|Democracy is the rule of the majority. It is not the rule of truth of fact, as in science; or truth in belief, as in religion. It is the rule of large numbers; all quantity, not quality. It’s is a game of counting, as in simple addition, perhaps the oldest tool in the arsenal of the human capacity of abstraction. Every human is a 1. Historically it took a long time to arrive at this equation. Some humans claimed they were infinity and therefore encompass every human that ever lived, lives and will live in the future. But, as a human their number is only 1. The number of man is 1. The number of the devil, the messenger, the savior, the god, the entrepreneur, the banker and the worker are and have been judged as different and seemingly less or more than 1. But every human is number 1. Humanity is therefore the counting of every human. This is both true in science as in religion. So, democracy is based in Humanism, but is it not the only Humanism, because the rule of the majority is not the only model for humans to make decisions. So, the preeminent argument of democracy is the counting of all humans as equals, as in 1 = 1, or an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Only because every vote is counted as 1 vote, the decision is the decision of the majority. The minority gets nothing, the majority gets everything, even in not reversible decisions of life or death. The vote of the majority is, will and has historically always changed, but it always has been this binary decision: The choice between 2 outcomes. This is the basis of all computation. Binary code only has 2 elements: 0 and 1 and every numerical system can be reduced to binary. The future of democracy is the counting of every human as 1. Historically not all humans were counted because they were not recognized as human. The Greeks called them βάρβαρος, a barbarian. Numerically, there were humans minus x, where x equals any number greater than 0 but not greater than 1. They counted less, to the point that they counted not all. Throughout history humans have used this formula to justify any decision that is not democratic as democratic. However, it always was tyranny and always ended up in humans taking the stand against tyranny, to ascertain their humanity.
What counts is the interval in which we make decisions. This frequency of sampling is the future of democracy. If the interval is longer than the average lifespan of a human, we have no democracy. Anything below that threshold counts. If we ask every human to make 1 decision during their lifetime, we have democracy. One life, one vote. In many ways this form is the most decisive: you have one life to live, you have one vote, you are one human. However, the future of democracy is real-time: you will be asked and vote at all times of your day. You already generate this data, as every move is already recorded. Your history is the history of all the data you have generated. So, stand up and be counted: We ask every human to make decisions and continue to tally their votes. The majority will call the decision. The future of democracy is the increase of sampling to real-time. Right now you are called to elect a president every 4 years. During these 4 years you are powerless, at least with regards to the presidency. What would happen if we ask you to make a decision every day? You wake up, and make a binary decision: keep the current president or replace him with any other person. As every person's decisions are recorded in real-time, these are immediately executed and will last until a majority has been found to oppose the decision.