Seizing the Day: How Network Unions Become Powerbrokers in Democracies

Exploring the window of opportunity for network unions to seize the day and score touchdowns on underrepresented issues in increasingly gridlocked Western democracies.

Introduction

Through a series of no-punches-withheld discussions, Balaji Srinivasan's The Network State explores how we have arrived at the world of the 2020s, where we may be headed next, and what we can do to create new futures characterized by the concepts of network unions, network archipelagos, and network states (these concepts are also explained more here). The book explores how societies and unions on the digital network powered by commitment to a one-commandment could thrive and grow.

A network union is seen as a precursor to a network state, and here is one definition:

Balaji @balajis

These are network unions, predecessors of network states. Large groups of people organized online to advance their collective interests via a series of tactics, culminating in coordinated exit as customers or residents if an accord cannot be found.

This essay builds on discussions from discord groups and from reflections on The Network State, and it is an attempt — through a thought experiment — to explore how network unions supercharged with one-commandments could seize the day, move agenda, and exercise power in severely politically gridlocked Western democracies. The topic is academic in nature, and is intended to invite discussion and debate. Much of this essay will examine United States’ gridlocked politics as an illustration, but the concepts could also apply to the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, and a slew of other nation states that are democracies facing steep political divisions.

The Scene: Political Gridlocks and Divisions

In the United States, political polarization has become increasingly intense in recent years, leading to a sharp divide between Democrats and Republicans on a wide range of issues from COVID-19 mask mandates and tax to abortion, gun control, police defunding, education, budget, and immigration. This sharp division has created bitter infighting between the two aisles and has resulted in government gridlocks and fiscal crises. Further complicating the scene are divisions within each major political party, with far left and far right factions exerting more influence in debates.

Gridlocked in DC (AI Generated Image)

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has experienced a period of intense political gridlock in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum. The country is deeply divided over whether to leave or remain in the European Union, and this has made it difficult for the government to move forward with negotiations and implement a coherent strategy. The resulting political uncertainty has led to economic instability and has strained relationships with the EU and other international partners.

France has also experienced political gridlock in recent years, with a lack of cooperation between the ruling party and opposition groups. This has led to frequent protests and social unrest, as well as a failure to address pressing issues such as inequality. Meanwhile, Italy has a long history of political instability, with frequent changes in government and a lack of continuity in policy. The country's political gridlock is largely due to a weak and fragmented political landscape, with no single party or coalition able to command a majority in parliament. This has made it difficult to implement effective economic and social policies, and has contributed to a sense of disillusionment and frustration among the Italian population.

Finally, Brazil has experienced political gridlock in recent years due to a combination of corruption scandals, economic crises, and a lack of cooperation between political parties. The impeachment of former President Dilma Rousseff in 2016 and the subsequent election of far-right President Jair Bolsonaro has polarized the country and deepened political divisions. In addition, Brazil's response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been hampered by political infighting and a lack of coordinated action, and the recent election pitting Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva against Bolsonaro has further highlighted the extent of political division.

Lula vs Bolsonaro (AI Generated Image)

Political divisions and gridlocks could set the scene for opportunities of influence by previously ignored or underrepresented groups (or groups that have been taken for granted) whose voices had been drowned by hot button issues of the day. After all, in an evenly matched legislature, a small gain or loss could tip the balance of power, and in a tight electoral race, even a small boost or withdrawal of voters could alter the outcome.

Single-Issue Vote Case Study: Aftermath of Roe vs. Wade Overturn

In the beginning of 2022, with inflation numbers beginning to sting and calls of ‘Sleepy Joe’ ringing wide amid falling approval ratings, the GOP and affiliated conservative groups sat comfortably in the belief that the mid-term elections would see a red wave sweeping both chambers of Congress as well as much of the gubernatorial and state races. Even the Democratic Party and the White House seemed pessimistic over the looming mid-terms. After all, the party with an incumbent in the White House has rarely prevailed in the last thirty years’ mid-term elections.

But all that changed with a Supreme Court ruling.

