Three worked examples show who gets a say, who checks the evidence, who acts, and how a mistake can be challenged.
A proposal to test, not rules already in force. No constitution has been adopted. There are no verified constituents, binding elections, or common treasury operating through this site. AI would help people do the work; people would hold the authority.
Open each numbered step to follow the process. Every example uses the same nine questions so you can compare where power and checks sit.
Start with multi-member proportional ranked-choice elections, secret constituent ballots, and independent administration. The example fills five limited-term seats.
Purpose
Give more than one viewpoint a fair chance at representation while keeping candidates away from the election controls.
Tradeoff
Ranking and transfers need clear explanations. Verification, access, privacy, audit, and protection from coercion all add difficulty and cost.
Open question
Which election method and delivery channels can meet independent legal, security, access, and coercion-resistance tests?
01 Who may take part?
Imagine 25,000 future verified constituents on an eligible roll. Each has one equal base vote. Email supporters have no civic voting rights. Help, translation, and accessible ways to take part are provided without directing anyone’s choice.
02 Who proposes and who decides?
Eligible candidates seek five seats in one illustrative multi-member district. They publish their experience, funding, and conflicts. Verified constituents choose representatives through proportional ranked-choice voting. Election administrators are separate from candidates and the Assembly.
03 What evidence is needed?
Publish the eligibility rules, candidate statements, spending disclosures, count method, transfer and tie rules, access plan, and challenge deadlines before voting. Independent reviewers check the plan and test the counting tools using public test cases.
04 What can AI do?
AI may translate statements and compare candidates’ published positions with traceable links. People can challenge summaries and read original sources. AI may not endorse a choice on behalf of a voter, infer consent, cast a ballot, suppress dissent, or certify the election.
05 How are choices collected?
Constituents rank candidates on a secret ballot. Officeholders’ later official votes are public. This worked example uses independently checked, accessible paper voting with an auditable count. It does not assume high-stakes Internet voting is ready. A secret choice must not become a receipt that proves that choice to a buyer or coercer.
06 How is the count checked?
Eligibility checks are separate from ballot choices. Independent staff prevent duplicate voting and reconcile issued, used, and unused ballots. Observers inspect the proportional count and audit without access to voters’ selections. A protected inclusion check would need testing that it reveals no choices. Final certification belongs to accountable humans after challenges are heard.
07 What about people who lose?
Votes transfer under the published method so more than one group can win seats. In this fictional result, five seats are filled across several viewpoints after audit and certification. This is an illustrative result. Losing candidates can challenge errors. Protected rights and access to public debate do not depend on winning.
08 Who carries out the result?
Certified representatives take limited terms, publish conflicts, and cast recorded official votes. Administrators record the result and appointments. The founder has no permanent veto. Recall or removal follows published rules and due process; an election win grants only the powers listed in the constitution.
09 How can it be corrected?
An independent body hears eligibility, counting, coercion, and procedure challenges. Remedies may include a corrected count, recount, or rerun with written reasons and appeal. After certification, removal needs its own lawful process. Unhappy losing parties cannot simply discard a sound result.
2. Allocate the $10 million treasury.
A popular project still needs a lawful budget.
Proposal v0.1
Use equal priority credits, independent reviews, panel majority and minority reports, and a recorded Assembly decision. Release funds only through accountable humans and controlled custody.
Purpose
Connect public priorities to real limits, clear responsibilities, and evidence of delivery.
Tradeoff
This is slower than letting one leader spend. Review costs money; unequal participation and insider influence can persist. A fair decision can still produce a poor result.
Open question
How can oversight stay independent, affordable, and useful to people who rarely have time to participate?
01 Who may take part?
Imagine the same 25,000 future verified constituents and a lawful $10 million treasury for one annual cycle. Each constituent receives the same 100 priority credits. Credits are nonpurchasable and nontransferable. The treasury and constituent count are fictional, not current assets or membership.
02 Who proposes and who decides?
Five sponsors submit projects. Research requests are $1.2 million for audits and $800,000 for access research. Grants request $2 million for local skills. Public projects request $2 million for resource tools and $1.5 million for guides. A stratified citizen panel reviews them; the Assembly authorizes the portfolio within lawful powers.
03 What evidence is needed?
Each request names its sponsor, beneficiaries, full cost, milestones, risks, conflicts, and success measures. Independent teams check legal authority, feasibility, cost, and risk. Fixed envelopes are operations $1 million, reserves $2 million, research $2 million, grants $2 million, and public projects $3 million: $10 million in all.
04 What can AI do?
AI may compare requests, link each claim to its evidence, and show what changes under different budgets. A second team challenges the summaries. AI cannot decide what people really want, hide inconvenient findings, certify its own work, authorize spending, or transfer funds.
