Some people in the U.S. like to argue that the country is a republic, not a democracy, that the difference is in the representative nature of governance. They’ll argue that democracy is not a viable system of government, and then assert that the problems borne of democracy will be solved by an acknowledgment of the need for republicanism.
To this writer it’s utterly a distinction without a difference. Except for the occasional referendum, all our participation in governance is through intermediaries. Whatever you call it, republic or democracy, it has problems.
In high school I took a course called Problems of Democracy – of which there are many. But let’s face it, the biggest problem of democracy is democracy itself.
Problem of Democracy #1: Have you ever found yourself in a voting booth, faced with a ballot that asks you to vote for one of a list of candidates, all of whom are completely new to you, each vying for a position that is likely also unfamiliar?
When that happens, do you leave that part of the ballot blank? Or do you guess which candidate is best and fill in their little oval?
If that’s what you do, you have plenty of company. Let’s face it, each of us has occasionally been that classic uninformed voter, doing our part to commit a city’s or nation’s future to… who knows what?
Because, after all, it's “our civic duty to vote...” And in this case our vote was probably subconsciously influenced by advertising. Yes, you and I helped elect Mr. Super-Pac, the pol with the coziest connections to the big spenders.
Problem of Democracy #2: Every smart politician knows that there is a segment of the population whose members harbor a certain resentment that comes from their inability to understand the world’s complexities. Things are just a bit more complicated than they are equipped to handle. For good reason, they feel left out. Such voters constitute the prime target of the goebbelsologists.
Goebbelsology is the use by power addicts to manipulate the perceptions of this most easily manipulated part of any population, the ones who can be turned into the “True Believer” described in Eric Hoffer’s insightful book by that name. Their vote is determined by some simplistic bumper sticker slogan or a total susceptibility to emotional appeals, party lines and demagoguery.
Politicians know how to tap into the anger of such targets of unintentional ostracism – and into the votes that come with it. It involves two simple steps:
- Communicate with this audience using language and concepts that are suitable for a seven year old.
- Repeatedly suggest and assert that the elites constitute a monolithic cabal of intellectuals and academics, whose simple agenda is to keep power for themselves and away from you, the perplexed.
Normal angry voters are one thing, but those who have been told in very simple and direct language that their situation is the result of intention by the elites are an entirely different thing. They’re ready to hear from a demagogue a simple story telling them that all their problems, all their anxieties over their inadequacies, come from a particular group. That’s at its most dangerous when that group is an ethnic or racial group.
The perplexed are a hazard to civilization, but in normal times they seethe in a corner by themselves.
The danger arises when a nation’s economy sours, or when some affront to a nation such as the Treaty of Versailles provokes justified anger among a more mainstream population; or, in an updated example, a troll farm such as the Internet Research Bureau skillfully manipulates both the left-outs and part of the broader population.
That’s when autocrats and tyrants get elected.
The more there is to know about candidates and issues, the more complex life becomes, the stupider the system gets. Voters who are too busy to learn who and what they’re voting for contribute no more to public governance than the cognitively challenged voters.
And yet “Everyone, get out and vote” is the central message of democracies.
Problem of Democracy #3: Voting needs to be convenient and the methods and systems must be reliable. But just the suggestion that voters present ID is controversial and fosters counterproductive political battles. Elections in Venezuela, Russia, and many other countries are easily corrupted. Algorithms used by voting machines are distrusted. Almost no one listens to the ideas of brilliant voting systems engineers such as Ron Rivest. Paper ballots are viewed as the ultimate anchor of evidence, yet paper ballot systems can be subverted. Even when they’re not subverted it’s easy for a goebbelsologist to convince a population that they have been subverted.
Vote-by-snail-mail means that the vote is not a snapshot taken at a particular time but rather another source of manipulation and distrust in the voting process. A clever politician can appeal early in the snail mail voting period to the elderly portion of the population, which tends to vote early, and then wait until the day before the election to reveal an agenda that gets votes from younger voters but which is not so good to older voters.
There will always be national, state and provincial governments – those which govern areas that are defined by geographic boundaries – just as there will always be county governments in the U.S. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. No one knows what those Massachusetts county governments actually do, but we continue to pay taxes to them. (Actually they do run a useful county court system. And Norfolk County, a suburban Boston county that actually included farms in centuries past, still supports an agricultural school with its tax revenue, demonstrating that geographic governments will endure and will always find something to do.)
For nation-states, provinces, states and other geographically-defined jurisdictions, these problems will linger until the relevance of the jurisdiction itself fades in comparison to the digital or online jurisdiction, where indeed we have a solution to the Problems of Democracy.
As the world’s communities become increasingly non-geographic, a new solution presents itself for this changing, increasingly digital world.
That solution is
Optimocracy.
Just as complexity has changed the nature of the problem, the tools to fix the problem have also evolved. As organizations have realized the benefits of work-from-home, optimocracy starts with the tools of governance-from-home.
