Quik Thinking

 
« Back to blog

Tree of expertise

Having recently witnessed the large-scale confusion among the public caused by most propositions on the California ballot, I am now acutely aware of the downside to direct democracy: it forces decisions that require significant domain knowledge upon a largely uninformed electorate. The one advantage of representative democracy is that we can pay people to make informed decisions on our behalf. After all, without senatorial guidance, we plebes are liable to mistake the Internet for a truck. Fortunately, it is not hard to introduce this feature into direct democracy without losing any of the advantages it offers.


The solution is akin to a Web of Trust but it is a hierarchy rather than a Web and expertise is added to trust as the basis for the connections between people. On any given topic, unless you are an expert yourself, you can probably think of somebody else whom you know to understand the topic better than yourself and trust t make a better decision on issues concerning that topic than you would. In my proposed system, people would have the option of selecting microrepresentatives on each major domain of knowledge that is generally of importance in legislative and policy decisions (healthcare, economics, education, foreign affairs, etc.) as well as a catchall one for whatever doesn't fall into those categories. Whenever an issue came up for a vote, people would be able to use their vote plus any that were conferred upon them by people who picked them as microrepresentatives. These microrepresentatives would usually just be regular people that they already know and so the microreps in turn would generally pick somebody who knew even more than they did about that topic, causing the votes to flow up the tree, until you ended up with all decision-making responsibility for a certain domain concentrated among a small group of people by default, much like the system we have now. The key distinction would be that people could always override their votes for a particular issue if they wanted to. 

This system effectively turns a "refrain from voting" into a cascading "ask my friend instead". Assuming we can implement this as an open system instead of outsourcing it to evil companies like Diebold, I think it would be entirely superior to representative democracy.

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments (5)

Nov 08, 2008
Stephanie Lim said...
Sometimes I think we'd be better off with a judicious king.
Nov 08, 2008
Antonio D'souza said...
That's actually a great idea but it has one problem: succession. Even
the most benevolent of kings suck at picking the next one.
Nov 08, 2008
Stephanie Lim said...
how about an elected king.
Nov 08, 2008
Antonio D'souza said...
Dictator-for-life. That's fine if the elected ruler can be deposed by
popular will. Kinda like removing the term limit but allowing for
something like a vote of no-confidence.
Nov 08, 2008
Adam Spitz said...
A couple of questions:

- Do we keep the choices-of-microrepresentative secret? (If not, I'd be worried about people buying or coercing other people's votes. Even if the only information they get is how many people delegated to them, that might still be enough to enable that kind of thing.)

- Do we keep the votes-on-the-issues secret? (If not, then we're back to vote-buying. But if so, then you don't even have any way of knowing how your representative voted on each issue. Which might not be a bad thing - I don't think transparency is always good - but it's something to think about.)

I don't mean to sound like I'm defending our current system; it's got similar problems, and other problems too. And maybe there's a way to make all this stuff work. I can easily imagine that a direct democracy like this could be better than what we've got now. But I have a feeling that we could use a more radical change anyway - I'm worried about the "politicians are corrupt" problem, but I'm also worried about, for example, the "people keep voting for policies that don't actually have the desired effects" problem, and it doesn't seem like having a direct democracy or a more flexible representative-choosing system would help much with that. (I'd still kinda like to try something along the lines of the futarchy idea.)

(Then again, radical change seems unlikely. And moving to an Internet-based system like this might make it easier to move to a weirder Internet-based system later. Hmm, or it might make it harder, if people get sick of all the fiddling around. I dunno.)

Leave a comment...

 
To leave a comment on this posterous, please login by clicking one of the following.
Posterous-login     Connect     twitter