Midway into 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to end the federal right to abortion. And outrage ensued. Women across all 50 states rallied behind one single commandment — reproductive rights — and many independents joined in the vote.

The result: no red wave.

The 2022 U.S. mid-term election is evidence that passionate single-issue voters could make a big difference to move the needle in policy and election. Outrage over the overturn of Roe vs. Wade had halted a red wave, bucking a long trend of the incumbent party in the White House losing in mid-terms. Instead, Democrats won an extra seat to continue control of the Senate, saw only a small decline in the House, and held onto a slew of critical gubernatorial positions.

Thought Experiment: American Expat Network Union

Strong network unions supercharged with one-commandments and organized around single-issue voting could seize opportunities to move the needle in politically divided scenarios. Let's explore a thought experiment involving a network union of American expats.

The American diaspora is an often forgotten community that rarely earns the attention of media, politicians, political parties, and legislative bodies. This group of expats, nomads, and overseas residents face many pain paints (I've highlighted some of the American diaspora's issues in a previous essay, here), but frequently find themselves without much recourse for resolution. For this academic thought experiment, let's dive into the issue of the American global taxation regime.

The U.S. is only one of two countries in the world that enforces global taxation on citizens, residents (green card holders), and those with a working visa. Arguably, FACTA has made it 10x worse in terms of the ability of federal government to financially ruin a long-term US-person expat or nomad for making small, careless, and oftentimes honest mistakes. Although the U.S. is arguably not the most complex tax reporting regime nor the heaviest (looking at Sweden), its global outreach via the worldwide taxation by citizenship is unique and has been known to ruin many lives, especially low income types and those who live/work/have foothold overseas. Although there are legitimate activities in terms of chasing down money laundering or major fraud abroad, many ordinary honest American expats get caught in the crossfires and become casualties of often draconian rules that weren't really designed with the expat in mind. Then there are the accidental Americans — those born to an American parent or born on U.S. soil — who do not have any presence or economic activity in the U.S. but are still charged with heavy tax bills.

Nervous American Expat Taxpayer (AI Generated Image)

For those American expats who live long enough abroad, arguably the global tax regime is likely a top headache. Many American expats feel as strongly about restrictions to their financial freedom by a global tax regime as young women do about restrictions to their reproductive freedom as a result of the Supreme Court overturning Roe vs Wade. To borrow a Balajian term, there is a one-commandment: no taxation without domicile. America, coincidentally, was founded partially on the concept of no taxation without representation.

There are almost 9 million American expats, as defined by US persons who don't reside in the U.S. for at least partially in the year. Let's make an assumption that around 20% of American expats really care about impacts of the global taxation regime. Since there are nearly 9 million American expats, a round figure of 20% would yield around 1.8 million. If this 1.8 million number can get together in a network union and become single-issue voters, there is the power to make or break a tight presidential election as well as other tight senatorial, congressional, and gubernatorial elections. If enough politicians feel the sting, then maybe...maybe there's a chance to move the needle in terms of overturning some of the most adverse rules against honest American expats.

In this model, let's look at the potential political and election impact:

A) Presidential Elections: 1.8 million would be enough to overturn at least 2-3 of the past 6 presidential elections (given the electoral system of winner takes all within each state). Even if the 1.8 million number is diffused, it could still overturn some of the tight electoral races that mattered (e.g. Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Georgia). For example, the 2020 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore was decided by less than 1000 votes in Florida, which held 29 electoral college votes.

2020 Presidential Election in Florida with 2,912,790 vs 2,912,253 Votes (By Ali Zifan, Creative Commons Attribution)

B) Senate / Governor Elections: If an equal distribution is assumed, 1.8 million / 50 = 36000 / state. The impact here is arguably smaller, but it could still overturn tight senate races like those in Georgia, and as well as tight governor elections. It would definitely make a difference in Alaska due to the state's ranked voting system. Of course, distribution is unlikely to be even, but that also means less numbers are needed to overturn tight races in smaller states. With the Senate nearly evenly split, even an overturn of one seat is huge: one party winning a seat and the other party losing a seat results in an actual differential of 2.

