An article in [[NOEMA]] magazine by [[Santiago Siri]] and [[Paula Berman]] exploring technological upgrades to the mechanics of democracy.

[[COVID-19]] has given us a chance to rethink many of our institutions. What would democracy look like, rethought from the ground up? [[Taiwan]] gives us a case study in how a tech-informed populace can vote with modern tools. [[Blockchain]] will likely be instrumental in the future, but is not mature enough yet. [[Quadratic funding]] is a [[Blockchain]]-related algorithm that can help ensure fair voting procedures.

The combined forces of democratic crisis and COVID-19 have presented the world with a historic opportunity to profoundly rethink the way governments operate. The inertia of the status quo — a major obstacle for those trying to innovate — suddenly lost its implacable force, and we became more compelled than ever to think of alternatives.

Getting to this point necessarily involves creating paths for a plurality of voices and perspectives to emerge. But what should a democracy look like in the internet era? One of the obstacles that hampers our ability to move forward is that imagining positive narratives around technology is a challenge in and of itself. Most of our science fiction is dystopic.

The pessimism about tech in the public eye reminds me of "globalism," and how a [[one world government]] sounded like obviously the right idea when I was young, then became synonymous with evil in so much of the public imagination.

Taiwan Can Help

Taiwanese democracy was born concomitantly with the internet, a historical coincidence that helped it develop perhaps the strongest civic technology ecosystem in the world. Citizens are technologically savvy and engaged. The government is cooperative and responsive.

See: [[Taiwanese Legal Crowdsourcing]].

Beyond the Nation-State

[[DemocracyEarth]], a project in [[Ethereum]] built by [[Santiago Siri]], offers an early example of [[Blockchain]] voting. But it appears these programs are still a long ways from political influence.

Criticisms of online voting abound, with the main vulnerability being that at the end of the day, whoever controls the voting software gets to control results. This leads to a very old question, first formulated by the Roman poet Juvenal in the second century: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Who watches the watchmen?

See: [[Blockchain Voting with Santiago Siri]].

Quadratic Funding

A lot of this section went over my head.

Quadratic funding consists of a matching mechanism that helps surface and distribute resources for public goods. Similarly, quadratic voting is a system that helps increase the diversity of decision-makers by empowering smaller groups to make their voices heard with a pricing mechanism that accurately signals whether the strong preferences of a minority outweigh the weak preferences of a majority. There are also decentralized autonomous organizations where members pool funds and vote on how to allocate them with governance rules that are formalized and enforced by smart contracts running on a blockchain.

In addition to decentralized networks, these different solutions are already being experimented with by forward-looking governments. For example, in 2019, the legislature in Colorado had to allocate $40 million over 100 different bills, but struggled with self-interest voting, given that most legislators were sponsoring many of the bills. After experimenting with different mechanisms without success, they decided to give quadratic voting a shot. “There was a pretty clear signal on which items, which bills, were the most important for the caucus to fund,” said Rep. Chris Hansen, who helped spearhead the initiative. Now the executive branch is using the same mechanism to facilitate decision-making among its different offices.

In the algorithm, extreme minority opinions are heard as loud as moderate majority opinions.

Filed in: [[Literature Notes]]

Related Links: [[Taiwanese Legal Crowdsourcing]]