 India	3.572	1.429B	1.3456%	7.145%	0.102564%	8.593164%	837
🇩🇪 Germany	4.591	83.2M	1.7296%	0.416%	0.102564%	2.248164%	219
🇯🇵 Japan	4.213	125.1M	1.5868%	0.6255%	0.102564%	2.314864%	225
🇬🇧 UK	3.495	67.6M	1.3164%	0.338%	0.102564%	1.756964%	171
🇫🇷 France	3.102	64.7M	1.1688%	0.3235%	0.102564%	1.594864%	155
🇧🇷 Brazil	2.171	216.4M	0.818%	1.082%	0.102564%	2.002564%	195
🇮🇩 Indonesia	1.475	277.5M	0.5556%	1.3875%	0.102564%	2.045664%	199
🇳🇬 Nigeria	0.363	223.8M	0.1368%	1.119%	0.102564%	1.358364%	132
🇹🇻 Tuvalu	0.00006	11,200	0.0000226%	0.000056%	0.102564%	0.1026426%	10
🇳🇷 Nauru (est.)	0.00015	12,600	0.0000565%	0.000063%	0.102564%	0.1026835%	10
🇦🇩 Andorra (est.)	0.003	80,000	0.001129%	0.0004%	0.102564%	0.104093%	10
🇸🇲 San Marino (est.)	0.002	34,000	0.000752%	0.00017%	0.102564%	0.103486%	10

---

Key Notes

• Microstates: Countries like Nauru, Montserrat, and Palau—having GDP < $0.1B and population < 50K—are heavily weighted by the equal vote component and thus receive ~10–12 votes.

• Missing Data: For countries with limited reporting (e.g., Syria, Eritrea), GDP/population data were estimated using regional benchmarks.

• Sources:
  World Bank GDP Data
  IMF World Economic Outlook
  UN Population Division

• Rounding: Small discrepancies may occur due to rounding or data variation between sources.

---

Final Summary

The voting power for each country is calculated using 40% GDP share + 40% population share + 0.102564% equal vote, scaled so that the country with the lowest voting power—Tuvalu (0.1026426%)—receives 10 votes. All other countries are scaled proportionally (×97.45). Sample allocations: China: 1371 votes, United States: 1228 votes, India: 837 votes, Microstates: ~10 votes.

---

Creating a voting power list for all 195 UN-recognized sovereign countries based on the formula 40% GDP share + 40% population share + 20% equal vote—where the equal vote is calculated as 20% ÷ 195 ≈ 0.102564% per country—with the lowest voting power assigned 10 votes and all others scaled accordingly (rounded to the nearest whole number), requires comprehensive 2023 GDP and population data.

Reliable sources such as the World Bank, IMF, and UN provide nominal GDP and population estimates for 2023. However, some small countries (e.g., Andorra, Nauru) lack precise figures, necessitating estimates based on 2022 data or regional averages. To manage the size of the list, I’ve divided the countries into four alphabetical parts, each covering approximately 49 countries. All calculations follow the methodology outlined below.

---

Methodology

1. Data Sources

• GDP: 2023 nominal GDP (current US$), primarily from the World Bank and IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2024 or latest).

  • World GDP ≈ $106.172 trillion

  • Sources:
    Wikipedia
    Worldometers

• Population: 2023 estimates from the UN World Population Prospects 2024 and World Population Review.

  • World population ≈ 8 billion

• Equal Vote: 20% ÷ 195 = 0.102564%

• Estimates for missing data:

  • E.g., Montserrat and Tuvalu: GDP estimated at ~$0.05–$0.1 billion, based on regional or historical data.

2. Formula

$$\text{Voting Power (\%)} = \left( \frac{\text{Country GDP}}{106.172 \text{T}} \times 40\% \right) + \left( \frac{\text{Country Population}}{8 \text{B}} \times 40\% \right) + 0.102564\%$$

3. Scaling

• The country with the lowest voting power (e.g., Tuvalu) is assigned 10 votes.

• All other countries are scaled proportionally:

$$\text{Votes} = \left( \frac{\text{Voting Power \%}}{\text{Lowest Voting Power \%}} \right) \times 10$$

• Scaling factor:
  Tuvalu’s total voting power is ≈ 0.1026426%, yielding a scaling factor of:

  $$\frac{10}{0.1026426} \approx 97.45$$

• All vote values are rounded to the nearest whole number.

4. Assumptions

• All 195 UN-recognized countries are included.

• Microstates and countries lacking 2023 GDP data use estimated figures (e.g., Nauru ≈ $0.15B; Andorra ≈ $3B).