In fact there is a superb set of tools for the job that are virtually ignored by those involved in governance. That’s largely because technologists tend to understand the technology behind those tools but are not as knowledgeable as policy and governance people about how those tools should be deployed in governance. At the same time, the policy and governance people tend to be too intimidated by the technology behind those tools to put them to use. That’s particularly true because the tools are built on that most intimidating techno term of all: asymmetric cryptography.
For that reason we have worked to distill everything you need to know about asymmetric cryptography into a two minute video that is entirely free of technical language. Please view it now. Even if you’re familiar with asymmetric cryptography, this two minute video will show you how to explain it without getting technical.
Seriously, none of this will make sense until you watch the video.
Now, with the introduction of PKI-based identity and the other elements of the Authenticity Infrastructure, direct governance by individual members of geographically dispersed communities without complicating intermediaries is possible for the first time.
Because optimocracy is designed to serve communities of interest that exist independently of geographic boundaries, and because those communities typically convene in online space, they require a means of establishing accountability in the form of measurably reliable identity credentials. Residence in an optimocracy requires an x.509 identity certificate, supported by a minimum Identity Quality Assurance score specified by the given optimocratic community.
The word "qualified" also has a different meaning in the two systems. Any resident may participate in the governance of an optimocracy, regardless of age.
Optimocracy is a system of governance that assures that only the well-informed participate in governance. If that makes it sound like optimocracy is undemocratic, that’s understandable. But optimocracy is in fact more democratic than what is meant when we use the term democracy.
Universal suffrage – the right of everyone to participate in governance, the untouchable foundation of democracy, is preserved in optimocracy. Optimocracy disenfranchises no one – not even children. In an optimocracy, anyone may participate in governance.
And yet, optimocracy ensures that only the well-informed participate in the political process.
The reason optimocracy is more democratic than the representative systems of national and regional governments is the illustrated by the reason why municipal governments tend to foster more direct involvement than national or provincial and state governments. That’s because city hall is physically nearby. Unlike the hearings in your national capital, you can get to that commission hearing in person.
Activists, that is, people who show up for hearings and who make a point of getting face time with city councilors and other decision makers, tend to play a large part in the governance of cities, Activists tend to know what’s going on in a city department, who is on which side on what issue. That’s another reason why optimocracy is patterned on municipal governance.
Today, identity certificates plus the interned and an optimocracy server can put city hall on your desktop or phone. The government of a global community is always accessible. That permanent identity certificate allows citizens of that community to participate in the political process as one would with a city.
Because the optimocracy participant is represented by a digital identity certificate, the source of governance of a community that physically spans the globe is even nearer than city hall. It’s as nearby as your laptop or phone.
Governance By Commissions
The comparison with municipal governance goes further than the question of directness because, as with many municipalities, the governance structure is built on commissions. Effectively, cities are largely governed by people who show up at commission hearings.
(In many systems the word “commissioner” refers to the head of a commission, while “commission member” identifies the others in the commission. In other systems, including optimocracy, the word “commissioner” means “commission member,” while the head of the commission is referred to as the “moderator”.)
In optimocracy, a commissioner is anyone who has the time, interest, and intelligence required for regular participation in a commission’s debate on issues. Anyone may participate. However, in order to vote on a matter before the commission one must have participated in the debate leading up to the vote. No participation, no vote.
In an optimocracy as in a democracy, everyone who is qualified may vote. "Qualified" in both systems implies residency or citizenship. However, residency itself means different things in the two systems.
Online communities resemble municipalities, which are characterized as population clusters, as contrasted with nations and provinces that are defined by geographic boundaries. More particularly, optimocracy is inspired by "commission government." In this system, commissioners head different departments and collectively make policy decisions for the municipality. This structure differs from those with a strong mayor or city manager, as power is distributed among the commissioners rather than centralized. Each commission has executive authority over a specific aspect of the city's operations, such as public safety, public works, or finance.
In an optimocracy, any qualified member of the community may serve as a commissioner. However, in order to vote on a motion, the commissioner must have actively participated in the debate on the motion.
"Actively participate" means
- Be present for synchronous (e.g. video or synchronous text chat) meetings of the commission, where "present" means either contributing to the discussion with content or with single-character (e.g. emoticon) feedback at a frequency specified by the moderator of the commission;
- In synchronous meetings, the commissioner must respond within one minute to at least fifty per cent of random quorum calls presented by algorithm, by digitally signing a digitally a random nonce response signifying that the commissioner is present and paying attention;
- Be responsive in asynchronous meetings of the commission, where "responsive" means either contributing to the discussion with content or with single-character (e.g. emoticon) feedback at a frequency specified by the moderator of the commission;
- Pass a multiple-choice quiz to be presented immediately prior to the vote, where the questions and correct and incorrect answers in the quiz are written by any commissioner, one question maximum per commissioner, the purpose of the quiz being to ensure that each voting commissioner understands the arguments and positions of advocates of such arguments and positions before they cast a vote.
