You might have noticed that I’ve started layering on to my newsletter, which has historically been 2-3 essays a week, but which now includes quarterly literary salon discussions, and semi-annual workshops to foster a collective of writers and thinkers.
Another thing I’ve been craving: collaborative worldbuilding. I want to encourage all of us to come up with ideas for a better future, and that starts by layering in writing prompts and discussion threads that encourage us to think. And to think up ideas!
We’re starting with this one: Come up with an alternative to democracy.
You can write an essay or you can write a piece of fiction, but the idea is to brainstorm new forms of government that might be interesting to explore. Think of it as collaborative worldbuilding where none of the ideas are off the table!
Publish your post sometime before April 5th and include a link to it in the comments here. I’m excited to participate in this one myself!
Three models I propose below for people who want more or less technocratic governance
1) Break all the big countries into independent city states with a NATO like mutual self defence clause and relative freedom of movement between city states. If all else fails in the very least you can vote with your feet. The city states can be theocracies, Republics or even secular dictatorships for maths nerds. More like ASEAN and less like the EU.
2) Make political manifestoes into enforceable contracts. Before every election every party has to propose a contract for 5-10 years of governance with as much or as little detail as they want. Voters can do a class action lawsuit if they elected members don't govern according to the manifesto. If the government wants to renegotiate the contract for whatever reason they would have to call a snap election to vote on a new manifesto or party. This will prevent governments from making promises that can't keep. It might also stop voters from picking people who are likeable instead of intelligent because my theory is that voters need to pick people based on general "trustworthiness" instead of competence since there is no contract enforcement mechanism.
3) Liquid democracy. Elected representatives vote on most things but voters can override the decision of their representatives whenever they feel like it. This will prevent unpopular or interest group oriented policies from passing in parliament. There is other stuff about liquid democracy but they aren't useful imo.
You know I'm here for number one and two! And I like the way you've chosen to enforce number two. Because you're right, we would need some way to ensure that the group putting their plan into action is actually putting their plan into action. Three is interesting- how would we override officials? By what mechanism?
There exists something called 'Volksinitiative' and 'Referendum' you might want to check out. Tht one is actually being done if you know where to look for. Works quite well especially if you have smaller entities.
Aso interesting: Voting by mail /from home works perfectly well. The only thing it requires is the will to do so. And ofc the necessary infrastructure.
Interesting thought experiment and I’m gonna think more about it, but I’m tapping this out so I don’t lose it… better public than in my notes 😀
A “democracy” but instead of the majority/minority, we adopt the needs of the edge cases for everyone as the base standard. Something our treasurer said at a school board meeting recently that is haunting me, based on my HR career that came to maturity just as the ADA was passed in America so I’ve had to implement a lot of accessibility policy, accommodation and train managers how to think about employees and applicants with disability. Lots of headwind then; still lots, sadly.
Make the employee/student with the disability the baseline. Make their accommodation the baseline for everyone. Don’t look at them as costing you money but the base cost of a student, of an employee is the student/employee with an accommodation, special need (GOD I HATE THAT TERMINOLOGY!) For example, if you are putting Braille characters on all your signage — including name plates, badges — it’s not as added expense but rather just what signage cost. Anything could be cheaper. You could make really cheap signs with copy paper and a sharpie, so why is signage without braille an acceptable lower cost? It never should be… that sort of thing. The cost to educate a student with special needs should be the baseline cost of educating a student, not the premium cost.
In my State, in the American Congress, there seems to be an attitude that laws that don’t protect or include a small percentage of people is ok. It’s is NOT OK! It is the job of every lawmaker to find a way to include EVERYONE, not say 1-2% of people don’t have the right to life or expression or redress. If even ONE person is not protected by a law, nobody is. Anyway, incomplete and chopping thoughts right now, and maybe something will come together by the deadline or not… but … just so I don’t lose this.
