You are hereDemocracy / Personalized Democracy Summary

Personalized Democracy Summary

By admin - Posted on 28 March 2016

Most people would agree that true democracy is very difficult to achieve. In fact, to date, I am not aware of any government models in past or current discussion that even claim to comprehensively achieve it. For many years I’ve struggled with this question. I was very lucky about 15 years ago to stumble on some major discoveries in psychology and philosophy that opened new doors to solve the problem.

The concept I developed that does achieve the goal I call Personalized Democracy. For a quick overview, this summary lists a few of the most important pieces needed to implement it. These pieces are capable of creating a new form of democracy that achieves many of the FREEDOM goals of ideal democracy. What is presented has never been discussed in the popular media. To take advantage of these gains, society will have to make some significant changes. Anyone interested in what is presented here, can find more information at Personalized Democracy. And there is a lot more detail because the concept explored how to integrate the basic elements across most facets of culture. That is, what is presented here is part of a comprehensive model.

There are 4 major reasons true democracy has been so hard to achieve in the past:

1. The world didn’t have a workable model as a goal.
2. The bureaucrats didn’t and still don’t want to give control to the people.
3. Involving the people was a logistical nightmare.
4. Most “citizens” were illiterate or didn’t have access to the knowledge needed to make decisions.

Society now has the technology to solve #3 and #4. Personalized Democracy add #1. So this narrows the problem to #2. And that’s what modern protest movements are intending to do.

So, here are three new elements to implement a workable democracy.

1. A method to collect the opinion of every citizen that eliminates bias from the process. That is, we can finally collect answers from every person in society that are really what they want to tell us.

2. A method to condense thousands, or even millions of answers into a format that can be read and understood by individuals, or at most a number of small specialized groups. This means, every citizen that has something to say will be sure that what they say reaches and is read by key people in the government. The benefit is, when people know they are being heard, they will participate.

3. We need to give up the idea of majority voting. That is, we need to put the 51% number out of our minds. Why? It isn’t high enough. If 51% of voters say yes on something, what about the 49% that don’t get what they want? We need to push this way up toward 100%. Why haven’t we done this before? Because no one has figured out how to do it. Finally, there is a way.

The only reason political systems push decision making into yes/no decisions, is because society is brain washed by majority voting from the beginning. This is one of the major changes that are needed. We already do it in so many ways but just don’t realize it. For example, in the U.S., even with Obama Care, people can choose what level of healthcare they get. People worldwide have a wide choice of what education they get. We get to choose the type of car we drive, what clothes we wear. These are not yes/no decisions.


In a true democracy, when all the “opinions” are collected, there is no voting process. There are no bills that have to be voted YES or NO. The job of a true democratic government would be: to construct programs that give every single person what they asked for within the bounds of sustainability, equity, morality and rationality.

When this approach is first explained to people, many quickly try to think of cases to shoot it down. They offer some challenging examples. But when the examples are broken down with the principle of diversity in life, most quickly fall apart.

A short example of how this approach would work for a difficult issue may be helpful.


To address education, a National Opinion Call (NOC) would be sent to all citizens (number 1 above). It would ask a lot of questions. For each question, it would provide references so people could read as much as they want to learn about the history and goals of education.
Many citizens would provide responses – let’s say, 500,000 do. A new method (number 2) would be used to sort and categorize all the replies. It would also remove any biases.
A long list of citizen preferences (number 3) would be given to lawmakers. Each preference would also indicate what percentage of citizens had that preference, where they were located, and any special conditions that applied. To achieve total transparency, this document would be publicly available.
The task of the lawmakers would then be to construct a program that takes into account every preference, in proportion to the fraction of the population who had that preference.

Many people reading this will immediately say this is an impossibly complex problem to solve. Yes, if we are limited to Middle Ages processes. But, modern computer system tools can handle it easily.

When the program is developed in its preliminary form, a description of the program would be sent to every citizen to review. Note, “review”, not vote on. The new citizen role is to determine whether the proposed program responded well to everything they personally asked for. If something was left out, the citizen would say so. If the citizen saw something someone else brought up that they would like, they can add it. This would be corrected during the program review.

Of course, this raises the question, "why wouldn't everyone ask for everything?" The answer is that there is a price tag for everything a person requests. As part of their registration for the process, they would be given a tradeoff tool that helped them balance their budget.

Notice the changes in society this “Personalized Democracy” brings about:

1. All citizens not only “feel” they are listened to, they actually are listened to. Direct Democracy is achieved.

2. The condensation process achieves the following:
a. comprehensive capture of all opinions;
b. fully transparent public presentation readable by any person;
c. maintains the association between citizen and submission in a secure way.

3. Implementation personnel start with a comprehensive, unbiased, roadmap for action.

4. Because the roadmap is made public, the response of the implementation to public requests is fully accountable. Representatives are no longer needed to collect public opinion or gather public ideas or observations. This eliminates any chance of special interest influence.

5. Because program creation is “constructive” of all opinions directly, good ideas associated with former bills that are voted “no”, are no longer lost; bad idea that ride in on bill voted “yes”, are no longer included. The concept of “amendments” no longer has meaning.

6. Because there is no role for personal opinion bias in program development, corruption is no longer possible.

7. Because this truly implements a one-person-one-voice system that counters any government level intervention of special interests, and elements are included in proportion to request, there are no longer any minorities. Since people will “submit” a wide range of opinions and requests, wide diversity will be supported, but also integrated into the whole.

8. The political “wars” are largely eliminated because the “spoils system” is replaced by direct implementation.