Evolution of Freedom
Part IV: Collective intelligence - Chapter 43
Delegative Democracy
When we seek for the ideal way to make our collective decisions, democratic practices still endure as humanity’s preferred method of decision-making. This is not because the outcomes themselves are necessarily always the best, but because of the legitimacy the process lends to the results.
It is much easier to acquiesce to a decision you don’t like when the process has been fair and you have been able to participate in it. To this day we haven’t come up with a decision-making process that would be seen as fairer or more just than majority rule based on the principle of one person, one vote.
But representative democracy is actually a very narrow kind of democracy. It is actually doubtful that ancient Athenians, who had a detailed vocabulary to describe various governance models, would have even called representative democracy a form of democracy. Between elections, representative democracy is completely unresponsive to its own citizens. Citizens simply don’t have a formal way to participate in the day-to-day decision-making. Most of us only get to watch as decisions are made on our behalf.
This is the problem. When you think about it, voting gives us the illusion of participation. Once every election cycle, we get to write a name or a number on a ballot. That’s it. It is the minimum viable form of participation you can imagine. Elections effectively legitimize or rubber stamp decisions before they are made. The best thing that can be said of representative democracy is that it provides an effective veto against unpopular rulers in the next elections.
Direct democracy is better, but is not without its own share of problems. Direct democracy doesn’t scale well, or at least it didn’t before the internet.
While electronically connecting millions of people is now possible, we have yet to solve the security issues related to electronic voting. You can’t guarantee the integrity of the elections at the same time as you guarantee the anonymity of the voters.
The other big worry in direct democracy is mob rule. Ancient Greek philosophers were keenly aware of this problem. What if a population can be swayed to reckless decisions through emotional appeals? What if a demagogue with great persuasive powers manages to erode the separation of powers and usher in tyranny? These were and still are pertinent questions.
To work, majority rule needs strong civil liberties to protect the rights of minorities. The checks and balances have to hold on every level or the system ceases to be a democracy. Democracy is not something you just have: it is something you have to consciously maintain. If you don’t, it will fall off the rails. This is something we are currently witnessing in many Western countries, where democratic institutions have lost their independence and only exist to provide a veneer of legitimacy to autocratic rulers.
Deliberative democracy offers a valuable variation to mere majority rule by voting. For decisions to be made it requires genuine deliberation that aims to reach a consensus. When practiced correctly, this deliberative process can produce better decisions and outcomes. When deliberations don’t produce consensus decisions, the process falls back on voting using majority rule.
The problem with deliberative democracy is that it also doesn’t scale very well and requires smaller decision-making bodies to flourish. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It seems likely that decisions should be made at a more local level whenever possible. This would certainly empower regular citizens to more actively participate in their collective affairs.
The debate between the virtues of various implementations of democracy is enduring. The pros and cons are evident in each system and none of these methods seem to stand out as a clear favorite. There is, however, an emerging practice that seems to be able to contain the best of all three of these traditions while avoiding most of their pitfalls: delegative democracy.
The twenty-fourth hypothesis is that:
It is much easier to acquiesce to a decision you don’t like when the process has been fair and you have been able to participate in it. To this day we haven’t come up with a decision-making process that would be seen as fairer or more just than majority rule based on the principle of one person, one vote.
But representative democracy is actually a very narrow kind of democracy. It is actually doubtful that ancient Athenians, who had a detailed vocabulary to describe various governance models, would have even called representative democracy a form of democracy. Between elections, representative democracy is completely unresponsive to its own citizens. Citizens simply don’t have a formal way to participate in the day-to-day decision-making. Most of us only get to watch as decisions are made on our behalf.
This is the problem. When you think about it, voting gives us the illusion of participation. Once every election cycle, we get to write a name or a number on a ballot. That’s it. It is the minimum viable form of participation you can imagine. Elections effectively legitimize or rubber stamp decisions before they are made. The best thing that can be said of representative democracy is that it provides an effective veto against unpopular rulers in the next elections.
