I’m personally torn between two forms of government, Demarchy, and Direct Democracy as being the least dystopic form of government. It’s probably because of how people-centric these types of governments are as it’s very hard to have forms of corruption when the laws and policies that are put in place are directly voted on by the populace. While it is much harder to have corruption in governments like these, it’s not impossible which is part of the reason why I am attracted to the Demarchy style of government. The fact that people who are going to be voting on these policies are selected at random. Making them less susceptible to bribes or so-called campaign endowments from companies since no one is running and no one knows who it’ll be until it happens. There is always the possibility of someone doing this after the people are chosen but I do feel it is unlikely that greatly depends on the turnaround time from the moment of being chosen to discussing and voting on the topic. There’s also the issue of how the selection process is done and by whom it is done as this opens up how some people could abuse the system. By choosing very specific people for certain topics to get a particular outcome.
On the other hand, Direct Democracy just allows people to vote directly on laws and policies. On a small scale, I think it works well and is one of the least dystopic governments you could have but as you scale it up to a certain point, I think it will start to fall apart. In today’s age, there has been a lot of discussion on election and voting fraud with “missing votes”. I think people would try to use arguments like this to try and gets votes recounted or advocate for a revote when things pass that they don’t want which muddles the system and may cause some people to not vote. Allowing things that may not be wanted by the masses to still get through on second or third attempts because they have stopped trying.
