Generally, it is assumed that democratic decision-making in society is the most acceptable and optimal option. It would be ideal if everyone agreed on the policies in society, but this is impossible to achieve because every society involves countless decisions that everyone cannot participate in due to a lack of interest, knowledge, or time. People also have problems doing it together because they can hardly agree on something and never agree on everything.
Therefore, society has adopted an indirect form of democracy, in which people elect representatives to govern on their behalf. Candidates who present the best choice to the people and win the most votes at the polls receive the mandate to represent the people and govern on their behalf in a given period. Such a democracy is accepted as the best today.
However, such a democracy has vast shortcomings. An elected government typically has little incentive to meet the needs of those who did not vote for it, leaving them dissatisfied. Additionally, society lacks an effective method for holding representatives accountable for their decisions. It opens space for manipulation, failing to follow people's needs. Politicians often require financial support from wealthy individuals to be elected, which comes with obligations to these donors, usually neglecting the needs of the general public. Such a democracy is rather a corrupted fraud than the power of the people, by the people, for the people. As a result, people can hardly satisfy their needs through democracy.
Does this mean democracy cannot be developed, and people's will cannot be carried out? Of course, it can. The only problem is that nobody works on it. We need to develop democracy to meet people's needs efficiently. It requires thinking outside the box.
***
We can reduce corruption among representatives by eliminating undesirable candidates. Multiple selection choices may do this. For example, every candidate on the election ballot may have "for" and "against" checkmarks. Generally, voting for one candidate and against another will bring more choices to democracy. Voting "against" would neutralize the votes "for," diminishing the winning chances of unacceptable candidates and increasing the chances of those who better align with the people's needs. It may decrease bipolarisation in elections, particularly in the USA, bringing more acceptable candidates to all.
Society should improve the interest in voting by making the voting process more convenient. For example, people should be allowed to vote online from home as they can with banking. It will increase voting opportunities. For instance, people might change their votes for any representative at any time. If the sum of votes "against" passes the sum of votes "for" of any representative, they may be removed from the position. This will give people more democratic power to prevent the waging of wars and spending money against their will, etc.
States sentence people for acting against the law, so why would people not have the right to charge governments for making decisions against their will? For instance, every US citizen is today indebted to around $100,000 to the central bank, for which the government has never been held responsible. Why shouldn't every citizen of the USA have the right to charge the government if it does not meet their needs? They should also be able to reward the government if it deserves it. A symbolic right to punish or reward the government by one dollar a month may be enough to develop democracy. For example, millions of people who disagree with the president's policy would charge them millions of dollars monthly. On the other hand, those who support the president may reward them with one dollar and neutralize negative evaluations. In any case, such a simple democracy would increase the responsibility of politicians and improve society.
Can people objectively evaluate governments? People would assess governments more objectively than authorities can because authorities are subjective. For example, no authority can create objective prices for goods on the market; people determine them through purchasing goods. There is an excellent possibility that people, working together, can determine objective societal values, thereby increasing justice in society, which authorities can hardly achieve.
Such evaluative democracy may be examined, and if proven correct, why would we not develop mutual evaluations of people everywhere? We should give people equal legislative, judicial, and executive powers through equal assessment rights. For example, let everyone get the right to evaluate three people for whatever they do monthly. A positive evaluation should result in a symbolic one-dollar reward for the assessed person, and negative assessments should result in the same punishment. Such a policy would encourage everyone to please others and avoid hurting anyone. This should create a good society.
Equal evaluating power among people presents a new form of democracy, and freedom of evaluation presents a new state of anarchy. Therefore, such a policy can be called democratic anarchy. Democratic anarchy alone should be capable of building a bright future for humankind. I wrote more about it in the article "Democratic Anarchy is the Future of Democracy."
Developing democracy is an urgent necessity, so why do social scientists not work on it?