Democracy

There needs to be a group of people tasked with directing public funds, public assets and having or seeking ideas for public systems, and deciding what to implement, with an internal voting system — a government. The government should be smart, good, and representative of the people. It should not be populated by people who sought political power. It should be populated by people merely chosen by the people for their merit.

Here’s how that should work:

Every four years, every citizen aged 7+ is randomly allocated (not mandatory, but incentivised) to a local voting group of 10 people. You’ll be given a time and place to attend a location, ideally less than a kilometre from home, along with 9 other randomly picked people. The prison population is not excluded. You can get to know these people, including official information on them. Once that’s done, you’ll go to a booth and allocate 9 points to the group. You could, for example, give 3 points to person A, 4 points to person B, and 2 points to person C. Or, all 9 points to the same person. Or, 1 point to each person. That’s phase 1 voting. You can be voted for without even attending or voting.

Phase 1 will produce the ‘winners’ of each group - those who got the most points. Some winners will have more points than others. If the population was 60 million, then there would be about 5.5 million phase 1 winners. If this was too expensive an operation, then only, for example, 1% of the population would be involved in this, but it would result in a worse government. The maximum points a phase 1 winner could get is 81. So, if everyone in your group gave all their points to you, you’d get 81 points. Each voter meet-up should be supervised so that you’re not just pressuring others to vote for you. The average points someone will get is 9.

In phase 2, the phase 1 winners are put into groups of 10 and the process happens again. 

In phase 3, the phase 2 winners are put into groups of 10 and the process happens again.

The points you're given in each phase should be multiplied by the phase number. This means that getting 50 points in phase 7 gets you (50 multiplied by 7) 350 points. 

Your final score determines your voting power in government. That is the 'weight' of your say.

Once the voting phases have whittled down to a final group and final winner, the voting operation (election) is over. It is possible that the final winner ends up with less voting power than others who did not win all phases.

Technically, anyone could participate in government votes, by using their voting power which is their score that they got in the previous points-allocation operation (election). We can use apps for digital voting. Let’s say, someone has an idea for the nation. In order for that idea to become law, at least 100 people in the top 5% of voting power would have to support it, and at least 20% of the total voting power would have to be used in favour of it. Everyone in the top 5% of voting power would be notified of the idea, and have the opportunity to vote against it. If more than a third of the voting power used for or against an idea is used against it, then it fails.

For example, 7254 points are put in favour of an idea vs 4763 against. In this case, the idea fails.

There can be a secondary points system designed to influence how people vote, since it is likely that popular people are more likely to be supported, but this might not be reflected in the groups. Therefore, there will be a website always up where you can anonymously give or remove trust points from anyone. It's like you have 100 trust points to give/take, and you can use that to remove/add trust points from anyone. The only time you can see how many trust points someone has is if you have the opportunity to give them vote points. So, in addition to being facilitated to meet the people in your vote group and seeing official info on them like their verified employment and criminal background, you can also see their trust score. 

The reason you don't just have a voting system where you can vote for anyone, and then political power is given that way, is because your government would end up being all celebrities, and you might miss a lot of geniuses that way. There would also be the issue of you being pressured to, for example, vote for your boss for a pay increase. There isn't enough wisdom of the crowd that way. There might also be the issue of the system being hacked, if the voting-in is all digital. When you log-in to the trust score website, your previous allocation is not shown. You can simply make a new allocation. Therefore, even if someone got your password and logged in to your account, at least they cannot see if you trust them or not, or who you trust.

Before there is a new election, the public should be given the opportunity to vote on if they think the government made things better or worse. If they think the government made things better, then those in government (those with the most voting power) should be financially rewarded in accordance with their voting power and the degree to which the public thinks they made things better. If the public thinks the government made things worse, then they should be punished by time in prison – with those with the most voting power spending the longest time in prison – up to a year — or longer if the public thinks they made things a lot worse. This will deter conning and incentivise actual work.

It'll be multiple choice:

• I think they made things a lot better

• I think they made things better

• I'm not sure / I think things aren't better or worse

• I think they made things worse

• I think they made things a lot worse

Q: What if there is a tie within a group?

A: Then, whoever has the most points is the winner. For example, the phase 1 winners will have various scores. If there is a tie in a phase 2 group, the win goes to whoever gained the most points in phase 1. If the winners’ points are equal (most likely in phase 1 when everyone has a score of 0), then the group is asked to repeat the process until there is no tie.

