Up to this point in the book, we have examined a lot of intuitive theories and ideas. However, to speak in a language of conventional science we still need proof, for example, evidence that success can be found in the transferable vote. Although there are groups around the world exploring governance, creating pockets of closed system groups, and inventing a way to transfer votes, will offer us the ability to create a virtual testing laboratory of various governance designs. We call this technology TAGDit.
We created TAGDit because Change is a constant in our lives: if there’s one thing we can be sure of, it is that things around us will change. But what about us; how much do we change? And how much of our change are we aware of? Do we want to change, and what causes us to change? If I asked you to change you would likely meet my request with resistance – you would want to know why. If I provided a reason, you might then offer a counter argument, justifying your current state of being, and defending it against an external imposition. After all, who am I, to ask you to change? What authority does one individual possess to make such claims over another? And in addition to the problem regarding where a request for change originates, is not change itself difficult? To answer all of the potential questions we created a system to collate knowledge. After all we are trying to ensure that a positive outcome from change can be guaranteed.
One of the variable that needs to be accounted for is the cost. We know that social change often comes with a cost. Every innovation, like ours, carries with it potentially negative, unintended consequences. As the French thinker Paul Virilio has argued, the Industrial Revolution’s technological inventiveness has unleashed a string of new kinds of catastrophes: the invention of the automobile gave birth to the car accident, that of the boat to the shipwreck, the emergence of the airplane to the plane crash, and so on; to say nothing of the nuclear winter following upon the splitting of the atom.
Something similar can be said to take place in the political sphere. The French political philosopher Pierre Manent speaks of the phenomenon of the “organ-obstacle” or “instrument obstacle,” whereby something that once allowed us to achieve a desired objective becomes the very obstacle to achieving our aim. The examples Manent provides includes that of the law, which has the aim of protecting the weak from the strong, but often results in privileging the strong over the weak, as well as that of the sovereign state, which was founded to guarantee peace among individuals but has become a major factor in modern warfare.
With all of this in mind we might ask about the Democratic Quality Vector itself and wonder whether it too will bring forth new kinds of political catastrophes – or at least certain inherent negative possibilities – not otherwise intended by its early advocates. Yet, is it not our duty to change, to seek betterment, to strive for what is greater – or for the good at large?
Surely, all human beings desire what is good by nature, as philosophers like Aristotle have long acknowledged. Do we not therefore have a responsibility to pursue it? We are the beings that not only can change, but are aware that we can change – both internally and externally – and consequently, we have a responsibility to initiate change for the better. This is the obligation of being human. Nevertheless, as suggested, we find much resistance to change. This is because there are many pressures generating momentum for the status quo; many factors and people adding their weight to the gravity of convention. Reasoned argument is not always successful in persuading individuals to change, or even to live up to their responsibilities and obligations. And without widespread societal change, progress remains trapped. We have but pockets of change, rather than progress for all. In our interconnected world today, we hear about global threats, or social calamities that will impact all of us. Contrarily, many theorize that there will be a “tipping point” or a point of “singularity,” whereby humanity will undergo universal change. But thus far, the present moment outweighs future considerations, and these theories are imaginative longings.
So, what is to be done? How can one initiate change and convince others of the new direction? A tool is required. But not just any ordinary tool, rather a tool wrapped in an idea: an ideational tool. Therefore, we need to tool up our ideas. By designing an idea so powerful that it will capture the imagination of individuals and the collective, we are granted access to the openness of change: reaching the imagination is key to unlocking the problem of resistance to change. Through inspiring and empowering the imagination we can answer the question, “why change?”
Getting out of the progress trap requires that one not act alone, but that we work together. Overcoming the resistance to change hinges on the design of a tool that embodies an idea and inspires the imagination. With a tool that incorporates both – one sufficiently basic so that all can access and use it, but one sufficiently powerful so as to effectuate the change desired – the roadblock of convention may be dismantled. Through the combination of simplicity and ubiquity, mixed with the prospect of genuine results, the perceived difficulty of great change will fade away.
In sum, the change we are talking about is nothing short of a cultural shift and an overhaul of the current democratic structure. And just such a tool is now being created.
The developers of TAGDit offer hope for updating democracy and minimizing the perverse effects of democratic practices today. TAGDit is a software being tested in a closed system test where one can control influential variables. Using business settings for this test as planned will provide tremendous value to organizations in facilitating the creation of a shared knowledge pool, alongside an algorithmic amalgamation and ranking process to produce desired outputs.
The TAGDit software, furthermore, a offers a platform for individuals to both build and measure trust, or social capital, through a simple method where individuals can vote for anybody, not just predetermined representatives. In this regard, it retains the sense of a democratic process by the people insofar as all participate, but especially works for the people by elevating information, outputs and skills of the people – to the benefit of all.
Enhanced trust of a group, somewhat obviously, has been linked to greater economic performance of a group. This, in layman’s terms, has a sum total that equals more jobs.
The trial process in a corporate setting will demonstrate the great potential of the Democratic Quality Vector, and it won’t be long before its broader application in society will become apparent.
Groups thrive when members possess and contribute complimentary skillsets. But groups flourish when they draw on the multiple skillsets of individual members to become flexible and strong. The transferrable vote will cause your institute to flourish and in the process become much stronger.
