invented as a solution to previous forms of political organization which were
concentrating all of the power to either single person or small group of
people. They were directing all the power and wealth toward themselves without
any care for general population.
general population could finally create laws in their own interest which
resulted in greater prosperity for majority of people. So the core idea behind
democracy is to allow people to be creators of their own destiny rather then
having someone else telling them what to do.
Having this in
mind it is quite astonishing that representative democracy caries word
democracy in its name since it is obvious that in representative democracy we
again have small number of people acting in their own interest against the
interest of the majority, the same type of political organization democracy was
supposed to replace. It seams that those in power have found an effective way
to continue to rule over many while preserving the idea among many that it is
the majority that is actually ruling as was intended in democracy. Basically they
completely changed the manning of the term democracy and invented new term,
direct democracy, in order to refer to original idea of democracy. This allowed
them to start inventing different types of democracies simply by placing
different word before the term democracy in order to manipulate general public
into thinking that these new political structures are democratic just because
they contain the word democracy in their names.
democracy might be better political form of ruling then previous mechanisms it
is probably not the most ideal one. The biggest strength of democracy lies in
the fact that since people are making laws for them selves they would probably
make them in a way that they should benefit from them. This is in sharp contrast
to lets say kingdom where king makes laws in his own interest without any care
for his people.
On the other hand
ruling a country requires great knowledge and understanding of different
complex processes and therefore country should be ruled by experts in those
field which is how people are chosen to run any other aspect of community.
Democracy is like taking group of people from the street and putting them into
jumbo jet to drive it own their own without any previous training or knowledge
on how to fly a plane. This might look like a bit of a catastrophic scenario
but compared to alternative where we have skilled pilot who suddenly decides to
clear the plane from all of the passengers, in mid air, so that he could keep
all the food to himself, previous scenario doesn't look that bad any more.
So leading a
country should be given to those who actually know what they are doing.
Unfortunately those people usually get corrupted very easily and then their
knowledge suddenly becomes counter productive since they start to use it
against the people they were supposed to protect. So until we invent some
technology which could guaranty integrity of our representatives we are stuck
with direct democracy as the best possible political organization.
explains why was representative democracy invented, what were people trying to
achieve with it, what problems did they try to solve.
democracy is actually very poor practical approximation of direct democracy. People
wanted to have society where everyone would have direct vote on political issue
because such approach was considered to be the best. This is the basis of
direct democracy. Unfortunately, in the past, it was not possible to
practically implement such political environment. There are three main problems
that needed to be solved and at that time they proved to be unsolvable. Each of
these problems will be introduced separately in chapters that follow. Solving
these three problems are the only thing that keeps us away from direct
Limited space in a room
First problem is limited amount of space in a voting room needed to place
everyone who wanted to vote.
it was not possible to put 5 million people in one room, so that each of them
could directly give their votes, solution was found by choosing
representatives. One way to do this would be to separate 5 million people into
groups of 1 million people and let each group select their representative. This
way we would now need to place only 5 people in a single room compared to 5
million and that was practically possible. Now instead of 5 million people
voting we have 5 people voting. This way we did solve the problem with finding
room big enough for all those who have the power to vote but unfortunately this
solution introduced new problem.
the biggest problem with this solution, with this approximation of direct
democracy, was assumption that representatives would act in the best interest
of the group they represented. Unfortunately this assumption has proven to be
wrong because it has no basis in the human nature. For most people it is not in
the human nature to sacrifice their interests for the interests of the other.
This means that as soon as representative is confronted to a choose to do good
for himself compared to do good for the group he will in most cases choose to
act in his own interest. If his interest is also in the interest of his voters
then there is no problem. But in most cases it was shown that by following his
own interests representatives do a great damage to their voters.
if there is now problem to find room big enough for 5 million people and even
if voting for every single vote would take only fraction of time and therefore
not significantly interfering with other work that needs to be done, one other
problem still remains. If you take 5 million people from all over the country
and reallocate them in that single voting room people would not be able to have
normal lifes and have other work done.
again solution presents itself in the form of representative. Again we could
separate 5 million people into groups of 1 million people and let each group
elect their representative. Now only representatives would have to reallocate
themselves to the voting room allowing others to go on with their daily lives.
with this solution is the same as discussed before since representatives are
shown not to work in the best interest of the group they represent.
