Bypass Politicians - National Initiatives ↓

The late Senator Mike Gravel ran for president on the platform of giving the citizenry more agency in the lawmaking process. In the majority of states, the people can propose or revoke laws, or officials through ballot initiatives. Why not make that a national right and responsibility? Why not do that online (with appropriate precautions) so we can get public input on policy more than every two-four years? Moreover, in Taiwan, the process of making civic engagement more accessible is being profoundly modernized. This is an encouraging innovation worth studying, adapting or emulating.

Use Big Tech to Inspire Cooperation and Creative Problem Solving ↓

As I've said in multiple other places on this site, social media accelerates polarization, undermines our ability to make sense of the world well, and is addictive. It is a powerful tool, it doesn't need to be so bad for our mental health, our culture and our democracy. If people can make algorithms that create bad results, I reckon people can create algorithms that optimize for better social outcomes instead of time in front of a screen getting outraged.

Term Limits ↓

We all know the story, incumbents win 90%+ of the races because they have huge fundraising and name recognition advantages, even if they don't have the best ideas. The longer people stay in Washington, the more likely they will be corrupted. SO let's not let them stay too long. I think somewhere around six to eight years for the House of Representatives is a good balance between allowing for fresh ideas while allowing some folks to stay long enough to get stuff done.

A Manhattan Project for a 21st Century Democracy ↓

Why do we limit citizen participation in our civic affairs to once every 2 or 4 years? Because that's the only way it could be done when we used horses to carry information. Why not make our engagement more real time? Today's technology can do this easily, (although not without serious security concerns that must be addressed to ensure our government is secure. Blockchain technology may be a basis for such transparency and security.)

Can you imagine an online forum which is both simple to use and yet advanced in its behind the scenes architecture, where citizens can propose amendments to policies, and instead of highlighting the most divisive garbage (as the current big tech business model encourages), the forum reveals where there is the most consensus and good will? Just as the most interesting, "upvoted" comments can rise to the top of a comments thread, why can't we design algorithms to show us the ideas that both solve our challenges and build the most unity? Part of the problem with the current system is that with a system that looks to vote yay or nay in order to achieve a 50%+1 majority, we stop improving the policies as soon as it reaches that abysmally low bar.

That is a fundamental design flaw that a technologically integrated political system could easily address. We could use machine learning to help us iterate potential solutions until they reach 80, 90 or even 95% support. Importantly, the process by which we attempt to propose solutions to our challenges must undergo more rigorous input, and that input does not need to be bottlenecked through (often useless) representatives if we can harness the power of technology.

If remaking government to integrate technology is our priority, and I believe it should be, we must gather the wisest and most trusted experts on this subject to flesh out these kinds of systems. I am not claiming to be the chief scientist, the Robert Oppenheimer of a more wise and resilient political system. I am merely outlining some ideas that can kindle our imagination. I'm quite confident far more elegant and powerful ideas would emerge from a wisely considered process of political redesign. This process need not completely replace existing institutions. It can begin as a parallel arm of problem solving and we can expand or adjust it as we learn from our experience.

Ranked Choice VOTING & Proportional Representation ↓

Have you ever had the Sophie's Choice between your ideals and what you think is "realistic"? The classic lesser of 2 evils choice that makes your stomach turn and always seems to be lowering the bar for what is an acceptable choice? The two party system stifles innovation, limits our choices, and breeds corruption and gridlock. There is another way, ranked choice voting allows you to vote your conscience while not abandoning your pragmatism. Simply put, ranked choice voting gives people the ability to vote for their top preference without "throwing away" their vote for a candidate that may have a smaller chance of winning. The upside is we vote our conscience more often and help more diverse representation to flourish. But Ranked Choice Voting will do little to break the hold of the two party system unless we also make districts proportional. An added beneft is this will largely nullify gerry-mandering.

Make Politicians Engage the Middle ↓

I did a semester abroad in Australia while in college. I learned that voting is mandatory there, and if you don't vote, you get a slap on the wrist fine (around $10). Enough to incentivize people to vote, but not enough to actually harm people. The effect this has is over 90% of people vote. Which means politicians try to speak to the middle more than the extreme bases of their primary voters. While I am aghast at Australian politics right not, I do think we would have a different makeup of Congress, likely a much less gridlocked and more productive one, if we forced politicians to advocate policies more people want. This clearly isn't a silver bullet solution, but it is a doable and meaningful improvement that would have very near term effects. PS- if you're thinking it's a bad idea to force people to vote if they don't have any idea what they're voting for... there could easily be an option on the ballot of "present" or "none of the above" which could act as mechanism to call forth a new batch of candidates if enough people voted "none of the above".

A Comprehensive Revolution in Civic Education ↓

George Washington commented that democracy is dependent on the population's education in the science of government. All of the above systemic policy prescriptions I advocate are insufficient without a sensemaking revolution rooted in communities of practice where citizens synthesize information and access a collective intelligence in the same manner that colonies of ants know how to build things no single ant can on their own. Practically, this education needs to happen faster than waiting for new generations to be born and graduate from public schools, so, we must do this through social media and through engaging public debates and discourse that look nothing like the sound bite battles which are our current debates.

Election Finance Reform ↓

Winning an election under the current system requires hundreds of thousands of dollars. This excludes most working class people from participating, and gives inherent advantage to the kinds of representatives with access to, and perhaps disproportionate sympathies for the economically elite. We must publicly fund elections and provide more comprehensive debate about substantive policy issues.

Make Plato Happy - A Qualified and Liquid Democracy ↓

For thousands of years, the critique of democracy has been that the public is not informed enough on many issues to make good choices about them. There is some truth in that critique, hence why a republic was fashioned to both represent the public, yet not give uneducated populations too much say on matters they might not understand well. How can technology and better governmental design help better represent the public, yet also ensure only the best ideas and most informed voices determine policy? Introducing the idea of a qualified democracy. This means that, everyone can still vote for representatives, as is the case now, but also that more than just our current representatives have a voice. If you're a farmer, for example, you can probably make pretty informed policy choices about agriculture. You could take a test that qualifies you to have a vote on agricultural issues that can also be part of determining policy. And if you're not a farmer, but you learn enough about the issue to be able to demonstrate understanding, then you can also participate. And the test is free. And so is the educational material to help you pass the test. And you can take it as many times as you like until you pass. And the test is not about believing any ideology, but demonstrating that you know the arguments of each "side" and what they imply. And again, if you don't have any understanding, you still have representatives you can vote for. And here's the real innovation. Liza, a qualified farmer, in our example, has two votes - her vote for her representative, AND her vote as a citizen policy "expert." And I, the farming laymen, also have two votes, my vote for a representative, and my vote for a citizen expert, like Liza. So if you and I are not farming experts, we can BOTH vote for Liza, who can accumulate lots of other people's representational trust, and therefore she can accumlate power on this issue. That is the ideal this system strives to achieve - that where there is BOTH trust, and knowledge, their should be power. This is called liquid democracy. Our votes can pass between each other. So if I don't understand something, but I trust you, who does understand it, my vote can *flow* through to you, like liquid. Technology makes qualified and liquid democracy possible. And these two concepts compliment each other, because a qualified democracy could threaten to under-represent the uneducated. Yet with liquid democracy, we remain represented, even when we are uneducated about certain subjects. And all of this can happen as a compliment to, NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR, our existing constitutional form of representative government.