Gemini thinks that Montana (of the 10ish Local Autonomy States) is most likely to allow this, but Gemini Deep Research thinks that sortition for decision making would violate Montana state law (with the other parts being hard also). So it looks like we still need a model like Próspera in order to run this experiment.
I put the report in this doc, folks are free to comment, since I'm not nearly expert enough in city governance law to evaluate the accuracy. Also, other countries may allow something link it.
It is, of course, more complicated - Honduran current admin has gotten a ruling from the supreme court that the ZEDE amendment to the constitution was obviously unconstitutional. But national elections are this Nov, and any change in administration is likely to be favorable to Prospera Honduras. Prospera has also recently received additional investment, and Magatte Wade is leading negotiations for an African startup city (https://substack.com/@magattew/p-141045185). Disclosure, I'm an eResident and investor.
I'd love to know what your key requirements are for a "truly independent city". I want City States to be real, and for them to try all the great governance models.
Thanks for publishing JK Lund's article and ideas !!! 👍👍👍
All "voting" proposals would bear satisfiying results for a mayority IF we were dealing with a human population of truly angelic nature ... citizens of the fabulous "Virtuous City", aka Utopia.
Maybe, in a parallel universe ...
As long as the current version of Homo Sapiens, with its intrinsic sloth, hate, greed, unfathomable ignorance, hypocrisy, selfishness, etc., etc. supremely reigns in the polling stations there is NO hope for any improvement.
Unless these creatures fully grasp the idea of being a very tiny part of a far bigger entity where virtually EVERYTHING in the biosphere of "The Pale Blue Dot" is interconnected they will very successfully corrupt any governmental system for mass-societies that is offered to them.
Current mass-societies are slated for disintegration due to the a.m. human "flaws" as well as technical over-kill.
DE-centralize, fresh veggies and meat from the well guarded back-yard will be the new crypto !!!
I love this, and—as with a lot of ideas around participatory democracy which I love—the thorny questions seem to be about TIME and PROCESS.
Since this whole concept suggests a significant social/cultural shift, let's just assume that all jobs—full-time, part-time, shift work, whatever—compensate people for council work. There's still the issue, though, of the raw hours involved in caring for young children and the chronically ill. And those carers, I'd assert, have not only as much right but maybe MORE right to have their voices heard.
I'd like to assume a sort of utopia where everyone is supported abundantly at all stages of life, of course. But that's maybe best thought of as an end result, rather than a pre-condition, of this kind of democracy.
The process question springs from my own experience in northern New England town meetings. How can we avoid discussions getting bogged down in ego, adversarialism, or just plain filibustering: a lot of folks seem to me to not have anyone who listens to them, and so will dominate meetings with all sorts of nonsensical questions or objections in order to hold the floor for as long as possible.
I am cautiously optimistic about sociocracy as a decision-making process, but I am not sure how well it would scale. And whatever the structure, it pre-supposes a training for every citizen: a not insignificant undertaking in itself!
None of this is intended as an objection or dismissal of this wonderful idea, just a starting place for some deeper discussions around implementation.
In 2016 a good friend of mind launched a start-up for a direct democracy app, called Stig, where lawmakers could propose laws and users, or citizens, could vote on them or suggest amendments, which could also be voted. (French coverage: https://mrmondialisation.org/stig-la-premiere-application-de-democratie-universelle-en-mode-3-0/) "Civic tech" was a bit of a buzzword at the time, and it won me over, this idea of direct democracy, if it could be dumbed down enough for people to make informed votes. After all, the internet as a concept seemed to embody that very promise.
Tragically, no elected officials wanted any part of the Stig app, and his little project ended up bought up by a corporation who used it to vote for for internal company needs like "what shall we have for lunch on wednesdays" or "the next destination of the company ski trip".
The Founding Fathers were thinking outside the box for their time. I think this randomly-chosen-Congressional-as-a-duty is the type of thing they would have championed, especially if they had trusted the public more. Thanks for this mind-expanding article!
No doubt they were aware of sortition when they drafted the Constitution, but they didn't trust the public because they were not aware of the "Wisdom of the Crowd" effect yet. I suspect if they saw the system as it is today, with two dominant parties and so much money flowing through the system...they wouldn't have designed in the way they did.
Taxes, if needed, should be a flat 10% across the board. As long as everyone pays the same rate, who cares what the dollar amount is.
Technocrats, at least the ones here in the states, are idiots. They never seem to see beyond their decisions and if anyone disagrees, they attempt to jail them.
I, as a member of the "Jury" would have input on law, justice, and detainment. I understand how medicine works and how "vaccines" are supposed to work. I hate the convulted tax code and would opt for a flat rate. Instead of jailing people who are addicted to drugs, i would suggest rehab and community service. For crimes like rape and murder, banishment to an island where the criminal has to survive on his own.
Fascinating and thought provoking. Although it is hard to imagine our country throwing out its current system even with all its flaws in favor of a new system like this. I know that in California they use county civil grand juries which are citizens convened to act as an investigative body into local policies. Maybe there is some tradition for these juries in our current system that can be gradually built upon toward what you describe.