Q: What if everyone in a phase one group will only vote for themselves?

A: You can't vote for yourself.

Q: What if a phase one group ties anyways?

A: I wrote "then the group is asked to repeat the process until there is no tie."

Q: What if no amount of repeats can break the tie

A: Ok, if there is no winner after four repeats, then each member of the group (excluding the tied winners, assuming there are tied winners) is given x number of points to distribute among those who tied - with x being the number of tied winners. The one with the most points then wins. If there is still a tie, that process is repeated. If there is still a tie after the repeat, a winner is randomly selected from among those who tied.

If, after the fourth repeat as above, the ten members all have 9 points and are therefore equally tied, then a winner is randomly selected.

Someone's response:

ok so

1) Your detailed little voting group still just ends as a popularity contest. Except now, you get massive variation due to groups of just 10 people. 

2) It's local, so you will know some people, personally. Votes can be traded, bought. 

3) Non-politicians can give loads of voting power onto someone they agree with generally. 

4) With such small groups, good chance theres no one you agree with. Now, by luck, you have no vote

5) Most people dont wanna become politicians or go through this effort, so few would show. Those that do, would be ones who want political power, what you previously wanted to prevent

6) Why 16+? why do prisoners get to vote?

7) having 10 people meet up in person for prob at least an hour, plus getting there, plus making time... 3 times. Gl getting people to do that

8) With government supervisors every time. With enough participation this would be millions of meetings of government pay employees... ridiculously expensive. And not enough employees

9) Everyone would have to be constantly voting on shit. 5% of the population? Are you delusional? Thats millions of people

10) With the weird direct-ish democracy, the majority would completely suppress any minority wish. Additionally, people will reject things they have no clue over, and the majority can force through any idea they like

11) With the right location, smoothtalk and luck, a person can become the most powerful influence in the country... by convincing 27 people.

Your system would accomplish nothing with "expertise" or "competence" even less so than now. Have you studied politics? How well do you know the political systems of varying countries?

Answer:

1) thats not a problem. you get representation, that's what you get

2) no they can't be traded/bought because it's still random people and you don't know who the group will be until you go to the location

3) wtf? they can only vote for ideas. this is not a bad thing

4) nobody has to agree with you. they can just vote for you because they like you. "the vote" is not inherently meaningful. if nobody likes you, that's fine

5) I'm trying to end the political class. It's not effort. It's not much harder than voting, which many people do. Also, being a politician doesn't have to be a full time job - politicians have generally been useless anyway

6) because aged 16 is somewhat mature. You just need some age limit, I guess. 18 is already too old because you might already go fight and die aged 17. Prisoners vote because law is subjective and they might be wrongly imprisoned

7) I think 15 minutes is enough. You can get people to do a lot of things. Think of human history. People already get to poll stations just fine.

8) One supervisor can supervise multiple meetings. We already have poll station workers and volunteers and vote counters. It's doable. You're just super critical.

9) Not "everyone" would have to constantly vote. Have you seen twitter polls? You can use apps. Open your mind a little. If people can spend hours on TikTok, they can spend a few minutes daily voting for and against various things.

10) The system is going to be less oppressive and more representative than what currently exists. It's fine. 

11) I don't know where you got that number from. Anyway. If they convince 27 people voted-in by the people, that's fine.

There is nothing worse in this world than "studying politics". For someone to "study politics" and then go into politics is like a snake eating itself.

Politics does not make the world go around. Social systems do. And there is nothing special about someone who studied politics that makes them good at designing and directing social systems.

My system would result in the governors being chosen for their merit, including that of finding competent people to advise them.

Have you seen that everything is going DOWN because of the political class. They are dead weight.

Response:

1) the variety of winning 9 people is ridiculous. its not at all representation. What if you land with people where you just dont agree with them? Boom, your vote is gone

2) Random people from your neighborhood. Which you may well know. And you can bribe with your votes for example. No one will ever vote less than 10 on one person, whoever they dislike least. 

3) claims, very unrealistic ones. 

4) "the vote is not inherently meaningful" that says a lot about your system, lol

5) of course its much harder than voting. Voting takes one visit one ballet, for a person whose ideology has been laid out, one of 5 people or so, associated with a party. This takes repeated meetups grouped with strangers at the same time, supervised, with constant submissions and voting for ideas some random dude had

6) "somewhat", these people are in middle school bro

7) 15 minutes you can barely say hi whats your name. Everyone gets 1 minute to explain their worldview and stance on different issues?

