A more Democratic Model for Political Elections
- Ernest Thiessen
- Apr 30
- 3 min read
Democracies around the world have long been admired for their resilience and freedoms. In North America, Canada and the USA have stood as global benchmarks. But recent elections have prompted growing concern. In the U.S., many voters are expressing second thoughts about the direction of their leadership. Meanwhile in Canada, the surprising Liberal comeback just days ago appears to have been influenced by shifting sentiments across the border.
Regardless of their successes, so-called democratic elections tend to be driven by entrenched political divisions in which most voters align strictly along party lines. This article explores how the application of principled negotiations—which emphasize mutual gains, objective criteria, and effective communication—could ensure a fairer, more transparent process and outcome. These principles could be applied through bipartisan committees to oversee debates, neutral facilitators to mediate between opposing parties, and advanced negotiation technologies to help reach optimized consensus.
Challenges of the Current System
One major problem with current systems is its tendency to reduce representation to two dominant parties, often positioned on opposite ends of the political spectrum. This binary structure stifles dialogue, leads to legislative gridlock, and marginalizes moderate or diverse viewpoints. For example, in the US, prolonged deadlocks over federal budgets have caused government shutdowns and public frustration, highlighting the difficulty in achieving consensus within a polarized framework.
Further, adversarial tactics like negative campaigning, gerrymandering, and misinformation campaigns erode public trust. These strategies prioritize partisan victories over collective well-being and contribute to voter disenfranchisement and declining faith in democratic institutions.
The Role of Structured Negotiations
Elections don’t need to be a zero-sum game. Instead of voters being forced to choose between two polarizing options in a winner-takes-all battle, what if we embraced a negotiation-based model that aimed for consensus?
Smartsettle introduces a transformative approach. It's not just a voting tool — it's a decision support system that facilitates optimized consensus using powerful algorithms. It works by allowing participants to rate their preferences across multiple issues and uses visual blind bidding to uncover trade-offs that satisfy everyone’s highest priorities without forcing public compromise. In polarized environments, it can help opposing parties move beyond stalemates and toward solutions that reflect the collective will more fairly and intelligently.
The problems with traditional voting systems are well-documented. In a popular video by Veritasium:
Derek Muller explains how most voting systems are fundamentally flawed due to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. However, he points out that rating systems — where voters score candidates rather than rank or select just one — can sidestep these paradoxes. That’s exactly the principle behind Smartsettle’s decision-making engine.
By integrating rating-based negotiation, Smartsettle empowers individuals and groups to express their preferences more accurately and constructively. Instead of fueling division, it opens a path toward collaborative solutions, even in deeply divided political landscapes.
This isn’t a hypothetical exercise. It’s a practical proposal for transforming how we make collective decisions — and it could start with how we think about political elections everywhere.
Applications and Success Stories
Smartsettle Infinity can be applied to any formal negotiation involving quantitative or qualitative issues. Below are realistic simulations demonstrating its ability to bridge divides and foster practical solutions:
Gaza Marshall Plan: A simulation involving six international stakeholders showing how lasting peace could be brought to the Middle East. (Learn more)
Kashland: India, Pakistan, and the World Bank negotiating an agreement to replace the Indus Waters Treaty, addressing water issues, climate change, and nuclear disarmament. (Learn more)
Negotiating Peace in Ukraine: Ukraine and Russia using Infinity to negotiate an end to hostilities. (Learn more)
A Biden-Sanders Coalition: Biden and Sanders agreeing on a platform for the 2016 presidential election. (Learn more)
BREXIT 2.0: The UK, EU member states, and the EU Parliament collaborating to resolve seven key BREXIT issues. (Learn more)
Guns in the U.S.: A simulation of U.S. politicians from five diverse groups reaching an optimized consensus on new gun policies.
These examples demonstrate how similar approaches could be utilized in the U.S. electoral context, such as facilitating bipartisan agreements on election reforms or mediating between political parties to develop unified platforms. Structured negotiations, supported by advanced technological tools, have the potential to redefine how disputes are resolved, promoting harmonious and cooperative interactions across various domains.
Commentaires