Jason M. Hanania
Title: Architecture of a Technodemocracy
Author: Jason M. Hanania
Publication Date: March 29, 2018
Hardcover ISBN-13: 978-1732119741
Number of Pages: 434
Dimensions : 5 x 1.13 x 8 inches
Jason M. Hanania is an attorney, an engineer, and a former U.S. government employee. He ran for the U.S. Senate in 2016 as the first technodemocratic candidate.
The world is primed for radical changes in government where each of us has an equal voice and all are held accountable. In Architecture of a Technodemocracy, Hanania provides a detailed blueprint on how to leverage current government processes, communications systems, and blockchain security to take the next step in the evolution of human government. By harnessing technology that already exists, we can nonviolently reshape our respective governments.
The cooperation of modern politicians is not a requirement. A technodemocracy can be created without spending any tax dollars, passing any new laws, or otherwise turning to career politicians for leadership. Like Bitcoin, technodemocracy uses readily available technologies to decentralize power from the 1% to the 100%. Its principles can be applied to any nation.
Despite being drafted more than 200 years ago, the Constitution enables a U.S. technodemocratic republic. No nation in history has ever had such an absolute straightaway to a 100% democratic government—the opportunity to revolutionize society, economy, and environment without using violence. Through illustrations, examples, and analogies, Architecture of a Technodemocracy provides an elegantly simple method for decentralizing power to 100% of the American people and, in the process, ending the U.S. political party system.
In 2016, I ran for the U.S. Senate as the first technodemocratic candidate. During that process, I received hundreds of questions. Architecture of a Technodemocracy answers those questions. This book is organized into four parts:
I. Government Requirements
II. Legal Requirements
III. Technical Requirements
IV. Social Requirements
Democracy requires that the four powers of government be decentralized equally to those governed. Part I looks at any government as a machine and provides a technical study of democracy, including a historical discussion of group equality, an analysis of the four powers of government, and an overview of how to decentralize those four powers through technology.
Parts II and III specifically set forth how to re-adapt the U.S. government from a Nondemocratic Republic to a Technodemocratic Republic. In a Nondemocratic Republic, the four powers of government are centralized in roughly 1% of the American people (the 1%). In a Technodemocratic Republic, the four powers of government are decentralized to 100% of the American people (the 100%). While the mechanisms proposed in Parts II and III provide examples specific to the U.S. government, they can be adapted to fit any city, state, nation, or group.
Part IV discusses the social mechanisms needed to kick-start a U.S. Technodemocratic Republic. These mechanisms require surprisingly little social action. No violence is required. To set off a technodemocratic chain reaction, the American people need only elect one technodemocratic candidate to the U.S. legislative branch. The first technodemocratic candidate elected will implement the technology needed to decentralize the four powers of government from the 1% to the 100%.
I hope you find the prospect of a U.S. Technodemocratic Republic as inspiring as I do.
—Jason M. Hanania
In 1730, Friedrich von Steuben was born in present-day Magdeburg, Germany. The son of a decorated Royal Prussian Army (RPA) engineer, von Steuben experienced a military upbringing, moving from conflict to conflict across present-day Eastern Europe. Schooled by his father in mathematics and military science, von Steuben understood how to follow orders on and off the battlefield. At the age of fourteen, he served alongside his father during the invasion of Prague, and by age seventeen, he was formally enlisted in the RPA.
In 1757, during the Battle of Rossbach, von Steuben’s regiment was outnumbered two-to-one by French-Imperial soldiers. In an epic response, RPA regiments killed, wounded, or captured approximately ten enemy soldiers for every RPA soldier. The RPA was developing an unorthodox system of attack that featured a combination of speed and adaptability derived from years of regimented training and repetitive drilling. As the RPA’s reputation grew, von Steuben became an expert in 18th century warfare.
In 1763, the Seven Years’ War drew to a close, and von Steuben was relieved of duty. After travelling to Paris, he was introduced to the French war minister, Count de St. Germain, and the American minister to France, Benjamin Franklin. Following correspondence between St. Germain, Franklin, and the Americas, von Steuben immigrated to America and was appointed as inspector general of the Army by General George Washington. Von Steuben would later publish Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.
In 1778, von Steuben organized and trained the American revolutionary soldiers destined for victory in battle over the British. During training, von Steuben (who did not speak English) would theatrically swear and curse in German and French as his assistants translated his exact words. According to one assistant, the soldiers were often amused. His flamboyance made von Steuben popular among the Americans.
Having trained both American and European soldiers, von Steuben would later provide historians with an incredible insight:
“The genius of [Americans] is not in the least to be compared with that of the Prussians, Austrians, or French. You say to your [European] soldier, ‘Do this,’ and he doeth it, but I am obliged to say [to the American soldier], ‘This is the reason why you ought to do that,’ and [then] he does it.”
