> If you like I might write about it here. I'd be interested, public or private. I'm working on such an idea myself, though as a person, I'm ill-suited for act

> If you like I might write about it here. I'd be interested, public or private. I'm working on such an idea myself, though as a person, I'm ill-suited for actually getting it to work. > Hackers have a much bigger role to play in modern civics, in my opinion, than they currently have. Than they've currently taken. They do. This is one of the reasons "everyone should learn programming" is actually a good policy; even if they're not experts, they can take data and draw conclusions. Another thing we need is stronger collaboration infrastructure. The NSA got themselves that shiny new Utah datacenter which can apparently hold all the data in the world. (That's probably an exaggeration.) Why wasn't that money spent on improving citizens' ability to communicate with each other? Our discussion tools are extremely weak. I wish I could give better specs, but if I could, I'd be building it. > We need to be writing open-source software platforms for city, state and even federal governments and putting them on github. Being a politician doesn't actually preclude you from doing this. > There is one policy change I think is very important: put limits on the complexity of law, and end what I call "The Tyranny of Complexity" (a take on Mill's "Tyranny of the Majority"). I think it'd be interesting if someone could figure out an algorithmic way to rate the complexity of laws. I recently came up with the notion of a body that would at least garbage-collect law by checking for rulings of unconstitutionality and just writing a repeal for submission, but I assume the idea has problems I haven't figured out yet. Without such a standard, it'd be difficult to objectively determine over-complexity.