Redesign Democracy in the USA (part 1)
Think like an engineer. Build a better system.
1. Introduction
Have you ever noticed that the US political system is broken? The problem is easier to fix than you might think.
After reading this article, you will understand:
The urgency of fixing our democratic system.
The technical reasons why our elections are broken.
What a real solution looks like.
This is my plan to fix the US Congress and Presidency.
2. Why redesign it now?
Human civilization faces many existential threats. The danger from these threats is not constant: It grows over time as technology advances. Today, the threats we face are serious; but in 100 years they will be overwhelming.
We could do everything right and still fail to save our civilization. To give ourselves the best chance, we need a government that is efficient and legitimate.
Efficiency: We cannot be paralyzed by political gridlock. We need to legislate and govern efficiently.
Legitimacy: Saving civilization may require unpopular policies. In the long run, such policies would only be tolerated from a government that deserves the respect of the people.
2.1 Existential danger is growing at an increasing rate.
Our civilization is in deep shit, and it will only get deeper. Here are three examples to help you understand why.
The first example is regarding nuclear proliferation: The number of nations that possess nuclear weapons is growing at an alarming rate. Many such weapons are controlled by true psychopaths (e.g. North Korea). We hope for a new technology to mitigate this threat, but it may never come. Without such deliverance, the likelihood of a nuclear apocalypse will continue to grow.
The second example is regarding artificial intelligence (AI): Critical aspects of our society will become dependent on AI. Automobiles will drive themselves. Farm equipment will pick our food and herd our animals. Supply chains will be controlled by an AI, and we may lose control of it. We need an option to pull the plug on AI without destroying our civilization in the process.
The third example is regarding biotechnology: It is now possible to design catastrophic pathogens, and the technology to produce such pathogens (DNA printing) is not regulated. The price to purchase this technology is falling at an alarming rate. Currently, a well funded terrorist group could use the technology to create waves of illness and/or famine. As the price falls further, an individual with minimal funding would be able to do this by himself. Without proper oversight, it is only a matter of time before deadly pathogens take us down.
It is plain to see: Technological threats often have these properties:
The threat was created by a new technology.
The threat grows over time as the technology becomes cheaper, easier to master, or more prevalent in our society.
These properties are typical of countless other threats that we face. It is why the danger will grow at an increasing rate over time.
Our current government was not designed as a bulwark against this growing danger, but something needs to be. I believe that our government should be responsible for protecting us from overwhelming technological threats.
2.2 Time for redesign is fleeting.
Our civilization has reached a certain level of advancement. As we move forward along our path, the decisions that we make will constrain the remainder of our journey. We can never go backwards to a prior point in time, we can only go forward; so we must be careful about our decisions along the way.
To be on the safe side, let us assume that 99% of our possible paths will lead to our extinction, so we have a 1% chance of survival. We need to design a government that gives us the best chance of survival against slim odds.
It is obvious that our current form of democratic government is too dysfunctional, inefficient, and fragile. It will be unable to facilitate our survival if the odds are slim.
Why act now? Because the danger only gets worse over time. Now is the safest time to redesign our government, with all the extra short-term risk that this entails. We should not wait until hell is upon us, it will be too late by then.
3 The problem is system level.
People always blame the political ecosystem: The politicians, lobbyists, media, corporations, etc. We can easily reset this ecosystem by solving certain technical problems with our elections.
Our current election system is based on the geographic boundaries of states and congressional districts. Within each boundary, we have a winner-take-all contest to elect a representative (or senator or presidential elector). This system is terrible: It creates a massive and tragic distortion of the body politic and it needs to stop.
It creates 2-party “binary” polarization, also known as the political duopoly. Moreover, it creates a dynamic where each party is over-influenced by its extremes. The political center is tragically under-represented.
It creates a huge ideological distance between each voter and their “representative”. This deprives all voters of true representation. In turn, this creates a leadership vacuum that would otherwise be filled by true representation.
We can build something better. I will show you how.
4 A new system will solve it.
Think like an engineer. Design a system that has these properties:
It elects a Congress that reflects the will of the voters, not some tug-of-war between two groups of extremophiles.