• Minor discrepancies in vote rankings may arise due to rounding.

---

Full Voting Power List (in Four Alphabetical Parts)

The full list of 195 countries is divided into four parts:

• Part 1 (A–C): Afghanistan to Cyprus

• Part 2 (D–K): Czechia to Kyrgyzstan

• Part 3 (L–S): Laos to Suriname

• Part 4 (S–Z): Sweden to Zimbabwe

Each country’s entry includes GDP (in trillions USD), population, computed GDP and population shares, equal vote share, total voting power percentage, and final scaled vote count.

Small states with minimal GDP and population (e.g., Tuvalu, Palau) are dominated by the equal vote component, resulting in ~10 votes. Major economies such as the United States, China, and India receive significantly higher totals.

You can find detailed tables under each part, with estimates clearly marked where data was incomplete.

---

Notes

• Data Accuracy: Sources include the World Bank, IMF, UN, and World Population Review. Estimates are used for countries lacking full 2023 data.

• Microstates: Countries like Nauru, Palau, and Tuvalu have voting power close to 0.1026%, resulting in 10–11 votes due to their negligible GDP and population shares.

• Rounding: Minor ranking variations may result from rounding votes to the nearest whole number.

• Scaling Factor: All countries’ voting power is scaled using the ratio of their total voting share to Tuvalu’s baseline, multiplied by 10.

---

Final Summary

The voting power list for all 195 countries is calculated using the formula 40% GDP share + 40% population share + 0.102564% equal vote, scaled so that the lowest (Tuvalu’s 0.1026426%) equals 10 votes. All others are scaled using a factor of approximately 97.45.

• Top examples:

  • China: 1370 votes

  • United States: 1228 votes

  • India: 837 votes

  • Tuvalu & other microstates: 10 votes

The list is organized in four alphabetical parts to enhance readability and manageability. For raw data or deeper analysis, consult:

• World Bank

• IMF

• UN Population Prospects

✅ Voting Power List – Part 1: Countries A–C (Afghanistan to Cyprus)

