Dr John Izzo

I think that's an aspiration rather than a thing.

And I suspect we're going to find that the tech inevitably carries the biases of the people programming it, who tend to be straight white libertarian men, whether we like it or not.

However, there are also ways to use tech

in voting, because it seems to me that we have inherited, this is back to E.O.

Wilson who said, we have paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and the technology of gods, and this is not a winning combination.

And the medieval institutions were one, originally one man, one vote, originally one man over 21, one vote.

Or if you go back to Greece, one man with two testicles, one vote, and not a slave.

And gradually we've expanded that franchise, but it's still...

a very, very blunt instrument when it comes to assessing what people actually want.

And I know that the people around Audrey Tang have been looking at things like quadratic voting.

And I'm wondering, Suzette, whether any of the democracy spaces that you're working in, or the strategy spaces, are looking at different ways of collating

what it is that people want, or different ways of giving people an actual sense of agency when it comes to making decisions within the governing space, however big that governing space is.

Does that make sense as a question?

OK, right.

When we come back to you, I want to talk about reshaping governance models and what we shape them to.

However, I want to give John a step in.

So, John, you were talking about David Suzuki and the potlatch idea.

And so that's been really clear.

Absent the governance models that we're about to talk about, we need to get people talking across the divides.

It seems to me we're going to survive the train that is coming down the tracks.