All Large-scale Democracies ‘tolerate’ dysfunctional divergence problems, including: (A) the motivation, ethics, and persona of Most Candidates; (B) representatives’ empathetic detachment from ‘regular people’ in their constituency; (C) legislators’ ‘easy’ redirection by $pecial-Interests (Giga-corporate Giants, Fintech/Industry Lobbies, PACs, NGOs, Media, et​​c.); and (D) the responsibility-free anonymity of self-serving bureaucratic departments.

Of course, Small-scale (majority rule) ‘Direct’ Democracy 1.0 can be wonderful – likewise Medium-scale, ‘Structured’ Democracies (Parliamentary, Constitutional, Federal, Republic) ⇒ except responsive institutional focus deteriorates as populations and administrative agencies outgrow their original equity-regulating design dynamics. 

Democracy 2.0 describes a Self-Ballancing arrangement for: improving candidate quality, mediating their voters relationship remoteness, and alleviating susceptibility to disproportionate influences; which together may facilitate reHumanizing administrative document-review ‘services’, reThinking nationalization-privatization ‘dilemmas’, and reSuscitating government contractor transparency-liability; ‘even’ perhaps (?) eventually allowing society to miraculously ‘celebrate’ comprehensive taxation-complexity simplification [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2152860].

For Democracy 2.0, a post-modern technology protocol helps achieve these goals; specifically, using upgraded smartphones (in smartphone ‘saturated’ societies) as ‘personal’ ballot boxes. Furthermore, whenever you want to participate (vote), your smartphone will apply Best Methods to validate your identity; including only allowing this app when you are physically at your official residence. 

⇒ The ‘Basic’ Democracy 2.0 model asks each ‘regular’ voter to nominate their respective wisest/trusted person; the one person whom they prefer consulting for life significant decisions – since they expect that person to give them the best possible advice. 

Nominating is never a simple choice: visceral loyalties tend to perpetuate Nepotism, while cognitive sincerity strives to build Meritocracy. Likewise, some ‘instinctively’ nominate ‘royalty’, a popular singer/actor, or a wealthy ‘trend setter’; while others ‘thoughtfully’ nominate their Medical Doctor, Rabbi, Grandmother, or some World-Wise acquaintance. Whichever bias general voter populations exhibit, subsequent Democracy 2.0 aspects may altruistically improve these tendencies; regardless of innate Nepotism-Meritocracy ‘imbalances’ or entropy. 

Here is the ‘regular’ voter’s ballot structure:

You will be asked to nominate The Best Individual whom you most trust to give timely advice regarding any of your life-significant situations; such as some: medical procedure, crisis response, marriage or divorce decision, your child’s education/socialization, financial strategy, etc. Your reasonable expectation is: IF this person does not feel qualified to take responsibility for answering your life-question, THEN they will consult their wisest (most knowledge appropriate) friend to advise – about how to answer you. 

No need for you to have actual contact with your nominee; although it is preferable to have a personal relationship with them. IF this person is already on your contacts list, THEN you are almost ready; OTHERWISE, you must find this person’s contact information and add it to your contact list. This gives you freedom to choose some ‘famous’ person or targeted-advertising ‘candidate’; since you may believe them to be wiser than your most sincere........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)