And China/Russia would know your probability of saying so a-priori, given their blanket surveillance generating social credibility scores.
I'll throw my hat in the ring and suggest sortition (think jury duty, but for 2 years at a time, as the representative of your district/state): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
There's still an argument for some level of direct democracy (ballot initiatives, but especially to throw out inevitable corruption/idiocy of representatives); though perhaps the threshold should be higher (such as 66% rather than 50%+1).
Bryan Caplan [0] and Jason Brennan [1] have made very sound arguments about voting bringing out our worst tribalist instincts, rather than the informed, enlightened voter that was fantasized by the Constitutional framers. The strongest case for democracy-as-we-know-it is simply the peaceful transfer of power, which it seems to accomplish surprisingly well; but in terms of sound policy, or reflecting the will of We The People, its track record isn't exactly stellar.
(That said, as long as our system is still driven by the vote, we would stand to benefit from bottom-up electoral reform, such as switching from First-Past-The-Post to Ranked-Choice or Approval voting [2].)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter
Practically, I understand the concern. I think our hyper-partisan politics has us accustomed to a 51/49 dynamic that occasionally flips sides; my hypothesis is that reducing democratic influence on representation (in favor of RNG), coupled with electoral reform for the democratic processes that remain, would make it far more feasible to build consensus in the range of 60-80%.
To unpack the latter: my preferred system is Approval Voting, as it definitionally measures the greatest quantity of "consent of the governed", and game-theoretically rewards compromise and consensus. A person or policy that is extremely popular among 55% can potentially be outcompeted by one that is moderately popular among 75%.
I can dream. :)
Bhutan.
It's technically a Third-world country, but they seriously have their shit together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan#Political_reform_and_mo...
The old women wept when the King decreed democracy.
> Bhutan's political system has recently changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. King Jigme Singye Wangchuck transferred most of his administrative powers to the Council of Cabinet Ministers and allowed for impeachment of the King by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly.[38]
They track not GDP but GNH: Gross National Happiness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
Unfortunately, they're likely doomed:
> In 1999, the government lifted a ban on television and the Internet, making Bhutan one of the last countries to introduce television.
That's a tough question, given human nature.
From what I've read, I'd say some Native American cultures, which were ~stable for thousands of years. Also some parts of Polynesia.
I'd say the Hopi. The Iroquois Confederacy also comes to mind. But they were quite warlike. Definitely not the Comanche.
Switzerland, one the only real democracy.
The Swiss were denying women the vote in federal elections until the early 1970s.
And that's the problem with 'tyranny of the masses' - popular isn't the measure of good, just or rational.
Does any country allow that? No.
So why pick on the US?
It does beg broader questions about potentially every government, as well.
"the one your trying isn't going to work, ever, anywhere" is an assumption worth converting into an hypothesis and testing the shit out of cause it's a super disempowered stance to take.
What leads you to say it isn't going to work, ever, anywhere?
And for the government to say that the rules don't apply to you, while you remain within the area ruled by that government, is to ask for the government to become a voluntary organization, that is, no longer really a government. Since more of us what a functioning government than want what you want, that would be asking the government to abdicate its responsibility. So... yeah. You're not going to get it.
And, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" didn't mean the consent of each individual. It meant the consent of the group.
Back to hacks. A hack, in my book, is an unconventional, unexpected way of doing something. A way that breaks the rules, even. But not a way of beating your head against a wall. For it to be a hack, it has to work.