Increasing baseline costs = increasing costs = decreased accesibility for low income people. If helping 10 people with 10 different special needs access to something means 100 people cannot afford it because the price was raised then it is less accessible. I don’t know the actual cost of increasing accesibility but I would guess the last .05% is very expensive
I’ve heard that all my life and I reject it. The price of something is entirely artificial. There is no natural law that fixes a price of anything. It just says it’s acceptable to deny a certain number of people dignity and their humanity is ok, as long as it’s not … you or me. That’s not worth any price. As long as you set a price to deny even one person their dignity, you’ve set everything up for creep. Today it’s one, tomorrow it’s ten and pretty soon it’s ok to deny large groups of people based on whatever you think is a line, as long as a majority benefits.
I'm very into this idea. I once wrote that the IEP typical of special needs students should be applied to all students. That's something the nordic countries do really well across the board (Oh we want good education for one person? Give it to everyone! We want good healthcare for one person, give it to everyone!)
In this model, decision-making is based on achieving consensus among citizens through ongoing dialogue and deliberation, rather than through traditional voting mechanisms. Here's how it could work:
Continuous Deliberation: Instead of periodic elections, citizens engage in continuous deliberative processes facilitated by technology. They discuss and debate issues in online forums, town hall meetings, and other platforms, guided by principles of reason, empathy, and mutual respect.
Issue-Based Decision Making: Rather than electing representatives to make decisions on their behalf, citizens directly participate in decision-making on specific issues. Proposals are developed collaboratively, and consensus is reached through iterative discussion and refinement.
Fluid Participation: Citizens have the flexibility to engage with the decision-making process according to their interests and expertise. They can contribute ideas, arguments, and feedback on issues that matter to them, without being constrained by rigid electoral cycles.
Expert Input: While all citizens have the opportunity to participate, input from experts and stakeholders is also valued and incorporated into the decision-making process. This ensures that decisions are informed by diverse perspectives and knowledge.
Adaptive Governance: The system is designed to adapt and evolve over time in response to changing circumstances and new information. Feedback loops allow for continuous improvement, and decisions can be revisited and revised as needed.
Dynamic Consensus combines elements of direct democracy, deliberative democracy, and collaborative governance to create a more inclusive and responsive system of governance. By prioritizing dialogue, cooperation, and consensus-building, it seeks to empower citizens to actively participate in shaping their collective future.
Virtual Representation: Instead of physical representatives, citizens are represented by holographic avatars in a virtual governance space. Each citizen's avatar represents their interests, preferences, and values, allowing for direct participation in decision-making processes.
Virtual Assembly: Citizens gather in virtual assemblies or forums, facilitated by advanced holographic technology, to deliberate on issues, propose policies, and make collective decisions. These virtual spaces are accessible to all citizens, regardless of physical location.
Dynamic Collaboration: Holographic Democracy enables dynamic collaboration and communication among citizens, fostering inclusivity, diversity of perspectives, and creative problem-solving. Citizens can engage in real-time discussions, form alliances, and negotiate compromises to reach consensus.
Transparency and Accountability: Decision-making processes in Holographic Democracy are transparent, with citizens able to track the contributions and voting patterns of their fellow citizens' avatars. Accountability mechanisms ensure that decisions reflect the collective will of the citizens and are not unduly influenced by special interests.
Adaptive Governance: The virtual nature of Holographic Democracy allows for rapid experimentation, iteration, and adaptation of governance structures and processes. Feedback loops enable continuous improvement, ensuring that the system remains responsive to the evolving needs and priorities of citizens.
Holographic Democracy may seem like science fiction, but advances in virtual reality, artificial intelligence, and communication technologies could make it a possibility in the future. While it presents challenges in terms of technological infrastructure, accessibility, and governance principles, it also offers exciting opportunities for reimagining democracy in the digital age.
AI Governance: Decision-making is delegated to advanced artificial intelligence systems, capable of processing vast amounts of data, analyzing complex scenarios, and making optimal decisions for the benefit of society as a whole.
Algorithmic Governance: Algorithms and machine learning models are used to formulate policies, allocate resources, and manage public affairs. These algorithms take into account a wide range of factors, including social, economic, and environmental considerations.
Continuous Optimization: Governance is an ongoing process of continuous optimization, with AI systems constantly monitoring and adjusting policies in response to changing conditions, emerging trends, and feedback from citizens.
