Wedecide in 9 slides

Wedecide in 9 slides

  1. 1. We decide. Wedecide.
    • We organize network-based collective decisions, i.e. decisions in which • you always decide whether to have direct influence (on the cost of forming an own opinion and being responsible) or if you want to be represented, and • all civil society actors may help you with representation and decision ease], • because we believe that good and legitimate decisions are necessary to have a good life and to save the world.
    • With initial clients, we build demonstration cases and grow the project to a worldwide social movement.
    • We develop and search first projects. Will YOU help us?
  2. 2. Collective decisions: Important yet nontrivial
    Good and legitimate collective decisions are necessary • Extreme opposite: Failed states. • Institutional quality predicts systemic success.
    Benevolent dictators do not work • Rich societies are too complex.
    Grass-roots decisions do not work • Too much effort to decide everything.
    Representative decisions cease to work • Depend on clear-cut group identifications. • Ceasing in Western societies. • Never-existing outside.
  3. 3. Solution: The Wedecide model
    Meta-decision freedom • Everyone decides which decisions to decide, which to be represented
    Actor-openness • Trust in every actor can be used for representation or decision ease
    Compromise and more • Many options for decisions • Both online/offline access • Many systemic options
    Trust deposit • Trust continuously stored, as base for representation and evaluation a.k.a. ‘Civil-society-based collective decision making’
  4. 4. Product
    Product • Offering decision-making for a fixed period • Hosting of evaluations, trust, counting process • Secure backup storage • Help with constitutional adjustments
    Price differentiation • By #users, #decisions • Non-profits vs. polities / for-profits
  5. 5. Markets
    Starting with accessible organizations • Universities • Cities addressing migrants • Parties
    Turning to large cases later • Public enterprises • NGO coalitions • Cities addressing citizens • Corporations
    Perspective applications • Nation states • Supranational level EU, global (climate!)
  6. 6. Competition and market strategy
    First-mover • Developer and first provider.
    Imitation? • Threat: Idea and technological development can be copied
    Counter-imitation strategy via network effects and public governance: Network effects • Especially for political actors. Legitimacy • Necessary for group motivation. • For-profit enterprises (e.g. FB) face conflicting goals.
    Going public • The enterprise will be turned into a public enterprise governed by elected board members in a fixed schedule.
  7. 7. Use for YOUR project!
    You are • an organization, group or coalition • interested in strong democracy for you and in general • open for new ways
    You want • to grow through good and legitimate decisions • to grow the responsibility of your individual members
    You have • more than about 300 individual members • internal trust relations and groups
    We offer you • a platform to decide about representatives and issues • the activation of your members and internal actors • consensus orientation, stability and transparency
  8. 8. More information? • • Hanno Scholtz (Founder) +41 79 755 3227 linkedin/hanno-scholtz • André Golliez (Network Co-Founder)

Wedecide searches a mathematician

Wedecide searches a mathematician, the platform to engage civil society for making better collective decisions, searches a mathematician to help in the development of the project.

Good and legitimate collective decisions are necessary but nontrivial: The group structure that enabled representative democracy ceases to exist in Western societies and has never existed elsewhere. Our project is to implement the Wedecide-model with meta-decision freedom (everyone decides for every decisions whether to decide or to be represented) and actor-openness (trust in every actor can be used for representation or decision ease), based on an electronic deposit of trust.

Be our math genius!

While structure and math of the basic system are already described, many aspects and extensions still demand their formally precise description. Additional questions regarding the formal system design will become only apparent with precise description, opening the chance to participate in design decisions.

In close cooperation with the founders, you identity and comprehend these questions, describe them formally, identify design options and solve related puzzles. Jointly, we decide what can and shall be published, and publish the results.

Do you combine mathematical expertise, openness, and political interest?

We expect you to have a degree in mathematics or physics – if it is a mathy degree in an applied field as economics, that might be fine, too. If you apply, you are probably interested in making a difference in the world, and know that saving the world requires both sound technological ingenuity and the openness to change mindsets – both would be great. As always, being a great communicator is hugely helpful, but not at all required.

Make a difference in a non-proft startup!

If you are interested in making a difference in the world by supporting the development and implementation of a decision-making system that goes beyond the old partitioning logic of industrial society institutions, you are welcome to join us. In the unfunded phase just write down your hours – we’re find a solutions once being funded, that’s all we can currently guarantee.

The form of our co-operation will be agreed on, with many possible options including publication-oriented research, part-time work, cofoundership, or a mixture of all. The Wedecide-model is the way to achieve stable political institutions for 90 percent of the world population and to save the world (i.e. limit CO2 emissions as far as possible), so for a short moment open an inner window to glancing into the future: It is a life project that will allow for a decent income and, with some luck, a dinner place at the Nobel price ceremony. But quickly close again this inner window and be nice and decent, as there is much communication to do to approach this goalI

We look forward to hearing from you!

Can the Internet Improve Politics?

Can the Internet Improve Politics?
Can the internet improve politics? The question and answer are structured in a sequence of steps: (1) Politics is about counting, and the web is good at counting. (2) Politics counts evaluations, and the web is good at evaluations. (3) Political evaluations bear cognitive costs that need to be alleviated through trust, and the web is good at employing trust. (4) Political trust relations increasingly have a general network structure, and the web is good at networks. (5) Political trust relations need to be stored, and the web is good at storing sensitive data. Additionally, the availability to address large option numbers and offline access are addressed.

Contrary to aspects of e-democracy that are simply “nice to have”, steps 4 and 5 point to improvements that are necessary: The web allows for a network-based collective decision making that efficiently fits the necessities of societies that are no longer satisfied with the kind of representation that urges everyone to align to one group for all issues. Individualization and the cultural demands of non-Western societies go in the same direction in demanding a different and necessarily web-based solution to the cognitive-cost problem of democracy.

The paper is in the submission process of a scholarly journal. It can be downloaded from Researchgate or

Structure, math, and demands of civil-society-based decision making

Structure, math, and demands of civil-society-based decision making
Does information and communication technology (ICT) still bear the possibility of a disruptive change for the so far invariable area of politics? While entertainment, news media and even universities have been recent challenged by Youtube, Twitter or Coursera, Washington has not yet faced comparable ICT-based competition, despite intense research. The paper hints to two blind spots of the current rather individualistic and middle-class-based discussions, and follows two new propositions: To seize the opportunities to include civil society into the formal counting process and to mix direct and representative democracy.

The paper is in the submission process of a scholarly journal. It can be downloaded from Researchgate or