| Country               | GDP ($T) | Population   | GDP Share | Pop Share | Equal Vote | Total Voting Power | Votes |
|-----------------------|----------|--------------|-----------|-----------|-------------|---------------------|--------|
| Afghanistan           | 0.0145   | 41,100,000   | 0.00546%  | 0.2055%   | 0.102564%   | 0.313524%           | 31     |
| Albania               | 0.023    | 2,800,000    | 0.00866%  | 0.014%    | 0.102564%   | 0.125224%           | 12     |
| Algeria               | 0.239    | 46,800,000   | 0.09004%  | 0.234%    | 0.102564%   | 0.426604%           | 42     |
| Andorra (est.)        | 0.003    | 80,000       | 0.001129% | 0.0004%   | 0.102564%   | 0.104093%           | 10     |
| Angola                | 0.085    | 36,700,000   | 0.03202%  | 0.1835%   | 0.102564%   | 0.318084%           | 31     |
| Antigua & Barbuda     | 0.002    | 103,000      | 0.000752% | 0.000515% | 0.102564%   | 0.103831%           | 10     |
| Argentina             | 0.604    | 46,000,000   | 0.22744%  | 0.23%     | 0.102564%   | 0.560004%           | 55     |
| Armenia               | 0.024    | 2,800,000    | 0.00904%  | 0.014%    | 0.102564%   | 0.125604%           | 12     |
| Australia             | 1.719    | 26,600,000   | 0.64756%  | 0.133%    | 0.102564%   | 0.883124%           | 86     |
| Austria               | 0.526    | 9,100,000    | 0.19816%  | 0.0455%   | 0.102564%   | 0.346224%           | 34     |
| Azerbaijan            | 0.078    | 10,100,000   | 0.02936%  | 0.0505%   | 0.102564%   | 0.182424%           | 18     |
| Bahamas               | 0.014    | 412,000      | 0.005272% | 0.00206%  | 0.102564%   | 0.109896%           | 11     |
| Bahrain               | 0.044    | 1,500,000    | 0.016576% | 0.0075%   | 0.102564%   | 0.12664%            | 12     |
| Bangladesh            | 0.437    | 172,700,000  | 0.16468%  | 0.8635%   | 0.102564%   | 1.130744%           | 110    |
| Barbados              | 0.006    | 282,000      | 0.002256% | 0.00141%  | 0.102564%   | 0.10623%            | 10     |
| Belarus               | 0.072    | 9,200,000    | 0.02712%  | 0.046%    | 0.102564%   | 0.175684%           | 17     |
| Belgium               | 0.632    | 11,700,000   | 0.23808%  | 0.0585%   | 0.102564%   | 0.399144%           | 39     |
| Belize                | 0.003    | 405,000      | 0.001129% | 0.002025% | 0.102564%   | 0.105718%           | 10     |
| Benin                 | 0.019    | 13,700,000   | 0.007156% | 0.0685%   | 0.102564%   | 0.17822%            | 17     |
| Bhutan                | 0.003    | 787,000      | 0.001129% | 0.003935% | 0.102564%   | 0.107628%           | 10     |
| Bolivia               | 0.046    | 12,300,000   | 0.017328% | 0.0615%   | 0.102564%   | 0.181392%           | 18     |
| Bosnia & Herzegovina  | 0.027    | 3,200,000    | 0.010168% | 0.016%    | 0.102564%   | 0.128732%           | 13     |
| Botswana              | 0.019    | 2,700,000    | 0.007156% | 0.0135%   | 0.102564%   | 0.12322%            | 12     |
| Brazil                | 2.171    | 216,400,000  | 0.81764%  | 1.082%    | 0.102564%   | 2.002204%           | 195    |
| Brunei                | 0.015    | 450,000      | 0.005648% | 0.00225%  | 0.102564%   | 0.110462%           | 11     |
| Bulgaria              | 0.101    | 6,400,000    | 0.038024% | 0.032%    | 0.102564%   | 0.172588%           | 17     |
| Burkina Faso          | 0.020    | 23,300,000   | 0.007532% | 0.1165%   | 0.102564%   | 0.226596%           | 22     |
| Burundi               | 0.003    | 13,200,000   | 0.001129% | 0.066%    | 0.102564%   | 0.169693%           | 17     |
| Cambodia              | 0.031    | 16,900,000   | 0.011672% | 0.0845%   | 0.102564%   | 0.198736%           | 19     |
| Cameroon              | 0.048    | 28,600,000   | 0.01808%  | 0.143%    | 0.102564%   | 0.263644%           | 26     |
| Canada                | 2.141    | 40,800,000   | 0.80648%  | 0.204%    | 0.102564%   | 1.113044%           | 108    |
| Cape Verde            | 0.003    | 598,000      | 0.001129% | 0.00299%  | 0.102564%   | 0.106683%           | 10     |
| Central African Rep.  | 0.003    | 5,700,000    | 0.001129% | 0.0285%   | 0.102564%   | 0.132193%           | 13     |
| Chad                  | 0.013    | 18,500,000   | 0.004892% | 0.0925%   | 0.102564%   | 0.199956%           | 19     |
| Chile                 | 0.301    | 19,600,000   | 0.113324% | 0.098%    | 0.102564%   | 0.313888%           | 31     |
| China                 | 18.321   | 1,412,000,000| 6.90144%  | 7.06%     | 0.102564%   | 14.064004%          | 1370   |
| Colombia              | 0.363    | 52,000,000   | 0.13668%  | 0.26%     | 0.102564%   | 0.499244%           | 49     |
| Comoros               | 0.001    | 852,000      | 0.000376% | 0.00426%  | 0.102564%   | 0.1072%             | 10     |
| Congo, Dem. Rep.      | 0.066    | 102,300,000  | 0.024864% | 0.5115%   | 0.102564%   | 0.638928%           | 62     |
| Congo, Rep.           | 0.015    | 6,100,000    | 0.005648% | 0.0305%   | 0.102564%   | 0.138712%           | 14     |
| Costa Rica            | 0.086    | 5,200,000    | 0.032396% | 0.026%    | 0.102564%   | 0.16096%            | 16     |
| Côte d'Ivoire         | 0.079    | 29,800,000   | 0.029736% | 0.149%    | 0.102564%   | 0.2813%             | 27     |
| Croatia               | 0.082    | 3,900,000    | 0.030864% | 0.0195%   | 0.102564%   | 0.152928%           | 15     |
| Cuba (est.)           | 0.100    | 11,200,000   | 0.037648% | 0.056%    | 0.102564%   | 0.196212%           | 19     |
| Cyprus                | 0.032    | 1,300,000    | 0.012048% | 0.0065%   | 0.102564%   | 0.121112%           | 12     |

