Our ability to make good decisions is terrible. Let's say you have a country where one person gets one vote and everyone votes on everything – so 100% participation. Obviously, whatever the majority decides will be what most people want, right? Or at least be best for the most amount of people?
Let's look at some ways this can, and does, go wrong:
- Preference Falsification. People sometimes hide what they really want because of social or political pressure. Among other things this allows dictators to stay in power because everyone believes everyone else wants them in power. If they had perfect information, they'd realize how flimsy the dictator's support is.
- Introspection Illusion. We are bad at accurately knowing how much we don't know. If you don't know the details of a certain decision, but confidently think you do, then you might as well flip a coin to make the decision that will lead to your desired outcome.
- Poorly Designed Questions. Even the best designed questions have a lot of subtext and nuance baked in. One generally needs to go read a few explanations, analyses, and arguments to deduce what is really at stake for her personally.
- No Alternate Choices. The system described above does not allow one to vote for the best outcome, but rather the outcome they like best that they believe has a chance of winning. A system like ranked voting would allow us to see what result people really wanted without forcing them to strategize their vote.
So even in the unrealistic world of 100% participation and equal representation, we have good reasons to doubt the majority outcomes of a one-person-one-vote system.
What Can We Do
Humans have some built-in deficiencies that just aren't accounted for in the mainstream conception of voting and decision making. The ones outlined above are just a few of many (fear, manipulation, etc.). We need a system that accounts for and neutralizes these deficiencies to get the best outcomes.
Let's outline some goals:
- 100% Participation. I know I just called this unrealistic, but I'm going to show you how it's possible in a minute.
- Promote Wisdom. Not every voter or contributor is equally qualified to weigh in on every decision. Shouldn't we allow the most knowledgable to have pull commensurate with their knowledge that the voting community agrees is relevant?
- Real Time Metrics and Coordination. What if we could see how a vote in one direction or another would effect the results as they stand now? Or get an alert if outcomes have changed? We wouldn't need to rely on questionable polling to get a sense for where our fellow voters are at.
The main idea is that you can give your vote to other people. That way, if you're not present for a decision, you've still participated in the vote because you said you trust this person to vote in your place. Your preferences contribute to the outcome, albeit indirectly.
Now let's say each person in the group, like a country, has 10 votes to distribute. And let's say that decisions are categorized by subject matter. So some decisions are about food, some are about music, etc. This allows us to give our votes out to certain people depending on the category of the decision.
Maybe I trust Dan to make good decisions about intellectual property on my behalf, but I want Sarah to vote for me if the decision has to do with public lands.
Now we see a natural weighting of expertise, based not directly on any credentials a person may have, but the level of trust they have from people in the group on certain topics. There is also instant accountability. If one of your proxies makes a vote you don't like, you give your vote to someone else. The people in the system who consistently build support will reliably be the ones delivering the outcomes that truly make people happy.
No longer do we have a situation where I have to vote on an issue I really know nothing about. All I have to know is that I trust this other person to do the right thing, based on their previous votes and public comments. If they turn out to be frauds or deviate from previous policy preferences, they'll quickly lose support.
Some nice things fall out of a system like this. For one, the focus shifts to issues and outcomes rather than identity. Instead of me reliably being able to tell if I disagree with someone on an issue by their party affiliation, I might now side with a Republican on certain issues and a Democrat on others. A person can have broad support in a certain subject area without having to vote a certain way in many others in order to keep voters' proxies.
Second, since proxies are set in advance of a decision, it's possible to inform voters how their own votes might influence a decision. One could imagine an interface that showed you a probability of one outcome over another based on whether you give your proxy to this person or that person. The technical execution of that would be extremely complicated, but I think it's worth solving the hard problems for.
Third, it now starts to become feasible to have a large number of rolling decisions in an arbitrarily large group and still have 100% contribution. There may have been 100 decisions throughout the day, and I didn't directly vote on any of them, but I can see how my proxies influenced the outcomes and rebalance them accordingly.
Fourth, we can now start to see how good decisions could be made by all the members of a group and not just shareholders, elected officials, or the other flawed efficiencies we've previously relied on. This enables new types of organizations to form, such as user-owned platforms and non-cryptocurrency based Decentralized Autonomous Organizations.*
It's Not Perfect!
I'm not saying this idea is perfect, but it doesn't have to be. It just has to be better than what we have today. And I think the system outlined above is better by a mile.
The study of voting systems is not my expertise. It's a complex, theoretical subject and I don't have all the answers. Different voting systems reveal certain mechanics in human decision making that are not intuitive. We naturally feel that making a decision should be straightforward, and that we are absolutely able to choose outcomes that are in our best interest. But I think more and more we realize we need a system to account for our own biases, inaccurate perceptions, and imperfect information.
A future where we have such a system inherently avoids many of the societal problems we have today that we'd all like to fix. And perhaps it would allow us to tackle singular, catastrophic problems like climate change far more quickly and efficiently.
