The defining characteristic of a functional democracy is not who wins, but the behavior of those who lose. A democracy is healthy only when the losing side accepts the result as legitimate and agrees to compete again in the future. The moment losers begin to systematically challenge the fairness of the process, the entire democratic foundation is at risk.
Politicians are fundamentally incapable of drawing fair electoral boundaries due to an inherent conflict of interest: they want to ensure their party wins. Using a randomly sampled citizens' commission, as Michigan did, removes this conflict. This allows ordinary people, guided by a sense of fairness, to create equitable maps where politicians and courts have failed.
Political parties socialize well-intentioned individuals into a system of professionalized groupthink. The pressures of party loyalty, gaining power, and maintaining a united front lead politicians to engage in acts they would consider immoral on their own, such as lying or supporting policies they disagree with. This habitualized behavior is a core flaw of party politics.
Public goods are either "competitive" (schools, roads), suitable for electoral debate, or "unitary" (redistricting, judicial appointments), requiring non-partisan consensus. Applying competitive electoral logic corrupts unitary goods. Representation by sampling, like a jury, is the appropriate, unbiased mechanism to govern these essential functions that underpin the rules of the game.
Despite the vitriol on social media and in political discourse, the actual social reality is not nearly as polarized. On fundamental issues like the fairness of gerrymandering or the need for a welfare system, there is massive agreement between Democrats and Republicans. Political actors and media amplify conflict, creating a participatory 'cosplay' of division that obscures vast common ground.
The perception of a deeply divided society is largely an artifact of a political system built on competition and elections, which forces people into two opposing camps. A system based on deliberation would reveal that most people's views are not so rigidly coherent, and it would encourage finding common ground rather than winning at all costs.
Representation by sampling, the method used for juries, is one of two fundamental forms of democratic representation, the other being elections. While we have doubled down on elections, sampling offers a powerful, underutilized model for governance in areas like redistricting, where ordinary citizens can make fairer decisions than conflicted politicians.
Effective activism doesn't try to persuade politicians or stage a revolution. Instead, it should 'inject a retrovirus': build and run privately-funded alternative institutions (like citizens' assemblies) that operate on a different logic. By demonstrating a better way of doing things, this strategy creates demand and allows new institutional 'DNA' to spread organically.
Our default method for promotion—open competition—is flawed because it disproportionately attracts and rewards individuals who most desire power, not necessarily those best suited for leadership. The Founding Fathers understood this, preferring reluctant leaders. Alternative models, like deliberation by a select body, can produce more competent and less self-interested leaders.
The Catholic Church's method of selecting a Pope—a secret, deliberative process where cardinals vote repeatedly until a supermajority is reached—is a powerful example of an "election without candidates." This bottom-up meritocracy prioritizes finding a formidable, consensus candidate over rewarding the person who campaigned the hardest, a model that could be adapted for political and organizational leadership.
Fields like economics become ineffective when they prioritize conforming to disciplinary norms—like mathematical modeling—over solving complex, real-world problems. This professionalization creates monocultures where researchers focus on what is publishable within their field's narrow framework, rather than collaborating across disciplines to generate useful knowledge for issues like prison reform.
Scientism wrongly equates all reality-based disciplines with science. True science (episteme) seeks to discover what *is* true about the universe. Practical disciplines like medicine or engineering (phronesis) seek to *create* a preferred reality. Treating practical problems as pure science leads to research that, while technically correct, is often useless for solving real-world challenges.