Corporations, for example, are typically hierarchies made up of teams which perform specialized, but often separated, tasks. Individuals within effective teams often contribute value based on their critical expertise in a field. This expertise is essential to the team as a whole. As the same time successful teams must be flexible in their response to and adaptation to shifting circumstances. These needs are often not complimentary, often fighting against one another.
Amid this constant shifting, managers may come to recognize the value of a naturally attentive employee, one who senses opportunity and challenge before their peers do. Along the same lines, the information produced through Delegative Democracy can identify employee potential. This will allow management’s time invested to allow them to capitalize on that potential.
Adopting democratic structures will also give a much-needed boost to attitudes and practices while improving private industry. Entrusting one’s employees with greater roles in decision making can enhance the decision-making process, boost workplace morale, and ultimately increase profits for corporations. Through sharing valued information between staff members, institutional flexibility and therefore strength can be increased.
To solve many of these problems, liquid democracy offers hope that networking technology can facilitate the implementation of a form of direct democracy in the midst of global political chaos. Compelling arguments in modern leadership studies claim that democratic systems are the best governance systems for large, modern societies (Slater & Bennis, 1990). The seminal work of Warren Bennis, founder of the field of leadership studies, argues that traditional, autocratic management structures are ill equipped to manage the rapid rate of change associated with the modern era. This gives more weight to The DQV, as it is a flexible system that gives power to those who are faced with daily problems so they can help solve those problems rapidly.
The best groups – no matter the situation – are those that communicate well (giving a voice to each member), that work together effectively (realizing and developing individual talents), and that harvest value from the competencies of all team members. A democratic system will encourage a diverse group to learns how to accomplish many tasks, leading to a thriving system.
Find out who the champions of your organization are by using the transferable vote algorithm, operating seamlessly in the background of your cloud social media network, to create a reputation currency heat map of your organization.
After you build these numbers, the transferable vote system then scores organization member performance using transferable vote algorithms applied to semantic and sentiment analysis of social media conversation threads, task assignment, decision & decision results, and referrals. The most able individual is able to increase the weight of their vote for certain synchronized types of information. Spikes in information are then averaged and smoothed to continue to enhance the quality of knowledge.
Furthermore Hence, Slater, and Bennis (1990) argue that democracy – which is inherently egalitarian, pluralistic, and liberal, at least in theory – is the only system of human organization capable of effectively governing a modern, technological society characterized by an accelerating rate of change. They also find tremendous value in citizens and societies who can continually learn about the conditions that shape their existence and who can refine group dynamics to respond to those ever-changing conditions. And DQV and delegative democracy has been designed to adapt to these modern conditions, increasing the value for the whole organization.
These principles for governing large societies can also apply to governance of smaller groups, organizations, and companies. The importance of meaningful belonging, open communication, and equality, then, ought to inform the structural organization of businesses and the teams in that business. As Slater and Bennis (1990) put put forth, companies do benefit from democratic governance in much the same way that nations do. Improved communication, at the minimum leads to significant outcomes. Imagine what this system can do for you? Corporations cannot only be the drivers of technological innovation and growth in isolation; they are actually microcosms of the whole civilization, with similar needs and potential outcomes. As such, why do we tolerate such a profound gap between corporate ethics and individual ethics in the public and private sectors?
One attempt to integrate democratic decision making systems into the workplace has been proposed by James Whitehurst, president of Red Hat (the world’s leading opensource software vendor). Whitehurst, in his book The Open Organization: Igniting Passion and Performance, focuses on the principle of meritocracy as a core value for democratized companies. In a meritocracy, any employee (whether a CEO or a new hire) has equal opportunity to contribute their voice. This openness, Whitehurst argues, is a benefit to the employee and to the organization as a whole.
As this is such a large potential benefit, many have argued in favor of opening up workplaces to voting and for including options for voluntary vote delegation systems. The argument relies on two axioms. Firstly, a democracy must give citizens a right to vote on decisions that will affect the collective. The second axiom is that democratic voters ought to have the right to delegate their votes to others (and to revoke said delegations) as they see fit.
Several lines of reasoning support this second point. First, it preserves the voting power of those who are otherwise unable or unwilling to vote (due to time pressures or limitations of knowledge, for example). Such individuals may know of others who possess values similar to their own and who are known to be well-informed on the relevant issues. Transferring votes allows all citizens to have their values accurately reflected, even those who choose not to cast a ballot themselves. Thus, the second point avoids the problem that those with less time can participate less well. Implementing a “proxy” option into the structure of democracy would strengthen the nodes in our existing community.
Second, the specific implementation of a proxy voting social network outlined in this chapter would be able to harvest value and information from a group and in the process, quantifying the qualitative social value of that information. Any rejection of the second axiom, then, would suggest that organizations ought to restrict the flow of information, to their own determent.
Taken together, these two axioms can show that a voluntary delegation system can be more democratic than either a traditional representative system or a direct voting system. On the other hand, traditional democracy is highly vulnerable to arbitrary, skewed, and/or unfavorable results due to poor decisions. How might a voluntary delegation system perform under the same conditions?