Democracy is built on pillars of shared values.

On Democracy

In defense of democracy everywhere.

Hello, and thank you for reading On Democracy.

You may be wondering what these are. So let’s start there.

On democracy will focus on the philosophy of the governance of nations in the 21st Century. They will provide a vigorous defense of democracy and the freedom of people choosing their own leadership, free from manipulation or oppression. They will unpack normative solutions to problems plaguing democracies today including voter suppression, low voter turnout, and unnecessary complex systems of elections in choosing leadership.

Ultimately, they will defend democracy itself. Democracy, as defined by a community’s ability to channel the interests and preferences of the people — through leaders — into policy that reflect the same interests/preferences of those people.

No matter what you think of the ideas in these papers, remember that we gain nothing by avoiding conversations in the sphere of politics and representation of our interests. It is only through active discourse and mutual understanding that we can hope to push towards a brighter future together.

-JS

On Democracy #1

One person, one vote.

In a structure with a single leader, each person represented shall be allocated one vote in the election for such leader. The winner shall be determined by plurality (most votes = the winner), or, in the case of a run-off, a majority.

Examples: US House of Representatives, US Senate, France, student elections, club elections, most American Prom Kings and Queens.

What is a leader? A lot can be said. One who channels others’ interests? Who aggregates a group? Who convinces everyone? One who has power?

Broadly speaking, a leader is one tasked with representing the interests of a group. Usually the specific constituency the leader is representing. This can vary depending on what type of leader they are. Courts have justices, democracies have elected officials, companies have chief executives. The common denominator is that the leader is representing and helping manage the will of those they are leading. Leaders have many responsibilities, from managing the affairs of their constituency to public speaking to being international actors. They also have power, especially over those under their specific rule.

A lot is at stake when it comes to leadership.

How does a society fairly choose a leader? Well the first step is determining who should be eligible to vote. Should children be allowed to vote? Women? Men? Many nation states use a minimum age threshold (18 in the United States) in determining who is eligible to vote. This essay will not discuss normative voter eligibility criteria. For assumptive purposes, however, we will assume that all adults aged 18 and older are eligible to vote.

So now we have all of our eligible voters.

How should votes be distributed? Should anyone have two votes rather than one? Should anyone count as only ½ of a vote? The answer to both of these latter questions is no. Human beings are human beings. Why should one person’s vote count more or less than any others?

So we know that everyone who is 18+ can vote and each person’s vote is worth one point. Now then — how should the leader be chosen? Logic would dictate that between the candidates for leader the one who receives the most votes (either by majority in the case of a two-person race, or plurality if more than two folks are running) should be elected as the leader. After all, if one person receives more votes then that means the people prefer that candidate to lead them — and we should respect the people’s wishes.

I’ll pause here and say that the premise that the candidate who receives the most votes shall be elected seems simple and intuitive enough, but it is far from the norm in many present-day democracies. Notably, the United States elects its President through an Electoral College system that does not respect the popular vote of Americans but rather an indirect state-by-state winner-take-all system. The result is that several presidents of the United States in recent history have actually lost the popular vote but still taken the White House. Pretty non-democratic if you think about it.

There may be folks who question the integrity of the proposition that the candidate who receives the most votes shall be elected as leader. “What about the minority?” “If we always go with the majority, wouldn’t there by tyranny of the majority?” Such arguments are, bluntly, ill-conceived and lack substantive reasoning.

Leadership is about channeling the interests of the many into one. In the case of electing a leader to represent a group this means picking the leader that has the most human support, as measured by the number of votes the leader receives. When we are kids we vote on Class Presidents by majority/plurality. When we elect Senior Prom Kings and Queens we do so by majority/plurality. When we elect Senators, House of Representative members, judges, local politicians, we do so by majority/plurality. The concept of voting in the leader who garners the most support is not radical. It’s the norm in most elections.

The last determination in electing a leader is how to structure the election itself. Should there be two elections, the latter of which only includes the top-two vote-getters in the first election (a “run-off” system)? Should there be a single election and the top vote-getter takes home the trophy? This decision will be left to the democracy. Ultimately this process is secondary to the ground rules of the election itself: that each voter is entitled to equal say in electing the leader and that the leader is chosen based on popularity.

—

On Democracy #2

The Right to Vote

The most sacred right of a democracy is the right to have one’s voice heard. It must be protected, shielded, and promoted.

What is a democracy without the right to vote? It isn’t one. It’s as simple as that. Expressing one’s preference for candidates, ballot measures, ideas, and initiatives is the bedrock of a living democracy.

The right to vote must be protected at all costs. This means that at a minimum a true democratic government should:

1. Make any voting days national/state/local holidays.
2. Adequately fund and equip voting stations, including:

• Having them in close proximity to each other (ideally less than 1200m apart).
• Paid employees with sufficient security.
• Adequate staff, systems, poll machines, and equipment.
• Air conditioning, water, bathrooms, clear demarcated lines.

