Nerd stuff aside, no voting system for socially significant decisions needs to scale to the planet. Democracies don't (or rather, shouldn't) scale. e.g. if the US and China or India formed a democratic superstate, the effect would be that the US would just become a vassal of the much larger entity.
If larger or more powerful groups want to impose their will on smaller ones, they can go ahead and unilaterally do that, and own their behavior. Doing it "democratically" is just victim blaming.
You are absolutely right. However, covering the entire population of the planet is required not for making democratic decisions at a global scale, but for guaranteeing the absolute uniqueness of every single human being within the network.It is designed to allow anyone to enter and leave the system from any device as a unique, anonymous identity while seamlessly returning to the exact same session. Socially significant decisions themselves can still be confined to any local community, even one consisting of just 1,000 people
Why do all individuals need to be in one network? There are literally zero decisions about my life that I want to allow people in China or Iran to vote on. I should hope they feel the same. There are almost no decisions (as someone in the US) that I want someone in California to have a vote on, and I'd be okay with zero. In fact I think California itself should really split into smaller, independent states (but that's of course their decision). The voting network partitions already into sovereign entities. Those entities negotiate with each other at a higher layer.
A global political voting system can only be used for evil, so why would you want it?
loading story #49168568
loading story #49168566