A democratic voting base is that population who has the ability to influence specific government decisions individually. A democratic republic would transfer that direct influence to the representatives. To the extent either of these exist today, that voting base is restricted to government bureaucrats with access to non-public information. Further evidence of bureaucrats being the true base of democracy is that they are largely independent of both the executive and and the legislative branch.
In the actual case, humans facilitated the fast recovery after the false alarm because even though each person is specialized in terms of what they would have been doing that day, they would also, in large part, recognize the situation by observing people around them going about their own restoration of normal life. The specialization among humans is fundamentally different from the specialization of machines in that despite the specialization in duties or goals, humans share their human identity. They will adjust their expectations and demands in part to accommodate for the difficulties they can see others going through to meet those demands. Also, people will volunteer their services in areas that they normally do not work. In contrast, the various systems within an automated economy are less equipped to cooperate with unrelated systems, either in perceiving the need to cooperate, or having the capacity to help.
There is an inconsistency on advocating for Net Neutrality for Internet access while advocating for non-Neutrality for medical provider networks. At some level, both are dealing with the same fundamental problem of needing to trade-off the cost and delivery of satisfactory content. I’m content with the choice of having non-Neutrality for medical networks. I do not see the value of having Internet access options being restricted to a much higher Neutrality standard than what I accept for health care.
In the analogy of the recent sexual controversies coming out of Hollywood, the repeated behavior by one individual results in the group ostracizing the offending individual even though each of his transgressions were satisfactorily settled individually. When it emerges that the group is not adequately policing itself, that offends an external group such as one part of the industry versus another. This becomes a new injustice requiring a settlement between groups. This process of cascading continues with every larger groups demanding some type of settlement from the other group.
Government of data and urgency permits as bright-data the observations of events leading up to the then-interpreted injustice and the observation of the terms of the subsequent settlement. The only data that is excluded is the dark-data of the now-settled prior-claim of injustice.
These cases are often described as open-secrets. Many people in the community are aware of the information about individual cases and about the pattern of behavior, but there has been some kind of understanding that the past events are resolved in some acceptable terms, and that ongoing behavior is restrained by certain conditions. The oxymoron of open-secrets can be resolved by defining the open-part as being observed data, while the secret-part is restraints on how this data may be used in future decision making.
The constitution was based on a population that accepted the concepts of individual independence. The current government is of a population that accepts a concept of granted or not-yet revoked privileges based on merit and trust. We reconcile the problem by operating a government for show that follows the canon set out by the constitution, and a government for real that operates largely independently of democratic control.