Dear Dave,
I want to tell you that I genuinely appreciate your project. In many respects, I find myself very much aligned with the intuition behind Tiered Democratic Governance. It is clear that TDG is the product of serious reflection rather than ideological reflex, and that alone already sets it apart from much of today’s political discourse.
That said, I cannot avoid a lingering concern. I fear that TDG does not resolve the historical problem of democracy, but rather postpones it. The question that naturally arises is the old and uncomfortable one: quis custodiet custodes? My impression is that TDG significantly improves the initial phase of governance—selection, noise reduction, competence—but cannot ultimately guarantee non-degeneration over time. And this, precisely, is the point that Isaac Asimov himself had already identified.
Still, I consider TDG one of the most intelligent and least ideological proposals currently in circulation. It is certainly superior to the present form of spectacular, media-driven democracy. Yet I remain skeptical of its sufficiency as a definitive system. To me, it works best as a transitional phase, a hybrid and experimental architecture, rather than as a universal and eternal solution to politics.
Nonetheless, TDG addresses a crucial and often unspoken question: do we want a democracy that represents everyone, or a form of governance that actually works? TDG clearly chooses the latter. That is exactly why it is compelling—and also why it is unsettling.
With appreciation and respect,
Paolo
My Response
Paolo
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You brought up several great points.
--------------------------
My milieu of Latin expressions is rather small. So I had to look up "quis custodiet custodes?" Indeed, "who guards the guards?" is an important question to ask. I will just provide a few thoughts on this.
The annual TDG elections will provide a guarding mechanism. If a TDG representative puts him- or herself in a corrupt position, the elections will remove that person from TDG governance quicker than what western democracy provides. And without much drama.
I would even say that if a representative puts him- or herself in a perceived corruption position, that person could be removed by the election. I believe many TDG representatives will enjoy their service in the TDG and want to continue. They will not put themselves in such a perceived position, such as being a consistent social contact with a prominent businessperson who has some controversy in his business.
Another soft guardrail is the TDG Advisory Board. Advisors can attend TDG meetings and watch how the meetings work. They can speak at these meetings, but they have no vote or veto. Advisors are appointed for a longer term and should have experience on the elected side of the TDG. The elected side will listen carefully to what the advisor says.
The TDG will go through four growth stages before it assumes responsibility and authority for governance. The annual elections will be part of the Early TDG. Advisors will be formalized in the Middle TDG. By the time the fourth TDG-In-Waiting stage happens, the TDG will likely inspect the traditional checks-and-balances of western democracy.
Some of these might still have merit for TDG governance. Take, for example, the separation of the judiciary from the other branches of governance. I suspect the TDG will keep this feature but have a different way of selecting the members of that judiciary.
Or the TDG might invent something better. The judiciary issue is a little too far away, and I will let the future TDG representatives figure this part of the TDG for themselves. At that time, the TDG culture should be well developed to find these solutions in a wise, civil, and open-minded way.
------------------------
The American democracy experiment may be ending soon. While we can mourn its demise, we should recognize that we got 250 years out of this system. More often in history, an oligarchy is replaced by another oligarchy within two generations.
While this democratic system has its flaws, it unlocked more of humanity's potential. For example, my heritage is of Eastern European peasantry. My four grandparents were given a Grade 4 education; then they went into the workforce. Now one of their progeny is teaching the world about a new kind of democracy. I find this so amazing. Had western democracy not had its influence, I was destined to be a farm worker or hard-rock miner.
I hear some European countries are able to amend their constitution every decade or so. New Zealand had a big improvement about 20 years ago. Unfortunately, Canada, United States, and the UK are more or less fossilized.
The Early and Middle TDG stages will have many amendments to their constitutions. I would not be surprised at two amendment meetings per year. Not only will these amendments implement the new insights into TDG governance, the act of frequent amending will get people used to constitutions being a living document, capable of change when needed.
The TDG will be non-partisan. If a proposed change works its way into a possible amendment, the discussion will center around the value of the amendment, not which political party will benefit.
------------------
Is the TDG a transition?
I have discussed the TDG with libertarian and anarchistic thinkers. In their minds, less governance is better. I would agree with them, but unfortunately the current psyche of human nature is such that we need laws and enforcement of laws. I believe the TDG will better deliver these services than the 19th century models of western democracy.
Likewise, I believe direct democracy has its possibilities. Some aspects of direct democracy could find their way into TDG constitutions. But many of us cannot attend Swiss-canton-like meetings on a regular basis, leaving the decisions to those who show up. And many of us cannot or will not fully understand many of the nuances of societal issues to vote wisely on each issue.
Could the TDG evolve into one of these systems? Yes, it can, but I think it would need a 200-year run to create the kind of society where these systems would be workable.
And when we get there, we just might be able to see something better than libertarianism, (philosophical) anarchy, or direct democracy.