U.S. Senate Near Even Between Parties (Public Domain)

c) House Elections: If an equal distribution is assumed, 1.8 million/435 = 4138 / congressional district. That would be arguably enough to overturn a number of tight congressional elections. With the House so divided, even an overturn of single digit number of congressional districts could make a huge difference in the balance of power.

Gridlocked US Congress (Original Image)

Then there could be a force multiplier...if there is enough organization for all American expats who care to convince a percentage of their families in the U.S. to vote similarly, then the impact is arguably even bigger. Assume that an average US expat has 5 family members stateside, and assume that he/she is able to convince 20% of these family members to vote with him/her. That would automatically double the numbers, which in this model would be 1.8 million x 2 = 3.6 million. This would be enough to make a dent in tight presidential electoral elections, tight senate/governor elections, and tight congressional elections. It could literally overturn the balance of power.

Explanations

Ok, so at this point, one may be reading the thought experiment and then asking: why not just organize a lobby or a protest to raise awareness and call to action?

Granted, lobbies and protest can to some extent work out. Yet, there are countless lobbies in front of Congress, so a new one may not easily stand out, and some lobbies could be hired guns that cost a fortune but pay lip service or present limited action behind closed doors. Protest may stir some emotions among a crowd, but the effect on real decision makers and legislators may be questionable and transitory at best.

A sustained network union of passionate one-issue voters could potentially make more difference through dishing out direct, tangible negative and positive incentives that strike at the thinly veiled balance of power in a gridlocked political environment. The network union could fire up a base of members seeking justice to a cause, keep members engaged in key battleground contests, hold opposing or fumbling politicians accountable, and set up engagement metrics that keep members committed to their single-issue votes. Politicians who ignore or oppose the network union's position would feel the sting of losing closely contested elections. Politicians who respond to the network union's call to action may be closely rewarded with votes in must-win contests. Game theory could apply: both sides of the aisle who may have previously ignored or only paid lip service to the network union's cause now must consider real consequences of neglect. Negligence could cost an entire chamber, a presidency, or the opportunity to name the next Supreme Court justices. This is, in a sense, legal democracy in action.

Balaji had mentioned in his podcast the dangers of legislators pushing relatively “untested code” onto thousands and millions of “users.” Well, with enough negative incentives, perhaps more legislators would think twice about inserting too many poorly worded and overly broad terms into hundred-page, almost unintelligible documents.

The aforementioned issue of US expat global taxation is one of many possible issues or commandments that an organized network union of passionate members could adopt. Others could include (not an exhaustive list), for example:

• Opposing U.S. SEC attempts to designate all crypto as securities (by a network union of passionate American crypto holders).

• Protecting UK men from being victims of domestic abuse (by a network union of British husbands, as one third of domestic abuse victims are men).

• Treating Islamophobia in France and Italy (by a network union of Islamic parent citizens).

• Reducing the complexity of the tax system in Brazil (by a network union of tired Brazilian accountants).

Conclusion

The current political environment in terms of gridlock allows previously underrepresented groups and groups previously deemed to be too diffuse an opportunity to organize and make a real impact in the democratic process. It doesn't need to be as big an issue as Roe vs Wade, for it just needs to be real enough — in terms of game theory — for politicians on both sides of a gridlocked aisle to realize that the consequences of ignoring could sting. The network union could serve as an effective organizational structure to move the agenda forward. And even if things don't work out, there is always the potential of a collective, coordinated exit to the network state.

This is essay 3 of 4 essays for The Network State (TNS) Creators Cohort #3 (by 1729 Writers). 1729 Writers is a group that writes to reflect on the network state movement, AI, trans-humanism, and other techno-socio topics.

Disclaimer: This post is academic in nature, and it does not constitute any formal political, scientific, legal, financial, social, religious, or ethical advocacy. For earlier posts and musings, please visit whatifwhatif.substack.com.