3. Training and “fire drills” where simulations of voting days will be run on each voting station to ensure the station is appropriately trained and ready to handle the voting days.

4. Accessibility resources for folks who are not able-bodied

5. Lower the legal age to vote (eg make the legal age to vote identical to the age for driving vehicles)

6. Require employers to provide paid leave for voting.

7. Allow folks who serve their full incarceration sentences to vote once released.

8. Study voting patterns of neighborhoods, localities, states, and provide more resources to jurisdictions and areas that are showing signs of low voter turnout.

9. Make voting “cool” — push cultural initiatives to bolster the right to vote.

10. Provide ballots in different languages.

11. Make voting digital (no reason this shouldn’t be an option in our era of technology)

12. Decriminalize sharing your ballot to the public.

It should be noted that the Right to Vote is under attack in many democracies and is all but a farce in modern fascist nations. In the United States voter ID laws (which have been paired with barriers in getting an ID), disallowing felons to vote, gerrymandering, and starving communities of voting resources all contribute to low voter turnout and voter suppression. The result is that in many communities across the United States voting remains a rich man’s sport. Something only those with adequate time, education, background, and money can afford to participate in.

Doesn’t sound very democratic, does it?

Still, some democracies are leading by example. Australia enacted compulsory voting, requiring their citizens to vote by law (more on this later). Korea protected the right to vote during the COVID-19 pandemic through measures to allow the elderly and sick to vote at different hours than the general public. In other nations like Canada and France voting stations are well-equipped with few waiting lines and adequate staff.

Protect the right to vote through legal, financial, regulatory, and cultural initiatives. Promote the vote using the same.

A true democracy elicits every single person’s vote.

Protecting the right to vote is one thing. Getting folks to vote is another. In any group, it’s essential that every person’s voice be heard, even if that requires eliciting/listening/acting to push the vote out of them.

Put another way, if we don’t act mindfully and pay close attention to the preferences of each individual, the only ones who will tend to be heard will be the louder ones or the ones currently in charge. Some may say that this is a good thing and the way life should be. But why? What is a world that only listens to the loud?

We can use a real life example to showcase why listening/soliciting information from folks is a positive. When I was younger I would often hang out in group settings with my friends. When we would decide what to do, I would pay close attention to each person’s preference. Of six close friends, two would remain quiet, I typically wouldn’t have a preference, and the other three would discuss. Back and forth, back and forth, back and forth they would go. After minutes of discourse, things would fall silent.

“What do you want to do?” I asked as I turned to my two quiet friends.

“Well… I think option A sounds fun…” One would begin.

“Oh come on!” a loud friend would interject.

“Shh.” I tell them, “let them finish.”

… The quiet friends would speak up. Folks would hear them out and the louder ones in the room would quiet down. When the two quiet friends finished there would be consensus. Silencing the rambunctious crowd and platforming the quieter one had helped the group understand each other better and everyone ended up happy with the result.

In the context of voting this concept becomes even more critical. A true representative democracy requires each voice to be heard and felt, not just the loudest ones. So — we must elicit the preference and vote from each individual to the extent we can. It is the duty of government and democracy itself — to elicit (non-violently and with gentle care) — the preferences of the people.

How can we do this? We don’t have a magic wand that tells us how our citizenry feels, but government could still do the following:

1. Compulsory voting — require voting by law. Penalize those who do not vote, or subsidize/incentivize those who do through vouchers, discounts, subsidies, etc.
2. Voting by proxy — normalize or require each citizen to authorize another citizen (their proxy) to vote on their behalf. This would allow folks who are busy (or lazy…) but still want to vote to have their preference counted. It would also contribute to peer pressure forcing the hands of apathetic folks to vote — when all of their friends give their proxies to their partners, parents, or friends, and have their voices heard, it will push them to do the same.
3. Lower barriers to voting — make it as easy to vote as possible. If that means making voting digital, then sobeit.

Democracy dies in silence, and that includes when the conversation is focused exclusively on those who are the loudest. We must elicit the votes of all eligible voters — especially those who feel less comfortable speaking up and out — to reach the pinnacle of true democratic representation.

“Just because you didn’t speak doesn’t mean you don’t have a voice”

— —

On Democracy #3

By the people, for the people.

Serving in government and representing the people’s interest is the highest privilege one can have in a democratic society. As such, ancillary benefits, financial, career, or other, should be strictly limited, and the privilege of the office itself should be the driver of folks seeking it.

Self-interest = bad for government = bad for leadership = bad for democracy.

Corruption, insider trading, back-alley deals, embezzlement. Call it what you will, but politics and politicians have historically taken advantage of their seat of power to enrich themselves. In America in 2022 it looks like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stock trading based on legislation she knows will be signed. In other countries it’s pure embezzlement. The salary, benefits, and time off (in the United States Congress has approximately 250 working days, of which it spends about 60–80 off) are all typically top of the line. When leaders leave office they are welcomed by a nice pension, health care plan, and unique business opportunities given their connections and network.

