This paper proposes a high-resolution democratic model designed to minimize representational distortion. The core principle is simple:
Every 0.1% of the electorate deserves one seat in parliament.
By combining nationwide proportional representation, ultra-low entry thresholds, and large-scale legislative bodies, this model seeks to transform democracy from a winner-takes-all contest into a precision mapping of social cognition.
This is not a policy proposal. It is a structural thought experiment.
Most electoral systems distort public will.
Winner-take-all systems discard minority votes.
High entry thresholds eliminate small but real constituencies.
Strategic voting pressures citizens into choosing viability over belief.
In many systems, 10–20% of voters may receive zero representation.
Democracy becomes an approximation rather than a mirror.
The question is:
What would a near-lossless representational system look like?
Design Features:
Single nationwide constituency
Universal suffrage
Pure proportional representation
A 1,000-member legislature
Entry threshold: 0.1% of valid votes
Party-list voting (citizens select parties, not individuals)
Mathematically:
100% ÷ 1000 seats = 0.1% per seat
Every 0.1% of the electorate corresponds to one representative.
Representation becomes granular.
Because 0.1% is:
Small enough to allow minority visibility
Large enough to require real organizational capacity
Scalable across large populations
In a nation of 100 million voters:
0.1% = 100,000 votes
In a nation of 1 billion voters:
0.1% = 1 million votes
This is not fringe noise.
It is structured minority presence.
This model prioritizes:
Expression precision
Reduced vote wastage
Elimination of strategic voting
Transparent ideological competition
However, it introduces:
Legislative fragmentation
Coalition complexity
Negotiation-heavy governance
The system maximizes representational resolution at the cost of procedural efficiency.
It is a high-definition democracy.
If power is relational, representation must be measurable.
Let:
Representation = Voter Share × Seat Allocation Accuracy
In winner-takes-all systems:
Seat distortion is high.
In proportional systems with thresholds:
Small signals are filtered.
In the 0.1% model:
Seat allocation error approaches zero.
Democracy becomes a mapping function rather than a filtering mechanism.
In large states such as India or United States, 0.1% represents hundreds of thousands or millions of voters.
Thus, even a “low” threshold demands:
National coordination
Communication capacity
Organizational coherence
This prevents purely symbolic micro-factions from entering parliament.
Scale acts as a natural filter.
Ultra-proportional systems do not eliminate power concentration.
They relocate it:
From electoral districts
To coalition negotiation
To procedural rule-setting
To parliamentary coordination structures
Power becomes procedural rather than territorial.
This model assumes:
Political legitimacy increases when representation loss decreases.
Minority existence deserves formal recognition.
Ideological competition should occur openly in parliament rather than being suppressed structurally.
It does not assume:
Faster decision-making
Strong executive dominance
Majoritarian clarity
It is not optimized for speed.
It is optimized for fairness.
A crucial design question remains:
If 0.1% earns one seat,
what powers should that seat hold?
Pure deliberative voice?
Legislative voting power?
Veto authority?
Representation density must be balanced with governability.
Most democratic systems trade representation for stability.
The 0.1% model reverses the trade-off.
It treats democracy not as a competition for control,
but as a measurement instrument for social cognition.
It asks:
What if parliament were not a battlefield of two blocs,
but a high-resolution map of collective belief?
Whether such a system is desirable depends on one’s priority:
Efficiency
or
Precision.
This proposal merely pushes democratic design to its theoretical limit.
Subscribe to Lynne Heartwing
Support Lynne Heartwing
Lynne HeartwingThe 0.1% Democracy Model-CC0
<100 subscribers
Lynne HeartwingPower Changes Responsibility: Different Advice for the Socialist International and the Fourth Intern…
Introduction: The Left’s Crisis Is Not Ideological, but RelationalThe contemporary Left does not suffer from a lack of ideals. It suffers from a refusal to differentiate responsibility according to power. For more than a century, internal debates have treated left-wing organisations as if they occupied comparable positions in the world system. They do not. Some hold state power, legislative leverage, regulatory capacity, and international access. Others hold little more than critique, memory,...
Lynne HeartwingCognitive Constructivism: Narrative Sovereignty and the Architecture of Social Reality-CC0
An archival essay for independent readingIntroduction: From “What the World Is” to “How the World Is Told”Most analyses of power begin inside an already-given reality. They ask who controls resources, institutions, or bodies, and how domination operates within these parameters. Such approaches, while necessary, leave a deeper question largely untouched:How does a particular version of reality come to be accepted as reality in the first place?This essay proposes a shift in analytical focus—fro...
