One issue. Six discoveries.
Infocracy
in three minutes.
People decide on a shared issue. What changes if the strength of their votes reflects how well they understand it?
Infocracy is a political system proposed by Lucjan Izworski, combining direct voting with verified knowledge and ethical conduct. Follow one decision — from a person’s knowledge to an idea that others put to use.
About 3 minutes for the main story. Explore the experiments and further explanations at your own pace.
01 / 06 · Decision
The same choices. A different result.
The town is choosing a treatment plant design. Two people support A; three support B. Infocracy takes account of how much each knows about this issue. Everyone retains the right to participate; voting weights change.
Change one thing: how the votes are counted
B receives 60% of equally weighted votes. When votes are weighted by the square of knowledge scores, A receives about 85% of the total weight.
Fictional scores, one field and equal ethics scores. This illustrates the calculation, not the superiority of design A.
02 / 06 · Understanding
Not just what you know, but why.
You choose a topic. At the Information Verification Office (UWI) a specialised AI selects and formulates the questions itself. A Socratic dialogue examines understanding through follow-up questions and explanations.
See how an answer changes the next question
ExaminerOn what basis are you comparing the two solutions?
Example answer‘This design is better because its author says so.’
Follow-up questionWhat convinces you in the author’s reasoning? Explain the connection between the evidence and the conclusion.
The conversation moves from repeating an opinion to explaining its basis.
A scripted illustration of a dialogue, with no connection to an AI. It does not assess your knowledge.
What about practical skills and assessment conditions?
Knowledge is assessed in a recorded, supervised room, without access to unauthorised aids. A master practitioner assesses practical skills by requiring you to complete a task and personally vouching for your ability. False certification may cost them income from that skill and ethics points. Verified results are recorded in your IPI profile.
The proposed AI is intended to focus on a chosen field and know and understand all the knowledge in that field available in the Tree of Knowledge. This is the author’s design requirement.
03 / 06 · Shared truth
Knowledge is shared. And open to revision.
Answers refer to the Tree of Knowledge: interconnected claims accepted by the community as the best known approximation of the truth. Anyone can submit new knowledge or a better approximation. Willing, verified infocrats from around the world decide through votes that account for knowledge of the subject.
You have a new solution — how does it become shared knowledge?
1 / 3 · Proposal
You submit a better approximation of a current truth, or new knowledge, and explain your reasoning.
An accepted claim can later be replaced by a better one. This is Dynamic Truth. Votes on knowledge are not restricted by regional borders: both researchers and amateurs can participate.
Who oversees AI?
The community considers proposals and uses infocratic voting to determine the AI’s operation, powers and limits. Approved changes become part of its configuration. AI formulates the questions; people set the rules and determine the content of shared knowledge.
04 / 06 · Voting power
No one knows every subject equally well.
Voting weight depends on the subject of the decision. In this example, the same person has a 30% knowledge score in water management and 90% in education. Knowledge is squared; the ethics score multiplies the result. A knowledge score three times as high produces nine times the voting weight, with the same ethics score.
Change the topic, then adjust knowledge or the ethics score
Water management
1.00 × 30² = 900 weight units
Weight relative to a person with 30% knowledge and an ethics score of 1.00: 1.00×.
These sliders are an experiment: they do not change your profile. The bar shows weight relative to a maximum of 10,000 units.
What has been simplified?
The full formula is W = E × Σ(Kᵢ × Dᵢ²). E is the ethics score, Dᵢ is verified knowledge, and Kᵢ is the relevance of the field to the issue. Here we use one field with K = 1. Squaring knowledge amplifies differences; it does not prevent a sufficiently large group from outweighing another.
In the proposed system, ethical standing does not change at the move of a slider. A reduction follows an adjudicated offence. Changing E affects the entire voting weight; at E = 0, the weight is zero.
05 / 06 · Payment
An idea can serve others and reward its creator.
You design a component needed to build the treatment plant. An Infocratic Patent makes the production instructions available. Whenever someone uses them, a micropayment goes to you and the creators of the earlier knowledge on which your solution relies. This is part of the Informatium economy.
An open design · payment for use
No use means no micropayments. Payment comes from putting an idea to use.
Illustrative micropayment: $0.10 per use — $0.07 for the author and $0.03 for earlier contributors. This illustrates the split; it is not a production price or an income forecast.
06 / 06 · The whole system
From a single decision to shared everyday life.
Verified knowledge gives you influence over a decision. Shared knowledge helps put it into practice. Using ideas rewards their creators. Infocracy extends these mechanisms to justice, the media and production.
Courts: understand the case first
Citizens study the case file and verify their understanding of that particular case. Their voting weight depends on that understanding and their ethics score. An opinion formed from a brief summary is no substitute for examining the evidence.
See an example in the demo →Media: separate reporting from persuasion
The proposal distinguishes news, entertainment and political media. News refers to shared knowledge; arguments for changing a particular decision belong in its political channel.
Explore the media channels →Production facilities: shared output and basic income
Automated facilities are intended to produce according to demand. Their surplus returns as basic income to residents of the community that financed them. Micropayments for ideas provide an additional source of income.
See how the facilities work →You know more. You help decide. You create.
This is the core of Infocracy. Next, see how these mechanisms come together in an ordinary day.
Spend a day in Infocracy →Prefer a detailed explanation? Read the complete guide.
A project by Lucjan Izworski. This account incorporates the author’s explanations of 8 September 2026. The examples illustrate the proposed system’s principles. Implementation requires tools to be built and tested, and decisions by the community; the proportion of verified citizens alone does not make it happen.