* Previous arguments against direct democracy cite people making impulsive, reactionary decisions. We tend to believe that the slowness of Congress can be a feature rather than a bug, because it keeps us from shooting ourselves in the foot out of impatience. A proxy voting system could be designed to mitigate this danger as well. Perhaps there are built-in deliberation periods for certain types of decisions, for example.
Uwezo wetu wa kufanya maamuzi mazuri ni mbaya sana. "Hebu tuseme una nchi ambapo mtu mmoja anapata kura moja na kila mtu hupiga kura juu ya kila kitu, kwa hivyo ushiriki wa 100%.""" Ni wazi kwamba, chochote ambacho wengi wataamua kitakuwa kile ambacho watu wengi wanataka, sivyo? Au angalau kuwa bora kwa idadi kubwa ya watu? Hebu kuangalia baadhi ya njia hii inaweza, na hufanya, kwenda vibaya: - Mapendeleo Falsification. Nyakati nyingine watu huficha kile wanachotaka kwa sababu ya mkazo wa kijamii au wa kisiasa. Hii inawawezesha wakuu wa serikali kubaki madarakani kwa sababu kila mtu anaamini kila mtu mwingine anataka wawe madarakani. Kama wangekuwa na habari kamilifu, wangetambua jinsi msaada wa dikteta ulivyo dhaifu. - Udanganyifu wa Kujichunguza. Sisi ni wabaya katika kujua kwa usahihi ni kiasi gani hatujui. Ikiwa hujui maelezo ya uamuzi fulani, lakini unaamini unajua, basi unaweza pia kurudisha sarafu ili kufanya uamuzi ambao utaongoza kwa matokeo unayotaka. - Maswali yasiyo na muundo mzuri. Hata maswali yaliyochaguliwa vizuri zaidi yana maana ndogo na mambo madogo-madogo yaliyo ndani yake. Kwa ujumla mtu anahitaji kwenda kusoma maelezo machache, uchambuzi, na hoja ili kuhitimisha kile kilicho hatarini kwa ajili yake binafsi. - Hakuna Chaguzi Nyingine. Mfumo ulioelezwa hapo juu hauruhusu mtu kupiga kura kwa matokeo bora, lakini badala yake matokeo wanayopenda zaidi ambayo wanaamini yana nafasi ya kushinda. Mfumo kama vile kupiga kura kwa cheo utatuwezesha kuona ni matokeo gani watu wanataka bila kuwafanya wafanye mkakati wa kupiga kura. """Hata katika ulimwengu usio wa kweli wa ushiriki wa 100% na uwakilishi sawa, tuna sababu nzuri za kutilia shaka matokeo ya wengi wa mfumo wa mtu mmoja, kura moja." """Watu wana baadhi ya mapungufu yaliyojengwa ambayo hayajafikiriwa katika dhana ya kawaida ya kupiga kura na kufanya maamuzi." Hizo zilizoelezwa hapo juu ni chache tu kati ya nyingi (hofu, udanganyifu, nk.). Tunahitaji mfumo ambao unahesabu na kutatua mapungufu haya ili kupata matokeo bora. "Tunaweka malengo kadhaa: ""Ushirikiano wa 100%.""" Najua tu niliita hii isiyo ya kweli, lakini nitakuonyesha jinsi inawezekana katika dakika. - Kukuza Hekima. Si kila mpiga kura au mchangiaji aliye na sifa sawa za kujihusisha na kila uamuzi. Je, hatupaswi kuruhusu wenye ujuzi zaidi kuwa na kuvuta sawa na maarifa yao ambayo jamii ya wapiga kura inakubaliana ni muhimu? - Real Time Metrics na Uratibu. Lakini vipi ikiwa tunaweza kuona jinsi kura katika mwelekeo mmoja au mwingine itaathiri matokeo kama yalivyo sasa? Au kupata tahadhari kama matokeo yamebadilika? Hatutahitaji kutegemea uchaguzi wenye kutiliwa shaka ili kupata hisia ya wapi wapiga kura wenzetu wako. Wazo kuu ni kwamba unaweza kutoa kura yako kwa watu wengine. Kwa njia hii, ikiwa haupo wakati wa uamuzi, bado umeshiriki katika kura kwa sababu ulisema unamwamini mtu huyu kupiga kura badala yako. Mapendezi yako huchangia matokeo, ingawa si kwa njia ya moja kwa moja. Kwa mfano, kila mtu katika kikundi ana kura 10 za kugawanya. Na tuseme kwamba maamuzi ni categorized kwa mada. Kwa hiyo maamuzi fulani ni kuhusu chakula, mengine ni kuhusu muziki, na kadhalika. Hii inatuwezesha kutoa kura zetu kwa watu fulani kulingana na jamii ya uamuzi. """Ninaamini Dan atafanya maamuzi mazuri kuhusu mali ya akili kwa niaba yangu, lakini nataka Sarah anipigie kura ikiwa