--------------------
You mentioned "a democracy that represents everyone." Here are my thoughts.
When I was developing the TDG in my mind, I wrestled with the notion that, because of the automobile, we have created communities beyond our neighborhoods. Is it really fair that we force neighbors to interact with each other--just so we can make this TDG work?
After much deliberation, I went back to geographical neighborhoods as the electoral districts. My main reasons were that we needed to learn how to work with people who are different than us. Our neighbors are different enough to give us this experience. Our echo chambers cannot give us this growth.
With electoral neighborhoods of 200 people, there is going to be many more citizens in governance. And because each neighborhood representative must live in the neighborhood they represent, the TDG is going to have all sorts of different people in the first tier. A low-income neighborhood is going to elect a low-income representative. A neighborhood with many Muslims will probably elect a Muslim. There will be no Ivy-League parachutes coming from the sky in the TDG.
And if these people show a flair for TDG governance, they will rise on their ability. An important skill will be working with people different than they.
In terms of inclusivity, the TDG will be much better at finding representatives from different strata of society than western democracy.
-------------
With your permission, I would like to move your questions and my response to my TDG FAQ. I will label this discussion as:
P. Calvi from Italy, January 2026
Thanks
Dave
Paolo's Response
Dear Dave,
thank you for the depth of your response. I am more than happy to grant permission for the republication of our exchange.
I would go further: consider me the first Italian advocate for Tiered Democratic Governance. I intend to follow the development of your project with close attention through your website, and I hope our dialogue will continue as the TDG framework evolves. You have found in me an engaged interlocutor—one who takes your proposal seriously as a potential contribution to democratic theory.
Some reflections on your response
Your letter deserves a more thorough engagement than a simple acknowledgment. Allow me to offer some observations.
On the custodial problem...
Your response to quis custodiet custodes is elegant in its simplicity: frequent elections as a self-cleansing mechanism. This is, in essence, a Tocquevillian solution—trusting that the density of democratic participation will generate its own antibodies against corruption. The addition of Advisory Boards introduces a form of institutional memory that addresses one of democracy's chronic weaknesses: its tendency toward amnesia.
What strikes me is your implicit faith in what we might call reputational capital within small communities. You suggest that TDG representatives will avoid even the appearance of impropriety because they value their standing. This is less a constitutional mechanism than an anthropological bet—a wager that humans, when embedded in tight social networks with genuine stakes, will default toward probity. It's a Burkean insight dressed in democratic clothing.
On constitutional plasticity...
Your observation about fossilized constitutions versus living documents touches a profound tension in political philosophy: the conflict between nomos (law as sacred tradition) and physis (law as adaptable instrument). The American founders, despite their Enlightenment rhetoric, created what is essentially a secular scripture—amendable in theory, practically immutable. Your vision of biannual constitutional revision is radical precisely because it desacralizes the foundational document.
There is wisdom here, but also risk. Constitutions derive part of their authority from their perceived permanence. The question becomes: can a frequently amended constitution command the same reverence? Or does the TDG model require a different source of legitimacy altogether—one grounded not in textual authority but in procedural trust?
On the autobiography of democracy...
Your personal narrative—from Eastern European peasantry to democratic theorist within three generations—is perhaps the most powerful argument in your letter. It illustrates what the Italian political philosopher Norberto Bobbio called democracy's "promissory" dimension: its capacity to unlock futures that were previously unimaginable.
Yet this same narrative reveals democracy's current crisis. The social mobility you experienced is precisely what has stalled in contemporary Western democracies. Your grandparents' great-grandchildren now face credential inflation, housing inaccessibility, and a sense that the democratic promise has been revoked. The TDG, in this light, is not merely a procedural reform but an attempt to re-issue the promise.
On geographical rootedness...
Your decision to anchor the TDG in physical neighborhoods—despite the automobile, despite digital communities—is philosophically significant. You are, whether consciously or not, aligning with a tradition that runs from Aristotle's polis through Hannah Arendt's concept of the space of appearance. Democracy, in this view, requires bodies in proximity, not just minds in agreement.
This is a direct challenge to the techno-utopian vision of governance through algorithms and digital consensus. You are asserting that democratic deliberation requires friction—the friction of dealing with neighbors we did not choose, whose lives intersect with ours in the unglamorous spaces of shared streets and local concerns.
I detect in your writing a productive tension between two dispositions: the engineer's confidence that better systems yield better outcomes, and the humanist's awareness that systems are only as good as the culture that animates them. You acknowledge this when you suggest the TDG needs 200 years to create the conditions for more radical forms of self-governance.
This patience is unusual in an age of solutionism. It suggests you understand that the TDG is not merely a mechanism but a paideia—a form of civic education that must transform participants before it can transform society.
The TDG deserves serious intellectual engagement, and I am grateful for the opportunity to provide it.
With respect and continued interest,
Paolo