Full time politicians
Second problem is that if you have direct democracy and require everyone to
vote on every single law then you are turning people into full time
politicians. In order to vote they would need to discuss and examine the laws
before voting which takes a lot of time. Society where everyone is politician
and nobody does anything else can't function since people need to attend to
various other activities to have functioning society.
again solution presents itself in the form of representative. Now even if
putting 5 million people in one room would not be a problem turning them into
full time positions would be. Again we could separate 5 million people into
groups of 1 million people and let each group elect their representative. Such
representative would then devote his full time in discussing and examining laws
and then use this knowledge to vote in the best interest of the group he
with this solution is the same as discussed before since representatives are
shown not to work in the best interest of the group they represent. Usually
they follow their own interests which often hurts the interests of their
voters. Also most politicians do not devote their time in examining and
discussing law but simply follow instructions given to them by those who
through those politicians are taking care of their own interests.
is based on introducing elements of direct democracy into existing system
governed by representative democracy. Ability to introduce elements of direct
democracy heavily relies on use of modern communications technologies like
internet, finally allowing us to move forward from representative democracy
into the realm of direct democracy. Idea is to use modern
communication technologies to allow people to have direct vote on various
Depending on how active voters are, such system
can either become pure representative democracy (if voters decide not to cast
direct votes) or pure democracy (if people decide to cast direct votes on every
Just like representative democracy
was invented to solve problems of direct democracy, hybrid democracy was
invented to solve problems of representative democracy. Following subchapters
show how hybrid democracy solves either problems of implementing direct
democracy, as presented in the previous chapter, and how it solves problems
introduces by representative democracy.
Limited space in
a room - SOLVED
communications technologies now allow us to put as many people as we want in a
single virtual voting room. This technology allows us instant access to any
place in a world. Of course not in a physical way but allowing us to have
presence in a sense needed to resurrect direct democracy.
is even more astonishing is that those people don't even need to be in a room
at the same time since votes could be collected asynchronously during a defined
period of time. Such period of time could be defined as a specific time
interval of lets say one week. But it could also be defined as the time it take
to collect majority of votes.
communications technologies also solve the initial problem of direct democracy
of having to reallocate voters in a voting room in order to allow them to vote.
With the use of internet voter can physically be on any place in the world but
still be able to achieve presence in virtual voting room where voting is taking
politicians - NOT SOLVED
current state of our technology still can not give us solution for turning
people into full time politicians if we would want to implement direct
democracy. And this is the only reason why we would still need representatives
as solution to this problem.
fortunately hybrid democracy allows us to fix the problem of corrupted
representatives, which is plaguing representative democracy as described in
Corrupted representatives - DAMAGE CONTROL
of direct democracy into representative democracy in order to achieve hybrid
democracy is intended to solve various problems currently plaguing
representative democracy. Many of the problems of representative democracy that
can be solved by turning to hybrid democracy are highlighted in chapter Benefits of
is based on the assumption that everybody is corrupted. This assumption is not done
because we believe that there are no honest people that might be able honestly
work in the interest of their voters. This assumption is done because our
current technology can't help us to identify such people. When we want to place
certain person into highly influential position inside a political structure
there is no way to be sure that that person will do his job in the best
interest of the people by being honest and competent. Assuming that person will
be honest, based on its history, is in no way guarantee that presumption is
valid and making such presumptions simply means closing eyes and ignoring the
This is why hybrid
democracy is not based on finding good, honest and hard working people but
rather presuming that everybody is highly motivated to become corrupted. In
order to combat corruption hybrid democracy defines set o rules which allows us
to effectively fight corruption when it happens and even before it has time to
do any real damage. Hybrid democracy is based on the assumption that person
can't control itself to be honest but that others can. So basically, through
transparency everyone is well aware what others are doing or planning to do, in
political since, and at the same time everyone is given actual direct power to
sanction such corrupted representatives and prevent their negative impact on
So instead of
blindly trying to find solution to current problems inside the setup of
representative democracy, which is based on false assumption that people would
put interest of others before their own ones, we can turn to hybrid democracy
and try to find solutions which are based on real world presumption that
people, in majority, are selfish and easily corrupted and the only way to have
a stable and functioning political environment is to allow people to
effectively control each other instead of giving ultimate power to chosen few
which then use that power for their own selfish interests.
