Governance by Design
A technical and political vision for governance infrastructure in the digital age.
The Problem with Digital Governance
We have built extraordinary tools for communication, collaboration, and coordination. Yet when it comes to collective decision-making—the core function of any democratic organization—we still rely on methods designed for physical assemblies or, worse, tools designed for entirely different purposes.
Open source projects make critical decisions in issue trackers. Political movements coordinate through chat platforms. Associations run elections via email. These tools were not designed for governance, and it shows.
"The medium shapes the message. When we govern through tools designed for other purposes, we inherit their assumptions, their limitations, and their biases."
The result is predictable: decisions happen informally, participation is uneven, moderation is opaque, and trust erodes over time. Organizations that should be models of collective action become dominated by those with the most time, the loudest voices, or the most technical access.
Governance as Infrastructure
Likwid treats governance not as a feature to be bolted onto other systems, but as infrastructure—a foundational layer that organizations build upon.
Just as we don't expect organizations to build their own databases or web servers, they shouldn't need to build their own governance systems. They need infrastructure that is:
- Reliable — Governance decisions are high-stakes. The system must be consistent, auditable, and resistant to manipulation.
- Flexible — Organizations have different cultures, scales, and needs. The infrastructure must adapt, not prescribe.
- Transparent — Power exercised in secret corrodes trust. Every action that affects members must be visible and accountable.
- Accessible — Participation cannot be limited to those who can attend synchronous meetings or follow high-volume discussions.
Principles for Governance Infrastructure
1. Information Must Be Understandable, Not Just Available
Transparency is necessary but not sufficient. Dumping raw data on members and calling it "transparency" is a form of obfuscation. Information must be presented in ways that enable understanding and informed participation.
This means: layered complexity (quick overview to deep dive), interactive visualizations where appropriate, clear explanations of process and context, and accessible language alongside technical precision.
2. Deliberation Must Be Structured
Free-form discussion favors those with time and rhetorical skill. Unstructured debates drift without resolution. Effective deliberation requires structure: clear phases, defined roles, and mechanisms to surface constructive input.
Likwid implements the Inform → Discuss → Decide workflow:
- Inform: Members read and understand the proposal before discussion begins.
- Discuss: Structured deliberation with facilitator tools to manage conversation.
- Decide: Voting with appropriate methods for the decision at hand.
3. Voting Methods Must Match Decision Types
Simple majority voting fails for complex decisions. When there are multiple options, competing priorities, or minority concerns that deserve protection, more sophisticated methods are required.
Different decisions call for different methods:
- Schulze method for finding the option that would beat all others head-to-head.
- STAR voting for balancing intensity of preference with broad support.
- Quadratic voting for decisions where some members care more than others.
- Approval voting for simple multi-option choices.
- Ranked choice for instant runoff scenarios.
Communities should choose methods that fit their culture and decision types, not be locked into a single approach.
4. Delegation Must Be Flexible and Revocable
Not everyone can participate in every decision. Liquid delegation allows members to delegate their voice to trusted representatives—while retaining the ability to vote directly or revoke delegation at any time.
This creates a spectrum between direct democracy (everyone votes on everything) and representative democracy (elected delegates decide). Members choose their level of engagement, creating natural expertise networks while maintaining individual sovereignty.
5. Moderation Must Be Visible and Accountable
Every community needs moderation. The question is whether it happens transparently or in the shadows. Shadow banning, hidden removals, and opaque decisions erode trust and create paranoia.
In Likwid, every moderation action is logged with:
- Who took the action
- What rule or policy was violated
- What evidence supported the decision
- What the affected content was (preserved for appeal)
The moderation ledger is cryptographically chained, making retroactive alteration detectable. Trust is built through accountability, not through the appearance of an unmoderated space.
6. Privacy and Transparency Must Coexist
Some information should be public (moderation decisions, vote tallies, policy rationales). Some should be private (individual vote choices, personal data, draft deliberations).
Likwid separates civic identity (who you are in public discussions) from voting identity (how you voted). This allows open participation in deliberation while protecting ballot secrecy. Members can engage freely without fear that their votes will be used against them.
The Political Stakes
This is not merely a technical project. The design of governance tools is inherently political. The systems we build encode assumptions about power, participation, and legitimacy.
Platforms that prioritize engagement over deliberation produce polarization. Systems that obscure moderation produce conspiracy theories. Tools that favor the already-powerful entrench existing hierarchies.
Likwid is built on the conviction that better tools can enable better governance—not by removing human judgment, but by creating structures that encourage informed, inclusive, and accountable decision-making.
We believe that:
- Organizations should control their own governance infrastructure.
- Participation should not require technical expertise or unlimited time.
- Power should be visible and accountable, not hidden behind algorithms or administrative access.
- Minority voices deserve protection from simple majoritarianism.
- Governance software should be free, auditable, and community-controlled.
An Invitation
Likwid is not finished. It is not perfect. It is an ongoing experiment in building governance infrastructure for the organizations that need it most.
We invite:
- Organizations to try Likwid, provide feedback, and help us understand what governance infrastructure needs to do.
- Developers to contribute code, build plugins, and extend the platform's capabilities.
- Researchers to study collective decision-making and help us understand what works.
- Critics to challenge our assumptions and help us identify blind spots.
Democracy is not a product. It is a practice. Likwid exists to make that practice easier, more inclusive, and more accountable.