Human Oversight: While AI systems play a central role in governance, there is also a system of human oversight to ensure accountability, transparency, and ethical decision-making. Human experts and representatives provide input, review decisions, and intervene when necessary.
Universal Access: Citizens have access to information about how decisions are made and the rationale behind them. Transparency and openness are fundamental principles of Synthocracy, ensuring that citizens can trust the governance system and actively participate in shaping its direction.
Synthocracy challenges the traditional notion of human-centric governance by placing trust in artificial intelligence to make decisions on behalf of society. While it may sound futuristic and far-fetched, proponents argue that AI has the potential to improve governance efficiency, reduce biases, and address complex societal challenges in ways that humans alone cannot.
Random Selection of Decision Makers: Instead of elections or appointments, decision-makers are randomly selected from the population. Citizens are eligible to serve in governing roles for a specified term, similar to jury duty but for governance.
Representative Sampling: The selected decision-makers form a representative sample of the population, ensuring diverse perspectives and experiences are represented in the decision-making process.
Training and Support: Before assuming their roles, randomly selected individuals undergo training and education to familiarize themselves with governance processes, civic responsibilities, and relevant issues.
Deliberative Processes: Decision-making involves deliberative processes where randomly selected individuals engage in informed discussion, debate, and consensus-building to reach decisions.
Rotation and Accountability: Once their term ends, decision-makers return to their regular lives, and a new group is randomly selected. This rotation ensures continuous turnover, prevents the concentration of power, and fosters a sense of civic duty among citizens.
Randomocracy challenges the notion of traditional representative democracy by embracing randomness and citizen participation in governance. While it may seem unconventional, proponents argue that it promotes fairness, inclusivity, and citizen engagement in decision-making processes.
This actually already existed and is called sortition, and was deployed in Classical Athens to choose the Boule, a legislative assembly. Granted, Sortition wasn't the only method of choosing leaders, and ultimate authority was still in the hands of the citizen assembly, but it was reasonably close to chat GTP's ideal here.
Decentralized Decision-Making: Instead of a centralized government, decision-making authority is distributed across multiple local or regional governing bodies. Each community or region has a high degree of autonomy to address its unique needs and priorities.
Networked Collaboration: These local governing bodies are interconnected through a network, allowing for collaboration, resource-sharing, and coordination on issues that transcend local boundaries. Decision-making is participatory, with input from both elected representatives and directly engaged citizens.
Fluid Membership: Citizens have the freedom to choose which governing body they wish to be affiliated with, based on factors such as geography, ideology, or shared interests. This allows for a diverse range of governance models to coexist and compete, fostering experimentation and innovation.
Adaptive Structures: The governance network is designed to be flexible and adaptive, allowing for the emergence of new governing bodies, the dissolution of ineffective ones, and the reallocation of resources based on evolving needs and priorities.
Transparent Accountability: Transparency and accountability mechanisms ensure that decision-making processes are open to public scrutiny, and that elected representatives remain accountable to their constituents. Regular feedback loops and mechanisms for citizen input help to ensure that governance remains responsive to the needs of the people.
Distributed Governance combines principles of decentralization, subsidiarity, and networked collaboration to create a more resilient and adaptive system of governance. By empowering local communities and fostering collaboration across boundaries, it seeks to promote democracy, innovation, and inclusivity.
Plato thought of it as direct rule by the people. Moderns think of it as the people voting for representatives who rule. Aristotle -- interestingly -- defined democracy as either of those systems *but only if the masses are out for their own personal gain*. (If the masses rule but aim for the common good, it's a "constitutional polity," not a democracy.)
I just want to be sure I have the parameters right! Thanks!
Little update, I've just written something for this and I'll be posting it sometime over the next week (whenever it fits in with my release cadence/whenever I finish editing it). It's slightly humorous in how it's written (since it's fiction), but I'm hoping it's a genuinely engaging idea, since I don't think I've seen it anywhere before
The current theory is that in early civilizations priests would choose the best warrior to lead people through a war. This was the beginning of monarchy. I propose we do something similar but this time we choose the leader who is the most humanely helpful, not the person who is the best at violence. We need to pick the person who has saved the most lives, or fed the most people, or planted the most trees and make that person our leader.