---

✅ Voting Power List – Part 2: Countries D–K (Denmark to Kuwait)

| Country               | GDP ($T) | Population   | GDP Share | Pop Share | Equal Vote | Total Voting Power | Votes |
|-----------------------|----------|--------------|-----------|-----------|-------------|---------------------|--------|
| Denmark               | 0.444    | 5,900,000    | 0.16752%  | 0.0295%   | 0.102564%   | 0.299584%           | 29     |
| Djibouti              | 0.003    | 1,200,000    | 0.001129% | 0.006%    | 0.102564%   | 0.109693%           | 11     |
| Dominica              | 0.001    | 72,000       | 0.000376% | 0.00036%  | 0.102564%   | 0.1033%             | 10     |
| Dominican Republic    | 0.113    | 11,200,000   | 0.04264%  | 0.056%    | 0.102564%   | 0.201204%           | 20     |
| DR Congo              | 0.066    | 102,300,000  | 0.024864% | 0.5115%   | 0.102564%   | 0.638928%           | 62     |
| Ecuador               | 0.118    | 18,300,000   | 0.04456%  | 0.0915%   | 0.102564%   | 0.238624%           | 23     |
| Egypt                 | 0.387    | 112,700,000  | 0.14576%  | 0.5635%   | 0.102564%   | 0.811824%           | 79     |
| El Salvador           | 0.032    | 6,500,000    | 0.012048% | 0.0325%   | 0.102564%   | 0.147112%           | 14     |
| Equatorial Guinea     | 0.013    | 1,700,000    | 0.004892% | 0.0085%   | 0.102564%   | 0.116056%           | 11     |
| Eritrea               | 0.002    | 3,700,000    | 0.000752% | 0.0185%   | 0.102564%   | 0.121816%           | 12     |
| Estonia               | 0.039    | 1,300,000    | 0.014568% | 0.0065%   | 0.102564%   | 0.123632%           | 12     |
| Eswatini              | 0.005    | 1,200,000    | 0.00188%  | 0.006%    | 0.102564%   | 0.110444%           | 11     |
| Ethiopia              | 0.156    | 126,500,000  | 0.05872%  | 0.6325%   | 0.102564%   | 0.793784%           | 77     |
| Fiji                  | 0.005    | 936,000      | 0.00188%  | 0.00468%  | 0.102564%   | 0.109124%           | 11     |
| Finland               | 0.312    | 5,500,000    | 0.11712%  | 0.0275%   | 0.102564%   | 0.247184%           | 24     |
| France                | 3.049    | 65,600,000   | 1.14304%  | 0.328%    | 0.102564%   | 1.573604%           | 153    |
| Gabon                 | 0.020    | 2,400,000    | 0.007532% | 0.012%    | 0.102564%   | 0.122096%           | 12     |
| Gambia                | 0.002    | 2,700,000    | 0.000752% | 0.0135%   | 0.102564%   | 0.116816%           | 11     |
| Georgia               | 0.025    | 3,700,000    | 0.00942%  | 0.0185%   | 0.102564%   | 0.130484%           | 13     |
| Germany               | 4.542    | 83,200,000   | 1.70328%  | 0.416%    | 0.102564%   | 2.221844%           | 216    |
| Ghana                 | 0.075    | 34,100,000   | 0.0282%   | 0.1705%   | 0.102564%   | 0.300264%           | 29     |
| Greece                | 0.301    | 10,300,000   | 0.113324% | 0.0515%   | 0.102564%   | 0.267388%           | 26     |
| Grenada               | 0.001    | 125,000      | 0.000376% | 0.000625% | 0.102564%   | 0.103565%           | 10     |
| Guatemala             | 0.102    | 19,000,000   | 0.0384%   | 0.095%    | 0.102564%   | 0.235964%           | 23     |
| Guinea                | 0.020    | 14,200,000   | 0.007532% | 0.071%    | 0.102564%   | 0.181096%           | 18     |
| Guinea-Bissau         | 0.002    | 2,200,000    | 0.000752% | 0.011%    | 0.102564%   | 0.114316%           | 11     |
| Guyana                | 0.016    | 804,000      | 0.006016% | 0.00402%  | 0.102564%   | 0.1126%             | 11     |
| Haiti                 | 0.021    | 11,800,000   | 0.007908% | 0.059%    | 0.102564%   | 0.169472%           | 17     |
| Honduras              | 0.033    | 10,300,000   | 0.012424% | 0.0515%   | 0.102564%   | 0.166488%           | 16     |
| Hungary               | 0.217    | 9,600,000    | 0.08136%  | 0.048%    | 0.102564%   | 0.231924%           | 23     |
| Iceland               | 0.030    | 375,000      | 0.01128%  | 0.001875% | 0.102564%   | 0.115719%           | 11     |
| India                 | 3.732    | 1,428,600,000| 1.40056%  | 7.143%    | 0.102564%   | 8.646124%           | 843    |
| Indonesia             | 1.444    | 278,700,000  | 0.54496%  | 1.3935%   | 0.102564%   | 2.040904%           | 199    |
| Iran                  | 0.367    | 89,000,000   | 0.13896%  | 0.445%    | 0.102564%   | 0.686524%           | 67     |
| Iraq                  | 0.264    | 45,000,000   | 0.09984%  | 0.225%    | 0.102564%   | 0.427404%           | 42     |
| Ireland               | 0.529    | 5,100,000    | 0.19928%  | 0.0255%   | 0.102564%   | 0.327344%           | 32     |
| Israel                | 0.526    | 9,800,000    | 0.19816%  | 0.049%    | 0.102564%   | 0.349724%           | 34     |
| Italy                 | 2.192    | 58,800,000   | 0.82688%  | 0.294%    | 0.102564%   | 1.223444%           | 119    |
| Jamaica               | 0.017    | 2,800,000    | 0.006392% | 0.014%    | 0.102564%   | 0.122956%           | 12     |
| Japan                 | 4.411    | 124,600,000  | 1.65464%  | 0.623%    | 0.102564%   | 2.380204%           | 232    |
| Jordan                | 0.050    | 11,400,000   | 0.0188%   | 0.057%    | 0.102564%   | 0.178364%           | 17     |
| Kazakhstan            | 0.268    | 19,600,000   | 0.10136%  | 0.098%    | 0.102564%   | 0.301924%           | 29     |
| Kenya                 | 0.113    | 55,100,000   | 0.04264%  | 0.2755%   | 0.102564%   | 0.420704%           | 41     |
| Kiribati              | 0.001    | 135,000      | 0.000376% | 0.000675% | 0.102564%   | 0.103615%           | 10     |
| Korea, North (est.)   | 0.040    | 26,000,000   | 0.01504%  | 0.13%     | 0.102564%   | 0.247604%           | 24     |
| Korea, South          | 1.722    | 51,600,000   | 0.64868%  | 0.258%    | 0.102564%   | 1.009244%           | 98     |
| Kuwait                | 0.157    | 4,300,000    | 0.059096% | 0.0215%   | 0.102564%   | 0.18316%            | 18     |

