Democracy 2.0 – Simple Protocol & Israeli Relevancy

All Large-scale Democracies ‘tolerate’ dysfunctional divergence problems, including: (A) the motivation, ethics, and persona of Most Candidates; (B) representatives’ empathetic detachment from ‘regular people’ in their constituency; (C) legislators’ ‘easy’ redirection by $pecial-Interests (Giga-corporate Giants, Fintech/Industry Lobbies, PACs, NGOs, Media, et​​c.); and (D) the responsibility-free anonymity of self-serving bureaucratic departments.

Of course, Small-scale (majority rule) ‘Direct’ Democracy 1.0 can be wonderful – likewise Medium-scale, ‘Structured’ Democracies (Parliamentary, Constitutional, Federal, Republic) ⇒ except responsive institutional focus deteriorates as populations and administrative agencies outgrow their original equity-regulating design dynamics. 

Democracy 2.0 describes a Self-Ballancing arrangement for: improving candidate quality, mediating their voters relationship remoteness, and alleviating susceptibility to disproportionate influences; which together may facilitate reHumanizing administrative document-review ‘services’, reThinking nationalization-privatization ‘dilemmas’, and reSuscitating government contractor transparency-liability; ‘even’ perhaps (?) eventually allowing society to miraculously ‘celebrate’ comprehensive taxation-complexity simplification [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2152860].

For Democracy 2.0, a post-modern technology protocol helps achieve these goals; specifically, using upgraded smartphones (in smartphone ‘saturated’ societies) as ‘personal’ ballot boxes. Furthermore, whenever you want to participate (vote), your smartphone will apply Best Methods to validate your identity; including only allowing this app when you are physically at your official residence. 

⇒ The ‘Basic’ Democracy 2.0 model asks each ‘regular’ voter to nominate their respective wisest/trusted person; the one person whom they prefer consulting for life significant decisions – since they expect that person to give them the best possible advice. 

Nominating is never a simple choice: visceral loyalties tend to perpetuate Nepotism, while cognitive sincerity strives to build Meritocracy. Likewise, some ‘instinctively’ nominate ‘royalty’, a popular singer/actor, or a wealthy ‘trend setter’; while others ‘thoughtfully’ nominate their Medical Doctor, Rabbi, Grandmother, or some World-Wise acquaintance. Whichever bias general voter populations exhibit, subsequent Democracy 2.0 aspects may altruistically improve these tendencies; regardless of innate Nepotism-Meritocracy ‘imbalances’ or entropy. 

Here is the ‘regular’ voter’s ballot structure:

You will be asked to nominate The Best Individual whom you most trust to give timely advice regarding any of your life-significant situations; such as some: medical procedure, crisis response, marriage or divorce decision, your child’s education/socialization, financial strategy, etc. Your reasonable expectation is: IF this person does not feel qualified to take responsibility for answering your life-question, THEN they will consult their wisest (most knowledge appropriate) friend to advise – about how to answer you. 

No need for you to have actual contact with your nominee; although it is preferable to have a personal relationship with them. IF this person is already on your contacts list, THEN you are almost ready; OTHERWISE, you must find this person’s contact information and add it to your contact list. This gives you freedom to choose some ‘famous’ person or targeted-advertising ‘candidate’; since you may believe them to be wiser than your most sincere intimate contact. On the other hand, a nominee will never be certain of your nomination; even if you ​tell them, send them a screenshot, or publicize it; nor will they know how many people nominated them. 

Now, AFTER checking your contact list AND validating your identity, you will be asked TWO ‘Basic’ Democracy 2.0 questions; then, to review your answers – before certifying them.

Q1: IF nominated: Are you willing​ to accept nomination? -OR- Would you prefer for your nomination​​ to be forwarded​​ to the person whom you nominate? (Note: willingness to accept nomination is equivalent to nominating yourself)

Q2: From your contact list: Select one person as your forwarding nomination; appreciating that their direct-or-default status may be determined according to your nomination -plus- the weight of nominations you may receive from others. 

Good to Know BEFORE you resume & affirm your Q1/Q2 answers: IF you accept nomination (Q1) -and- IF your weighted nomination is above a predetermined ‘personal’ threshold, THEN your contact details will be shared with other such thresholded-nominees – so that (over the course of a year) you can communicate with many of them before casting your vote For a (Government Competent) Delegate → to a higher level of: wisdom/trust, -and- Responsibility. Basically, nominee-you will be voting: (R1) for yourself (IF you agree to accept Delegate-status – AND IF above the ‘next-tier’ threshold) -and- (R2) for one of the other nominees [just like Q1/Q2].