I imagine that such a radical departure from the status quo could only be tried in pilot zones or charter cities. It's something that, if I have ooodles of money to buy an island, I would try.
This essay is excellent. You’ve processed lots of material from political theorists and others to arrive at what seems to me to outline a workable governmental system that would win the hearts of citizens, as our first Constitution did.
I have a few random observations before getting into what I admire most about your proposal.
Jones’ bicameral legislature combined with Bouricius’s lower chamber with its up-or-down vote reminds me of Harrington’s model, with its upper chamber made up of the “natural aristocracy” and the lower chamber as the democratic chamber with an up-or down vote.
I wonder if a “venire” of the prospective members of the interest panels could be randomly drawn from the community to avoid a reprise of lobbyists pushing “special” interests.
It would be interesting to discuss how an executive branch (would we need one?) and a judicial branch would fit into this. There’s so much balance here already to avoid the dangers of populism (the people’s reaction when “representative democracy” proves itself undemocratic) and bureaucracy (perhaps with the exception of Jones).
I’m with Landemore on representative democracies amounting to elected oligarchies. I’m with her on the merits of sortition and rotation over election. Finally, I’m with her on experts serving in an explicitly advisory role. I love the idea of this kind of jury. I don’t know much about how ancient Athens handled its 1,500-or-more-member juries from a procedural standpoint, but I wonder if the citizens learned through practice both the worth of experts (if they were recognized as such) and their inherent advisory capacity in a democracy. I hasten to add that I knew nothing about Landemore or Jones before you compared and then synthesized their approaches.
Your synthesis of their approaches is excellent. When you add in Athens’s Nomothetai, Bouricius on multi-body sortition, and improvements to up-or-down voting in the revision council (my favorite is approval voting), I’m sold. I hope you become the James Madison of our nation’s long-delayed second constitutional convention.
Thank you Bryce! This essay is actually multiple essays strung together over several years of researching this topic. I think I am getting closer to the most optimal design, but more research must be done!
I love most of these ideas as it clearly demonstrates there are many better political systems and voting choices available which will mostly eliminate the corruption of money, extremism, political parties, and the insane focus on re-election which have come to dominate our governance at the expense of common sense and the desires of the middle electorate (60-80% of us by definition). How do we make them happen?!
Do we know if there are legal or constitutional constraints blocking a new city from using this model? Are there States where it's possible?
You are probably still subject to the state/federal laws, which greatly restrict the system's impact.
Gemini thinks that Montana (of the 10ish Local Autonomy States) is most likely to allow this, but Gemini Deep Research thinks that sortition for decision making would violate Montana state law (with the other parts being hard also). So it looks like we still need a model like Próspera in order to run this experiment.
I put the report in this doc, folks are free to comment, since I'm not nearly expert enough in city governance law to evaluate the accuracy. Also, other countries may allow something link it.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_iDvBlz8ipy8kQjuJfuqiSVntKCmsA3rkFZt23ov7Fo/edit?usp=sharing
I think Prospera was killed by the local govt recently.
One would need a truly independent city
It is, of course, more complicated - Honduran current admin has gotten a ruling from the supreme court that the ZEDE amendment to the constitution was obviously unconstitutional. But national elections are this Nov, and any change in administration is likely to be favorable to Prospera Honduras. Prospera has also recently received additional investment, and Magatte Wade is leading negotiations for an African startup city (https://substack.com/@magattew/p-141045185). Disclosure, I'm an eResident and investor.
I'd love to know what your key requirements are for a "truly independent city". I want City States to be real, and for them to try all the great governance models.
I think, baseline, it would need to be fully sovereign. How does one become an "eresident?"
Start here! https://www.prospera.co/en
Thanks for publishing JK Lund's article and ideas !!! 👍👍👍
All "voting" proposals would bear satisfiying results for a mayority IF we were dealing with a human population of truly angelic nature ... citizens of the fabulous "Virtuous City", aka Utopia.
Maybe, in a parallel universe ...
As long as the current version of Homo Sapiens, with its intrinsic sloth, hate, greed, unfathomable ignorance, hypocrisy, selfishness, etc., etc. supremely reigns in the polling stations there is NO hope for any improvement.
Unless these creatures fully grasp the idea of being a very tiny part of a far bigger entity where virtually EVERYTHING in the biosphere of "The Pale Blue Dot" is interconnected they will very successfully corrupt any governmental system for mass-societies that is offered to them.
Current mass-societies are slated for disintegration due to the a.m. human "flaws" as well as technical over-kill.
DE-centralize, fresh veggies and meat from the well guarded back-yard will be the new crypto !!!
I love this, and—as with a lot of ideas around participatory democracy which I love—the thorny questions seem to be about TIME and PROCESS.
Since this whole concept suggests a significant social/cultural shift, let's just assume that all jobs—full-time, part-time, shift work, whatever—compensate people for council work. There's still the issue, though, of the raw hours involved in caring for young children and the chronically ill. And those carers, I'd assert, have not only as much right but maybe MORE right to have their voices heard.
I'd like to assume a sort of utopia where everyone is supported abundantly at all stages of life, of course. But that's maybe best thought of as an end result, rather than a pre-condition, of this kind of democracy.
