Notes on re-imagining democracy

There's this very deeply embedded idea that democracy (the rule of the people) can only be possible with elements such as simple majority (50 + 1), representation (a proxy represents a sub-group) and partisanship (democrats vs republicans).

Simple majority, since you only need half of the voters at most to win, creates a very polarized discussion while leading to the passage of still widely (often close to 50%) unpopular laws. Partisanship leads to too many qui pro quo (I help you pass this law if you help me pass this one) and favors groupthink. Representatives often largely frustrate their voters and tend to create compromises based on geographically defined subgroups instead of abstract ideals. The whole mess leads to contradictory and complex laws with very many unrelated items that very few persons of "the people" can understand (and that "representatives" don't really read or understand anyway).

Looking at the often terribly messy, porky, corporate-influenced systems such as the United States various legislatures, most will give up and say "it's politics"...

However, it's important to get this right as many non-democracies tend to point at these less than ideal systems and say "see! democracy doesn't work as well as our dictatorship / repressive regime / centrally planned system!". Fist fights in parliaments don't help either...

However, there are many forms of democracy out there. For example, Nunavut has a non-partisan consensus government while Switzerland requires a double majority on constitutional matters.

With the advent of modern technology, such as instantaneous multi-point communication and ability to track in real-time billions of pieces of data we can implement many new and possibly better alternatives that could address some of the downsides of most established democracies.

If I were to try to imagine an ideal democracy, I would start by making it direct but with a very high threshold for passing new laws.

Issues could be raised with a simple majority supporting discussion on a neutral presentation of a subject/issue.

There would be no permanent representatives to discuss the issues but instead, on each individual issue raised, freelance "thinkers" (with hopefully some expert credential) that would explain in public forums their initial position and recruit supporters from the voter pool.

The most popular thinkers (selected on the basis of the supporters) on a particular issue would then be remunerated by the state to meet for a fixed duration and come to a possible consensus on a proposal that would finally be submitted to referendum with an high threshold (75%) to demonstrate wide consensus.

Wash and repeat for the numerous issues (and hopefully less of the non-issues) facing legislators.

The process would be highly automated and electronic, open (no hidden lobbies here) and easily accessible.

Of course, the idea is not that I have the perfect proposal yet but the hope is to encourage alternative thinking to come to a solution that is effective at creating the minimal set of reasonable and well thought out laws to make a political entity run well while maximizing voters interest and participation in the legislative process. Think "Wikipedia for bills"!

It would probably be best to fine tune this system on a small scale first, maybe by creating a "virtual government-in-waiting" somewhere to experiment while waiting for most constituencies to catch up on a certain political awareness and ease with modern electronic tools.

Researchable questions:

• How would issues to be considered (subjects of discussion) could be submitted?
• How well does the Nunavut system work in practice?
• How do we ensure that all citizens have access to discussions and voting mechanism?
• How do we make the participation system safe and secure?
• What kind of social values would be necessary to be make this work?

Notes on America

As a Canadian and a Quebecker, there's a vested investment in our neighbors (and currently my hosts) to the south prospering. With 77% of exports and and 52% of our imports (in dollar value, CIA World Factbook) going to and from the US and close political relationship we can't afford a sick country to the south - politically, socially or economically.

The US is a society that achieved greatness under pressure and gave an achievable "American dream" to many around the world, constructing a society made up of every ethnic groups allied in the search of happiness in an atmosphere where an equitable chance was afforded to most. A society that set an example (not by force, but by success) to many all around the world. And the USA is still home to greatness: world's best universities, Silicon Valley home of the top technological companies and a list of Nobel laureates that far exceeds, at 320, any other country.

But increasingly (not that the sentiment is new) the greater dream now seems soiled, dirty, unattainable. Surely the economic, cultural and increasingly military empire will last for a while longer but with the economy veering off track it seems that the dream can turn into a nightmare.

Lack of confidence from the population in government entities justified by ineffective governments and transformation from democracy to corporatocracy. An unworkable corporatocracy because of widespread (and again justified) increasing distrust of corporations.

An economy increasingly centered around the military industrial-complex which can only produce hammers in a world where every problem then looks like a nail. The continued slide towards imperialism accompanied by the inevitable widespread violation of the values and human rights.

Lost of real, true "friends" in the world adds to the uncertainty about and worry about the US future global competitiveness (culturally and economically).

In the meantime, reactionary and self-centered citizens are engaged in bitter social debates in all parts of the political compass. This is poorly represented and contained by two parties leading to unbalanced politics without nuance pulled between two extremes and no possible negotiation. This naturally leads to increasing screeching calls to violence towards those of opposing views with only empty nationalism and empty slogans trying to hold the citizenry together.