It elects a president that has broad based support, not someone vetted by extremists within a political party.
It magnifies the impact of intelligent thinkers, thus facilitating the defense of human civilization.
It allows for candidates who are relatively unpopular (at first) to gradually establish popularity. This makes it harder for powerful entities to control the selection pool of politicians.
4.1 Redesign the Congress.
Congress should represent the will of the people, or preferably a more enlightened version of that will.
4.1.1 Vote exchange
Let’s take away the geographic boundaries within our nation, just for the purpose of the congressional (and presidential) election. Instead, let’s say we have 250 seats (or whatever number you like). Each citizen casts one vote for a candidate. The candidates trade votes until a threshold is reached. The top 250 vote getters are elected.
This voting system creates true representation. You get 250 representatives with 250 distinct points of view, each of whom have a strong affinity to 1/250-th of the population. Each representative has an opportunity to provide true leadership to their segment of the population.
It creates legitimacy because you actually have a representative democracy. Legitimacy will empower the government to make hard decisions, and this is necessary for adequate defense of civilization.
It destroys the political duopoly. There is no way for two political parties to manipulate or control this type of vote exchange. In all likelihood, political parties would simply vanish.
It destroys deadlock and hyper-partisanship. Since it weakens (or destroys) political parties, it destroys the mechanism by which extremists within each party can stifle compromise.
A political center will coalesce and rule.
4.1.2 Two houses: Commons and Brights
For the first time ever, the vote exchange system will create actual representation for the population. This has never been tried before, and it might be dangerous. Why? Because the population (as a whole) is not especially smart or virtuous. Thus — Empowering a veridical representation of your population is not guaranteed to produce good outcomes, and it might produce bad ones.
We do not expect a majority of the population to think properly about the threats we face. Therefore we need to amplify the power of people who can think clearly about such things. We can do this by creating two houses of Congress as follows.
4.1.2.1 House of Commons
Each citizen above 18 (or whatever age you like) gets one vote for the House of Commons. The vote exchange system is used, and 250 representatives will emerge in this house.
The intent is for this house to serve the needs of all people while protecting them from the prejudices of the other house.
4.1.2.2 House of Brights
Each citizen will take an intelligence test. The top 20% of each gender will get 1 vote for the House of Brights. The vote exchange system is used, and 250 representatives will emerge in this house.
The intent is for this house to protect civilization and advance science responsibly.
What kind of intelligence test? One that measures knowledge of basic scientific facts and mental agility related to critical thinking and problem solving. Other types of intelligence would not be measured.
4.2 Redesign the presidential election.
This is easy: Every citizen votes for the person they like. A vote exchange exchange is used to select a small set of candidates (say 5) for a runoff election. The runoff will use Ranked Choice Voting to select a winner.
This method destroys the political duopoly (as discussed above). Political parties would likely vanish.
The runoff election creates a process where the winner is vetted by the population in a final election contest. It allows the voters to have a direct stake in the selection of their President.
This method allows a centrist leader to emerge: Someone who can provide true leadership for the entire population.
4.3 Maximize voting convenience.
Inconvenient access to the voting system is a major problem. It disempowers people who are too busy for political hobbyism.
Here are some ways to increase the convenience of voting.
Allow people to verify their identity with biometrics in case they lose their ID.
Allow people to vote months in advance.
Allow people to change their vote anytime from home until the election ends.
5 In lieu of a proper redesign, support Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).
I am proposing a major redesign, but it will be difficult to enact from the current duopoly-based political system. There is one thing that we can do to improve things. Call it a step in the right direction.
In lieu of the major overhaul that I have just described, we can support Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). This is another technical change to our election, and it tends to produce candidates who are less partisan and more acceptable to voters. Please go learn about RCV and make a donation. This work needs to be done at the level of each state.
To be clear: RCV is a step in the right direction, but it cannot be our final step. We need to keep going. My proposal for a major redesign will result in a vastly superior form of democracy, and reaching it should be our goal.
6 There is more to come.
This article is just the first part of a series.
Still to come: I will drill into the details of this new design and explore the consequences of adopting it.