Lynne HeartwingBuilding a Sovereign People’s Economic Network-CC0
This paper proposes a high-resolution democratic model designed to minimize representational distortion. The core principle is simple:
Every 0.1% of the electorate deserves one seat in parliament.
By combining nationwide proportional representation, ultra-low entry thresholds, and large-scale legislative bodies, this model seeks to transform democracy from a winner-takes-all contest into a precision mapping of social cognition.
This is not a policy proposal. It is a structural thought experiment.
Most electoral systems distort public will.
Winner-take-all systems discard minority votes.
High entry thresholds eliminate small but real constituencies.
Strategic voting pressures citizens into choosing viability over belief.
In many systems, 10–20% of voters may receive zero representation.
Democracy becomes an approximation rather than a mirror.
The question is:
What would a near-lossless representational system look like?
Design Features:
Single nationwide constituency
Universal suffrage
Pure proportional representation
A 1,000-member legislature
Entry threshold: 0.1% of valid votes
Party-list voting (citizens select parties, not individuals)
Mathematically:
100% ÷ 1000 seats = 0.1% per seat
Every 0.1% of the electorate corresponds to one representative.
Representation becomes granular.
Because 0.1% is:
Small enough to allow minority visibility
Large enough to require real organizational capacity
Scalable across large populations
In a nation of 100 million voters:
0.1% = 100,000 votes
In a nation of 1 billion voters:
0.1% = 1 million votes
This is not fringe noise.
It is structured minority presence.
This model prioritizes:
Expression precision
Reduced vote wastage
Elimination of strategic voting
Transparent ideological competition
However, it introduces:
Legislative fragmentation
Coalition complexity
Negotiation-heavy governance
The system maximizes representational resolution at the cost of procedural efficiency.
It is a high-definition democracy.
If power is relational, representation must be measurable.
Let:
Representation = Voter Share × Seat Allocation Accuracy
In winner-takes-all systems:
Seat distortion is high.
In proportional systems with thresholds:
Small signals are filtered.
In the 0.1% model:
Seat allocation error approaches zero.
Democracy becomes a mapping function rather than a filtering mechanism.
In large states such as India or United States, 0.1% represents hundreds of thousands or millions of voters.
Thus, even a “low” threshold demands:
National coordination
Communication capacity
Organizational coherence
This prevents purely symbolic micro-factions from entering parliament.
Scale acts as a natural filter.
Ultra-proportional systems do not eliminate power concentration.
They relocate it:
From electoral districts
To coalition negotiation
To procedural rule-setting
To parliamentary coordination structures
Power becomes procedural rather than territorial.
This model assumes:
Political legitimacy increases when representation loss decreases.
Minority existence deserves formal recognition.
Ideological competition should occur openly in parliament rather than being suppressed structurally.
It does not assume:
Faster decision-making
Strong executive dominance
Majoritarian clarity
It is not optimized for speed.
It is optimized for fairness.
A crucial design question remains:
If 0.1% earns one seat,
what powers should that seat hold?
Pure deliberative voice?
Legislative voting power?
Veto authority?
Representation density must be balanced with governability.
Most democratic systems trade representation for stability.
The 0.1% model reverses the trade-off.
It treats democracy not as a competition for control,
but as a measurement instrument for social cognition.
It asks:
What if parliament were not a battlefield of two blocs,
but a high-resolution map of collective belief?
Whether such a system is desirable depends on one’s priority:
Efficiency
or
Precision.
This proposal merely pushes democratic design to its theoretical limit.
Lynne HeartwingPower Changes Responsibility: Different Advice for the Socialist International and the Fourth Intern…
Introduction: The Left’s Crisis Is Not Ideological, but RelationalThe contemporary Left does not suffer from a lack of ideals. It suffers from a refusal to differentiate responsibility according to power. For more than a century, internal debates have treated left-wing organisations as if they occupied comparable positions in the world system. They do not. Some hold state power, legislative leverage, regulatory capacity, and international access. Others hold little more than critique, memory,...
Lynne HeartwingCognitive Constructivism: Narrative Sovereignty and the Architecture of Social Reality-CC0
An archival essay for independent readingIntroduction: From “What the World Is” to “How the World Is Told”Most analyses of power begin inside an already-given reality. They ask who controls resources, institutions, or bodies, and how domination operates within these parameters. Such approaches, while necessary, leave a deeper question largely untouched:How does a particular version of reality come to be accepted as reality in the first place?This essay proposes a shift in analytical focus—fro...
Lynne HeartwingBuilding a Sovereign People’s Economic Network-CC0
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
No comments yet