An Automated Virtual Senator? Using Algorithms To Liberate Democracy

Could algorithmic or machine-learning systems become better representatives of the people's democratic voices than the human politicians they are currently able to elect?

A new algorithmic system scans the discussions everyone is having around a variety of issues and topics. By analyzing the patterns of solutions, discussions, and arguments the system can get a sense of how people are thinking and what they are expecting to be done about any publicly discussed topic. What are people's criticisms and how do they compare. Then based on the language and structure patterns of previous legal documents and precedents, it can construct new legal proposals that the people may be interested in.

Designed to provide balanced options, the system would present at least 4 versions of every proposal to be voted on by the people. To reflect our current political leanings these should include a minimum of Liberal, Conservative, Middle-Grounded, and Rejection options. Allowing citizens to nominate potential solutions specific to the nation's problems in a democratic way. The Rejection option is also vitally important so that option-sets that are entirely unfavorable can be sent back for rework and further analyses, allowing for new solutions to be constructed until a favorable compromise can be reached, organically, on any issue.

This form of algorithmic opinion-aggregation and voting system could be worked into existing social media platforms, although equal access, identity authentication, and security would need to be addressed and guaranteed. Alternatively, these proposals can be presented on an independent, secured, and virtual voting platform access to which would have to be a basic and inalienable right. Either way, solutions can be freely voted on for publicly advertised periods of time.

In order to further ensure the proposal represents a true compromise, the majority required for a successful proposal should be much higher than 50%. If a large majority of positive votes, for example, 75% or higher are reached for a solution then it could be considered a reasonable representation of legislation and/or constitutional amendment that the people would favor and accept. These democratically voted proposals could be presented to the nation's congress for voting and/or implementation. As this system evolves, learns, and finds solutions with actual popular public support it could potentially become a very reliable representative of the people's will.

Building A Techno-Republic:

This kind of Autonomous-Democracy could be integrated in a number of different ways in order to further empower the voices of every citizen. As suggested above, this could be a singular system that attempts to find popular solutions and present them to a human congress to be voted upon. This system could also be broken down into smaller-scale virtual representatives. Each one reaching democratically popular solutions that represent specific districts or regions of people, similar to the general job of congresspeople and senators. These solutions could be presented to the respective human representatives of those districts in order to empower and better communicate the desires of the people they are elected to represent. a person, no matter how socially skilled, couldn't take in the voices of every single citizen, organize them based on topic and leaning, analyze their patterns, draft multiple detailed proposals, analyze the feedback, and craft the best solution for every issue, simultaneously, constantly. Instead of threatening the jobs of politicians, this could enhance and modernize the roles and responsiveness of political representation. Rather than using technology to oppress the average citizens, it could be used to empower their voices better than ever before.

Trustable And Secure Voting:

In order for this to be acceptable, it would have to be both properly secure and transparent. The general public has already been taught to be borderline technophobic in its reluctance to explore more automated solutions to some of its problems. This is a natural and understandable hurdle to have to overcome. The people will be skeptical of such systems until they demonstrate the democratic power they can be used to redistribute back into the voices of the common citizen. The coding of these systems must be regulated and ensured to be unbiased, transparent, and verifiable. The security of these platforms would be of the highest priority, no different than any other modern voting system. The same risks and threats of tampering apply and must be safeguarded against all the same with appropriate measures. Access to this voting system, and its associated platforms, would also need to become protected rights. Whatever utilities would be needed to facilitate this system would need its access to be part of those protected rights as well. With these and many more safeguards in place, over time, such a system of automated virtual representation could very well earn the respect and appreciation of the general public.

Challenging The Status Quo:

The integration of such systems could be seen by the currently elected human representatives as a threat to their positions. It should not be. It should serve as a tool to better understand the people, creating an intelligent resource to bridge the gap of communication between every citizen and those they elect to represent them. This system would not seek to speak for the people but simply help aggregate, articulate, and empower their voices. The only challenge would be to the politician who does not honor those they swear to serve.

It is possible that over time these systems would be seen as better representing the true democratic will of the people and a more and more fully automated-democracy emerges. However, if this were to happen it would have been the result of human politicians failing repeatedly to evolve and uphold their duties; until the democratic will of citizens removes them altogether. That would not be the systems intention but a plausible result of our evolution with it. In the case of this end result, the systems would simply continue to assist the nation in updating itself until the citizens voted in a change to it. Never telling anyone "what or how" to do, but rather providing an unbiased ear that is always listening to the will of people and facilitating humans to better find compromise.

Would this form of technology help liberate citizens from political systems that ignore them?

Could such a system be protected from humans corrupting it into something oppressive?

- Jan

#future #automation #government #thoughts