The system benefits from self-selection. People who aren’t mentally equipped to handle complex issues are as unlikely to participate in municipal governance hearings, as are people who don’t have the time, discipline, inclination, or patience to participate. That is as it should be. If one is not prepared to cast an informed vote, one shouldn’t vote. But there is no oppressive authority deciding who is and who is not qualified to vote.
Certainly a commissioner might represent a particular economic interest, but in optimocracy it’s difficult or impossible to sway votes with the kind of emotional, bumper-sticker-type appeals that the power addicts always use in order to manipulate the votes of those who don’t have the time or ability to understand the issues.
Back in the old days participants in municipal commissions had to physically get to a hearing room in city hall, typically at night after work and after the kids were in bed. That fact severely limited the number of people who were able to participate in municipal governance, and gave the elderly and the childless an edge.
That has changed. Now, accountably anonymous identity certificates and other PKI tools mean that commissions need not gather in physical space. Deliberations take place in synchronous (realtime) and/or asynchronous (forum-type) space, as the commissioners and moderators choose. Probably if the commission has members in widely separated parts of the world, asynchronous debate would be favored. All comments are to be digitally signed. In synchronous meetings, responses to randomly timed quorum calls must be digitally signed.
Leadership
Just because voting takes place in commissions does not mean that optimocracy succumbs to the indecisiveness of governance by consensus. As long as the moderator of a commission has a requisite level of support, he or she has a good deal of autonomy. Support is measured as a number between 0 and 1 representing a six month trailing average vote of confidence. That way, one unpopular decision won't tend to derail the chief's mission.
Each commission is led by a moderator, whose job is to keep order. There’s also a chief moderator of the whole community who has a substantial amount of power – but nevertheless can be easily removed according to optimocracy’s method for choosing and retaining moderators.
The Optimocracy Voting Formula for Leadership Choices
Moderators are elected by members of their commission according to a continuous plurality or majority vote. Each commissioner must at all times maintain a standing vote of confidence, no confidence, or neutral in their moderator.
The result of the standing election works according to the formula
y=12sin0.01x+60
where
y = per cent of standing vote required by either incumbent moderator or challenger to win
x = number of days the incumbent moderator has been in office.
Thus a moderator has alternating periods where she can be more assertive without fear of being tossed out, and periods of vulnerability, where she needs to be extra mindful of her relationships with commissioners. The function addresses the age old question of whether strong, assertive leadership or sensitivity to the needs of constituents is more important. This accommodates both views.
Some might say that average people don’t understand trig functions and so would not understand how voting works.
Others might say, well, here’s an opportunity for commissioners to learn a little trigonometry.
At the time of the writing of the charter of an online community, the parameters of the formula y=12sin0.01x+60 may be altered, and other formulas may be adopted, such as one that uses the trailing-average vote of confidence. As long as the moderator of a commission has a requisite level of support, he or she has a good deal of autonomy. Support is measured as a number between 0 and 1 representing a six month trailing average vote of confidence. That way, one unpopular decision won't tend to derail the chief's mission. And anyway, the moderator’s power is limited in optimocracy.
Identity certificate details
While optimocracy can work with many online communities, it was conceived and designed to work with online communities that accept the City of Osmio as their administrative capital. The initial identity certificates issued by Osmio’s Vital Records Department are called “starter certificates” and allow authentication, digital signing, and management of decryption keys. As the name implies, they are intended to get the subject individual started on something more powerful: the certificate stack.
Very briefly, the certificate stack consists of a “foundational certificate” plus any number of “utility certificates.” The foundational certificate serves a purpose like that of your paper birth certificate: it’s used to support the claim of identity in credentials such as drivers’ licenses and passports that are used in daily life, but otherwise it is seldom used.
Among the many types of utility certificates are “persona” or “DL” certificates, which work like your car’s license plate: anyone can see it, making you accountable for what happens on public roadways, but no one gets to know the identity of the driver or owner unless there’s been an incident.
In contrast to the persona or DL certificate, which provides accountable anonymity, many other utility certificates carry the subject’s name or email address. Each community must decide whether all, some, or none of the utility identity certificates used by its commissioners must contain identifying information.
Learn more about Osmio’s certificate stack at https://osmio.ch .
Roberta's Rules, the parliamentary system used by optimocracy
Decisions made in the various commissions are made using a parliamentary system called Roberta's Rules, which is the adaptation of Robert's Rules of Order for an online deliberative body. Rules of debate, calls for questions, points of order, etc. are defined in the document “Roberta’s Rules 1.0” .
Additional information about, and specifications for, Roberta's Rules may be found at https://www.robertasrules.org/ .
Improving the “worst form of government except for all others”
Optimocracy gives the intellectual heirs of Churchill some hope that a newer, better “worst form of government except for all others” will result in governance that’s not perfect but which is hopefully less, well, mindless than what we’ve come to expect. No IQ tests, not imposition of eligibility requirements; simply the fact that those most susceptible to the appeal of demagogues will not have the discipline, patience, and intellectual ability to follow the complex processes of governance.