I look forward to reading your words on blockchain nations. I have not yet learned enough about blockchain to know whether or not it can help to solve a problem in my worldbuilding.
I keep wishing for an un-hackable personal identity. I'd like to be able to verify that my vote in an election was recorded and counted and placed in the correct column. I fear that if it could be done, it would have been invented by now.
There is an old joke about how the National Security Agency measures its computational power: it's measured in acres. The legend is that they can crack any code -- the only question is how many seconds, or milliseconds, it will take.
Maybe I'm not in the right ballpark thinking about blockchain.
There was some hoo-ha a while back about an election being stolen. I had faith in the system, even knowing that I could not verify that my vote had been counted and tallied properly. Imagine how happy we'd be if we could all verify the accuracy of our voting system.
This comment is not intended to foreshadow my contribution to this exercise!
This year my state decided to caucus in place of our usual primary and it was so upsetting. I wrote my vote on a piece of scrap paper and put it in an ice cream bucket that was being shuffled around by overwhelmed volunteers. I don't know why that is allowed! All of this is to say, I think we could stand to find some better options...
If you have not already read the late David Graeber's book "The Democracy Project" I think you would find it interesting and helpful. He was a highly respected Professor of Anthropology, but in the context of Occupy Wallstreet he referred to himself and his closest friends as "small 'a' anarchists".
Anarchism does not necessarily refer to a chaotic society. Many, if not most Americans not only welcome diversity, we love it and cherish it. But we have the problem of "freedom of" and "freedom to". I want to have the freedom of not having to listen to my neighbor who thinks he has the freedom to blast his funky music in the middle of the night while I'm trying to sleep. So, among over 300 million citizens, ideally we would have the same number of people who are relatively unique, who have different opinions about various things, but hopefully they all know how to communicate in the same language, or learn each others' languages. The worst case is the Tower of Babel, wherein nobody can understand what anybody else is saying. At the other end of the spectrum, the worst case is groupthink, wherein nobody is allowed to have an original idea in an authoritarian regime. The sweet spot is somewhere near the middle, wherein we can work together to achieve consensus. That is the heart of David Graeber's message. For democracy to work, a room full of dedicated anarchists can, and must, work together to achieve consensus.
I never met Dr Graeber, but it made me very sad when I learned of his unexpected passing at age 59.
Yes, but the problem with anarchy is that there is no vision for what that would look like. So maybe you could come with an anarchic vision and write about how it could look in practice?
Some possibilities: on a small scale, a kibbutz and on a large scale, though I'm not sure we have a model for that, maybe the closest we came was the anarchist collectives during the Spanish Civil War? (I'm thinking specifically of Orwell's accounts of the anarchist uprising in Homage to Catalonia).
I really liked this prompt, for me the answer is always AI!
Here's a short post on how AI could allow us to move past representative democracy and actually execute on the will of the people:
https://nowandten.substack.com/p/evolving-governance-from-representative
This was a fun one! I could definitely see it as a way of tabulating all of the results of everything!
A little something to add to the mix
https://skepticfail.substack.com/p/family-rules
Here is my post about how I started out trying to answer the question and ended up wandering into (hopefully interesting) weeds: https://earnestnessisunderrated.substack.com/p/essential-functions-of-government
Just posted my take on this prompt today: https://danbarber.substack.com/p/reverse-democracy
It's a little silly, but I'm hoping it's still an entertaining read :)
Thanks again for the prompt!!
This idea has been hiding in the back of an old notebook for a while. Thanks for inspiring me to share it! https://addamledamyen.substack.com/p/a-system-of-government-based-on-platos?sd=pf
Three models I propose below for people who want more or less technocratic governance
1) Break all the big countries into independent city states with a NATO like mutual self defence clause and relative freedom of movement between city states. If all else fails in the very least you can vote with your feet. The city states can be theocracies, Republics or even secular dictatorships for maths nerds. More like ASEAN and less like the EU.