---

✅ Voting Power List – Part 3: Countries L–Q (Kyrgyzstan to Qatar)

| Country               | GDP ($T) | Population   | GDP Share | Pop Share | Equal Vote | Total Voting Power | Votes |
|-----------------------|----------|--------------|-----------|-----------|-------------|---------------------|--------|
| Kyrgyzstan            | 0.015    | 6,800,000    | 0.005648% | 0.034%    | 0.102564%   | 0.142212%           | 14     |
| Laos                  | 0.018    | 7,500,000    | 0.006768% | 0.0375%   | 0.102564%   | 0.146832%           | 14     |
| Latvia                | 0.045    | 1,800,000    | 0.01692%  | 0.009%    | 0.102564%   | 0.128484%           | 13     |
| Lebanon               | 0.025    | 5,400,000    | 0.00942%  | 0.027%    | 0.102564%   | 0.138984%           | 14     |
| Lesotho               | 0.002    | 2,300,000    | 0.000752% | 0.0115%   | 0.102564%   | 0.114816%           | 11     |
| Liberia               | 0.004    | 5,300,000    | 0.001504% | 0.0265%   | 0.102564%   | 0.130568%           | 13     |
| Libya                 | 0.050    | 7,100,000    | 0.0188%   | 0.0355%   | 0.102564%   | 0.156864%           | 15     |
| Liechtenstein (est.)  | 0.007    | 40,000       | 0.002632% | 0.0002%   | 0.102564%   | 0.105396%           | 10     |
| Lithuania             | 0.074    | 2,700,000    | 0.027664% | 0.0135%   | 0.102564%   | 0.143728%           | 14     |
| Luxembourg            | 0.089    | 660,000      | 0.033264% | 0.0033%   | 0.102564%   | 0.139128%           | 14     |
| Madagascar            | 0.015    | 30,300,000   | 0.005648% | 0.1515%   | 0.102564%   | 0.259712%           | 25     |
| Malawi                | 0.008    | 21,400,000   | 0.003008% | 0.107%    | 0.102564%   | 0.212572%           | 21     |
| Malaysia              | 0.434    | 34,300,000   | 0.16352%  | 0.1715%   | 0.102564%   | 0.437584%           | 43     |
| Maldives              | 0.005    | 521,000      | 0.00188%  | 0.002605% | 0.102564%   | 0.107049%           | 10     |
| Mali                  | 0.020    | 23,200,000   | 0.007532% | 0.116%    | 0.102564%   | 0.226096%           | 22     |
| Malta                 | 0.017    | 520,000      | 0.006392% | 0.0026%   | 0.102564%   | 0.111556%           | 11     |
| Marshall Islands      | 0.001    | 42,000       | 0.000376% | 0.00021%  | 0.102564%   | 0.10315%            | 10     |
| Mauritania            | 0.010    | 4,800,000    | 0.00376%  | 0.024%    | 0.102564%   | 0.130324%           | 13     |
| Mauritius             | 0.014    | 1,300,000    | 0.005272% | 0.0065%   | 0.102564%   | 0.114336%           | 11     |
| Mexico                | 1.790    | 128,500,000  | 0.67456%  | 0.6425%   | 0.102564%   | 1.419624%           | 138    |
| Micronesia            | 0.001    | 113,000      | 0.000376% | 0.000565% | 0.102564%   | 0.103505%           | 10     |
| Moldova               | 0.014    | 2,500,000    | 0.005272% | 0.0125%   | 0.102564%   | 0.120336%           | 12     |
| Monaco                | 0.008    | 40,000       | 0.003008% | 0.0002%   | 0.102564%   | 0.105772%           | 10     |
| Mongolia              | 0.016    | 3,400,000    | 0.006016% | 0.017%    | 0.102564%   | 0.12558%            | 12     |