The process question springs from my own experience in northern New England town meetings. How can we avoid discussions getting bogged down in ego, adversarialism, or just plain filibustering: a lot of folks seem to me to not have anyone who listens to them, and so will dominate meetings with all sorts of nonsensical questions or objections in order to hold the floor for as long as possible.
I am cautiously optimistic about sociocracy as a decision-making process, but I am not sure how well it would scale. And whatever the structure, it pre-supposes a training for every citizen: a not insignificant undertaking in itself!
None of this is intended as an objection or dismissal of this wonderful idea, just a starting place for some deeper discussions around implementation.
In 2016 a good friend of mind launched a start-up for a direct democracy app, called Stig, where lawmakers could propose laws and users, or citizens, could vote on them or suggest amendments, which could also be voted. (French coverage: https://mrmondialisation.org/stig-la-premiere-application-de-democratie-universelle-en-mode-3-0/) "Civic tech" was a bit of a buzzword at the time, and it won me over, this idea of direct democracy, if it could be dumbed down enough for people to make informed votes. After all, the internet as a concept seemed to embody that very promise.
Tragically, no elected officials wanted any part of the Stig app, and his little project ended up bought up by a corporation who used it to vote for for internal company needs like "what shall we have for lunch on wednesdays" or "the next destination of the company ski trip".
The Founding Fathers were thinking outside the box for their time. I think this randomly-chosen-Congressional-as-a-duty is the type of thing they would have championed, especially if they had trusted the public more. Thanks for this mind-expanding article!
No doubt they were aware of sortition when they drafted the Constitution, but they didn't trust the public because they were not aware of the "Wisdom of the Crowd" effect yet. I suspect if they saw the system as it is today, with two dominant parties and so much money flowing through the system...they wouldn't have designed in the way they did.
Taxes, if needed, should be a flat 10% across the board. As long as everyone pays the same rate, who cares what the dollar amount is.
Technocrats, at least the ones here in the states, are idiots. They never seem to see beyond their decisions and if anyone disagrees, they attempt to jail them.
I, as a member of the "Jury" would have input on law, justice, and detainment. I understand how medicine works and how "vaccines" are supposed to work. I hate the convulted tax code and would opt for a flat rate. Instead of jailing people who are addicted to drugs, i would suggest rehab and community service. For crimes like rape and murder, banishment to an island where the criminal has to survive on his own.
Fascinating and thought provoking. Although it is hard to imagine our country throwing out its current system even with all its flaws in favor of a new system like this. I know that in California they use county civil grand juries which are citizens convened to act as an investigative body into local policies. Maybe there is some tradition for these juries in our current system that can be gradually built upon toward what you describe.
I imagine that such a radical departure from the status quo could only be tried in pilot zones or charter cities. It's something that, if I have ooodles of money to buy an island, I would try.
This essay is excellent. You’ve processed lots of material from political theorists and others to arrive at what seems to me to outline a workable governmental system that would win the hearts of citizens, as our first Constitution did.
I have a few random observations before getting into what I admire most about your proposal.
Jones’ bicameral legislature combined with Bouricius’s lower chamber with its up-or-down vote reminds me of Harrington’s model, with its upper chamber made up of the “natural aristocracy” and the lower chamber as the democratic chamber with an up-or down vote.
I wonder if a “venire” of the prospective members of the interest panels could be randomly drawn from the community to avoid a reprise of lobbyists pushing “special” interests.
It would be interesting to discuss how an executive branch (would we need one?) and a judicial branch would fit into this. There’s so much balance here already to avoid the dangers of populism (the people’s reaction when “representative democracy” proves itself undemocratic) and bureaucracy (perhaps with the exception of Jones).
I’m with Landemore on representative democracies amounting to elected oligarchies. I’m with her on the merits of sortition and rotation over election. Finally, I’m with her on experts serving in an explicitly advisory role. I love the idea of this kind of jury. I don’t know much about how ancient Athens handled its 1,500-or-more-member juries from a procedural standpoint, but I wonder if the citizens learned through practice both the worth of experts (if they were recognized as such) and their inherent advisory capacity in a democracy. I hasten to add that I knew nothing about Landemore or Jones before you compared and then synthesized their approaches.
Your synthesis of their approaches is excellent. When you add in Athens’s Nomothetai, Bouricius on multi-body sortition, and improvements to up-or-down voting in the revision council (my favorite is approval voting), I’m sold. I hope you become the James Madison of our nation’s long-delayed second constitutional convention.
Thank you Bryce! This essay is actually multiple essays strung together over several years of researching this topic. I think I am getting closer to the most optimal design, but more research must be done!
Is there really a Fargo, North Carolina?
I love most of these ideas as it clearly demonstrates there are many better political systems and voting choices available which will mostly eliminate the corruption of money, extremism, political parties, and the insane focus on re-election which have come to dominate our governance at the expense of common sense and the desires of the middle electorate (60-80% of us by definition). How do we make them happen?!
I am not sure, probably best to test these ideas in pilot zones or charter cities to see how well they work.