8) Of course im super critical, its a debate server, and youre suggesting a complete revamp of every democracy that exists with ideas no one has seen

9) "open your mind a little" yeah, not how that works

10) So you claim. How this practically would work though...

Answer:

it's a lot better than the current system.

1) your vote will be more meaningful, because, by the way, it is meaningful that you don't give points to people you don't agree with. also, agree about what? ideological stuff is silly. simply vote for who you like and they will figure things out. You cannot boil politics down to just a few stupid parties led by stupid people.

2) I just said it would be supervised

3) you’re the one making claims. You’re misunderstanding the voting power concept

4) no it says a lot about the current system, because you’re voting for people who believe in themselves too much

5) their ideology being laid out isn’t meaningful when they’re stupid people who fundamentally change nothing anyway. You’re not (just) voting for ideas. You’re voting for who you trust and like. You’re viewing politics through a certain restricted lens.

6) Actually I changed it to 7+. Doesn’t matter if they’re in middle school. People are different and also it’s not like the government is going to be mostly 16 year olds. You’re gonna have a diversity of people selected for positive attributes. Not everyone involved in decision-making has to be a weak nerd.

7) nah that’s enough. Plus, you’re voting for who you trust. Politicians can’t be trusted despite their so-called worldviews. They’re shallow.

8) Chill. I’m suggesting how my political party would operate.

9) It does work when you’re not deflecting without thinking of possibilities

Response:

"ideological stuff is silly, just vote for who you like, we'll figure things out" already says a lot about the thought that went into this

Answer:

You don't need to have an ideology in order to figure out an ideology once you actually get into power, if need be. Also, ideology is actually an enacted thing. It can be a natural thing. It doesn't have to be some system you know there and then.

If you only vote for people who already have a big ideology, you're voting for nerds and followers.

Also response:

basically like someone who says "Buildings nowadays are ugly. Plus engineers are useless and get paid too much. I have not studied engineering, nor have i ever built a house or building. However, I've seen buildings and came up with some designs i think look cool."

"Ive cooked up this draft and i think we should build this instead of the engineer stuff."

even if theres problems with the way our buildings are, and they need improvements

or even big changes

they wont be conjured from nothing but intuition and 5 hours minutes of contemplation from someone who has no clue what theyre talking about

Answer:

Dictatorial silliness isn't going to get into government, given the voting system choosing the right people, and given that those right people are still limited by others, both in terms of voting and in terms of being surrounded by other voted-in people.

The wisdom of the crowd will vote in the right people, and in this system, the wisdom of the crowd will go much further than it does in the current political system.

Also response:

and stop advertising gun practice in your half baked societal ideas

Answer:

soy

Someone else's response:

The crowd has a history of voting in those that make themselves popular, not necessarily those that make themselves wise

Answer:

that's because there's limited options, and the reason they vote in those that make themselves popular is because of the power-seeking way that people get political power

The problem is not the people. The problem is the system

The problem is always the system

Response:

The problem inherently is that man is not a perfect nor ever rational species

Answer:

he is perfectly rational. you just need to bring out that rationality

rationality and irrationality don't exist if you're a scientist

My response:

So, the AI said that people would get political power not based on “merit”. 

But what is meritable for political power?

If you think that you know better than the people, then you are an authoritarian.

Whoever deserves political power is whoever is thought to deserve it, according to the people. 

If, despite democracy, people are getting political power and not deserving it (as is the case), then there’s simply not enough democracy – not enough involvement by ordinary people.

Someone who “does not merit” political power, despite being chosen from the ground up (not descriptive of existing systems) by a very random and distributed popularity-testing process, is someone who may not themselves have the skills and know-how needed to run a country, but who will have the goodwill and spirit of the people, such that they will delegate in their favour.

"Merit" is irrelevant to someone's suitability for leadership. All that matters is that someone is pro-social, pro-human and intelligent enough to not be duped.

This is because of delegation.

If you have two choices for supreme leader:

• One is well-educated in various fields and proven to be effective in them

• The other is known to be a very good person

Then you should pick the latter, because one person cannot run a successful country. It is a team effort.

What you want is someone who gets the right people for the right job, and is a good person.

So merit does matter and merit (for political power) is likability ig