How do you get the dream back on track so that the nightmare doesn't infect others?

Notes on Modern Nomadic Life

From the ancient Phoenician trading in the Mediterranean to the warring Mongol empire to modern day immigrants trading skills, there has always been a strong impulse for a subset of humans in each competing society to up and go in search of better opportunities. Large diasporas made up of Chinese, East Europeans, Asians and including a large chunk of the direct descendants of the Phoenicians, Lebaneses.

Formed around city-states, Phoenicians mirror modern electronic nomads moving from metropolis to metropolises: San Francisco, New York, Montreal, Vancouver, Paris, Munich, Shanghai, Buenos Aires... Centers of composite multicultural societies or melting pots , they've far outproduced and out-innovated sedentary locals by exposure to a large variety of cultures in the same lifetime.

Whether genetic impulse or societal pressure or maybe both (after all, migration is part of the human experience), these movements have led to a global culture further extended in modern time by the Internet and air travel.

Strong and welcoming cultures to immigrants have created liberal and open-minded city-societies with an appetite for constant changes. Trading has moved from physical objects to ideas or at least ideas of physical products and the rate of exchanges has accelerated.

Modern nomads have few physical possessions and rely instead on their electronic assets as the center of their identity. Instead of buying souvenirs to collect dust, they keep their possessions light with a focus on consumables and digital copies. Their life is often anchored by sedentary family members and friends in many countries with which they keep contact through intellectual exchanges, common interests and local news that could have global relevancy.

Being well remunerated for their experience, skills and knowledge they move from countries to countries while staying connected. They often live in self-contained family cell of 2 to 4 individuals. They follow opportunities without any of mental and financial burden of mortgages, car loans or pets. Atheists or philosophical with few fixed traditions or with religions that are either very personal (portable) or for which centers of worship exists everywhere, they move around freely. To prosper, they favor tolerance and political neutrality but seek discussions and exchanges of views as a way to experience the world. Their closets are full of clothes and styles varying not only through time but through cultures. They are suspicious and critical of nationalisms and borders, politicians hostile to immigrants (legal or not) although they'll also often develop an exaggerated and paradoxical sense of how good the home country is through many comparisons.

There are downsides of course. Unable to own profitably houses, they rent, moving around constantly and having very little motivation to customize their nest to make it welcoming.

Keeping in touch with friends is difficult and it is hard to create additional interconnections in their global social circle to strengthen it. They often isolate themselves to their small and tightly wound family cell outside work connections.

When not staying long enough, they only skim cultures without any real depth and often forget large chunk of cultural knowledge if they move too quickly. They are generally blind to the majority of the country, living in the very special and exceptional metropolis of each where life often has no relationship with the "countryside" where real power is often held.

Often assaulted by waves of differences and working at assimilating the basic cultural necessities, they often miss on grabbing deeper opportunities.

Various taxation, working visas and regulatory systems make moving around painful.

Some ideas to work around the issues faced by the modern nomad:

• standing invitation to family and friends to serve as a forward base for tourism expeditions;
• renting fully furnished and equipped apartments (beyond even current standards) to provide an "home sweet home" without having to sacrifice comforts;
• participation in sports activities popular worldwide (association football aka soccer);
• self-expectation of continuous language and cultural acquisition;
• move often and aggressively outside the boundaries of the metropolis;
• acquire a good understanding of local history for at least the last 100 years;
• share your growing understanding of local culture online;
• add alerts or subscriptions to local news sites for the current and past cities you've lived in;
• keep notes of the opportunities as you discover them;
• open yourself to opportunities to socialize with all social stratas and castes;
• stay off the beaten path;
• get to know locally popular artists and culture (and hopefully learn to like some!);
• keep "bookmarks" on cultural artifacts that you like (movies, songs, books);
• stay more than a year in your host country (3 years?).

Interesting researchable questions:

• What countries have the largest net inflow and outflow of migrants?
• What % of GDP is contributed by migrants (organized by length of stay)?
• What attracts migrants? Can being the "world's university" and center of business startups be the main economic driver for a country?
• Can migrants replace low birth rate in western societies?
• How do countries integrate new migrants well?
• What's the top inflow that a country can realistically support without creating inter-cultural tensions?
• What country grants the most work visa per capita?
• What further parallels can be made with past nomadic groups?
• Are nomadic groups cyclical? Are they only possible currently because of the American empire?
• What are the consequences of the differences between economic and political refugees and highly skilled / rich migrants?
• All other things equals, what are the compensation benefits or knowing 1, 2, 3 languages?