For many people, democracy is the highest form of social organization and has done wondrous things for many people.  Yet there are dark clouds on the horizon for democracy as the BRICs countries seem to be on the rise.  What happened?  How did democracy lose its power?  

One of the main problems is that the feedback structure has been lost or is becoming dysfunctional.  Sure, we can vote every 2-4 years, but that kind of feedback may not be enough for a complex society.  Any well functioning system must have good feedback loops, not only for internal regulation, but also to be able to respond to external changes.  Good feedback can be defined here as useful information from the right place and at the right time.  A system that cannot provide accurate and useful ideas to the right places has become corrupt.  ( “corrupt” in the technical sense of not functioning the way it should).  

So we have decreased feedback to and from our leaders, but also to each other.   We all make decisions as individuals but gather and filter information as groups. Mainstream media that had previously provided this feedback are now owned by big business and generally unaware of their loss of credibility.  

Democracy 101 was designed to prevent the re-accumulation of power in a monarchy.   The designers did this by creating a distribution of power balance in the 3 branches of government, something that dictators do not have. 

It can be useful to examine the 3 main types of power: P1- Coercive Force of Arms, as described by Max Weber in the 19^th Century (a.k.a. Barrel of a Gun), P2- Economic and financial power, and P3- Useful Information.  Feedback falls into this last type.

The task of Democracy 202 then, is to reconnect the channels of communication and accountability between leaders, citizens, and the outside world.  We all have a bias, but we can set up a structure to balance the bias by creating small groups to provide useful feedback with an Information Gathering Process (IGP).  The small groups can be a dozen people randomly mixed into teams of players and a panel of judges.  Start with a specific Discussion Question (DQ), divide into teams and have the judges pick the best ideas.  The DQ is chosen by sponsors or by the players.

In order to get real change, one must engage people outside your own circle.  The prize can be useful to bring in other people.  Find a few people outside your usual group and mix them into the process.  Show them how to do the IGP.  We must push others to make decisions, even small decisions to start.  Give them time to think, but also give them something to think about.  Let’s use our natural desire for competition to challenge each other.

Results must be seen as useful by leaders and decision makers.  If not, they can repeat the process with another small group.  This is not the same as focus groups.  This is real competition with winners and losers.  

Outsiders will try to grab the type 1 and 2 Power Rings and so will meet a lot of resistance, including misinformation, slander, and personal attacks.  The 3^rd Power ring of Useful Information will continue to be essential for the working of the system however, and can be key to creating change when needed. 

Some leaders may not want more feedback and may continue to jail whistleblowers who give out too much information.  People in power and those who surround them often feel they do not have to listen to outsiders.  They will use talking heads to tell stories, sometimes powerful stories.  Talking heads will always be talking heads, even after replacement by AI.  The question is “Will listeners believe and act on it?”

The IGP structure can provide deniability for individuals while still finding and moving useful information forward.  The process must be efficient.  Like any game, half an hour up to two hours is best, so multiple rounds can be done within 24 hours.  Longer, more complex questions can be addressed by giving out the DQ, choosing teams, then recess for a day or two for players to find more info, then re-convene to play the game.  The organizer should not pick a DQ that is too far ahead of the experience and understanding of the players but still challenge them.

The same IGP structure can be use to:

1. Develop Better Questions

2. Push the results up the social ladder to leaders

3. Test results from other groups

4. Grow the groups

5. Start new IGP groups on other issues

6. Push to increase the number of people involved

An example of an issue that could be addressed with IGP is waste in government – a big issue but starting small it can advance rapidly. 

If we get through the Gaza War safely, Israel and Palestinians must still decide on a one-state v two-state structure.  IGP and Feedback can be used in either case and written into the constitution.  e.g. People born in the month of January can be remove Politician X from office by a 2/3 vote.  It is not necessary to have everyone vote on every issue to make it fair and balanced.  This IGP structure looks a lot like a sandlot baseball game and somewhat artificial, but useful way to create a division of labor for gathering and filtering information.  Like all sports, it is a temporary structure.  The prize money can come from sponsors or, to make it self-sustaining, from the players themselves.