| Montenegro            | 0.006    | 620,000      | 0.002256% | 0.0031%   | 0.102564%   | 0.10792%            | 10     |
| Morocco               | 0.151    | 37,800,000   | 0.056984% | 0.189%    | 0.102564%   | 0.348548%           | 34     |
| Mozambique            | 0.018    | 33,900,000   | 0.006768% | 0.1695%   | 0.102564%   | 0.278832%           | 27     |
| Myanmar               | 0.059    | 55,000,000   | 0.022168% | 0.275%    | 0.102564%   | 0.399732%           | 39     |
| Namibia               | 0.013    | 2,600,000    | 0.004892% | 0.013%    | 0.102564%   | 0.120456%           | 12     |
| Nauru                 | 0.0002   | 11,000       | 0.000075% | 0.000055% | 0.102564%   | 0.102694%           | 10     |
| Nepal                 | 0.040    | 30,500,000   | 0.01504%  | 0.1525%   | 0.102564%   | 0.270104%           | 26     |
| Netherlands           | 1.009    | 17,500,000   | 0.37944%  | 0.0875%   | 0.102564%   | 0.569504%           | 55     |
| New Zealand           | 0.251    | 5,200,000    | 0.09496%  | 0.026%    | 0.102564%   | 0.223524%           | 22     |
| Nicaragua             | 0.015    | 7,000,000    | 0.005648% | 0.035%    | 0.102564%   | 0.143212%           | 14     |
| Niger                 | 0.014    | 27,400,000   | 0.005272% | 0.137%    | 0.102564%   | 0.244836%           | 24     |
| Nigeria               | 0.477    | 223,800,000  | 0.17928%  | 1.119%    | 0.102564%   | 1.400844%           | 137    |
| North Macedonia       | 0.014    | 2,100,000    | 0.005272% | 0.0105%   | 0.102564%   | 0.118336%           | 12     |
| Norway                | 0.579    | 5,500,000    | 0.21848%  | 0.0275%   | 0.102564%   | 0.348544%           | 34     |
| Oman                  | 0.112    | 4,600,000    | 0.04224%  | 0.023%    | 0.102564%   | 0.167804%           | 16     |
| Pakistan              | 0.374    | 241,500,000  | 0.14096%  | 1.2075%   | 0.102564%   | 1.451024%           | 142    |
| Palau                 | 0.001    | 18,000       | 0.000376% | 0.00009%  | 0.102564%   | 0.10303%            | 10     |
| Palestine             | 0.017    | 5,300,000    | 0.006392% | 0.0265%   | 0.102564%   | 0.135456%           | 13     |
| Panama                | 0.086    | 4,500,000    | 0.032396% | 0.0225%   | 0.102564%   | 0.15746%            | 15     |
| Papua New Guinea      | 0.033    | 10,300,000   | 0.012424% | 0.0515%   | 0.102564%   | 0.166488%           | 16     |
| Paraguay              | 0.044    | 7,400,000    | 0.016576% | 0.037%    | 0.102564%   | 0.15614%            | 15     |
| Peru                  | 0.268    | 34,200,000   | 0.10136%  | 0.171%    | 0.102564%   | 0.375924%           | 37     |
| Philippines           | 0.401    | 117,300,000  | 0.15248%  | 0.5865%   | 0.102564%   | 0.841544%           | 82     |
| Poland                | 0.842    | 37,700,000   | 0.32016%  | 0.1885%   | 0.102564%   | 0.610224%           | 59     |
| Portugal              | 0.286    | 10,200,000   | 0.10784%  | 0.051%    | 0.102564%   | 0.261404%           | 25     |
| Qatar                 | 0.219    | 2,700,000    | 0.08232%  | 0.0135%   | 0.102564%   | 0.198384%           | 19     | 

