Thread by @tomaspueyo

"Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the others that have been tried."—Winston Churchill

What if that just meant we haven't tried enough? We just lack imagination?

What if there was something better than democracy?
What would it look like?

A thread [1/

Before we criticize it: What are democracy's biggest strengths and weaknesses?

STRENGTHS
- Accountability
- The winning candidate must have a majority of voters' buy-in
- Nobody knows what everybody in a country might want. Voting is a way to gather feedback from voters
[2/

- Changes every few cycles, so the inevitable corruption from power eventually leaves the government
- Diversification of risk: If one politician is a bad manager, s/he won't be there forever.

There are many more. What are the biggest?

[3/

WEAKNESSES
1. The level of crowdsourcing is pathetic.
In democracy, every voter just casts a vote every 4 years

That means only a few bits of information formally inputted into the system every 4y.

[4/21]

There are also polls, calls to the politicians' office, etc... But these are even noisier.

A better system would have many more ppl contribute much more work & insight more frequently
[5/21]

2. No deep user insights
Linked to previous: Politicians can't know everything that people need and want. At best they have a very limited sample of opinions, at worst they follow their gut. Or what they see on their favorite TV channel.

[6/21]

3. It bundles priorities and expertise
What if a candidate focuses on the right things (eg, global warming, inequality, loss of decent middle class jobs), but is a poor manager and can't get things done, or approves the wrong laws?

Knowing where to go ≠ how to get there

[7/21]

4. It bundles a package of solutions
Most ppl don't agree with all the positions of their party. What if the right package was a combination of left, right & green policies?

[8/21]

5. When the majority cares about something, it can oppress the minority

[9/21]

6. Conversely, if a majority cares only a little about a topic, but a few ppl care a lot about that same topic, the minority frequently prevails (special interests)

[10/21]

7. Congress has only so many ppl it can employ. They can process only so many laws. Executive agencies can approve only so many regulations

What are some other weaknesses?

[11/21]

What would a better system than democracy look like?

Instead of the initiative for laws and regulations coming from elected officials, they should come from the People.

[12/21]

Imagine a system where not only anybody could propose legislation, but that legislation can be crowdsourced in real time, like we do with pieces of code.

Anybody can propose improvements to the current piece of code.

[13/21]

The popularity of proposals and tweaks determines what gets approved.

How do you prevent ppl from gaming the system?
Through reputation.

[14/21]

Each time somebody proposes improvements, their popularity (unpopularity) affects the reputation of the proposer.

If proposers a a bad track record of proposals, their new ones get penalized and don't get attention from others.

[15/21]

Conversely, good proposers build a reputation. The better their track record, the + their proposals get exposure for buy-in.

The reputation determines the exposure of proposals, but not the weight of a person's vote. Everybody's vote still counts the same.

[16/21]

You can give your opinion on any proposed regulatory tweak.

If a regulatory tweak will affect you, the system notifies you about it.

For heavy impact measures, a min threshold of votes from impacted ppl would be required.

[17/21]

There are countermeasures for gaming the system. Eg, if there's a coordinated group trying to get the system, network analysis catches it and alerts the rest of voters, so they can decide if they should penalize the network

It's a mix of crowdsourcing + social networks

[18/21]

There are still elected officials, but their role is not to craft and propose laws, but rather oversight.

Most tweaks pass automatically. The most important ones get human oversight and veto power.

If you think about it, it's the current role of the Supreme Court.

[19/21]

You get a system that uses the knowledge, energy, passion and constant work of the entire population, rather than only a few elected officials.

You unbundle things that shouldn't be bundled.

You reduce polarization.

[20/21]

What do you think?
What are the downsides of such a system?
How would you improve it?

[21/21]