Privacy 1.0: After you have made, validated, and cast your Q1/Q2 answers, your smartphone (operating almost anonymously ⇒ working in a quasi-blockchain mode) will NOT allow you or anyone-else (with or without your phone) to know your Democracy 2.0 choices. Also, without ever reminding you what those choices were, you will be allowed to: inherently renew -or- subjectively change your choices; at any time After at least one year has passed since your earlier voting. However, IF your nominee dies or is incapacitated, you will be requested to answer Q1/Q2 again.

Privacy 2.0: As a ‘regular’ wisdom/trusted nominee, to help you perform your R1/R2 responsibilities, you will know some-other thresholded nominees’ personal identities, be able to study their ‘platform’ and to communicate directly with any of them. Given that their invisible constituency has already ‘elected’ them as wise/trusted, Democracy 2.0 will-not/can-not publicly disclose their identities; it being preferable for nominees to dedicate their ‘available’ time & effort to personally engaging with other nominees. 

Nominee-&–Delegate privacy is accomplished via decentralized identification (a respective N/D centric algorithm) wherein each N/D requests from all their contacts – to respond IF they are an N/D -AND- as NECESSARY (quasi-recursively) propagating to all contacts (of their contacts) to respond IF they are an N/D (only UNTIL the centric N/D ‘knows’ of at least nine fellow-N/Ds); thereafter, these quasi-proximate N/Ds ‘may’ share/suggest other N/D identities ‘they’ are aware of ⇒ accordingly, there is never any compilation identifying most ‘regular’ N/Ds [https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2001086373 -and- “Mapless-Networks” therein]. 

About weightings, thresholds, and voting among nominees: 

Weightings: Dynamically configuring a ‘decentralized’ (nomination weighted) self-organizing directed network ⇒ the ‘quasi-blockchain mode’ accumulates nominations you receive into: a sum of those who forwarded nomination to you plus ‘aggregate’ nominations received by them (including respective Encrypted identifier-concatenated nomination Histories), and carefully & anonymously checks for loops (cyclic subgraphs of any size) → breaking these loops at each early accepting-nominee who is above threshold; then (even if this returns in some mega-looping to an earlier below threshold nominee) allowing preceding partial accumulations to accrue for each ‘first’ person who is actually above threshold -AND- who was willing to accept nomination; otherwise Asking mega-loop (Top-Hierarchy) ‘node’ members to reconsider their Q1(R1) responses, and (AFTER an extended response-Waiting interval) globally ‘resetting’ these members accordingly.

Thresholds: A ‘personal’ threshold is calculated at each smartphone according to how large their contact list is -for- actively communicating contacts → over the prior year. Ignoring contacts whom they do not communicate with, their ‘personal’ threshold should be their 1-sigma contact-community. WHY: A person who communicates with many others – but does not receive significant sum-plus-aggregate nominations – is not viewed by their (extended) contact-community as most wise & trusted. The ‘personal’ threshold only applies for ‘Basic’ (first tier) Democracy 2.0; since some relatively isolated individuals (be they austere-giants or simple-folk) ‘may’ also be wisdom/trust worthy of interaction with other nominees. 

Thereafter, for tiers of Delegate hierarchy Voting, weighting is not from the general population level; otherwise (‘personal’ threshold) ‘minority’ wisdom/trusted individuals would not have a fair chance to percolate up through strata of the Democracy 2.0 hierarchy. By fixing each ‘next-tier’ nominee-threshold (sum-plus-aggregate) at SIX, ‘higher’ tiers typically accept ‘about’ 10% of their respective prior/lower tier’s ‘members’. This indeterminate-tier stratification makes Democracy 2.0 equally workable for large cities as for countries with many hundreds of millions of adults. Nevertheless, for medium & small cities, the standard ballot should be​​ a choice between: Keeping whichever Democracy 1.0 they have been using -or- Switching to Democracy 2.0.

By this protocol, ‘presumably’ the highest tier (forum) will be the wisest, trusted, -and- Most Responsible individuals in society; while it is extremely unlikely that there will be any obvious similarities among them: neither education, nor experience, nor age, nor political inclinations, nor economic status, nor religious orientation, nor any ​‘superficial’ aspect. Essentially, these are our ‘Ethical BEST & Intellectual BRIGHTEST’; and their public statements (as individuals -and- as our Diverse Forum of wisest/trusted responsible-persons) will significantly affect legal & administrative aspects of everyday life.

Summary: Without revolution or social upheaval -AND- without abandoning or radically altering Democratic 1.0 Legacy Institutions → essentially, the Democracy 2.0 remedy starts by accepting our interpersonal ‘valuation’ criteria difficulties – profound dissonances each of us manifest differently when faced with a personal preference (Merit/Talent -or- Honor/Status); for example: between the best person for a job and my relative who needs a job; between a person based upon their skills and a person of superior-ancestry; between someone who is qualified & competent for a position and someone who looks & sounds right; etc. 

Collectively, this ‘valuation-choice’ aspect​​ characterizes society’s maturity; believing in what is best -or- in what feels better. Histories of social robustness have been dissimilar for different tribes, proto-nations, and countries; as occasional episodic insufficiencies of Chiefs, Emperors, Presidents; Chancellors, Sultans, and Prime Ministers demonstrate. Yet many governmental Inadequacies, Excesses, and Injustices reflect upon mental/emotional/organic Imbalances, Abuses, and ‘Violations’ occurring behind a large preponderance of ‘ordinary’ domestic closed doors; which then feel reasonable & acceptable to the General Public → when expressed (manifested) as legislative grid-lock, administrative corruption, anti-public executive-edicts, police brutality, judicial tyranny, etc. 

There are no magic paradigms for sustainable top-down social improvement!

Self-actualizing mental health, causality-illuminating education, morals/ethics group therapy, and modest ‘acts of kindness’ all scale up from families & communities;​​ likewise the resultant benevolence of bureaucratic systems. Simply stated, a best collective authorizations depend upon ordinary ‘regular’ voters’ wisdom; and no laws, regulations, or enforcements will be more effective​​​​ than individuals ‘striving’​​​​ to wisely Mature, and to sincerely Share their actuality (happy or sad) with ‘caring-supportive’ family, neighbors, and friends; likewise, (Social-Cellular) Democracy 2.0 is according to our best understanding of Real populations.

Israeli Relevancy: Given Israel’s awesome asynchronous innovating activities, Democracy 2.0 may innately emerge from Popular-Viral usage of appropriately upgraded smartphones ⇒ rather than from: a coalition agreement -or- some ‘constitutional’ article. Eventually, an Israel National Democracy 2.0 protocol-model should acquire Representative Legislature status → to Debate, Compromise, and Revise-or-Affirm Laws by which we attempt to thrive ⇒ In harmonic-parallel -with- The Knesset! 

⇒ For Structural Details See: A Democracy 2.0 (four paragraph) context overview → which begins “Briefly, turning to…” in https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/judicial-legislative-executive-educational-reform/.

Bureaucratic latency, however abhorrent, will persist; yet drudgingly evolve; perhaps even slower than our various National & Religious judiciary institutions. This sober forecast is regardless of some (public or private) bureaucracies becoming: progressive socialist-activist organizations -or- becoming totalitarian-enforcement agencies -or- becoming mindless remote administrative-hives of programmed drones & clerical management clones; and independent of individuals acquiring positions of advanced responsibilities therein via ‘civil service’ exams, family connections, banal bribery, sexual favors, or persistent numbness. 

Nevertheless, I believe (our) Yichus & Protexia ‘culture’ can be Respectfully superseded by actualizing nominations, votes, and ‘responsible’ values from this (non-AI) Electoral Renaissance; and, as manifold Torah & IDF ‘ideations’ merge, an “Israel 2.0” shall suddenly emerge [https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-budget-happy-jewish-national-peace-plan/].

“It is, in some quarters, traditional to end such an essay on a Messianic note; so why should I ignore this practice? To wit, please acknowledge – the letter ‘Mem’ as a prefix means ‘FROM’, and the word ‘Siach’ means ‘DISCUSSION’. Thus, do I hope & ‘pray’ (yes i do) that ‘FROM our national simultaneous ongoing DISCUSSION’ we will merit to gently reorganize into something satisfactory to ALL; fulfilling the hopes & dreams of ALL our ancient & modern National Human Treasures: To be living ongoing emotional gratitude experiences -AND- (of course) to ALL live happily ever after.” [from near the end of https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/silent-mind-inner-voice/] //