ISO: Builders of a Better Democracy

Watching the debate last week hit hard. There wasn’t much in terms of solid data and platforms to focus on. Instead, I, like many Americans, could only focus on the partisan exaggerations… and… the mental well-being of a life-long civil servant that is being used as a means to an end. The former I had grown used to. The latter made me feel ashamed.

I saw someone that was fragile, and someone that needed better doctors in his life.

It also made me paranoid and worried. After all, if someone that important was being allowed to slip through the cracks, what hope is there for someone like me… a normal, average citizen? Some part of me secretly hopes I need higher security clearance to know what treatments the POTUS is receiving. All of me hopes that the best doctors in the world were watching, and can get him the proper treatment. Whatever he was on isn’t working. At this point, I don’t think I need to justify this opinion, but if you still think that I do, watch some videos of the 2020 debates and then we can talk.

If you think this post is now turning into an endorsement for another political party, you’re mistaken. It galvanized me to finally put in writing something I’ve been toying with ever since college. Parts of which I’ve only revealed to close trusted friends that I can have debates with, and only parts of which I’m revealing today, with the hopes of being connected to the right thinkers, builders, and advocates in the space.

Democracy as it is implemented today isn’t true democracy.

Sure, I could use this space to wax poetic about the failures of the electoral college and the pros and cons of representative democracy. I could feign expertise in the fine art of gerrymandering. Instead, I’d like to focus your attention on something much more fundamental.

We practice a democracy that votes on people, not issues.

The more controversial thing I’m going to say is this- true democracy should give each citizen a say in policy. Ideally, specific policies.

I shouldn’t have to bundle my view on abortion with my view on gender-affirming surgeries. Nor should my view on taxes influence my view on affirmative action. More importantly, the current system turns our politicians into caricatures, creating an environment where we easily vote in people based on non-merit based criteria such as “relatability” or how they look on camera. The cult of personality at its worst.

Voting on issues, not politicians.

Voting on issues?? Maybe you think this means way too many issues to possibly have an opinion on. I don’t disagree. But perhaps there’s 5-10 issues you have an educated view on and would like to express your opinion. What’s wrong with the idea that, with the rest, you can “abstain.” Sounds way better to me than the chance of voting in one politician that’s going to express YOUR opinion on every single policy during his term.

People are used to drinking from a fire-hose and deciding on things. For example, you may stock-pick in your investment portfolio, and express views on some stocks you really care about and follow closely. You may then have some holdings in passive ETFs that track indices and sectors. Investing in ETFs is logical because of the assumption that markets are efficient, especially over time, and in those cases, you can sleep soundly since the masses that do “vote with their dollars” will generally be right and you won’t be missing out on much.

There’s still room in this system for politicians, but perhaps as orators or critical thinkers that help inform and persuade on issues at hand, rather than argue over who is more fit, charismatic, or has the more photogenic wife and kids. We would measure their performance based on how well they helped with our decision making or made us think in a new way.

There’s even still room for campaign donations in this system. Except the causes and issues you choose to donate to will actually be the causes and issues you have an interest in and want to influence! Imagine that!

Minimizing the use of “party politics.”

I’ve always thought of “voting the party line” as immoral. I never quite understood those that think of it as a value system. Loyalty for the purpose of gaining advantage for a certain group can have horrific outcomes for other groups or for society at large.

As someone that didn’t quite fit into any mainstream political party, I always thought thinking independently held the higher moral ground. We are taught in schools to be “critical thinkers,” and to weigh the pros and cons to issues. As grown-ups, we magically forget this training and align ourselves with those that may have some, but not all, of our interests at heart.

Yes, there will be cases we need to think through…

I’ve heard pretty compelling counter-arguments to the changes I’ve outlined above. Some of the most compelling include:

• We vote on people because the nation/executive office often needs to respond to world events that happen in a blink of an eye. (Yes, during times of martial law, we may not be able to vote on every issue)
• The tech may not be there for this to be a viable system right now. (Yes, but it sure is better than 200 years ago when we came up with this system)

I’m not saying I have a solution right now, but I just know the status quo isn’t a good system most of the time.

My ask:

Connect me with thinkers, builders, and advocates in the space.