uamuzi unahusiana na ardhi ya umma." Sasa tunaona uzito wa asili wa utaalam, kulingana sio moja kwa moja na sifa zozote mtu anaweza kuwa nazo, lakini kiwango cha uaminifu wanao kutoka kwa watu katika kikundi juu ya mada fulani. Pia kuna uwajibikaji wa papo hapo. Ikiwa mmoja wa wawakilishi wako anafanya kura ambayo hupendi, unampa mtu mwingine kura yako. Watu katika mfumo ambao daima kujenga msaada itakuwa kuaminika kuwa wale kutoa matokeo ambayo kweli kufanya watu furaha. """Hatuna tena hali ambapo ninapaswa kupiga kura juu ya suala ambalo kwa kweli sijui chochote juu yake." """Ninahitaji kujua tu kwamba ninaamini mtu huyu mwingine kufanya kitu sahihi, kulingana na kura zao za awali na maoni ya umma." Ikiwa watakuwa wadanganyifu au watatofautiana na mapendekezo ya sera ya awali, watapoteza msaada haraka. Baadhi ya mambo mazuri huanguka nje ya mfumo kama huu. Kwa moja, lengo hubadilika kwa masuala na matokeo badala ya utambulisho. Badala ya kuweza kusema kama ninapingana na mtu kwa suala fulani kwa ushirika wao wa chama, sasa ninaweza kuwa upande wa Republican katika masuala fulani na Democrat katika mengine. Mtu anaweza kuwa na msaada mkubwa katika eneo fulani bila kuwa na kupiga kura kwa njia fulani katika maeneo mengine mengi ili kuhifadhi wakala wa wapiga kura. Kwa sababu proxies ni kuweka kabla ya uamuzi, ni uwezekano wa kuwajulisha wapiga kura jinsi kura zao wenyewe inaweza kuathiri uamuzi. Unaweza kufikiria interface ambayo inaonyesha uwezekano wa matokeo moja juu ya nyingine kulingana na kama wewe kutoa wakala wako kwa mtu huyu au mtu huyo. Utekelezaji wa kiufundi wa hii itakuwa ngumu sana, lakini inastahili kujadiliwa. Tatu, sasa inaanza kuwa inawezekana kuwa na idadi kubwa ya maamuzi rolling katika kundi arbitrarily kubwa na bado kuwa na 100% mchango. """Huenda kulikuwa na maamuzi 100 siku nzima, na sikuchagua moja kwa moja yoyote kati yao, lakini naweza kuona jinsi mawakala wangu waliathiri matokeo na kuyaweka upya ipasavyo." "Kwa hiyo, sasa tunaweza kuanza kuona jinsi maamuzi mazuri yanaweza kufanywa na wanachama wote wa kikundi na sio tu wanahisa, maafisa waliochaguliwa, au ufanisi mwingine wenye kasoro ambao tumekuwa tukitegemea hapo awali. """ Hii inawezesha aina mpya za mashirika kuunda, kama vile watumiaji inayomilikiwa majukwaa na yasiyo ya cryptocurrency msingi Decentralized Autonomous Mashirika. * Si Jambo Kamilifu! Sinasema wazo hili ni kamilifu, lakini si lazima liwe hivyo. Ni lazima tu iwe bora kuliko ile tuliyo nayo leo. Na nadhani mfumo ulioelezwa hapo juu ni bora kwa maili. Utafiti wa mifumo ya kupiga kura si utaalam wangu. Ni mada ngumu, ya kinadharia na sina majibu yote. Mifumo tofauti ya kupiga kura hufunua utaratibu fulani katika kufanya maamuzi ya kibinadamu ambayo si ya intuitive. Kwa kawaida tunahisi kwamba kufanya uamuzi lazima iwe rahisi, na kwamba tunaweza kabisa kuchagua matokeo ambayo ni kwa maslahi yetu bora. Lakini nadhani zaidi na zaidi tunatambua tunahitaji mfumo wa kuelezea upendeleo wetu wenyewe, maoni yasiyo sahihi, na habari isiyo kamilifu. Wakati ujao ambapo tuna mfumo kama huo kwa asili huepuka matatizo mengi ya kijamii tunayo leo ambayo sote tungependa kurekebisha. Na labda itaturuhusu kukabiliana na matatizo ya kipekee, ya maafa kama mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa kwa haraka zaidi na kwa ufanisi zaidi. * Hoja za awali dhidi ya demokrasia ya moja kwa moja zinataja watu wanaofanya maamuzi ya haraka, ya kukataa. """Tunaelekea kuamini kwamba polepole ya Bunge inaweza kuwa kipengele badala ya mdudu, kwa sababu inatuzuia kutoka risasi sisi wenyewe katika mguu nje ya kukosa subira." Mfumo wa kupiga kura kwa wakala unaweza kubuniwa ili kupunguza hatari hii pia. Labda kuna vipindi vya kujadili vilivyojengwa kwa aina fulani za maamuzi, kwa mfano.