Self-interest clouds a politician’s ability to lead effectively. It sours the purpose of why they are serving in office and distracts them from doing their job. It also corrupts — the adage “absolute power corrupts absolutely” comes to mind. Really, there are no upsides to self-interest infecting the legislative process. Democracy is about enriching the greater community and those represented, not the individual pocketbooks of those in power.

So, how should being a leader play into the compensation and wealth-building mechanisms of governance? In this paper I will argue that the role of a leader should be as separate and distinct as possible from wealth-building mechanisms (either direct or indirect), and that this boundary should be enforced through appropriate regulations ensuring the separation of one’s leadership positions and the same politician’s ability to accumulate wealth.

We will begin with what most folks think of when they think of money: annual income.

Income

Income for folks in leadership positions should be appropriate so they can live a sustainable life. No more, no less. How much money defines a “sustainable life” is open to interpretation, but a few guideposts:

1. Leaders’ salaries should be tied to inflation to reduce the “grounding out” out of their purchasing power over time.
2. Leaders should be paid a moderate, but respectable salary.
3. Leaders should not be paid any sorts of “bonuses,” discretionary or not.

The highest levels of United States elected officials may be a good place to start. Members of Congress earn around $175,000, Supreme Court Justices $255,000, and the President $400,000. Large sums compared to the median income of nearly $31,000 for individuals in the same nation, but not enough go to your local Ferrari dealership for the newest 488. Index the salaries to inflation so we don’t have to worry about cost of living adjustments. Some would say these numbers are too high. Others too low. The reality is there is no “right” answer here but the above principles should be kept in mind when determining leaders’ pay.

Give your leaders enough to eat and live but no more. They have been given the greatest privilege of a society — to lead and represent the people. They do not need wealth. They do not need riches. And should they want those things, they do not need to seek out public office.

Stocks

Upon being elected to a leadership position all stock trades by the leader should be halted and all shares transferred to a blind trust managed by a third party (i.e. not a related person like their wife or family, but rather to a neutral party or business) who will manage the portfolio going forward.

As general rules:

1. As soon as readily possible upon being elected the leader’s stocks should be immediately transferred to the third party and the third party should (i) sell all of the existing stock and (ii) repurchase stock in its own judgment. This is done primarily so the leader cannot, while legislating, think about how their portfolio will be helped or hurt. Keeping the portfolio blind from the leader is important in this way.
2. No stock trades shall be allowed by or on the leader’s behalf, period.
3. The leader shall be allowed to trade stocks only 10 years after serving in office. Such a time frame provides enough information turnover in the legislative body that any advantage the leader would have had via relationships or holdovers would be mitigated. The number of years does not have to be set at 10, though, and some may advocate for the ban to be permanent.

As a leader, they should be serving the people, not themselves. Walking into a role with such restrictions — like banning stock trading — will weed out folks who are gunning for power for the wrong reasons.

Stock trading while serving in a leadership role should be a thing of the past.

Real Estate

Real estate transactions by senior government officials should be subject to close review by government auditors and watchdogs given the ability for officials to use insider information for personal gain.

Real estate transactions should be subject to the same regulatory regime as stock trading. Insider information should be locked up and officials should not be allowed to trade on any material, non-public information related to the real estate markets — including information that would materially alter the price of real estate that they are purchasing or selling.

The underlying goal for any real estate regulatory regime for politicians should be the same as that of stock trading: minimize all advantages that the public officials could have by virtue of their seat in government.

If this means banning all real estate transactions by government officials, then sobeit.

Asset Management and Trading

Cryptocurrency, investment properties, commercial real estate, gold — what do we do with other assets that the politician owns, and how do we manage their ability to trade in them while in office?

If it isn’t stocks it’s real estate. If it isn’t real estate, it’s crypto. If it’s not crypto, it’s commodities. If given an opportunity to make money off of confidential/insider information politicians will take it. It’s as simple as that.

Similar to our discussion of stocks above, assets held by a politician (perhaps excluding up to three physical properties and all bank-held cash so folks can keep a nest-egg of wealth) should be immediately transferred to an independent fiduciary or trust for management. Such assets should then be liquidated and diversified into other assets by a blind trust. This will reduce the internal bias the politician holds towards the assets once they are in office (just like stock trading as discussed above). The goal should be reducing as much bias in the politician’s heart as much as possible so when they legislate they are not acting out of self-interest.

Once elected, the purchases and sales of assets should be regulated in the same regime as stock trading. No insider information allowed, all trades should be monitored, and there should be a time-bar after the politician leaves office before they are allowed to trade again.

—

Folks seeking to represent the people should be limited in their ability to garner wealth. Limitations should include bans on trading assets while in office, handing over assets to an independent wealth manager while in office, and limiting the income earned while in office.

These rules should be broadly known by the public and folks looking to enter politics.

Corruption has no place in democracy.