One of the fundamental promises of American democracy is that every citizen has a voice. But while every eligible voter is entitled to a vote, the practical influence of that vote is not always equal. Where you live can matter as much as what you believe.
Consider the presidential election. A Democrat living in overwhelmingly Democratic California or a Republican living in overwhelmingly Republican Texas may have little realistic prospect of changing the outcome in their respective states. But in a closely contested swing state, a relatively small number of votes can determine the outcome of an election, and potentially the direction of the entire country.
This geographic imbalance led me to an interesting question: Why should the influence of my political convictions be limited by where I happen to live?
The answer, at least in part, lies in the work of Nobel Prize-winning mathematician John Forbes Nash Jr., whose theory of Nash equilibrium revolutionized our understanding of how individuals make decisions in competitive environments. Nash demonstrated that our decisions are influenced by the anticipated actions of others, and that the resulting equilibrium is not necessarily the best outcome for everyone.
American politics presents a striking example. Political parties, candidates, donors, and advocacy organizations rationally concentrate their resources where they believe those resources will have the greatest effect. As a result, certain communities receive disproportionate political attention, while millions of Americans living in politically predictable states may feel that their individual participation has relatively little influence on national electoral outcomes.
I began thinking about how technology might change that equation.
What if people could exercise their political influence beyond the geographic boundaries of their own voting districts?
That question became the inspiration for Protestbum.com.
Protestbum is built around a simple proposition: While our votes are geographically restricted, our freedom of political expression is not.
A person in California cannot vote in Pennsylvania merely because Pennsylvania has a more competitive election. But that person can support a lawful demonstration in Pennsylvania. Someone in New York can help give voice to an issue in Wisconsin. Someone unable to leave their home because of work, age, disability, family responsibilities, or financial limitations can nevertheless participate in public discourse by sponsoring someone willing to demonstrate on their behalf.
Protestbum seeks to make that possible through a marketplace connecting people who wish to support a cause with individuals willing to participate in lawful demonstrations for compensation.
The concept draws on a principle of economics that I find particularly compelling: When you change the incentives and opportunities available to people, you can change the outcome of their collective behavior.
Traditionally, political demonstrations have required people to be physically present, often at considerable personal expense. That creates barriers to participation and limits the ability of individuals to make their voices heard.
Protestbum attempts to remove some of those barriers by separating the act of supporting a protest from the physical necessity of attending one.
The implications extend far beyond presidential elections. A person concerned about environmental policy can support a demonstration where an important decision is being made. A consumer concerned about corporate conduct can support a protest outside a company’s headquarters. A citizen concerned about proposed legislation can help make that concern visible at a distant state capitol.
In each case, the individual gains an additional means of participating in the democratic process.
Of course, money already plays an enormous role in American politics. And I recognize the legitimate concern that paying people to demonstrate could simply create another avenue for wealthy interests to exert influence. That is why transparency, voluntary participation, and the disclosure of compensation are essential to the concept. Paid participation should never be misrepresented as spontaneous grassroots support.
Nor should anyone confuse the number of people attending a demonstration with the number of people who genuinely endorse its message.
My objective is not to manufacture public opinion. It is to explore whether technology can make political expression more accessible, more geographically flexible, and more responsive to individuals who otherwise might remain unheard.
The Constitution begins with the words “We the People” and expresses the ambition of forming “a more perfect Union.” I believe that ambition requires us to continually examine whether the mechanisms of democratic participation adequately reflect the voices of the people they are intended to serve.
John Nash taught us that an equilibrium can be stable without being ideal. Just because a political system operates according to established rules does not mean its existing distribution of influence is the best we can achieve.
Protestbum was founded on the belief that we should not have to accept geography as the boundary of our political expression.
We cannot guarantee that every voice will carry the same influence. We cannot guarantee that every demonstration will change a mind, influence legislation, or affect an election.
But we can try to give more people the opportunity to be heard, wherever their voices may matter.
And perhaps, by changing the way people can participate in public protest, we can make a modest contribution toward the continuing American experiment of creating a more perfect democracy.
That is why I started Protestbum.