Topic: How to fix broken Democracy? There is a solution - Futarchy (Read 109 times)
You said everything well and correctly, but I wonder what you think about the market, the prediction market, governing power? A free economy performs well, but if used for a long enough time, extremes can appear in it, which should be avoided for the most efficient processes. Perhaps a similar principle will have to be implemented in Futarchy, for balance. I'm not a scientist, I just saw this idea on the Internet, and it struck me with its simplicity and effectiveness. Once upon a time, Bitcoin was born in the same way!
It is a nice idea believing that this day democratic system of government after being tainted for so long could be cured, after all change is the only thing that is constant in life. It is a shame that what is supposed to be a people's choice has been reduced to a mare polish on a rather dirty shoes. Democracy has done no wrong, the people vote and but, these votes are often of no value as they aren't been considered while counting and trust me, I say this out of experience.
It's so unfair what the minority having official positions to do right do to the system and the power that money commands to make a man sell his free will. How a politician can buy a citizens next four years by a mare token to influence their voting power. And I don't blame the citizens very much, as these are the ones that have lost hope and accepted a reality that, it doesn't matter whom is voted for, the closed door endorsement has already been done! This ought not to be so but, democracy has become a cover story to hide the ugliness of a dictatorship government just not by the military but civilians under an umbrella of an undefined constitution as it is interpreted as they deem fit.
Nothing is curing anything until godfatherism ends and a selfless individual rules.
It's so unfair what the minority having official positions to do right do to the system and the power that money commands to make a man sell his free will. How a politician can buy a citizens next four years by a mare token to influence their voting power. And I don't blame the citizens very much, as these are the ones that have lost hope and accepted a reality that, it doesn't matter whom is voted for, the closed door endorsement has already been done! This ought not to be so but, democracy has become a cover story to hide the ugliness of a dictatorship government just not by the military but civilians under an umbrella of an undefined constitution as it is interpreted as they deem fit.
Nothing is curing anything until godfatherism ends and a selfless individual rules.
You are right about the fact that the current model of power change is very manipulative and allows avoiding responsibility. However, you misunderstood the proposed model - 100 years as a weighting factor was used in research, but I propose to reduce it to much smaller values. In addition, it is necessary to conduct academic research on this topic in order to develop the correct metrics. But in general, of course, this system is much more progressive than regular voting.
democracy fails not on the vote. but on:
acceptance of the vote
the pledges made by the candidates actually being fulfilled once in power
a yearly review described by the topic creator seems empty as does having to accumilate a score over 100 years
things people agreed on 100 years ago wont be the same as now. so its pointless basing satisfaction of for instance segregation/homophobia of 1920 vs segregation homophobia of 2020
..
a better system is realise we are in 2020 where people are votingweekly monthly on silly things like american idol and the voice. so how about every 6 months the country leaders revise their pledge of what they have done/will do over the next 6 months. whereby they have an actual repremand/penalty/punishment if they dont meet the needs of the people
or have the treasury funds where x% goes to the usual ring fenced stuff that doesnt change and the 6month vote aids what to put into certain projects/pledges
..
the current system is empty pledges for a 4 year employment with no repremand/punishment
4 years is a long time to do nothing.
4 years is a long time to do nothing and not be incentivised/punished for doing something/nothing
things change in that 4 years.
acceptance of the vote
the pledges made by the candidates actually being fulfilled once in power
a yearly review described by the topic creator seems empty as does having to accumilate a score over 100 years
things people agreed on 100 years ago wont be the same as now. so its pointless basing satisfaction of for instance segregation/homophobia of 1920 vs segregation homophobia of 2020
..
a better system is realise we are in 2020 where people are votingweekly monthly on silly things like american idol and the voice. so how about every 6 months the country leaders revise their pledge of what they have done/will do over the next 6 months. whereby they have an actual repremand/penalty/punishment if they dont meet the needs of the people
or have the treasury funds where x% goes to the usual ring fenced stuff that doesnt change and the 6month vote aids what to put into certain projects/pledges
..
the current system is empty pledges for a 4 year employment with no repremand/punishment
4 years is a long time to do nothing.
4 years is a long time to do nothing and not be incentivised/punished for doing something/nothing
things change in that 4 years.
Everywhere we see the collapse of democracy, the principles of free and fair elections are broken all over the world. It is no longer possible to rely on the "vote of the crowd" - populists and modern technologies can easily manipulate and deceive the crowd and bring people and ideas into power that are needed only by a narrow circle of people pursuing their own interests. But there is a solution, the basis was proposed by economist Robin Hanson which in turn was based at work of brilliant mathematician and cryptographer Ralph Merkle (yes, the one who invented the Merkle tree, and on the basis of which Satoshi Nakamato invented Bitcoin). The basic principle of Futarchy (as it is customary to call this social system) is the right of everyone to choose, and the responsibility that each person bears immediately on the basis of their accepted decision.
