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.
This article covers:
The importance and urgency of fixing our broken democratic system.
Some reasons why our system is broken, all of which are related to the design of our elections.
What a real solution looks like.
In this article, we are literally going to redesign democracy in America by making some technical changes to our elections. Solving the design problem is the fun part. For most of you, this will probably be the first time that you have seen a way of actually fixing things.
Before we get into the fun part, first we need to lay some groundwork.
2. Why redesign our democracy now?
First we need to understand the sense of urgency. We also need to understand the primary challenge that we face as a civilization, then design a government to meet that challenge.
I don’t want to scare or depress anybody, but I want to start by considering the existential threat to human civilization. Unlike the founders of the US Constitution, we live in an age where we must recognize the constant threat posed by the technologies that we invent. So if we want to undertake a project of redesigning our government, then our survival should be an explicit goal of our design.
2.1 Existential danger is growing at an increasing rate.
The threat to our civilization will increase over time. 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, soon Iran). The likelihood of a nuclear apocalypse continues to grow at an increasing rate.
The second example is regarding artificial intelligence (AI). Critical aspects of our society will become dependent on AI. Cars and trucks will drive themselves. Robots will pick our food and herd our animals. Entire supply chains will be controlled by AI and we may lose control of it. If you are not concerned about this, then you don’t understand the situation.
The third example is regarding biotechnology. It is now possible to design catastrophic pathogens. The technology to produce them (DNA printing) is becoming cheaper to use. Currently a well funded terrorist group could use the technology to create waves of illness or famine. Eventually just one person with minimal funding could do it by himself.
Do you see the pattern?
A threat is created by a new technology.
The threat grows over time as the technology becomes cheaper, easier to master, or more prevalent in our society.
Many other threats follow this pattern. It is why the danger will grow at an increasing rate over time.
2.2 The greatest threat is Incompetent Rule.
We face many specific threats, but the threat of Incompetent Rule is special because it multiplies the risk of most other threats.
A competent government would take steps to reduce existential risk. An incompetent government, having supplanted a competent one, prevents that reduction of risk. An incompetent government may further multiply risk by taking specific actions, for example by funding dangerous research without appropriate safeguards. Therefore an incompetent government multiplies risk.
First key point: Incompetent Rule is the greatest threat to humanity.
Clearly we need to avoid Incompetent Rule. In America today, incompetent rule can be attributed to at least two underlying causes:
Decision makers lack the ability to render wise decisions, either because they lack aptitude or because they are preoccupied by distractions like politics and fundraising.
The government cannot behave competently because it is paralyzed by gridlock.
We need to design a system that explicitly mitigates the causes of Incompetent Rule.
2.3 Time for redesign is fleeting.
Just to be on the safe side, let’s assume that 99% of possible futures will lead to our extinction, so we have a 1% chance of survival. I don’t know what the real odds are, nobody does. Maybe they are better, maybe they are worse. Whatever the case: The stakes are huge, so let’s assume that the odds are bad. Let’s plan for the worst and hope for the best.
We need a government that gives us the best chance of survival against slim odds.
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 it entails.
2.4 What we need.
We could do everything right and still fail to save our civilization. To give ourselves the best chance, we need a government that has the following attributes:
Efficient: We cannot be paralyzed by political gridlock. We need to legislate and govern efficiently.
Competent: Our leaders should have the aptitude, time, and energy to think and act properly.
Legitimate: Ensuring our survival may require unpopular policies. In the long run, such policies would only be tolerated from a government that deserves the respect of the people. It needs to be a representative democracy for real, not just pretend.
3 The problem is system level.
We can fix the problem by solving some basic 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 winner-take-all contests to elect a representative or senator or presidential elector. This system is catastrophically stupid.
It guarantees a government held hostage by two political parties.
It guarantees a Congress whose views are out of step with the population.
It guarantees a President who is vetted by loyalists from within a political party.
It creates a government that is paralyzed by gridlock, inefficiency, and generalized incompetence.
We can build something better. I will show you how.
4 A new system will solve it.
This is the fun part. Think like an engineer. Design a system that has the following three properties:
It elects a Congress that reflects the will of the voters and 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 one political party.
It explicitly mitigates the greatest threat to humanity: Incompetent Rule.
4.1 Redesign the Congress.
We can redesign the Congress by redesigning our congressional elections. Basically we want a Congress that represents the will of the people.
4.1.1 Vote exchange system
The vote exchange system is the core component of my proposal.
Second key point: The vote exchange system is an optimal algorithm for finding a Congress whose views align with voters.
Let’s explore how this system works. We would ignore the geographic boundaries within our nation for the purpose of the election. Instead we would assert that there are (say) 250 seats which are unrelated to state or district boundaries.
There would be no primaries or caucuses. There would be a large set of candidates, basically unrestricted in size. Each citizen would cast their vote for one candidate regardless of their geographic location. The top 250 vote getters would win a seat in Congress.
Any candidate may transfer any portion of their votes to any other candidates. So candidates who are above the threshold of victory would transfer their surplus votes to like-minded candidates. If a candidate was below threshold, they might get lucky if they receive votes from other candidates; otherwise they would transfer all of their votes to like-minded candidates.
No vote would be wasted under the vote exchange system. When transferring votes, candidates would be expected to support like-minded candidates. That is why every vote loads precisely onto candidates having the political views intended by the voter.
This is important so it bears repeating: The vote exchange system ensures that every vote loads precisely onto candidates having political views intended by the voter. That is what makes it an optimal algorithm for finding a Congress whose views align with voters.
This voting system would create authentic representation. You would get (say) 250 representatives with 250 distinct points of view, each of whom have a strong affinity with 1/250-th of the population. Because of the strength of this affinity, each representative would have an opportunity to provide authentic leadership to their segment of the population.
This voting system would produce a legitimate government because it actually gives us a representative democracy.
4.1.2 Two houses: Commons and Brights
For the first time ever, the vote exchange system would 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 competent.
As I said earlier, we must explicitly design for competency. For this reason, we would design two houses of congress.
4.1.2.1 House of Commons
Each citizen above (say) 18 years of age would get one vote for the House of Commons. The vote exchange system would be used, and (say) 250 representatives would emerge in this house.
The House of Commons would represent all citizens, and protect them from prejudice of the other house: The House of Brights.
4.1.2.2 House of Brights
Each citizen would take an intelligence test. The top (say) 20% of each gender would get 1 vote for the House of Brights. The vote exchange system would be used, and (say) 250 representatives would emerge in this house.
What kind of intelligence test? One that measures knowledge of basic scientific facts and problem solving skills within the domain of science. Other types of intelligence would not be measured.
4.1.3 A newly designed congress
The House of Brights would explicitly bias the US Congress towards competency. This is important because competency is literally about ensuring the survival of our species. When the stakes are this high, the only people who should be allowed in the room are the ones who can think logically and clearly about basic reality. Our design reflects that, and it does so without under or over representing males or females.
The House of Commons is there to represent everyone, to ensure that everyone has a voice in their government. It ensures that everyone is represented because they deserve to be.
Before you complain about the fact that 80% of the population is being under-represented, let me just point out a couple of facts.
They would get far more representation from my design compared to what they are getting with the current US Congress.
Everyone benefits from a competent government because without one, our species would not survive, and there would be nobody left to complain about anything.
We need the Congress to be efficient, so we don’t actually want a congress that actually operates in two distinct houses. Instead the Congress would actually function as a single unified body where members of one house would have exactly the same importance as members of the other house. Within the Congress, a simple majority would allow most votes to pass; but certain votes, like proposed changes to the Constitution, would require more than a simple majority.
We just redesigned the US Congress by redesigning our elections. In future articles (not yet written) we will explore many more features of this new design. For now let me just say this: This new design is vastly superior compared to what we have today. I cannot wait to walk you through the reasons why.
4.2 Redesign the presidency.
We can redesign the presidency by redesigning the president election. One of our goals should be to elect a President who can lead the entire population, not just part of it.
Redesigning the presidential election is easy. There would be no primaries or caucuses. Instead there would be a large set of candidates, basically unrestricted in size. Every citizen would vote for the person they like. A vote exchange would be used to create a small set of candidates, say 5, for a runoff election. The runoff would be a second election that uses the Ranked Choice Voting system to select a winner from the set of 5.
The runoff election would allow a small group of 5 candidates to be vetted by the population in a final election contest. It would allow voters to get acquainted with the candidates before casting their final vote. It would produce a centrist leader: Someone to lead the entire population.
Third key point: If our goal is to pick a leader for the entire population, then Ranked Choice Voting is a great way to pick a President from a small set of candidates.
If you don’t believe me then go learn about Ranked Choice Voting. There are plenty of excellent resources online.
4.3 Taking stock of the new design.
This design would fix our broken government and probably our entire civilization. In my next article I will help you understand why. For now I will just plant the following flag.
My proposal emerges simply from three key points:
Incompetent Rule is the greatest threat to humanity and we must explicitly design for competency.
The vote exchange system is an optimal algorithm for finding a Congress or a small set of Presidential candidates whose views align with voters.
Ranked Choice Voting is a great way to pick a President from a small set of candidates.
I urge you to think long and hard about these points. If they are true then my design makes sense, and I cannot wait to convince you of that in the next article.
5 Some relevant links
YouTube video by Veritasium: Why Democracy Is Mathematically Impossible
Electoral system on wikipedia
6 Read on.
Part 2 explores the features of the system that I proposed.
Hello there, thanks for that article, i would like to add some staff
1-People need to be aware , not manupipulated, educated
2-There should be a eligibility level to vote, people need to have that eligibility by training and tests
3-Nomination for presidency shouldnt be on "party" basis
4-Supreme court members (or any justice authority like with difftent name) should be also choosen by the people who are eligible to protect goverment against presidency