---

✅ Voting Power List – Part 4: Countries R–Z (Romania to Zimbabwe)

| Country               | GDP ($T) | Population   | GDP Share | Pop Share | Equal Vote | Total Voting Power | Votes |
|-----------------------|----------|--------------|-----------|-----------|-------------|---------------------|--------|
| Romania               | 0.358    | 19,800,000   | 0.13424%  | 0.099%    | 0.102564%   | 0.335804%           | 33     |
| Russia                | 2.240    | 144,400,000  | 0.8432%   | 0.722%    | 0.102564%   | 1.667764%           | 163    |
| Rwanda                | 0.013    | 14,100,000   | 0.004892% | 0.0705%   | 0.102564%   | 0.177956%           | 17     |
| Saint Kitts & Nevis   | 0.001    | 48,000       | 0.000376% | 0.00024%  | 0.102564%   | 0.10318%            | 10     |
| Saint Lucia           | 0.002    | 179,000      | 0.000752% | 0.000895% | 0.102564%   | 0.104211%           | 10     |
| Saint Vincent & Gren. | 0.001    | 111,000      | 0.000376% | 0.000555% | 0.102564%   | 0.103495%           | 10     |
| Samoa                 | 0.001    | 225,000      | 0.000376% | 0.001125% | 0.102564%   | 0.104065%           | 10     |
| San Marino            | 0.002    | 34,000       | 0.000752% | 0.00017%  | 0.102564%   | 0.103486%           | 10     |
| São Tomé & Príncipe   | 0.001    | 240,000      | 0.000376% | 0.0012%   | 0.102564%   | 0.10414%            | 10     |
| Saudi Arabia          | 1.110    | 36,100,000   | 0.4188%   | 0.1805%   | 0.102564%   | 0.701864%           | 69     |
| Senegal               | 0.030    | 18,000,000   | 0.01128%  | 0.09%     | 0.102564%   | 0.203844%           | 20     |
| Serbia                | 0.064    | 6,600,000    | 0.024064% | 0.033%    | 0.102564%   | 0.159628%           | 16     |
| Seychelles            | 0.002    | 100,000      | 0.000752% | 0.0005%   | 0.102564%   | 0.103816%           | 10     |
| Sierra Leone          | 0.004    | 8,700,000    | 0.001504% | 0.0435%   | 0.102564%   | 0.147568%           | 14     |
| Singapore             | 0.514    | 5,600,000    | 0.19732%  | 0.028%    | 0.102564%   | 0.327884%           | 32     |
| Slovakia              | 0.145    | 5,400,000    | 0.0551%   | 0.027%    | 0.102564%   | 0.184664%           | 18     |
| Slovenia              | 0.070    | 2,100,000    | 0.02632%  | 0.0105%   | 0.102564%   | 0.139384%           | 14     |
| Solomon Islands       | 0.001    | 728,000      | 0.000376% | 0.00364%  | 0.102564%   | 0.10658%            | 10     |
| Somalia               | 0.008    | 18,100,000   | 0.003008% | 0.0905%   | 0.102564%   | 0.196072%           | 19     |
| South Africa          | 0.405    | 59,400,000   | 0.15228%  | 0.297%    | 0.102564%   | 0.551844%           | 54     |
| South Korea           | 1.716    | 51,700,000   | 0.64608%  | 0.2585%   | 0.102564%   | 1.007144%           | 98     |
| South Sudan           | 0.005    | 11,000,000   | 0.00188%  | 0.055%    | 0.102564%   | 0.159444%           | 16     |
| Spain                 | 1.580    | 48,600,000   | 0.5944%   | 0.243%    | 0.102564%   | 0.939964%           | 91     |
| Sri Lanka             | 0.084    | 21,900,000   | 0.031536% | 0.1095%   | 0.102564%   | 0.2436%             | 24     |
| Sudan                 | 0.030    | 48,100,000   | 0.01128%  | 0.2405%   | 0.102564%   | 0.354344%           | 35     |
| Suriname              | 0.005    | 623,000      | 0.00188%  | 0.003115% | 0.102564%   | 0.107559%           | 10     |
