ByDarko Savic
A platform for transparent city maintenance where anyone can bid for small jobs
2 years ago
3
Create newCreate new
Idea
Darko Savic Feb 17, 2022
A platform where citizens define the top problems they want the government to work on, resulting in a prioritized national to-do list
Image credit: Beau Gailey
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Originality
Is it original or innovative?
Feasibility
Is it feasible?
Necessity
Is it targeting an unsolved problem?
Conciseness
Is it concisely described?
Bounty for the best solution
Provide a bounty for the best solution
Bounties attract serious brainpower to the challenge.
A government-run platform where each citizen defines their top ten problems they would like the government to solve. AI then groups and sorts all problems by popularity resulting in a prioritized to-do list for the government.
Why?
- Consensus by statistics.
- Governments get to find out what citizens actually want them to do. There's no pretending they didn't know.
- Ignore the people's will and you're gone in the next election. Work on your own agenda instead and people will remember it.
- See how your vision aligns with that of your fellow citizens. Also, see what people in other countries want. Maybe you are better aligned with people in another country and should consider moving.
How it works
A government-run platform where every citizen gets to specify up to 10 problems they wish the government would prioritize.
GPT3 language model that uses deep learning is good at summarizing or rewriting something in a different way while maintaining its meaning. Future iteration will be even better. GPT3 can therefore identify which problem descriptions talk about the same problem. This makes it possible for software to group and sort the problems by popularity.
The people have spoken. The government now has a to-do list that came directly from people that elected them.
2
Creative contributions
Would it end up in a list of non-novel problems and do we already have a solution?
I remember a session with a similar idea. John Laviña posted an idea of an app where you can report problems in your close vicinity and potentiate local authorities to solve them. Your idea feels like an upgrade of this app with a national note. I think it could be smarter to start with small local issues and gradually build up towards the national and more general ones.
Problem - it will end up in a list of non-novel problems
One reason is that citizens are not specialists in all fields such as employment, business, agriculture, taxes, etc., but they all are specialists in reporting a hole on the pavement close to their home. A platform that collects opinions of the citizens on problems like this would end up solving thousand of small infrastructural issues - a job that is currently done by the local authorities and could be covered with the above-mentioned John Laviña's app. On the other hand, citizens reporting on bigger and more general problems should maybe have some expertise, or else it will end up being a list of common and non-novel problems, which are often very hard to solve.
Solution - starting small and building a app reputation, citizen engagement and feeling of importance
Starting from small local problems could empower citizens to act and engage them more, since their local problems could be solved faster and more efficiently. They could see the progress with their own eyes. Then, the members who are very active could get an invitation to courses and conferences (like Google Maps contributor program) where government bodies, high institutions and experts discuss and debate current issues of wider reach (national level). That way a community would get a lot of experts (influencers) familiar with the situation and could think of and promote new solutions. Citizens would rather listen to them than the authorities, which would also make this platform an independent, peer-driven platform for communication of the local communities.
What do you think?
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Why not just go for direct democracy instead, especially in the digital era?
What you suggest resembles an instrument of direct democracy. Direct democracy is not just a theoretical concept, it is a working part of politics in some (even though very few) countries. The best living example of this is Switzerland. In Switzerland people not only vote on many political issues directly, they can also raise popular initiatives by which they can propose to adopt new laws or modifications of the current constitution.
While in most of Switzerland (except a couple of states) direct democracy is not in its pure form but is rather semi-direct, there's no reason why a pure form of this political system couldn't be adapted anywhere in the world, especially given the possibility to transfer all or part of the voting process to a digital space. Digital voting systems greatly simplify the process and make direct democracy way more convenient. The latter might be referred to as e-democracy.
With the help of internet and AI it would be possible (at least theoretically) for people to not only vote on each separate issue/law directly and frequently but for AI to create solutions based on the distribution of votes. E.g. if 20 percent of the populus voted against a certain law, even though normally those 20 percent should simply accept the (unfavorable for them) situation, AI could suggest a smart compromise to (at least partially) satisfy those 20 percent as well. Then all the voters would review the suggestion (or a few possible options) generated by AI and vote again whether they want to accept it or simply adopt the law in its initial form.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Darko Savic2 years ago
Yes, that would be even better, but for some reason or another, it's not happening even though we've had all the tools ready for many years.
I would guess there are "forces" that can't let us decide for ourselves. God forbid we might want something that's not in their geostrategic interest.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Darko Savic2 years ago
General voting is supported by any regime when the outcome is predictable. Otherwise, voting is avoided by deciding things through commissions, panels of experts, etc. People can transact money securely online, but can't vote. No government is in a rush to let people make any unpredictable decisions. We have democracy on paper. In reality, it is more like "manipulocracy"
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Povilas S2 years ago
Darko Savic Yes, that's, likely, at least part of the reason. Another reason might do with something that J. Nikola mentioned about ordinary people not being competent enough to handle political problems, you need to have knowledge and experience for this, so if the masses would start influencing things directly, it might lead to chaos.
On the other hand, masses do elect representatives that are also incompetent and don't have enough political knowledge, emotions and marketing play a lot in the election process, so not sure if this is better.
I think people are used to taking responsibility off themselves and that's what indirect democracy does. In a direct democracy, they'd have to think about every single sociopolitical issue and take responsibility for it, in other words - grow up. So staying incompetent is convenient in that regard. You can blame others for your problems.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Add your creative contribution
General comments
Spook Louw2 years ago
I love this idea, I've thought of similar approaches to reach real-time, representative consensus on issues, the problem I keep facing though is the increased possibility of cyber attacks on such a system.
There will always be a sense of mistrust in technology when it comes to political implementation, which is why so many ballot systems have still not transitioned to electronic systems and those that have, have a history of being contested.
It might seem less likely for people to manipulate votes on what issues a community is facing, but this kind of data can easily be changed to benefit one group over another, which means it provides an opportunity for corruption, which would be more than enough motive.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Darko Savic2 years ago
Spook Louw open source software, public ledger where you can verify whether your vote/submission is what you wanted it to be. Only citizens who are eligible to vote can get a digital key to do so.
Every vote/key is pseudonymous - the owner can verify while everyone else can see it but not trace it to the owner.
Every key/vote is directly traceable to the owner. Only as many keys exist as there are citizens.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
BySamuel Bello
Government-owned Artificial Intelligence that can talk to people in public places
3 years ago
1
ByDarko Savic
Motivate people to vote by making all votes go to the default option unless people go out and change theirs
2 years ago
1
BySpook Louw
Fantasy Global Politics game
2 years ago
5
ByDarko Savic
A country entirely run by benign prisoners whose lives are broadcasted online 24 hours per day
2 years ago
ByDarko Savic
A political party that aims to restore the laws to the way they were during a better period in history
2 years ago
2
ByDarko Savic
Body language experts provide real-time feedback when people on screen are lying
2 years ago
1
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Please leave the feedback on this idea