2) Make political manifestoes into enforceable contracts. Before every election every party has to propose a contract for 5-10 years of governance with as much or as little detail as they want. Voters can do a class action lawsuit if they elected members don't govern according to the manifesto. If the government wants to renegotiate the contract for whatever reason they would have to call a snap election to vote on a new manifesto or party. This will prevent governments from making promises that can't keep. It might also stop voters from picking people who are likeable instead of intelligent because my theory is that voters need to pick people based on general "trustworthiness" instead of competence since there is no contract enforcement mechanism.
3) Liquid democracy. Elected representatives vote on most things but voters can override the decision of their representatives whenever they feel like it. This will prevent unpopular or interest group oriented policies from passing in parliament. There is other stuff about liquid democracy but they aren't useful imo.
You know I'm here for number one and two! And I like the way you've chosen to enforce number two. Because you're right, we would need some way to ensure that the group putting their plan into action is actually putting their plan into action. Three is interesting- how would we override officials? By what mechanism?
Digital tools mostly. But the same problems of online and home voting crops up.
There exists something called 'Volksinitiative' and 'Referendum' you might want to check out. Tht one is actually being done if you know where to look for. Works quite well especially if you have smaller entities.
Aso interesting: Voting by mail /from home works perfectly well. The only thing it requires is the will to do so. And ofc the necessary infrastructure.
I’m a democracy academic, but I’ve thought of an interesting idea in relation to approach democracy. https://thebreakoutroom.substack.com/p/political-astrology-in-the-age-of
Interesting thought experiment and I’m gonna think more about it, but I’m tapping this out so I don’t lose it… better public than in my notes 😀
A “democracy” but instead of the majority/minority, we adopt the needs of the edge cases for everyone as the base standard. Something our treasurer said at a school board meeting recently that is haunting me, based on my HR career that came to maturity just as the ADA was passed in America so I’ve had to implement a lot of accessibility policy, accommodation and train managers how to think about employees and applicants with disability. Lots of headwind then; still lots, sadly.
Make the employee/student with the disability the baseline. Make their accommodation the baseline for everyone. Don’t look at them as costing you money but the base cost of a student, of an employee is the student/employee with an accommodation, special need (GOD I HATE THAT TERMINOLOGY!) For example, if you are putting Braille characters on all your signage — including name plates, badges — it’s not as added expense but rather just what signage cost. Anything could be cheaper. You could make really cheap signs with copy paper and a sharpie, so why is signage without braille an acceptable lower cost? It never should be… that sort of thing. The cost to educate a student with special needs should be the baseline cost of educating a student, not the premium cost.
In my State, in the American Congress, there seems to be an attitude that laws that don’t protect or include a small percentage of people is ok. It’s is NOT OK! It is the job of every lawmaker to find a way to include EVERYONE, not say 1-2% of people don’t have the right to life or expression or redress. If even ONE person is not protected by a law, nobody is. Anyway, incomplete and chopping thoughts right now, and maybe something will come together by the deadline or not… but … just so I don’t lose this.
Increasing baseline costs = increasing costs = decreased accesibility for low income people. If helping 10 people with 10 different special needs access to something means 100 people cannot afford it because the price was raised then it is less accessible. I don’t know the actual cost of increasing accesibility but I would guess the last .05% is very expensive
I’ve heard that all my life and I reject it. The price of something is entirely artificial. There is no natural law that fixes a price of anything. It just says it’s acceptable to deny a certain number of people dignity and their humanity is ok, as long as it’s not … you or me. That’s not worth any price. As long as you set a price to deny even one person their dignity, you’ve set everything up for creep. Today it’s one, tomorrow it’s ten and pretty soon it’s ok to deny large groups of people based on whatever you think is a line, as long as a majority benefits.
I'm very into this idea. I once wrote that the IEP typical of special needs students should be applied to all students. That's something the nordic countries do really well across the board (Oh we want good education for one person? Give it to everyone! We want good healthcare for one person, give it to everyone!)
OK here's mine. Full experiment mode, just for fun. I put the voting deadline three weeks out so I'll get the results published within the timeframe of the prompt too: https://shonistar.substack.com/p/proposed-law-on-artificial-intelligence
Please share so I can get significantly meaningful results!
Loved this!
https://open.substack.com/pub/hardcurrency/p/democracy?r=1f57bz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I have forwarded your prompt to ChatGTP 3.5:
(1) "Dynamic Consensus"
In this model, decision-making is based on achieving consensus among citizens through ongoing dialogue and deliberation, rather than through traditional voting mechanisms. Here's how it could work:
Continuous Deliberation: Instead of periodic elections, citizens engage in continuous deliberative processes facilitated by technology. They discuss and debate issues in online forums, town hall meetings, and other platforms, guided by principles of reason, empathy, and mutual respect.
Issue-Based Decision Making: Rather than electing representatives to make decisions on their behalf, citizens directly participate in decision-making on specific issues. Proposals are developed collaboratively, and consensus is reached through iterative discussion and refinement.
Fluid Participation: Citizens have the flexibility to engage with the decision-making process according to their interests and expertise. They can contribute ideas, arguments, and feedback on issues that matter to them, without being constrained by rigid electoral cycles.
Expert Input: While all citizens have the opportunity to participate, input from experts and stakeholders is also valued and incorporated into the decision-making process. This ensures that decisions are informed by diverse perspectives and knowledge.
Adaptive Governance: The system is designed to adapt and evolve over time in response to changing circumstances and new information. Feedback loops allow for continuous improvement, and decisions can be revisited and revised as needed.
Dynamic Consensus combines elements of direct democracy, deliberative democracy, and collaborative governance to create a more inclusive and responsive system of governance. By prioritizing dialogue, cooperation, and consensus-building, it seeks to empower citizens to actively participate in shaping their collective future.
(5) Last but not least: "Holographic Democracy"
Virtual Representation: Instead of physical representatives, citizens are represented by holographic avatars in a virtual governance space. Each citizen's avatar represents their interests, preferences, and values, allowing for direct participation in decision-making processes.
Virtual Assembly: Citizens gather in virtual assemblies or forums, facilitated by advanced holographic technology, to deliberate on issues, propose policies, and make collective decisions. These virtual spaces are accessible to all citizens, regardless of physical location.
Dynamic Collaboration: Holographic Democracy enables dynamic collaboration and communication among citizens, fostering inclusivity, diversity of perspectives, and creative problem-solving. Citizens can engage in real-time discussions, form alliances, and negotiate compromises to reach consensus.
Transparency and Accountability: Decision-making processes in Holographic Democracy are transparent, with citizens able to track the contributions and voting patterns of their fellow citizens' avatars. Accountability mechanisms ensure that decisions reflect the collective will of the citizens and are not unduly influenced by special interests.
Adaptive Governance: The virtual nature of Holographic Democracy allows for rapid experimentation, iteration, and adaptation of governance structures and processes. Feedback loops enable continuous improvement, ensuring that the system remains responsive to the evolving needs and priorities of citizens.
Holographic Democracy may seem like science fiction, but advances in virtual reality, artificial intelligence, and communication technologies could make it a possibility in the future. While it presents challenges in terms of technological infrastructure, accessibility, and governance principles, it also offers exciting opportunities for reimagining democracy in the digital age.
(4) "Synthocracy"
AI Governance: Decision-making is delegated to advanced artificial intelligence systems, capable of processing vast amounts of data, analyzing complex scenarios, and making optimal decisions for the benefit of society as a whole.
Algorithmic Governance: Algorithms and machine learning models are used to formulate policies, allocate resources, and manage public affairs. These algorithms take into account a wide range of factors, including social, economic, and environmental considerations.
Continuous Optimization: Governance is an ongoing process of continuous optimization, with AI systems constantly monitoring and adjusting policies in response to changing conditions, emerging trends, and feedback from citizens.
Human Oversight: While AI systems play a central role in governance, there is also a system of human oversight to ensure accountability, transparency, and ethical decision-making. Human experts and representatives provide input, review decisions, and intervene when necessary.
