A King or a Digital Democracy?
A King or a Digital Democracy?
Democracy is a System. Systems Can Be Rewritten.
Frank Kashner
May 27, 2025
Like many in my generation, I once believed that all bosses were bastards. Then I became one.
I tried to be a good one. And it turns out—some bosses are good. Just like some institutions are good. Or can be. For a while.
But I’ve also spent a lifetime watching organizations and individuals lose their way.
Unions. Schools. Governments. Platforms. I’ve seen them get captured, corrupted, or calcified, as have you.
It’s hard for us to tell if it is the system or particular people, until we try them.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
The clearest example?
Citizens United—a Supreme Court decision that turned money into speech and gutted what was left of functional democracy in the United States.
After that ruling, most politicians became dependent on corporate capital to survive.
I knew the system was broken.
But it was reading historian Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains that explained to me and to many others how we got here.
Her book lays out how libertarian billionaires—especially the Koch network—have worked for decades to undermine public institutions, corrupt education, disempower workers, and consolidate control.
The goal was not just deregulation. It was the end of democracy itself. Project 2025 spells it out. It lays out the path to a powerful Executive, a king.
After I read that book, I helped bring Nancy to speak at Salem State University.
She spoke the day before the country shut down for Covid.
It was a kind of punctuation mark. The end of one era.
Then, I discovered Audrey Tang and the story of digital democracy in Taiwan.
And I saw that something new might be possible using technology for good.
Taiwan’s Model: Tools That Listen
Taiwan developed civic infrastructure that doesn't divide—it listens at a large scale.
They use tools like Pol.is, a lightweight, AI-assisted platform that finds areas of consensus, instead of amplifying disagreement.
Unlike forums or social media, Pol.is isn’t about debate.
Participants respond to statements, not each other, by agreeing, disagreeing, or adding their own.
The system then maps opinion clusters and surfaces shared ground—often across ideological lines.
It’s already being used to shape law and policy in Taiwan.
Here’s a simple summary of what it does:
“Input crowd, output meaning, ending polarization.”
Groups like RadicalXChange are now helping expand these systems globally.
🔗 https://pol.is/home
🔗 https://www.radicalxchange.org/wiki/
🔗
🔗 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/opinion/taiwan-digital-democracy.html
What’s Next
I want to help bring these tools into local government.
Just as I once helped reform a toxic school by building a parent-teacher-student coalition,
just as I helped prosecute a complicit local union president at GE,
just as I watched the same old hierarchies sabotage client councils in mental health care—
—I now want to help towns, cities, and schools listen better.
Not just by having meetings.
But by adopting tools that actually show where we agree, what we value, and how to move forward together.
If you’re a public servant, city official, or school leader in New England who wants to try this—
I’m ready to help and to find others who will help.
And if you’ve been wondering what democracy could look like if it wasn’t broken from the start—
you might want to watch that Audrey Tang video.
Let’s build something that listens.
/ Dove
npub15z…vms8r
2025-05-28 19:54:31
Author Public Key
npub15z9m86as6p8rad2fvd2sx7gs4stp0p0xz5dsdtus57wxmflcj69szvms8rPublished at
2025-05-28 19:54:31Event JSON
{
"id": "af765ce4ec9751855f8089512bc1f4aa8a882b437a9e8f82655791d70a358ca6",
"pubkey": "a08bb3ebb0d04e3eb5496355037910ac161785e6151b06af90a79c6da7f8968b",
"created_at": 1748462071,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "A King or a Digital Democracy? \n\n\nA King or a Digital Democracy?\nDemocracy is a System. Systems Can Be Rewritten.\nFrank Kashner\nMay 27, 2025\n\n\n\nLike many in my generation, I once believed that all bosses were bastards. Then I became one.\nI tried to be a good one. And it turns out—some bosses are good. Just like some institutions are good. Or can be. For a while.\n\nBut I’ve also spent a lifetime watching organizations and individuals lose their way.\nUnions. Schools. Governments. Platforms. I’ve seen them get captured, corrupted, or calcified, as have you.\nIt’s hard for us to tell if it is the system or particular people, until we try them.\n\nThanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.\n\nThe clearest example?\nCitizens United—a Supreme Court decision that turned money into speech and gutted what was left of functional democracy in the United States.\n\nAfter that ruling, most politicians became dependent on corporate capital to survive.\nI knew the system was broken.\nBut it was reading historian Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains that explained to me and to many others how we got here.\n\nHer book lays out how libertarian billionaires—especially the Koch network—have worked for decades to undermine public institutions, corrupt education, disempower workers, and consolidate control.\n\nThe goal was not just deregulation. It was the end of democracy itself. Project 2025 spells it out. It lays out the path to a powerful Executive, a king.\n\nAfter I read that book, I helped bring Nancy to speak at Salem State University.\nShe spoke the day before the country shut down for Covid.\nIt was a kind of punctuation mark. The end of one era.\n\nThen, I discovered Audrey Tang and the story of digital democracy in Taiwan.\nAnd I saw that something new might be possible using technology for good.\n\nTaiwan’s Model: Tools That Listen\nTaiwan developed civic infrastructure that doesn't divide—it listens at a large scale.\nThey use tools like Pol.is, a lightweight, AI-assisted platform that finds areas of consensus, instead of amplifying disagreement.\n\nUnlike forums or social media, Pol.is isn’t about debate.\nParticipants respond to statements, not each other, by agreeing, disagreeing, or adding their own.\nThe system then maps opinion clusters and surfaces shared ground—often across ideological lines.\n\nIt’s already being used to shape law and policy in Taiwan.\nHere’s a simple summary of what it does:\n\n“Input crowd, output meaning, ending polarization.”\n\nGroups like RadicalXChange are now helping expand these systems globally.\n\n🔗 https://pol.is/home\n🔗 https://www.radicalxchange.org/wiki/\n🔗\n\n\n\n🔗 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/opinion/taiwan-digital-democracy.html\n\nWhat’s Next\nI want to help bring these tools into local government.\n\nJust as I once helped reform a toxic school by building a parent-teacher-student coalition,\njust as I helped prosecute a complicit local union president at GE,\njust as I watched the same old hierarchies sabotage client councils in mental health care—\n\n—I now want to help towns, cities, and schools listen better.\nNot just by having meetings.\nBut by adopting tools that actually show where we agree, what we value, and how to move forward together.\n\nIf you’re a public servant, city official, or school leader in New England who wants to try this—\nI’m ready to help and to find others who will help.\n\nAnd if you’ve been wondering what democracy could look like if it wasn’t broken from the start—\nyou might want to watch that Audrey Tang video.\n\nLet’s build something that listens.",
"sig": "9a2b6971cc1e9d3eaa729ea901d4df1800788f33f149441fa823bb0922e0d310b755e784dae7addb0f24f5b1ff1b954a74d0789f56ab4fc87a407eea4d43fdcc"
}