05 How are priorities collected?
Constituents can split their 100 credits across eligible projects during an announced period. Access help and offline options reduce barriers. The credits rank priorities; they are not a binding spending vote. Public comments and a citizen panel add reasons that a credit total cannot show.
06 How are the inputs checked?
Independent administrators check eligibility and one credit allowance per constituent, separate from individual choices. They reconcile credit totals, record corrections, and allow challenges. A randomly selected panel is stratified across relevant groups and receives balanced evidence. Human reviewers certify the inputs; none of this is a live collection system.
07 How is dissent preserved?
The panel publishes both majority and minority reports. In this fictional result, the majority asks to shrink the guides project; the minority asks for stronger local access testing on grants and tools. The Assembly approves those conditions and explains its public recorded vote. Rights and lawful limits apply even to the most popular project.
08 Who carries out the result?
The guides project is revised from $1.5 million to $1 million. The other four stay at their requested amounts. Projects now total $7 million; operations and reserves total $3 million. Separate human custodians and lawful contractors use multiparty approval and milestone payments. For the $1 million guides contract, stages of $200,000, $300,000, and $500,000 total the approved cap.
09 How can it be corrected?
Publish contracts, spending, milestones, changes, and results. A formal challenge, whistleblower report, or audit may pause releases and lead to correction or lawful recovery. Independent review gives the parties reasons and appeal. Defer weak plans, reject unlawful ones, and revise fixable ones; money already spent may not be recoverable.
Require exact text, independent review, public deliberation, a waiting period, a constituent supermajority, and support across defined groups. The example strengthens administrative appeals.
Purpose
Prevent one leader, a brief wave of opinion, or one large bloc from taking control of the constitutional rules.
Tradeoff
Extra hurdles can preserve a bad rule or let a small bloc block a useful change. Defining regions or groups can itself be contested.
Open question
What thresholds and forms of cross-group agreement protect people without making necessary correction impossible?
01 Who may take part?
Imagine 25,000 eligible verified constituents. This example proposes a clear response deadline and accessible help for administrative appeals. It adds a safeguard; it does not remove a protected right. Supporter emails are not the voting roll, and no actual amendment is being adopted.
02 Who proposes and who decides?
Constituents propose the change through a published agenda process. The Assembly may submit draft language but cannot adopt it alone. Independent constitutional review, a citizen panel, and public deliberation come first. Constituents decide through ratification with distributional concurrence: support across groups, not just one large bloc.
03 What evidence is needed?
Publish the exact old and proposed text, legal review, cost, access effects, minority concerns, and effects on other rights. Compare faster appeals with staffing and independence risks. Set the voting rules in advance. In this example only: a 90-day waiting period, at least 60% turnout, at least 75% approval among valid votes, and majority approval in at least four of six illustrative regions.
04 What can AI do?
AI may translate the draft, identify clashes with other clauses, and compare arguments with links to sources. It must show uncertainty and dissent. It cannot infer approval, rewrite ballots after voting starts, weaken protected rights by interpretation, make a constitutional ruling, or certify ratification.
05 How are choices collected?
After the waiting period and open review, each constituent casts one secret yes-or-no ballot through a separately validated voting process. No topic delegate may cast this constitutional ballot for someone else in this example. A changed draft restarts the required review and waiting period; it is not quietly swapped into the ballot.
06 How is ratification checked?
Independent staff separate eligibility from selections, check inclusion and duplicate controls, audit the tally, and hear challenges before human certification. Here 20,000 people vote: 16,000 yes and 4,000 no. Turnout is 80% of 25,000; approval is 80% of votes. Majorities support it in five of six illustrative regions. It passes the example’s three thresholds, subject to rights review. The 5,000 nonvoters are not counted as consenting.
07 How is dissent preserved?
Publish the panel’s minority report and the reasons against adoption. Protect dissenting constituents from retaliation. Ordinary majority rule cannot erase protected rights. A threshold pass cannot cure an unlawful or rights-violating change; those limits and the amendment’s scope need independent review.
08 Who carries out the result?
After certification and a stated effective date, accountable administrators update appeal procedures, staffing, and accessible notices. The Assembly funds only lawful implementation. The constitutional version history records what changed and why. The founder, donors, and AI have no separate power to approve or block the change.
09 How can it be corrected?
An independent review body can hear procedure and rights challenges, pause effect where its mandate permits, and order a corrected vote or new process. Operational failures trigger review. Reversing an adopted amendment requires the applicable constitutional process, not an administrator’s shortcut. Any future revision still protects rights and includes public reasons, appeal, and ratification.
The numerical thresholds above are only to make this example testable. Actual thresholds, group boundaries, eligibility rules, and review powers remain open to criticism and design. They are not current constitutional rules.