Universal Access: Citizens have access to information about how decisions are made and the rationale behind them. Transparency and openness are fundamental principles of Synthocracy, ensuring that citizens can trust the governance system and actively participate in shaping its direction.
Synthocracy challenges the traditional notion of human-centric governance by placing trust in artificial intelligence to make decisions on behalf of society. While it may sound futuristic and far-fetched, proponents argue that AI has the potential to improve governance efficiency, reduce biases, and address complex societal challenges in ways that humans alone cannot.
(3) "Randomocracy"
Random Selection of Decision Makers: Instead of elections or appointments, decision-makers are randomly selected from the population. Citizens are eligible to serve in governing roles for a specified term, similar to jury duty but for governance.
Representative Sampling: The selected decision-makers form a representative sample of the population, ensuring diverse perspectives and experiences are represented in the decision-making process.
Training and Support: Before assuming their roles, randomly selected individuals undergo training and education to familiarize themselves with governance processes, civic responsibilities, and relevant issues.
Deliberative Processes: Decision-making involves deliberative processes where randomly selected individuals engage in informed discussion, debate, and consensus-building to reach decisions.
Rotation and Accountability: Once their term ends, decision-makers return to their regular lives, and a new group is randomly selected. This rotation ensures continuous turnover, prevents the concentration of power, and fosters a sense of civic duty among citizens.
Randomocracy challenges the notion of traditional representative democracy by embracing randomness and citizen participation in governance. While it may seem unconventional, proponents argue that it promotes fairness, inclusivity, and citizen engagement in decision-making processes.
This actually already existed and is called sortition, and was deployed in Classical Athens to choose the Boule, a legislative assembly. Granted, Sortition wasn't the only method of choosing leaders, and ultimate authority was still in the hands of the citizen assembly, but it was reasonably close to chat GTP's ideal here.
(2) "Distributed Governance"
Decentralized Decision-Making: Instead of a centralized government, decision-making authority is distributed across multiple local or regional governing bodies. Each community or region has a high degree of autonomy to address its unique needs and priorities.
Networked Collaboration: These local governing bodies are interconnected through a network, allowing for collaboration, resource-sharing, and coordination on issues that transcend local boundaries. Decision-making is participatory, with input from both elected representatives and directly engaged citizens.
Fluid Membership: Citizens have the freedom to choose which governing body they wish to be affiliated with, based on factors such as geography, ideology, or shared interests. This allows for a diverse range of governance models to coexist and compete, fostering experimentation and innovation.
Adaptive Structures: The governance network is designed to be flexible and adaptive, allowing for the emergence of new governing bodies, the dissolution of ineffective ones, and the reallocation of resources based on evolving needs and priorities.
Transparent Accountability: Transparency and accountability mechanisms ensure that decision-making processes are open to public scrutiny, and that elected representatives remain accountable to their constituents. Regular feedback loops and mechanisms for citizen input help to ensure that governance remains responsive to the needs of the people.
Distributed Governance combines principles of decentralization, subsidiarity, and networked collaboration to create a more resilient and adaptive system of governance. By empowering local communities and fostering collaboration across boundaries, it seeks to promote democracy, innovation, and inclusivity.
How is "democracy" defined for this challenge?
Plato thought of it as direct rule by the people. Moderns think of it as the people voting for representatives who rule. Aristotle -- interestingly -- defined democracy as either of those systems *but only if the masses are out for their own personal gain*. (If the masses rule but aim for the common good, it's a "constitutional polity," not a democracy.)
I just want to be sure I have the parameters right! Thanks!
You can invent any form of government you'd like. It doesn't have to be a democracy at all!
This is such an awesome idea... my mind is already coming up with a million different things. Might have to give this a go before April 5th
Little update, I've just written something for this and I'll be posting it sometime over the next week (whenever it fits in with my release cadence/whenever I finish editing it). It's slightly humorous in how it's written (since it's fiction), but I'm hoping it's a genuinely engaging idea, since I don't think I've seen it anywhere before
Sounds exciting! Can't wait to read!