This chapter presents short introduction on some basic points of hybrid
democracy through a simple example. Goal of this example is to present reader
with main principles around which hybrid democracy is designed. Each of these
principles will be explained in more detail in each of the following chapters.
shall start by describing election day as if would look like in hybrid
democracy. During election day person can register
itself that he wants to be represented by representative A. This is not
anonymous. Or he can go to election site and anonymously cast a vote that he
wants to be represented by politician A by circling representative name on the
paper and placing paper in the collection box as it is usual in countries with
Lets assume that 50 people
anonymously selected to be represented by politician A and that other 50
registered to be represented by representative A. It should be noted that
people could also register their representative from home through internet
using account, that was provided in advanced to everyone who asked for one
prior to election, to identify themselves.
Now when representative A casts his vote during
voting procedure for some law, either physically in a congress or from home
over the internet, his vote is at that moment worth 100 votes. If some of the
registered persons decides that this is not in his interest he can login into
web voting site and directly cast his vote on the issue therefore refusing to
be represented by this politician on this specific subject. Because of this, vote
of politician A during this specific voting procedure is now worth only 99 votes,
initial 100 votes minus 1 vote. If all 50 registered people decline that
politician A should represent them on this specific issue that would mean that vote
of representative A would be worth remaining 50 votes of those that anonymously
selected him to represent them.
If politician becomes corrupted voter could un register
from representative A meaning that vote of representative A would then be worth
-1 vote even if that voter doesn't go to web voting site for any of the
subsequent voting procedures. Voter could also re register to any other representative
at any given time if he decides that his interests would be better protected
this way. This way representatives would be de motivated to do whatever they
want until the next elections.
This way representative would feel motivated to
work in the best interest of their voters because otherwise voters could un register
from their representative thereby decreasing influence of that representative
by decreasing his worth in votes. Corrupt representatives can be completely
neutralized this way since they would loose their voting power. This way voters
could exercise their ability of direct voting for really important issues
without having to turn into full time politicians like it is the case in pure direct
It should be noted that term
representative, in this model of hybrid democracy, can be any voter and not
just small number of people that are part of some political party or people
that have been registered as possible representative through some procedure.
This means that voter A can choose voter B as his representative and voter B
can be any voter. It can be voter's A neighbour, member of his family, his
professor or any other voter. This will greatly increase the pool of possible
representatives which is currently greatly reduced only to those that have
enough money for proper media exposure.
presents different aspects of hybrid democracy which either directly or
indirectly contribute to its effectiveness. Partial overview of main principles
is given in following diagram:
election day voter can decide to choose his representative anonymously or to
register to certain representative by identifying himself. Or it can decide to
keep his vote for himself in order to either vote directly for given laws or to
choose his representative later. Those who decide to choose their representatives
anonymously will do this the same it is done today. Those who choose to
register to certain representative would have to be given an account in
advanced so that they could such an account to log in into web voting service
where they could register their vote to chosen representative. This also allows
them to un register from their representative or re register to another one as
they please and when they please.
Instead of only registering
to specific politician user can register his vote to any other voter. For
instance one voter can allow any other voter to use his vote as he pleases. So
if person has trust that someone he knows might better decide in his interest
he could give him his vote. This vote forwarding can go indefinitely but loops
have to be avoided. This principal makes vogue difference between politician and normal
person since normal person might in theory have higher worth in votes then
To reflect this, rule can be added that those that are worth more then 100 000
votes have privilege to sit at parliament while others could exercise their
voting right remotely from internet.
Dispersion of voting power
Those that have multiple
votes, which were given to them by others, do not have to make single decision
for all of the votes. For instance if someone is worth 100 votes he can select
that 20 of his votes would vote FOR certain law and 80 against because that
person feels that interests of those 20 people would be best taken care to vote
FOR the law while interests of remaining 80 people would be best taken care to
vote AGAINST the law.
as described in this paper, allows each voter to have multiple representatives,
different one for each category. So you might choose representative A to
represent you on the subjects of foreign affairs, one that is against entering
European union. You might choose representative B to represent you on the
subjects of internal affairs, one that is against forced financing of official
television station. And finally you might choose representative C to represent
you on the subjects of religion affairs, one that is against church being
financed by the state.
Two step voting
Two reduced negative
influence of corrupted or incompetent politicians hybrid democracy introduces
two step voting. Here is a simple interpretation of this process. On day one
representatives give their votes for certain law. On day two voters are given
opportunity to evaluate how their representatives voted. If some voter finds
that his representative voted against his interest he can choose to override
his representative and cast direct vote on the subject. This will effectively
reduce the voting power of the representative by one vote for this given law.
On day three votes from both representatives and direct votes from voters are
collected to calculate if the law passed or not.
Voting in hybrid democracy
can also be implemented as continues voting. Continuous voting is closely
related to referendum. Referendum allows every voter to suggest their own law
at any given moment. When such laws is submitted to voting procedure it starts
to collect votes from voters or their representatives. When certain laws
collects majority of votes it goes into pre launch stage which can last for
instance a week. Pre launch stage is used as indicator to voters that certain
law has collected majority of votes. This gives voters opportunity to react
before the law is actually accepted. Voters who have voted for this law now
have opportunity to retract their vote. Those who were not aware of the law so
far have the opportunity to more closely examine it which includes evaluating
how their representatives voted on the law. If they are not satisfied how their
interests were taken care by their representative concerning this laws they can
cast direct vote overriding their representatives vote.
as described in this paper, will increase influence of referendum by making it
cheap and fast through internet so that anyone can propose anything they like
and proposals that get enough votes must be included into law as is the case
with referendum. This will be implemented through continuous voting. Problem
with today's referendum is that people can only prevent certain law but not
propose new ones. Current referendum is also very expensive so it is basically
Most data should be transparent,
publicly available to the voters. You as tax payer should be informed how tax
payers money is spend. Government institutions should tell month in advance
their intention to spend money for something so that public could have time to
react. Info on their pay check and every other additional expense they make
should be documented on the web. Data transparency is one of the two components
necessary for voters to make adequate decisions. General public needs to be
both well informed and well educated t be able participate in decision making
Minorities would be protected just
like they are now in liberal democracies. Majority could not vote that certain
group should leave country or be forbidden to exercise their religion. Basic
human rights of all groups would be protected.
Hybrid vs Representative Democracy
This chapter presents many
problems characteristic for representative democracy which can be solved by
introduction of direct democracy resulting in a hybrid democracy.
Motivating representatives not to become corrupted
democracy corrupted representatives have become rather a rule then exception
that and the same can be said for incompetent ones. This might come as surprise
but it is rather to be excepted because it is not in basic human nature to care
of the interests of other but rather of their owns personal interests. It is
rather unfortunate that representative democracy is based on the assumption
that people care about each when the fact is that most care only about them
selves and they care about others only if that serves their interest. Without
going any further in rather numerous mistakes on which representative democracy
is based this argument alone should have been enough to easily predict that
such political environment is destined to produce non functioning corrupted
societies which people are become more and more aware throughout the globe. And
when such corruption is left alone without sanctioning, as is the case in most
countries with representative democracy, results are what we are faced with
every day. This is where hybrid democracy
comes into play.
Hybrid democracy, as
presented in this paper, allows voter to change its representative at any given
moment. In hybrid democracy you don't have to wait 4 years to speak your mind
through election processes about corruption. If you feel that your
representative has become corrupted or have for some other reason stopped
representing your interests or you find out that he was blatantly lying about
everything during the election period you can simple log into voting web page
and deselect him as your representative. From that moment on this
representative does not represents you any more and his voting power has just
decreased by one vote. Since everybody else can do the same voting power of
corrupted politicians can be dramatically in a matter of hours. Rapid response
to corrupted activity.
In ideal case, in the above
scenario elements of direct democracy might not actually be practiced by
voters. These elements will simply serve as a potential mechanism to neutralize
corrupted or incompetent politicians. By knowing that their actions can be
sanctioned at any given moment by a simple click of button we can presume that
that should motivate them to do their job as intended by the theory of representative
democracy. Here we have active functional representative democracy being
closely watched by direct democracy waiting to get into action.
Do your job and let us do
ours or else we will reduce your voting power to zero and no bank, lobby or industry
will ever be interested in bribing you.
Reducing influence of corrupted or incompetent
It gets even better. In
representative democracy corrupted politician will first do some damage and
only after the damage was done you get the ability to sanction him. Actually
such representative can freely continue to do as much damage as he wishes since
you have to wait for next election period to choose different representative.
Now in hybrid democracy, as
presented in this paper, voting process is defined in such a way that such
damage can be completely avoided. You can find out that politician has stopped
protecting your interests before the damage is done. This is achieved through
two step voting as descried in one of previous chapters. In its simplest form
two step voting might look like this.
On day one representatives
give their votes for certain law. On day two voters are given opportunity to
evaluate how their representatives voted. If some voter finds that his
representative voted against his interest he can choose to override his
representative and cast direct vote on the subject. This will effectively
reduce the voting power of the representative by one vote for this given law.
On day three votes from both representatives and direct votes from voters are
collected to calculate if the law passed or not.
So if group of politicians
just received hefty fee from bankers to vote that country should take new
credit with super high interests from those same bankers you as voter will get
opportunity to neutralize their votes and directly cast you vote against such
initiative before any damage gets done.
One of the problems of current representative democracy is that you are
forced to select set of interests that best suite your need instead of
making sure that all of your interests are being taken care no meter how
diverse they might be. This is result of the fact that each voter can choose
only one representative, either person or political party, which has defined set
of interests called program that it will try to pursue if elected. So by
choosing whom to give your vote you are forced to make a compromise by
selecting program that best suites your interests but probably not completely.
For instance you might be against state financing the church, against entering
European union and against forced financing of official television station. If
there is no single representative whose program contains all three of these
interests you might decide to choose representative which agrees on most of
these points. So you will choose representative which is against European Union
and against forced financing of official television station but who is fighting
that church gets even more funds from the state. Such representative is not
representing you interests in fullest. In fact it is actually going against
your interests by actively working on increasing financial aid to the church.
Hybrid democracy easily and elegantly solves this problem by allowing you to
choose representative which will most closely fight for majority of your
interests allowing you at the same time to override his decisions on subjects
where you two disagree.
Hybrid democracy, as described in this paper, also allows each voter to have
multiple representative, different one for each category. So you might choose
representative A to represent you on the subjects of foreign affairs, one that
is against entering European union. You might choose representative B to
represent you on the subjects of internal affairs, one that is against forced
financing of official television station. And finally you might choose
representative C to represent you on the subjects of religion affairs, one that
is against church being financed by the state.
This way all of your interests are fully covered one way or another and you
don't need to make any kind of compromises and sacrifice subset of your
interests in order to ensure that majority of your interests are cared for.
Often certain subjects can arise which were not covered by political programs
of representatives and political parties during the election period. For
instance recession might hit the country requiring swift response but
representatives might not know how to best represent their voters on that mater
since recession was not part of their program and voters were not being given
the opportunity to choose what they think is the best way to fight recession.
to make things even worse not all of their voters might share the same idea how
to fight recession meaning that what ever action representative takes to fight
recession it might be against interests of big part of their voters.
Once again hybrid democracy can easily solve this problem by allowing voters to
re-elect their representatives every time new subject arises which was not
being considered during initial elections. This is another good example of
hybrid democracy providing rapid response for highly dynamic environment we all
live in order to ensure that voters interests are best taken care.
Dispersion of voting power
Current representative democracy works in a way that each representative has
specified program, set of interests he fights for. Hybrid democracy, as
described in this paper, changes this in following way. Idea of representative
is to represent best interests of his voters. That doesn't mean that
representative must have fixed ideas on certain subjects. Representative is not
about what he thinks or wants but what his voters think and want. That means
that it is absolutely natural for representative to support diametrically
different interests. There is nothing wrong about single representative
simultaneously protecting interests of those who think completely differently.
For instance single representative might simultaneously represent person who is
for European union and another one who is against it. This means that such
representative will take care of his voter by differentiating between his
voters and their interests.
Hybrid democracy, as described in this paper, allows voter to choose his
representative by filling in his interests which might be different from the
interests of another voter who has chosen the same representative. Such
representative simply provides service of taking care of the interests of his
voters no mater how different they might be.
Hybrid democracy, as described in this paper, supports this idea also through
dispersion of voting power during voting procedure. What this means is that
during voting procedure representative is not obligated to use all of his votes
the same way. He is not forced to give all of his votes for a certain law or
all of his votes against the law. Representative can choose to disperse his
voting power by for instance using 20% of his votes by voting for the law and
then at the same time using remaining 80% of his votes to vote against the same
law. This would be perfectly valid if 20% of his voters are farmers end 80% of
his voters live in a cities and law is about increasing financial support for
farmers which is in best interest of the farmers but it is against the
interests of those voters living in a cities.
Representative democracy is unconstitutional
If your constitution contains line that goes something like this: "All
people should have equal rights." then having minority of people
(representatives) having exclusive rights to choose laws and at the same time
having majority of people who have absolutely no influence in choosing laws
then you have discrimination that goes against the constitution.
This becomes even more apparent if you take into consideration that
representatives are in no way obligated to fulfil their promises given to the
voters during the election period. During the election period it is allowed for
representatives to promise whatever pops in their mind or whatever they think
might win them most votes but once the election is over they don't have to
fulfil any of the given promises and usually continue making decision that have
nothing to do with given program presented during election period. All of this
makes it impossible for majority to have any kind of influence on setting up
the rules upon which society should function. This majority is completely shut
down and have absolutely no influence on meters that directly and greatly
influence their lives. Counter argument that voters can choose different
representatives during next elections false apart if we presume that there are
no honest representatives and that usually voters are forced to choose between
lesser evil. Basically representative democracy, as it is implemented currently
in most countries, allows voters to choose between different wolves that will
eat away voters prosperity.
democracy is freedom to elect our own dictators.
Hybrid democracy vastly reduces
discrimination which exists in representative democracy by increasing number of
people that have direct influence on political maters from few dozens to
millions. Discrimination might still exist compared to people which don't have
internet access or are not enough technically literate to use modern
communication technologies to practice direct democracy. But number of such
people is reduced year after year and in near future internet access and skills
needed to use it would become widespread and normal as reading and writing is
in these days.
Hybrid vs Representative Democracy
This chapter presents reasons
why it might be better to replace representative democracy with hybrid
democracy instead of direct one.
Protecting different Interests
Direct democracy is not a goal but rather
a mean to achieve a certain goal. That goal is to enable citizens to protect
their interests. Many believe that representative democracy, in spite all of
its flaws, is the best possible political solution. They believe that we just
need to work on the details how to better regulate it. Others believe that in
spite all of its flaws, representative democracy, is much better then direct
democracy. Since our goal is to allow people to have what they want, when
possible, replacing representative democracy with pure direct democracy would
go against the interest of many who prefer representative democracy for
whatever reason. It is not on us to decide instead those people that they are
wrong and that they should prefer direct democracy. Our goal is to allow them
to choose such political organization which they feel would be best suited for
them. This is where hybrid democracy comes into play. It allows those who are
not willing to change their behavior to continue to participate in political
life the way they are used to by practicing representative democracy.
Everything that was said
about those who prefer representative democracy can be also repeated for those
who prefer direct democracy. They should also be given possibility to
participate in political life in the way they see fit by directly protecting
their own interests bypassing any representatives. Once again hybrid democracy
comes into play allowing those who firmly believe in benefits of direct democracy
to practice it.
By turning to hybrid
democracy we can cater to both of the above groups of people elegantly allowing
two very different political systems to coexist and complement each other in
formal and organized manner.
Another argument for replacing
representative democracy with hybrid one is that is presents more gradual
change in political organization and the way people think. Representative and
direct democracy are two very different beasts and sudden shift from one to another
might present a shock to many people who are so used to representative
democracy and also might be to afraid of direct democracy by being misinformed
about its properties. Forcing people two make such a sudden shift might
generate unneeded and unjustified opposition toward direct democracy leading in
its downfall even before being given the opportunity to prove its effectives in
resolving many of the problems currently plaguing representative democracy.
This is where hybrid democracy comes into play (again). By introducing elements
of direct democracy without interfering with current system of representative
democracy skeptics could continue practicing their political behavior and at
the same time they could observe and learn principles of direct democracy as
being practiced by those who feel that it is high time for the change and that
direct democracy might be the solution for our current problems. This way no
body is being forced to change if they don't want to or if they are not ready.
Changing minds is slow and daunting task but fortunately it is just meter of
Hybrid democracy allows
society to go from pure representative democracy to pure direct democracy and
everything in between in a meter of one click. Such organized in such a way
might have much better opportunity to adopt to unpredictable future events.
Such events might include currently unknown problems that might arise from
representative or direct democracy. So if a problem is found in direct
democracy part of hybrid democracy society could easily shift more toward
representative democracy. For instance we can imagine computer virus sending
our voting infrastructure to middle ages. Unable to practice direct democracy
such society would become crippled without ability to make decisions. We can
imagine similar scenario happening as a result of a aggressive attack of
another country. Such country might decide to target our voting infrastructure
effectively stopping our ability to make crucial decisions needed to protect
from the attack and organize resistance. Direct democracy heavily relies on
modern communication technology. And modern communication technology is very
fragile and open to attacks of various forms. Solution for the above scenarios
might be to allow people to choose their representative through a secondary
voting system. Such secondary voting system might require person to visit its
local police station where he could choose its representative for the time
being. This way society could shift to pure representative democracy in the
time of crisis when benefits of such system might overshadow benefits of direct
Not turning people into full time politicians
Practicing direct democracy
requires lot of time and effort. As a result we can except that people would be
turned into full time politicians having to invest time to examine, discuss and
vote every time a new law comes into scene. And since subjects covered by
specify laws belong to vastly different aspects of life it is unreasonably to
expect that everyone will be able to fully understand each law before voting
for it. This is just not possible having in mind current human capabilities of
data processing. So it is very likely that in cases where person must cast a
vote for a law that covers subject unfamiliar to that person, that that person
might ask for advice another person in which it has trust and believes that
that person is better familiar with subject in question. If so we are now half
way toward representative democracy since person is being told how to vote but
he is still voting himself. So difference between this approach and
representative democracy is only in technical, who was the one who actually
made the vote. But this technical side is not as important as the fact that one
person made decisions instead of another which is the core property of
representative democracy. In hybrid democracy case as discussed above is
formally covered by set of strict rules which allow any voter to choose any
other voter as their representative in cases they choose fit. This may be if
voter is unfamiliar with the subject of the law, if voter doesn't have time to
properly examine the law, if voter has full confidence in his representative to
make better decisions even for subject known by the voter. It should be noted
that hybrid democracy as presented in this paper supports multiple and partial
Multiple representation means
that user can choose many different representatives for different aspects of
life. When certain law is being given for voting it is categorized depending on
its content. Voter might choose his friend whom he trust and works in army to
represent him and therefore vote instead of him on any law characterized as
belonging to military category. Voter might have another friend who has a farm
and who then represent him on the laws belonging to category Agriculture.
Motivation for such separation of concerns lies in the fact that not everybody
can know everything. So by choosing different people for different subjects you
are ensuring that you are represented by a person who is well informed in the
given field and can therefore make the better decision the someone who is
unfamiliar with the subject in question. Of course person could choose a single
representative for all the subjects. Such person might be part of group of
experts from various fields which then work as a single unit/group/voter
providing expert analysis and support for those whom they represent.
Partial representation means
that voter can choose to be represented by different representatives for
different aspects of life while still preserving the ability to directly vote
for set of categories he chooses to. Interests of such voter are then only
partially represented because voter still has direct control on the subjects he
This chapter presents
different criticisms of Hybrid Democracy.
Over voting minorities
Since hybrid democracy
heavily relies on direct democracy first criticism is usually fear of majority
over voting the minority. It seams that most people are confused that such
event is not possible in representative democracy. This is of course wrong. In
representative democracy majority can over vote minority as simple as in direct
democracy. The only difference is that in representative democracy such event
would happen in two phases while in direct democracy it will happen in one
phase. In representative democracy nothing prevents majority to give their
votes to the same representative or political party which will then over vote
representatives of minority.
In representative democracy
minorities are not protected by any property of representative democracy.
Instead they are protected by additional set of laws which give certain rights
to minorities which can't be over voted by majority. Such laws prevent majority to vote that certain group should leave country or be forbidden
to exercise their religion. The same set of laws could be used in hybrid or
direct democracy to prevent minorities so in this sense hybrid democracy does
not present danger to the minorities any more that representative democracy
Some critics believe that
people without internet or enough technical knowledge would be discriminated
compared to others who could constantly practice direct democracy through
modern communication technologies. This is completely true. And although such
people would still have their representatives, chosen every few years on the
election day, they certainly wouldn't have as much influence as others. Such
discrimination, while it would still exist, it would be far less reaching
compared to discrimination that exists in representative democracy where all
decisions are being made by only few politicians. Hybrid democracy vastly reduces
decimation which exists in representative democracy by increasing number of
people that have direct influence on political maters from few dozens to
This chapter presents details
of how hybrid democracy could be technically implemented.
hybrid democracy service
Those voters who wish to take
active part in hybrid democracy through use of internet first would need to
register for the service. In order to register voter should visit police
station where upon identification he would be given an account, consisting of
username and password, which he could then use to login into www.hybriddemocracy.com. This is illustrated in the following diagram.
Casting a vote
Once successfully logged into
hybrid democracy service user can cast a direct vote to any of the laws
currently offered for voting procedure.