You are hereDemocracy / Personalized Democracy Benefits
Personalized Democracy Benefits
Structure of Greek Democracy
The structure of Athenian Democracy ( 550BC ) had the following key parts:
1. Each “representative” had one vote
2. The majority of votes cast “won” the vote
Problems with modern democracy as practiced
1. Tyranny of the Majority
The most significant problem with modern democracy is the concept of MAJORITY RULE. In critiques of democracy, this is referred to as the TYRANNY of the MAJORITY. What makes it a problem is that it directly conflicts with PERSONAL FREEDOM. In short, once 51% of a population makes a decision, the other 49% do not get what they want. To date, society has not been able to solve this dilemma.
In the U.S., a major step toward a solution was the creation of the BILL OF RIGHTS. This set of Constitutional Amendments attempted to protect citizens from the “tyranny of the majority” for a number of specific BEHAVIORS. While a good step forward, it still left 2 serious problems: 1. The number of personal freedoms protected is very limited; and 2. the wording of the amendments is so limited and lacking in logic that the freedoms keep coming under attack and are reevaluated. With the current structure of U.S. government, this puts the decision for implementation of the Bill of Rights in the hands of 9 judges, who are elected by representatives, who are “theoretically” voting the view of the majority.
2. Elected Representatives
Another significant problem is the use of elected representatives. There are two problems with that: 1. They are elected based on a majority vote system; and 2. They are subject to corruption by money and power.
3. Political Parties
A two party systems is not just arbitrary. There is a strong driver for this to be the operating structure when a majority wins rule is in place. That is, if political “parties” continually adjust to gain winning support, in a system where there are ONLY 2 choices for bills and candidates to choose from, then the political structure will follow that number of choices. If 3 forms of all bills were required, then a 3 party system would form. A 4 bill structure would generate 4 parties. But, any number larger than 2 creates a philosophical problem. Again, for a balanced situation, 3 bills could get decided with a 34, 33, 32 vote split ( approximately). But that would create a situation where only 34% could rule over a disenfranchised 65%. The ratio get’s worse for larger numbers of bill options. So, ultimately, a 51% vs. 49% ratio seems like the “best” possible option. This results in a 2 OPTION choice for bills.
Personalized Democracy – a Structure for a New Democracy
The A3 model for democracy, referred to as Personalized Democracy, solves all these problems.
In short, Personalized Democracy is a process in which each citizen directly presents their viewpoint or vote on any issue appropriate for mass decision. However, and this is the key difference between A3 and conventional plural forms, the expressed viewpoints or votes are not used to decide between existing bills. That is, the public is not asked to vote for bills that are already written. Instead, the citizens are asked to go through a 2 step process: 1. To submit ideas related to the general concept of an issue; and 2. To then vote, in the form of “selecting”, many individual preferences from a large list of choices. It is then the job of the representatives, who would have been “elected”, not on popularity, but for best specialty skills, to create a working “bill” which optimizes the performance of the bill to achieve the balance of ALL the votes while incorporating ALL the choice selected by the citizens.
Here is why this works.
o The tyranny of the majority is GONE! There is no majority. Each person will be given what they ask for, with the optimal ability of the population of their fellow citizens to provide it.
o The incentives for elected representatives to corruption are minimized because their ability to strongly influence any part of a bill is small.
o The political party problem is solved because they no longer have the ability to control the outcome of a bill. They will still be useful to gather and promote information about candidates and causes, but not to make decisions about what is done.