or New question

The New Demarchy Manifesto

Summary

Modify

A summary of New Demarchy, its rules, and why we need it.

Wiki article

Compare versions Edit

On the inadequacy of representative democracy

The world is entering a new era. Progress is accelerating, complexity is rising. The citizens of the world are increasingly more knowledgeable, smarter, and specialised. The model of representative democracy where an elite of professional politicians have the power to impose their policy preferences on citizens has become inadequate. Incompetence and policy failure abound, not to mention populism, corruption, and public apathy.

The alternative of direct democracy

Improving on the age-old model of sortition democracy, by which the citizens of Ancient Athens and Serenissima Venice flourished and prospered, the internet now facilitates a collective intelligence mechanism for an improved form of direct self-governance, where citizens are no more powerless subjects to decisions by a few but make all decisions directly by themselves: New Demarchy.

The principles of New Demarchy

  1. New Demarchy is a non-hierarchical democratic organisation guided by the collective intelligence of its body of members.
  2. Collective intelligence is organised through an open prediction market which collects and aggregates all participating members’ knowledge and forecasts.
  3. Members are free to ask prediction questions in all pertinent matters. They compete for expert rank with their best predictions in self-selected areas of expertise.
  4. Members are free to submit proposals for the adoption, change or abandoning of policies and matters of the state.
  5. Decision makers are appointed ad-hoc from amongst the members for no longer than to arrive at a decision on a proposal or a group of interconnected proposals.
  6. Appointment is by expertise-weighted sortition, with a probability pro rata to each member’s empirical success with prediction market questions in the decision’s subject area.
  7. Depending on the magnitude or importance of the decision at hand, the decision maker is a single member or a group of three, five or seven members.
  8. Each decision maker may draw on experts from the prediction market or elsewhere and decides in the best interest of all citizens according to his or her free conscience.
  9. Each decision is documented by one or more prediction questions tracking its future impact.
  10. New Demarchy competes freely with traditional parties for voters’ support on all levels of the hosting democracies.
  11. Members holding public offices in a hosting democracy act in all their formally assigned responsibilities in full accordance to the decision makers' resolutions.

Advantages of knowledge-based sortition

  • All citizens can contribute knowledge and opinions for the broadest perspective.
  • Appointments proportionate to evidenced expertise increase the quality of decision making.
  • The frequent change of qualified decision makers works against corruption.
  • Special interests are decided on merit instead of elite lobbying or populist majority.

Vienna, November 2015


Further information

Messages

  • Edited help page.
    Added links to the New Demarchy FAQs and to the general Wikipedia article on demarchy.
  • Markus Burkert

    I think it would make sense to also have a German version. If you agree I could write it. I´m just not sure, how/where to place it. On a seperate page? Or on this page, right underneath the English version?

    • Well, it's a free and open system here, so you can in principle. Two things though: I suggest to make it explicit that the English version is authoritative, and the German version a translation. Having said that, we will switch on multi language features in the foreseeable future , so it may be better to wait for that .

    • Markus Burkert

      Yes, I thought that there might be something under development or at least planned. That´s why I was asking. So of course it makes sense to wait for that.

  • Edited help page.
    Fixed typing, compacted structure, removed uncertain argument on faster decision making.
  • Markus Burkert

    I was also thinking about adding "free of ideology" to the advantages. Do you think that would make sense?

    • No sure. The individual decision maker may apply his or her ideology. The other aspect to consider: could demarchy be an ideology? IMHO leave out till we know more.

    • Markus Burkert

      Yes, the individual decision maker will definitely apply his ideology in some (or more likely in many) cases - that´s the reason why I didn´t add it. But the argument against that fact is, that there can be no general ideology that is followed by the decision makers. Even if you see demarchy itself as an ideology (which I would rather deny for my understanding and also after reading wikipedia´s definition of ideology), it is not an ideology that will influence individual decisions. How should it? Demarchy is only a method, not a goal. The goal is set individually by every decision maker. But although I wouldn´t consider demarchy an ideology, I still don´t like the term "free of ideology", because obviously it can´t be free of acting individual´s ideologies.

    • Nikolaus L.

      What about "ideologically diversified". Because people of different ideology are involved in the decision making process.

    • Markus Burkert

      Yes and no. I think it puts it in a nutshell, but gives a wrong impression - like decisions are sometimes made from the extreme right and sometimes from the extreme left. What about "decision making independent from party angendas and ideologies"?

    • I assume that most people adhere to some ideology. From an individual perspective, "the others" have it wrong but their own is seen as a positive. Thus a generalised "no ideology"-argument can be good AND bad a the same time. IMHO "no-ideology" is neither true nor really always an advantage. I propose to stay away from this for now.

    • Markus Burkert

      I rather think that "ideology" is something radical and therefore negative for most people. But anyway, I agree that it wouldn´t be exactly true. What about something like "party-independent"?

    • I was considering the radicalism aspect as highly negative too, but then some good has come from certain ideologies, too. Seems a can of worms.

      Regarding "party-independent", it's a clear no for me. ND must also have a party arm and voter support to exercise legitimate policy decision power in democratic systems with competing parties.

      Should we drop that bit for now? There are already several important advantages, as is.

    • Markus Burkert

      Sure! That´s certainly not important enough to waste too much time discussing about it.

    • In Karl Popper's wiki entry I found an interesting formulation: "His political philosophy embraces ideas from all major democratic political ideologies and attempts to reconcile them: social democracy, classical liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism, and socialism."

  • Markus Burkert
    Edited help page.
    Divided Advantages, added one and put them at the end of the article - I think they are easier to understand, if you read the principles before. Hope that´s fine.
    • Good edit, thanks. Only "speed" I better removed because the decision making could arguably be longer in cases; it depends on the learning requirement of the individual appointed expert(s). Well, one thing to watch in practice. Also, as long as there is no absolute majority versus other political parties, there is still the timing of their "old" ways to consider.

  • This is a written summary of the concept presented at the meetup of 25th November. Feel free to add your thoughts about this first version of the manifesto here. Forecasts for success indicators are on a separate topic page:
    https://www.prediki.com/topics/New-demarchy/

  • Created help page
    First version.
This help page has 4 followers.