Direct democracy

Main article: Political systems

Main article: Community

Main article: Philosophy of John Rawls

Our system is uniquely positioned as an experiment in direct democracy. The debating, voting, and, by extension, policy making infrastructure is already there in the concept we have so far. It would seem that we could easily transform these elements into a government in which “the people” make and decide on policy details.

The usual critique of direct democracy is that normal people don’t have the time or inclination to pass laws and make regulatory policy to enforce those laws themselves. Furthermore, in places where direct democracy elements exist (like referenda), “the people” choose incompatible goals such as balanced budgets, lower taxes, and more spending. This is, presumably, because the people don’t pay any price for holding contradictory positions and can vote in the referendum any way they want. These are valid concerns and the rating system we are contemplating may be able to mitigate some of them.

First, just the fact of a referendum (or a state that has them) does not imply a direct democracy with all the attendant complications that such would entail. After a referendum, voters do not have to work out the details of resolving mutually incompatible goals. That is left to the rest of government which usually means representatives in a legislature, the state governor, etc.

Second, not everyone has to participate in a direct democracy to be effective. We've noted that the “miracle of aggregation” put forth by Caplan allows us to have a representative democracy even though most people cancel their vote out because they are too uninformed to participate meaningfully. Enough people vote knowledgably that our representative system “works”.

Third, our ratings system, as we’ve discussed, can use technology to find nuanced positions that would elude a traditional direct democracy effort. A traditional system using pre-internet technology (paper, the post office, physical conventions, etc) would be cumbersome indeed. Even one that utilizes modern methods of communication would be hampered, just as our legislative branch is, by outdated practices and the underutilization of computational potential. Our system’s algorithmic power, ability to process complex information, and attain consensus in a customized way makes direct democracy far more viable. Keep in mind also that what we are proposing can evolve at a much faster rate than our traditional three branches of government.

Finally, we should mention the primary benefit of direct democracy in light of our polarized politics today. Polarization is part and parcel a feature of a bipolar political alignment, one that treats the two major parties as holding all the cards of policy. We have seen why our system leads to two parties but parties are, fundamentally, organized around the notion of representative democracy. Their job is to advance candidates and get them elected. It is not to advance policy and get it elected.

Direct democracy, by contrast, will focus people on policy rather than candidates identified with a simple left/right distinction. This alone will help those who want to enact policy find solutions that make sense rather than lose themselves in ideological debates. Of course, not everyone will want to engage in the minutia of policy making. Those who don’t but still have an opinion will be able to express their general view, have it rated, and rate other such views. The final policy will then need to include a mechanism to reflect general views in the final technical language. Everyone will be able to vote, presumably, on the final policy that is enacted.