Von Steuben, a decorated veteran of the RPA, apparently had his orders questioned by American soldiers. Before taking the battlefield, the trainees were holding von Steuben accountable, demanding he communicate the reasons justifying his decisions. But von Steuben was not incredulous. He empowered the soldiers with an equal voice. He understood that asserting their voices was what made them revolutionaries. They wanted to know their options and, in some cases, had ideas and tactics of their own.
The revolution was not about a paycheck. The American soldiers were not cogs in some royal military machine. They were mostly volunteers who could walk away from Washington’s army at any time. Every soldier was equally risking his life by going to war. A mix of English, African, Scottish, German, Dutch, Irish, French, Italian, and other nationalities, these men were familiar with discrimination and inequality. They had to unite to defeat the British. Having also experienced discrimination, von Steuben appreciated the genius of equality and the unifying strength it provided.
Von Steuben understood that respecting and empowering people off the battlefield unified them on the battlefield. When there is little time to communicate, such as on the battlefield, superiors make decisions. It unifies and secures the group. On the other hand, when there is sufficient time to communicate, such as during training, group members should make decisions together. This also unifies and secures the group. On the eve of American independence, von Steuben’s insight was a powerful premonition of a fundamental requirement for democracy: group equality.
Democracy unifies groups through equality. Each group member is treated as an equal, regardless of race, religion, wealth, or gender. While each group member has strengths and weaknesses, democracy acknowledges that no one race, religion, class, or gender is superior to any other. Attempts to prove otherwise have resulted in pain, suffering, hate, anger, violence, and perpetual warfare. Democracy acknowledges that humans have more commonalities than differences. It creates the space needed for progress.
Q: What exactly is a technodemocracy?
A: A technodemocracy is a government system that utilizes technology to decentralize governing power from individual group members to all group members. From rulers, or a handful of politicians and campaign donors, to 100 percent of those ruled. Culturally speaking, it decentralizes power from “the one percent” to “the 100 percent,” regardless of wealth, race, religion, or gender.
Q: How does a technodemocracy work?
A: Two hundred years ago, asking people to vote on every political issue, using paper ballots, was among other things impractical. The process would have been too time-consuming. Republics made more sense, so a handful of representatives were elected to make decisions for everyone. Power was decentralized, from one person to the one percent. In a technodemocratic republic, elected representatives would make decisions based on documented evidence of majority interests, as provided for by a decentralized voting blockchain. That voting blockchain would be owned and controlled by the 100 percent. In a technodemocracy, each voter can vote on each and every political issue. They can also post new political issues and polls, and communicate peer-to-peer with other voters. Social priorities can be identified based on voter turnout.
Q: How does technology factor into all of this?
A: We’ve reached a threshold in human history where all four powers of government can be decentralized using technology. No violence is required. Specifically, communication power has been decentralized by computer networking technology, like the Internet and cellular networks. Option power and decision power have been decentralized by mobile technology, such as smartphones and mobile apps. And accountability power has been decentralized by distributed software technology, such as social media and blockchain. Blockchain can be used to decentralize all information, not just financial information. Bitcoin is just the tip of the iceberg. I’ve heard cryptocurrency experts use the term “decentralized trust.” What blockchain security technically provides is decentralized accountability power.
Q: Can’t software be hacked?
A: Hacking isn’t unique to computers or software. Paper ballot elections, for example, have been hacked for centuries. If you put all the votes in one place, such as a ballot box, the election can be hacked by whichever central authority controls the ballot box. The problem is centralized information. Centralization empowers the middleman. Blockchain software decentralizes information. If you don’t understand blockchain, it helps to think of a blockchain as a spreadsheet. In the case of financial blockchains, like Bitcoin, every depositor is given a copy of the spreadsheet, not just one person, such as a bank accountant, bank official, or some other middleman. In the past, bank officials could fudge the numbers. In the case of voting using blockchain, every voter has a copy of the spreadsheet. An election hack would require fudging the numbers on a majority of the spreadsheets, which is impractical. Votes are tallied automatically, using encrypted voter-to-voter communications. Every voter can audit all of the voting results. There is no middleman. There is no centralized power. The underlying software is open source and can be audited by any voter at any time. Bitcoin has successfully provided us with a ten-year test drive for blockchain.
Q: Why would technodemocratic voting blockchains end political party systems?
A: Once a technodemocratic representative gets elected to public office, majority interests would be documented for that representative’s entire jurisdiction, through a voting blockchain. The voting blockchain would be enabled with data analytics, which allows users to compare every decision made by every elected representative, to the majority interests of that representatives constituents. Both technodemocratic representatives and political party representatives could then be held accountable, based on evidence (voting results). This changes the game. Getting re-elected would presumably depend on voting results, not campaign donations. In other words, politicians would have to pivot from being accountable to campaign donors, to being accountable to their constituents, via voting blockchain.