1. Politics doesn‘t represent People
How can we add more participation
even when the established political parties resist?
And should we?
We have a Representation Crisis
And who should do it?
and achieve a real say

2. Politics doesn’t represent the majority of the people
As US and German studies* have shown
politics favors the will of the upper class,
and at best ignores the middle and lower class
therefore more than 80% of its constituents.
US study “Affluence and Influence” from the Princeton University, 2012
German study “Systematic Distorted Decisions?” from University of Osnabrück, 2016 and its infamous history of changes
We have a Representation Crisis

3. People are individuals
How to conveniently 'overlook' the will of the people?
Easy: 'Pretend to know' what they want and ignore their input.
• Ask them about 20 topics/ decide on 200
• Give them a vote every 4th year but give them no real choice
• Produce apathy, interpret disillusioned silence as approval
• Organize and plan via a centralized system
with minimal input from the people affected
• Repeat every 4 years

4. Politicians are not aligned with voters
Incentives Get re-elected, forever
Industry job as lobbyist
Money from speaking
engagements etc.
Other favors
Pressure
vote with party or
get delisted
receive
sufficient
election
funding
time pressure not being able to read/
understand everything voted upon

5. Incumbent Parties stack the game
If you let parties decide “on their own behalf” they tend to decide
“in their favor”:
• Additional funds for political parties in power, representatives,
their foundations etc.
• Usage of tax paid manpower for party business
• Trade government contracts/ legislation for favors
• Hinder transparency, obfuscate responsibility
… decreasing the chances for new political parties.

6. Incumbent Parties reduce control
If you let parties decide “on their checks & balances” they tend to
reduce the effectiveness of these institutions:
• Give posts to those that agree with them
• Weaken rules of oversight to extend their options

7. Fears of the Critics of direct referendums
Rash decisions about complicated topics
Uninformed voters choose the wrong solution as they have no
time to educate themselves on the topic.
Ø Enable informed decisions instead of gut feeling
- balanced information with checked facts
- set and safeguard info and democratic processes
Voters vote themselves money
Ø They didn’t in 2017 in a Swiss people’s initiative on Universal Basic
Income

8. Fears of the Critics of direct referendums
Take over by big spenders
Ø According to a 1999 study from Professor Elizabeth Gerber
this didn’t happen in the US:
"Overall, there are no indications that financially strong circles have been able to
manipulate the people in such a way that they managed to pass laws whose results were
rejected by the majority of the people. Business associations therefore usually prefer
lobbying in parliaments. Here the influence is more effective, cheaper and more
independent of public opinion."

9. Fears of the Critics of direct referendums
The fear of mob rule
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin
You have to set rules
Ø Absolute limits to the rights of intervention of the state
Ø Limitation of the sphere of influence of the state
Ø Avoid favoring or discriminating against groups
Ø A working legal system

10. Participatory knowledge-based Politics
with safeguarded information processes and democratic processes
Information
Knowledge
Safeguarded
Processes
Parliament
Voters

11. If 5% of the party
members vote to take
the topic to the official
deliberation process
1:1
Y
N
Liquid Democracy and
5% takeover vote
Safeguarded Information
& Democratic Processes
1:1 Transfer to Parliament
e.g.: If 80% of the members
vote YES and 20% NO, then 8
from 10 representatives vote
with YES and 2 with NO.
The Proxy Party in a Nutshell
Safeguarded Processes
• Well-balanced fact gathering, fact
check, deliberation
• Creation of 6-page input paper

12. Focus on Democracy & Transparency
Fix Democracy First, extend with most pressing problems that
can be moved, focus on quality and consensus
Quality of preparations
• Manpower for
- content preparation
- fact checking
- discussion facilitation
• Expert input
Investment by voters
• Interest in topics
• Quality proposal of topic
• Sense of change
• Trust
• Ease of informing
yourself about topic
Efficiency
number of high quality grassroot votes that can be carried out
Effective Systems & Processes
• Safeguarded democratic
and info processes
• Easy to use
• Secure

13. Put a safeguard to processes
Safeguarding the information processes
• Facts (even the painful) , fact checking
• Background and mechanisms behind the topic
• Pros and Cons and well-founded recommendation
Safeguarding the democratic processes
• Define and follow a topic input and pickup process
• Define and follow rules to discuss and widen topic
• Define necessary topic maturity conditions for voting

14. And the results will be better
Prof. Jon Dryzek: “The most obvious finding is that, given the opportunity, ordinary
citizens can make good deliberators. Moreover, issue complexity is no barrier to the
development and exercise of that competence.”
Prof. James Fishkin “The public is very smart if you give it a chance. If people think their
voice actually matters, they’ll do the hard work, really study . . ., ask the experts smart
questions and then make tough decisions. When they hear the experts disagreeing, they’re
forced to think for themselves. About 70% change their minds in the process.” “Citizens
can become better informed and master the most complex issues of state government if
they are given the chance.”
Comprehensive empirical study on Citizen Deliberation by Prof. John Dryzek, Political Sciences, Australian National University
Two decades of citizen panels run by Prof. James Fishkin, Political Science and Communication, Stanford University
Both mentioned in Manuel Arriagna, “Rebooting Democracy: A Citizen’s Guide to Reinventing Politics”

15. Who is likely to do it?
• An incumbent political party that is close to the ideals and
has nothing to loose
• A newly founded political party that needs an extra boost
of trust to break the 5% hurdle
• Multiple newly founded political parties
- agree to come together to upgrade democracy
- jointly discuss about solutions on the basis of grassroots
democracy with secured information processes and
democratic processes
• A new political party

16. we could insist toWhat if
take the decision in our own hands
before professional politicians
screw it up again?

17. Learn more about the idea of the Proxy Party and why single
direct candidates are currently not the best solution:
If you are a book reviewer,
please send me a mail to
review (at)
upgradingdemocracy.com to
receive your ARC.