The current theory is that in early civilizations priests would choose the best warrior to lead people through a war. This was the beginning of monarchy. I propose we do something similar but this time we choose the leader who is the most humanely helpful, not the person who is the best at violence. We need to pick the person who has saved the most lives, or fed the most people, or planted the most trees and make that person our leader.
Hmmm... I just hit post and already I'm thinking how this plan could be really corruptable.
So true with all of our ideas. That's what makes them worth thinking through!
Fun thought experiment! Given this challenge, I elected to publish my essay on this top early: Imagining our Martian Government https://www.lianeon.org/p/imagining-our-martian-government
Here, I imagine how we might design the government of our future Martian colony based upon lessons learned from successes and failures here on Earth.
This was so good. I loved it so much!
Thank you. It means a lot to me
Technonationalism — blockchain nations based on common beliefs instead of geographical borders.
I look forward to reading your words on blockchain nations. I have not yet learned enough about blockchain to know whether or not it can help to solve a problem in my worldbuilding.
I keep wishing for an un-hackable personal identity. I'd like to be able to verify that my vote in an election was recorded and counted and placed in the correct column. I fear that if it could be done, it would have been invented by now.
There is an old joke about how the National Security Agency measures its computational power: it's measured in acres. The legend is that they can crack any code -- the only question is how many seconds, or milliseconds, it will take.
Maybe I'm not in the right ballpark thinking about blockchain.
There was some hoo-ha a while back about an election being stolen. I had faith in the system, even knowing that I could not verify that my vote had been counted and tallied properly. Imagine how happy we'd be if we could all verify the accuracy of our voting system.
This comment is not intended to foreshadow my contribution to this exercise!
This year my state decided to caucus in place of our usual primary and it was so upsetting. I wrote my vote on a piece of scrap paper and put it in an ice cream bucket that was being shuffled around by overwhelmed volunteers. I don't know why that is allowed! All of this is to say, I think we could stand to find some better options...
I think many people are searching for this, especially as the botapocalypse descends upon us. I saw this yesterday and it might resonate with you too.
https://youtu.be/JrcbH0ge2WE?si=SIAs13-fSxzzXgia
A totalitarian state where mirrors are outlawed for minors (one of the first posts I wrote here on substack)
https://www.mostlymyth.com/p/no-country-for-young-women
Very interesting
Anarchy - Literal meaning is " is a form of society without rulers. "
If you have not already read the late David Graeber's book "The Democracy Project" I think you would find it interesting and helpful. He was a highly respected Professor of Anthropology, but in the context of Occupy Wallstreet he referred to himself and his closest friends as "small 'a' anarchists".
Anarchism does not necessarily refer to a chaotic society. Many, if not most Americans not only welcome diversity, we love it and cherish it. But we have the problem of "freedom of" and "freedom to". I want to have the freedom of not having to listen to my neighbor who thinks he has the freedom to blast his funky music in the middle of the night while I'm trying to sleep. So, among over 300 million citizens, ideally we would have the same number of people who are relatively unique, who have different opinions about various things, but hopefully they all know how to communicate in the same language, or learn each others' languages. The worst case is the Tower of Babel, wherein nobody can understand what anybody else is saying. At the other end of the spectrum, the worst case is groupthink, wherein nobody is allowed to have an original idea in an authoritarian regime. The sweet spot is somewhere near the middle, wherein we can work together to achieve consensus. That is the heart of David Graeber's message. For democracy to work, a room full of dedicated anarchists can, and must, work together to achieve consensus.
I never met Dr Graeber, but it made me very sad when I learned of his unexpected passing at age 59.
a tragedy indeed. he's a huge inspiration for me and my work as well. glad to see how widely beloved he still is!
Yes, but the problem with anarchy is that there is no vision for what that would look like. So maybe you could come with an anarchic vision and write about how it could look in practice?
Challenge accepted!
Yes. The most anarchistic country in the world right now is Somalia... so...
I would love a post about that.
Some possibilities: on a small scale, a kibbutz and on a large scale, though I'm not sure we have a model for that, maybe the closest we came was the anarchist collectives during the Spanish Civil War? (I'm thinking specifically of Orwell's accounts of the anarchist uprising in Homage to Catalonia).