Most Western democracies have a parliament, which is used for elaborating and discussing laws. In some countries, there are two parliaments, while in others, similar discussions take place in different institutions not called parliaments. These institutions engage in conversations about new laws and determine their merit.
When considering the work of politicians or teams responsible for administering towns or cities (the polis), the crucial aspect is the connection between people.
Improving this connection could involve creating a language that facilitates the rapid development of political systems, similar to a flowchart language. When we think about e-government, online conferences often come to mind. However, instead of traditional conferences where only a few participants actively engage while the majority of attendees are bored spectators, we could explore alternative methods for discussing and making decisions.
What I envision is a system that fosters the exchange of ideas and encourages discussions, allowing users to participate without the need for organizing physical meetings. They can simply attend, think, and debate. Currently, we have approximately 400 people in the Italian parliament, and it’s not entirely clear what they are accomplishing. What if we could enable 600 or more individuals to engage in efficient discussions on common topics, surpassing the limitations of representative democracy and mitigating the risks associated with concentrated power?

How

To effectively create political systems, it may be necessary to develop new languages and symbols. While I’m unsure if any existing studies or trials have explored this area, they would likely have focused on descriptive approaches. In contrast, we are interested in using prescriptive diagrams. The distinction lies in our goal of not merely describing a political system but actively constructing a new one.

Let’s define some potential roles that should be seen as ‘use cases’:

1. Great Legislator: This entity, or even a team, is responsible for creating a comprehensive political system. Collaboration can be employed in the process of designing and implementing the system.
2. Politicians: These individuals actively participate and engage in debates. They can be full-time politicians or ordinary citizens who take a vested interest in the polis.

Political systems can be temporary or enduring, lasting for significant periods.

By adopting this approach, we aim to foster a deeper understanding of how political systems can be constructed through the use of diagrams and visual representations.

Possible blocks

Discussion: This block facilitates the discussion of a specific topic, which is passed as an argument to the `discussion()` function.

Decision: This block is used for making decisions. It takes two or more inputs and produces a user-determined number of outputs.

Check: The purpose of the check block is to verify something. A check can yield a value of 1 or 0, indicating whether a test has passed or not.

Consult: The consult block is utilized when the available information within the ecosystem is insufficient, and there is a need to seek advice from a consultant, professor, AI, or similar sources.

Receive: Receive information as input.
Send: Send information as output.

Es.

Solon, a renowned legislator, is endeavoring to establish a political system for his university. His objective is to enable a thorough discussion on a significant topic: grades. Presently, this topic is of utmost importance to a portion of students and professors, while others are either opposed to it or indifferent.

The great legislator devises a pathway, akin to a cursus honorum, aimed at resolving the issue. To address the “grades topic,” it is imperative that both parties, those in favor and those against, engage in dialogue and arrive at a solution.

To materialize his plan, the Great Legislator (referred to as GL henceforth) conceptualizes a flowchart-like diagram on a screen, outlining the key institutions involved.

If the total number of politicians (including professors and students) is 100, the GL proposes the formation of five separate teams, each consisting of five members, for discussing the pros, while an additional five independent teams discuss the cons. Meanwhile, the remaining five independent teams, also consisting of five members each, are tasked with observing the “pro” and “cons” teams from an external perspective, taking notes, and engaging in discussions among themselves regarding the points raised by the individual teams.

The final five teams are responsible for seeking out experts or individuals who can provide support for either the “pro” or “cons” arguments. They may conduct research in books, reach out to external professors for advice, and so on.

Naturally, for a genuine discussion to occur, it is necessary to have representatives from both sides. Therefore, an algorithm is implemented to ensure team balance and accommodate both polarities.

Rules

– Each team must consist of an equal number of members from the “pro” and “against” sides, except for one group out of 20, which must be entirely against grades, and another group that favors keeping grades.

– Each team must have an equal distribution of males and females, except for one group out of 20, which must comprise solely of males, and another group entirely composed of females.

The entire assembly would last for four hours, with team composition being rearranged every hour.

To be honest, I cannot ascertain whether this example is effective or not, but it represents an attempt to address an issue in a markedly different manner from current practices. It allows everyone to contribute their own solutions, and collectively we can test all the possible outcomes.

What would be the outcomes if we had 100 participants and two ideas as inputs, processed in the manner previously described?

An interesting approach to testing this system could be within a metaverse, assigning specific roles and scopes to participants. This would enable the measurement of the effects of interactions and assess how different debate structures influence the discourse itself.

Sometimes, it is necessary to test various materials before finding the right one. In this case, we would need to experiment with optimizing human interaction in the most effective way.

All types of algorithms can be created, and complex parliaments can be devised and implemented. For instance, we could establish a ten-person parliament, with each member representing a different field of science. Or perhaps we might desire a parallel debate between 1000 physicians and 1000 historians in a large-scale 1v1 format. If we wish for these individuals to engage in conversations with everyone else, it is now possible to organize their meeting times through a speed dating-style software.

Tech

To develop software like this, the basic requirement is to organize video conferences that can be created and deleted dynamically. Participants are then moved between online rooms according to the predetermined algorithm devised by the GL.

Considering the similarity to creating a flowchart, one could envision a drag and drop software interface where components can be easily moved. Platforms like Excalidraw or diagrams.net could be considered for implementing such functionality.

Conclusion

In conclusion, if you are interested in initiating the development of this software, please feel free to contact me.

PS. This post was written by me and corrected by ChatGPT.