| Sweden                | 0.601    | 10,600,000   | 0.22638%  | 0.053%    | 0.102564%   | 0.381944%           | 38     |
| Switzerland           | 0.891    | 8,900,000    | 0.33528%  | 0.0445%   | 0.102564%   | 0.482344%           | 48     |
| Syria                 | 0.015    | 24,000,000   | 0.005648% | 0.12%     | 0.102564%   | 0.228212%           | 22     |
| Taiwan                | 0.790    | 23,500,000   | 0.29704%  | 0.1175%   | 0.102564%   | 0.517104%           | 50     |
| Tajikistan            | 0.011    | 10,300,000   | 0.004136% | 0.0515%   | 0.102564%   | 0.1582%             | 16     |
| Tanzania              | 0.090    | 67,400,000   | 0.03384%  | 0.337%    | 0.102564%   | 0.473404%           | 47     |
| Thailand              | 0.514    | 71,800,000   | 0.19732%  | 0.359%    | 0.102564%   | 0.658884%           | 65     |
| Timor-Leste           | 0.003    | 1,300,000    | 0.001129% | 0.0065%   | 0.102564%   | 0.110193%           | 11     |
| Togo                  | 0.008    | 8,900,000    | 0.003008% | 0.0445%   | 0.102564%   | 0.150072%           | 15     |
| Tonga                 | 0.001    | 107,000      | 0.000376% | 0.000535% | 0.102564%   | 0.103475%           | 10     |
| Trinidad & Tobago     | 0.030    | 1,400,000    | 0.01128%  | 0.007%    | 0.102564%   | 0.120844%           | 12     |
| Tunisia               | 0.055    | 12,400,000   | 0.02068%  | 0.062%    | 0.102564%   | 0.185244%           | 18     |
| Turkey                | 1.154    | 85,800,000   | 0.43504%  | 0.429%    | 0.102564%   | 0.966604%           | 93     |
| Turkmenistan          | 0.045    | 6,400,000    | 0.01692%  | 0.032%    | 0.102564%   | 0.151484%           | 15     |
| Tuvalu                | 0.0001   | 12,000       | 0.000038% | 0.00006%  | 0.102564%   | 0.102662%           | 10     |
| Uganda                | 0.049    | 47,100,000   | 0.018424% | 0.2355%   | 0.102564%   | 0.356488%           | 35     |
| Ukraine               | 0.161    | 36,800,000   | 0.06028%  | 0.184%    | 0.102564%   | 0.346844%           | 34     |
| United Arab Emirates  | 0.536    | 9,400,000    | 0.20264%  | 0.047%    | 0.102564%   | 0.352204%           | 34     |
| United Kingdom        | 3.592    | 67,000,000   | 1.35296%  | 0.335%    | 0.102564%   | 1.790524%           | 175    |
| United States         | 26.954   | 339,800,000  | 10.14152% | 1.699%    | 0.102564%   | 11.943084%          | 1167   |
| Uruguay               | 0.079    | 3,400,000    | 0.029736% | 0.017%    | 0.102564%   | 0.1493%             | 15     |
| Uzbekistan            | 0.090    | 36,000,000   | 0.03384%  | 0.18%     | 0.102564%   | 0.316404%           | 31     |
| Vanuatu               | 0.001    | 341,000      | 0.000376% | 0.001705% | 0.102564%   | 0.104645%           | 10     |
| Vatican City (est.)   | 0.001    | 800          | 0.000376% | 0.000004% | 0.102564%   | 0.102944%           | 10     |
| Venezuela             | 0.107    | 28,800,000   | 0.04066%  | 0.144%    | 0.102564%   | 0.287224%           | 28     |
| Vietnam               | 0.433    | 98,900,000   | 0.16324%  | 0.4945%   | 0.102564%   | 0.760304%           | 74     |
| Yemen                 | 0.027    | 34,400,000   | 0.01008%  | 0.172%    | 0.102564%   | 0.284644%           | 28     |
| Zambia                | 0.031    | 20,700,000   | 0.011672% | 0.1035%   | 0.102564%   | 0.217736%           | 21     |
| Zimbabwe              | 0.028    | 16,700,000   | 0.010456% | 0.0835%   | 0.102564%   | 0.19652%            | 19     |

---