254
12 Digital Democracy
no incentives to trick their fellow bees. Most importantly, however, there are three
stages of the process:
1. Exploration: The “scouts” explore the food sources independently of each other.
2. Sharing: Information is shared with others.
3. Integration: The information of several “scouts” is evaluated, compared and
integrated. This is the basis of the collective decision taken by the swarm.
In a sense, one could say that democracies are built on the principle of “swarm
intelligence” as well. Alternatively, one speaks of the “wisdom of crowds”.
33 When
one needs to solve a problem where nobody knows the exact answer, a collective
of people may often outperform the judgment of experts. The “Netflix Challenge”
34
described in a previous chapter is a famous example for this, but there are in fact
many other examples. A study at the prestigious MIT (Massachussetts Institute of
Technology) has clearly demonstrated the existence of social intelligence, if a group
is diverse and communication is balanced.
35 In fact, publications on “collective
intelligence” are abundant.
On a population level, today’s democracies use the principle of “collective intelligence” only every few years (during elections), while we could benefit from it every
day. In parliament, the “collective intelligence” principle may be used on a more
regular basis, but it is often overruled by coalition agreements and party-based voting
discipline.
36 In the end, all that remains is a “yes/no” decision in parliament, where
the majority wins over the minority. In the worst case, this could end with something
like a “dictatorship of the majority”, as it occurs in some populist systems.
37 (By the
way, if we had an AI system, which figures out our opinions based on mass surveillance and always does whatever the majority wants, we would end in a society of
“digital populism” or “cyper-populism”.) Under such conditions, minorities would
be systematically marginalized, even though most functions of our society are based
on minorities: intellectuals, inventors, entrepreneurs, politicians, judges, artists, etc.
One can easily imagine that such a system might turn against the people on which
societies depend.
A few months after we published our paper “Build Digital Democracy”,
38 it was
claimed that Brexit was the first major casualty of “Digital Democracy”.
39 This is,
of course, not true. That article was using the word “Digital Democracy” in a very
different, misleading way. There, it meant something like “Facebook democracy”.
40
33 Surowiecki [12].
34 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize.
35 Woolley et al. [13].
36 Called “whip” in English and „Fraktionszwang” in German.
37 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism.
38 Helbing and Pournaras [14].
39 Brexit: The first major casualty of digital democracy, Brookings (June 29, 2016) https://www.
brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/06/29/brexit-the-first-major-casualty-of-digital-dem
ocracy/.
40 Marichal [15].
12 Digital Democracy
no incentives to trick their fellow bees. Most importantly, however, there are three
stages of the process:
1. Exploration: The “scouts” explore the food sources independently of each other.
2. Sharing: Information is shared with others.
3. Integration: The information of several “scouts” is evaluated, compared and
integrated. This is the basis of the collective decision taken by the swarm.
In a sense, one could say that democracies are built on the principle of “swarm
intelligence” as well. Alternatively, one speaks of the “wisdom of crowds”.
33 When
one needs to solve a problem where nobody knows the exact answer, a collective
of people may often outperform the judgment of experts. The “Netflix Challenge”
34
described in a previous chapter is a famous example for this, but there are in fact
many other examples. A study at the prestigious MIT (Massachussetts Institute of
Technology) has clearly demonstrated the existence of social intelligence, if a group
is diverse and communication is balanced.
35 In fact, publications on “collective
intelligence” are abundant.
On a population level, today’s democracies use the principle of “collective intelligence” only every few years (during elections), while we could benefit from it every
day. In parliament, the “collective intelligence” principle may be used on a more
regular basis, but it is often overruled by coalition agreements and party-based voting
discipline.
36 In the end, all that remains is a “yes/no” decision in parliament, where
the majority wins over the minority. In the worst case, this could end with something
like a “dictatorship of the majority”, as it occurs in some populist systems.
37 (By the
way, if we had an AI system, which figures out our opinions based on mass surveillance and always does whatever the majority wants, we would end in a society of
“digital populism” or “cyper-populism”.) Under such conditions, minorities would
be systematically marginalized, even though most functions of our society are based
on minorities: intellectuals, inventors, entrepreneurs, politicians, judges, artists, etc.
One can easily imagine that such a system might turn against the people on which
societies depend.
A few months after we published our paper “Build Digital Democracy”,
38 it was
claimed that Brexit was the first major casualty of “Digital Democracy”.
39 This is,
of course, not true. That article was using the word “Digital Democracy” in a very
different, misleading way. There, it meant something like “Facebook democracy”.
40
33 Surowiecki [12].
34 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize.
35 Woolley et al. [13].
36 Called “whip” in English and „Fraktionszwang” in German.
37 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism.
38 Helbing and Pournaras [14].
39 Brexit: The first major casualty of digital democracy, Brookings (June 29, 2016) https://www.
brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/06/29/brexit-the-first-major-casualty-of-digital-dem
ocracy/.
40 Marichal [15].