Does it sound complicated and incomprehensible? I will try to clarify. So, the idea of Futarchy is the free choice of everyone, for any reason. In Futarchy, society defines its values, and then prediction markets are used to determine which actions will maximize the values of those values. In other words: “vote for values, bet on beliefs".
Ralph Merkle has an interesting proposal for implementing Futarchy on blockchain in an article titled DAOs, Democracy and Governance. At his suggestion, each citizen is interviewed once a year and asks the question "how satisfied were you this year on a scale from 0 to 1?" Averaged together, they give an overall social score. The wealth prediction market is developed for each year over the next 100 years, where traders can predict based on the wealth indicator for any future year. The overall future welfare score is calculated by averaging the scores over the next 100 years with a greater weighting from earlier years than future years. When a new bill is introduced, there is a 1 week period where markets speculate about whether the overall welfare metric will rise or fall if the bill is passed. If passed, traders who are betting on an overall welfare gain now own a percentage of the welfare gain. That is, they will make money if they are right and lose money if they are wrong.
This system can be incredibly powerful for several reasons. First, voting becomes extremely easy. People don't need to vote, they are just asked once a year: their satisfaction. Second, people do not need to deeply research candidates' proposals or their bills. This is important because candidates are often persuasive and bills are complex to the point that it is difficult for a researcher working in a specific field to understand their implications, let alone an elected official or an ordinary citizen. Instead, we rely on the wisdom of the markets. As with stock trading, only people who are very knowledgeable about the topic will bet on it, otherwise they could lose money for those who are better informed. Finally, it is a system in which market incentives are aligned with social values.
In Futarchy, the devil is in the details of implementation. Difficult issues include the management meta-problem of how to define social value first in order to maximize it, and how to make sure people are not motivated to tactically vote on an extreme 0 or 1 satisfaction rating to change policy. Setting target functions is important and complex, as there are always unforeseen consequences. For example, in the case of capitalism, this can manifest itself in growing wealth inequality and external influences. In the case of artificial intelligence, this can manifest itself as delaying or rapidly maximizing something at the expense of unexpected costs for other things, which is usually illustrated with the paperclip maximizer that destroys everything to create as many paper clips as possible.
So, your thoughts on this model of restructuring the social system to replace the rotten through and through democracy and outdated morally autocracy are welcome.
Does it sound complicated and incomprehensible? I will try to clarify. So, the idea of Futarchy is the free choice of everyone, for any reason. In Futarchy, society defines its values, and then prediction markets are used to determine which actions will maximize the values of those values. In other words: “vote for values, bet on beliefs".
Ralph Merkle has an interesting proposal for implementing Futarchy on blockchain in an article titled DAOs, Democracy and Governance. At his suggestion, each citizen is interviewed once a year and asks the question "how satisfied were you this year on a scale from 0 to 1?" Averaged together, they give an overall social score. The wealth prediction market is developed for each year over the next 100 years, where traders can predict based on the wealth indicator for any future year. The overall future welfare score is calculated by averaging the scores over the next 100 years with a greater weighting from earlier years than future years. When a new bill is introduced, there is a 1 week period where markets speculate about whether the overall welfare metric will rise or fall if the bill is passed. If passed, traders who are betting on an overall welfare gain now own a percentage of the welfare gain. That is, they will make money if they are right and lose money if they are wrong.
This system can be incredibly powerful for several reasons. First, voting becomes extremely easy. People don't need to vote, they are just asked once a year: their satisfaction. Second, people do not need to deeply research candidates' proposals or their bills. This is important because candidates are often persuasive and bills are complex to the point that it is difficult for a researcher working in a specific field to understand their implications, let alone an elected official or an ordinary citizen. Instead, we rely on the wisdom of the markets. As with stock trading, only people who are very knowledgeable about the topic will bet on it, otherwise they could lose money for those who are better informed. Finally, it is a system in which market incentives are aligned with social values.
In Futarchy, the devil is in the details of implementation. Difficult issues include the management meta-problem of how to define social value first in order to maximize it, and how to make sure people are not motivated to tactically vote on an extreme 0 or 1 satisfaction rating to change policy. Setting target functions is important and complex, as there are always unforeseen consequences. For example, in the case of capitalism, this can manifest itself in growing wealth inequality and external influences. In the case of artificial intelligence, this can manifest itself as delaying or rapidly maximizing something at the expense of unexpected costs for other things, which is usually illustrated with the paperclip maximizer that destroys everything to create as many paper clips as possible.
So, your thoughts on this model of restructuring the social system to replace the rotten through and through democracy and outdated morally autocracy are welcome.
Jump to: