Hybrid Democracy






Representative democracy

controlled by

Direct democracy








  Why democracy



Democracy was 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.


Through democracy 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.


Even though 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.



  Why representative democracy



This chapter explains why was representative democracy invented, what were people trying to achieve with it, what problems did they try to solve.


Representative 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 democracy.


  Limited space in a room



First problem is limited amount of space in a voting room needed to place everyone who wanted to vote.




Since 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.




And 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.






Even 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.




Once 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.




Problem 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.




Once 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 represents.




Problem 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.



  Why hybrid democracy



Hybrid democracy 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 political issues.

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 single issue).


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


Modern 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.


What 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.


  Reallocation - SOLVED


Modern 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 place.


  Full time politicians - NOT SOLVED


Unfortunately 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.


But fortunately hybrid democracy allows us to fix the problem of corrupted representatives, which is plaguing representative democracy as described in following subchapter.


  Corrupted representatives - DAMAGE CONTROL


Introduction 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 Hybrid Democracy.


Hybrid democracy 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 problem.


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 society.


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.


  An example

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.


We 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 representative democracy.


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 democracy.


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.



  Principles of Hybrid Democracy



This chapter 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:


Graphic: A hybrid model of direct-representative democracy

  Hybrid voting


During the 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.


  Votes forwarding


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 official politician. 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.


  Multiple representatives


Hybrid democracy, 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.


  Continuous voting


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.




Hybrid Democracy, 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 never used.




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 processes.


  Protecting minorities


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.


  Benefits of 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


For representative 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 politicians


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.


  Compromising interests

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.

  Unknown interests

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.


Representative democracy is freedom to elect our own dictators.


  Reduced discrimination

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.


  Benefits of 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.


  Gradual change

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 time.


  Better adaptation


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 democracy.


  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 representation.


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 chooses to.



  Criticism of Hybrid Democracy



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 does.




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 millions.


  Mechanics of Hybrid Democracy



This chapter presents details of how hybrid democracy could be technically implemented.


  Registering for 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.





  Logging into hybrid democracy service


Voters that have registered for hybrid democracy service as described in Registering for hybrid democracy service can use their account to log into hybrid democracy service. To log in into hybrid democracy service voter most visit web page www.hybriddemocracy.com where he will be asked to enter username and password which he has received when he registered for hybrid democracy service. 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.





A hybrid model of direct-representative democracy