Direct democracy is better, but is not without its own share of problems. Direct democracy doesn’t scale well, or at least it didn’t before the internet.
While electronically connecting millions of people is now possible, we have yet to solve the security issues related to electronic voting. You can’t guarantee the integrity of the elections at the same time as you guarantee the anonymity of the voters.
The other big worry in direct democracy is mob rule. Ancient Greek philosophers were keenly aware of this problem. What if a population can be swayed to reckless decisions through emotional appeals? What if a demagogue with great persuasive powers manages to erode the separation of powers and usher in tyranny? These were and still are pertinent questions.
To work, majority rule needs strong civil liberties to protect the rights of minorities. The checks and balances have to hold on every level or the system ceases to be a democracy. Democracy is not something you just have: it is something you have to consciously maintain. If you don’t, it will fall off the rails. This is something we are currently witnessing in many Western countries, where democratic institutions have lost their independence and only exist to provide a veneer of legitimacy to autocratic rulers.
Deliberative democracy offers a valuable variation to mere majority rule by voting. For decisions to be made it requires genuine deliberation that aims to reach a consensus. When practiced correctly, this deliberative process can produce better decisions and outcomes. When deliberations don’t produce consensus decisions, the process falls back on voting using majority rule.
The problem with deliberative democracy is that it also doesn’t scale very well and requires smaller decision-making bodies to flourish. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It seems likely that decisions should be made at a more local level whenever possible. This would certainly empower regular citizens to more actively participate in their collective affairs.
The debate between the virtues of various implementations of democracy is enduring. The pros and cons are evident in each system and none of these methods seem to stand out as a clear favorite. There is, however, an emerging practice that seems to be able to contain the best of all three of these traditions while avoiding most of their pitfalls: delegative democracy.
The twenty-fourth hypothesis is that:
24. In designing a better system, our decision-making in the future should follow the principles of delegative democracy, which elegantly combines the best attributes of representative, direct and deliberative democracy.
By giving every individual a choice whether to use their vote themselves or to delegate their vote on a specific issue to somebody more knowledgeable offers great hope in improving our ability to make better decisions.
In delegative democracy, a vote can be delegated to somebody and taken back fluidly at any time, which is why it is sometimes called liquid democracy. Since every citizen has at least 200 votes spread over dozens of projects, plus all the votes that they’ve earned through their workshares, there are too many decisions to take part in. For the quality of decision-making to stay high, it is imperative that everybody chooses wisely which votes to take themselves and which votes to delegate.
You should really only participate directly in decisions you are familiar with and in which you have some basic level of expertise. All other decisions should be delegated to people with more knowledge and understanding and who share your values. When the right people are authorized to act on behalf of a project, all members of the project benefit.
Admitting outright that you are not knowledgeable in a certain field is good for the project and should be made easy and publicly acceptable. In every cell a citizen participates in, citizens should choose a default representative for situations where they are unable to engage with the issues themselves.
The twenty-fifth hypothesis is that:
In delegative democracy, a vote can be delegated to somebody and taken back fluidly at any time, which is why it is sometimes called liquid democracy. Since every citizen has at least 200 votes spread over dozens of projects, plus all the votes that they’ve earned through their workshares, there are too many decisions to take part in. For the quality of decision-making to stay high, it is imperative that everybody chooses wisely which votes to take themselves and which votes to delegate.
You should really only participate directly in decisions you are familiar with and in which you have some basic level of expertise. All other decisions should be delegated to people with more knowledge and understanding and who share your values. When the right people are authorized to act on behalf of a project, all members of the project benefit.
Admitting outright that you are not knowledgeable in a certain field is good for the project and should be made easy and publicly acceptable. In every cell a citizen participates in, citizens should choose a default representative for situations where they are unable to engage with the issues themselves.
The twenty-fifth hypothesis is that:
25. A cell’s votes should also be split up thematically. Depending on what is being decided on, the same votes can be delegated to different experts or representatives. Questions regarding a project’s finances can be delegated to person A, questions regarding technical issues to person B and questions regarding, say, public relations can be retained by the citizen themself, all at the same time.
By delegating votes in this manner, an organic leadership structure also emerges in the cell, complete with leaders and middle management. The person with the most delegated votes acquires a leadership position on that particular issue. When necessary, projects can also have an explicit vote for a leader. Leadership positions would thus be fluid, temporary and made possible by the active consent of the governed.
Leaders should have very little formal power and their leadership should mostly take the form of thought and opinion leadership. Those with the best ideas and solutions are validated with delegated votes or votes that are directly copied from them. As delegated votes between issues and people continuously ebb and flow, leadership positions are never permanent. Leaders serve the project, and when they cease to do so, they seamlessly relinquish their position to the next person with the most delegated votes.
By carefully choosing the cell you work for and fund, every citizen creates a unique portfolio of cells for which they act as a decision-maker. This also means that citizens are shut out from making decisions in the cells they have not earned any votes in. The weight of a citizen’s opinion in a given decision is proportional to the number of votes they have earned and how many votes the cell has issued over all.
Every cell is made up of two sides: its supply side and its demand side. On the supply side, cells issue votes to their workers based on their contributions, and on the demand side the customers receive votes in direct proportion to their subscription. A cell thus has two types of votes: demand-side votes and supply-side votes. Certain questions and decisions are decided by votes on both sides and some by only one of the sides.
Cells have the right to create their own voting rules, as long as they are public. Everybody is encouraged to acquaint themselves with these rules before signing on either as a worker or as a customer. The public profile of a cell informs who actually wields the power in the project. Bad voting rules discourage workers and subscribers from participating, which acts as an incentive to keep the process fair and open. Voting is a type of a feedback loop and different electoral rules produce different results. We should be patient enough to search out the best practices over time.
The proposed democratic practices might appear dizzying at first, but they play a crucial role in steering our planet towards a better future. Good decision-making is characterized by legitimacy, responsibility and expertise. Creating the correct feedback loops and signal pathways allows us to become receptive to the wisdom our collective intelligence has to offer. This understanding produces better functioning projects that in turn produce a better functioning society.
Leaders should have very little formal power and their leadership should mostly take the form of thought and opinion leadership. Those with the best ideas and solutions are validated with delegated votes or votes that are directly copied from them. As delegated votes between issues and people continuously ebb and flow, leadership positions are never permanent. Leaders serve the project, and when they cease to do so, they seamlessly relinquish their position to the next person with the most delegated votes.
By carefully choosing the cell you work for and fund, every citizen creates a unique portfolio of cells for which they act as a decision-maker. This also means that citizens are shut out from making decisions in the cells they have not earned any votes in. The weight of a citizen’s opinion in a given decision is proportional to the number of votes they have earned and how many votes the cell has issued over all.
Every cell is made up of two sides: its supply side and its demand side. On the supply side, cells issue votes to their workers based on their contributions, and on the demand side the customers receive votes in direct proportion to their subscription. A cell thus has two types of votes: demand-side votes and supply-side votes. Certain questions and decisions are decided by votes on both sides and some by only one of the sides.
Cells have the right to create their own voting rules, as long as they are public. Everybody is encouraged to acquaint themselves with these rules before signing on either as a worker or as a customer. The public profile of a cell informs who actually wields the power in the project. Bad voting rules discourage workers and subscribers from participating, which acts as an incentive to keep the process fair and open. Voting is a type of a feedback loop and different electoral rules produce different results. We should be patient enough to search out the best practices over time.
The proposed democratic practices might appear dizzying at first, but they play a crucial role in steering our planet towards a better future. Good decision-making is characterized by legitimacy, responsibility and expertise. Creating the correct feedback loops and signal pathways allows us to become receptive to the wisdom our collective intelligence has to offer. This understanding produces better functioning projects that in turn produce a better functioning society.
