If your world view is that we are divided into producers and parasites and that is a fixed and unchangeable state of things, then making voting records known wouldn't be helpful. What good would it do for a producer to know the names of everyone that voted for a Senator that ended up supporting Obamacare? And what good would come of giving the parasites a list of those who voted against them getting this or that welfare goody?
When I talk about voter education, I'm not talking about reading Atlas Shrugged to welfare queens; I'm talking about cultural change to where our universities and colleges don't turn turn out little Progressives to fill the jobs as the next generation of professors, journalists, politicians, talking heads, etc. My view is that the vast majority of humans are capable of being responsible, self-supporting and accountable. We might not have any way to change the minds of the many who have chosen to be parasites, but if we change the culture, we can change the structures, and their choice to be parasites will of no use to them because wishing won't make it so.
How would you get your suggestions adopted without first making changes to the ideas of many of the people in the culture? Brute force? How will you raise the army needed to fight for your system without changing the ideas of many of the people in the culture. Ideas are the key to change and education is just a word that describe the process of acquiring ideas.
You asked, "Do you disagree that voting is an initiation of force when the policy enacted is an initiation of force?" Yes, of course I do. Voting for a senator that then votes for a giveaway program that is funded by borrowing that is repaid with fiat dollars, that are pushed out under the umbrella of the legal tender act is a giant mess, but that vote wasn't the initiation of force. Of all the phrases, and all the concepts we must be clear on, "initiation of force" is one of the most important.
Think about it - if a vote was the initiation of force, then I'd have the right to shoot someone in self-defense if I could tell he was going to vote in favor of, say a school bond to be paid with a tax hike. What about the person or persons who proposed the new law? What about the printer who prints the ballots? What about the person who lets a supporter of the bond initiative speak about it at their auditorium? The only way to avoid all that foolishness is to simply say that force is force... not requests, suggestions, votes, or speeches.
Where you say, "With voting records known, its not just the government who is enabled to attack minorities. Oppressed minorities are also enabled to identify and attack the oppressive individuals within the population. Such as if producers (minority) were being taxed by parasites (majority)." That would be a horrendous mess where anyone could declare themselves oppressed by the vote of someone else and consider that to be moral justification for launching a violent attack - that is what it sounds like you are advocating and I don't see a state of justice coming from that.
I am not a supporter of a powerful central government - unless you mean the size of a minarchy type of government that is just large enough to field a military defense force that is just large enough to provide defense at a national level. I've always been a strong advocate of strict constitutionalism which leaves much of the government in state and local hands, and it massively reduces what any government can do - thus coming much closer to 'perfect' justice becomes easier.
Stating that I want 'perfect justice' (who wouldn't, if all we are doing is 'wishing') and then declaring that it is impossible is creating a strawman. That would have been obvious if you had said that I want more justice than we see now (which is my approach), but then you claimed that would be impossible. It isn't impossible to have much more justice than we have now.
You said, "With your central government, the woman is only able to whine, and get raped again, and whine... passive powerless individuals." That isn't a valid observation since rape is not a federal crime; each state has its own laws for this crime, and it is the local police she would approach.
We may disagree with aspects of your proposed structure, but we do NOT disagree that the federal government is far, far to large, takes too much of our money, controls too much of our lives, and is very inefficient in everything it does.
If the only thing that any law enforcement agency did was enforce laws that arose directly from individual rights, then we could have far, far greater success with getting justice. And if that's true, then we don't need every idiot in the country being a vigilante.
You said, "No standing central military. If one local [government] is attacked by another, or by a foreign entity, it sucks to be them, they should have prepared and made stronger defenses. Fortunately for us, your system wasn't in place in the thirties or we'd be speaking either German or Japanese, or be dead. And if your system had been in place through the 50's we would now be a territory of the Soviet Union, or whatever it would have become without our central military force.
I agree that we have been in many wars we shouldn't have, have faced military conscription in the past, and have the federal government grow to where it is hard to find areas it doesn't regulate, but you are throwing out the baby with the bath water for a system that wouldn't work. What we want is the system we had, but with some added improvements, before the Progressives started to tinker with it in the late 1800's till today.