Instead of a human being running for "public office" the DAC itself could run for public office. It would know more about us than any human candidate ever could. It be a source of trust for us all. It would be the perfect representative for our particular community.
I think it pays to remember that algorithms are always designed by humans, have limited scope, can be subject to design flaws and implementation errors and can potentially be exploited.
Yes, they have scope to automate various mundane functions, like search and aggregation, but more complicated issues will need a lot of time to refine and protect against potential exploitation.
The design of an algorithm or set thereof to act as a delegate with no human intervention would be quite a task in itself. As a developer, I'd estimate the ballpark complexity of such an 'entity' as being roughly equal to that of the original bitsharesX DAC.
It's actually not as complex as you think. Conditional preference networks can be built into every DAC. Then you would need a decentralized storage capability which could be supplied by SAFE Network, Storj or something like that so that all the preference data about you can be securely stored. From here the algorithms you'd use already exist and are used by companies like Amazon, Google, etc.
If each DAC has a conditional preference network then as you connect the networks the learning algorithm would have more data to work with, would become more precise, etc. For example if your most private financial data, your posts across many forums, the books you read, websites you visit, and whatever other inputs you give to the algorithm is available then you can train the algorithm by using levers such as "like", "dislike" "ratings" and so on. Eventually it will be able to map out what you like, what you want, even be able to predict what you need such as when you'll run out of milk based on your buying and consumption habits.
Having said all that I don't expect you'd get a perfect algorithm instantly. I also don't think algorithms like these would be static. Each one of us would have our own algorithms which would learn about us over time.
Algorithms only know as much about you as you reveal to them. People who don't use computers very much would have very ignorant algorithms (most of the world at this point).
It might not apply to most of the world at first but does most of the world have democracy at all? Do rights exist in most of the world? Also if we want to for example guarantee that we can never EVER vote against our inalienable or human rights then only an algorithm can guarantee that.
Don't you wonder how is it we have less rights today than we had generations ago? It's because people can be convinced to vote against their self interest and vote their inalienable rights away. People can also be threatened or coerced into voting for the dictatorship even if they don't really want to. Algorithms can improve these situations by making it a sort of math problem instead of a problem which can be solved by violence, intimidation, bribery, terrorism, etc.
So I can understand why you could say it wouldn't apply to for example the Congo but I also think if you are going to build DACs then why not build them to truly free the world? In the future they'll have computers and these tools will be useful to have exist during that time.
Those who do reveal a lot have to have all that precious information stored securely which isn't currently possible I don't think (but maybe soon using Maidsafe? or similar).
SAFE Network, Storj, you're right it might not be easy to store securely but it's already being collected. "Big Data" is already happening as we speak. Google and Amazon already know more about us than we know about ourselves and instead of using this information to amplify democracy it's being used by advertisers to make profits. I'm thinking we could apply these same algorithms to voting to make our preferences shape our future.
I am intrigued by algorithmic voting. It currently is not possible though. The information I have revealed about myself on the current Internet is not an accurate picture of me, as I censor my view points one some issues as I know I'm being spied upon. So the entire Internet needs a major (and infallible) security upgrade for this to work at all.
You'd be very surprised how much the Internet knows about you. To be honest while you might not be putting everything online it is highly likely that the Internet knows more about you than any human being could ever know. It certainly knows more about me than any human being will ever know and all of that data isn't being used to my political benefit.
Just look at the candidates you see running for elections? Do they run on platforms which make any sense to you? Am I the only one who thinks they run on platforms which don't make sense anymore? I shouldn't have to pick a candidate anymore when we have the technology to feed ads to me based on by subconscious thought patterns.
But in theory integrating algorithmic voting into direct democracy in a hybrid system sounds good to me.
Those who don't use computers much could be 'simple voters' who get fewer options with a more simple layout And some people would still prefer to vote for people. You can't force algorithmic voting on people.
I'm not saying we should force it. It's a similar situation where you cannot force DACs on people, or Bitcoin, or the Internet itself. On the other hand Bitcoin was designed to be decentralized for a reason. People who understand what that reason is will understand why algorithmic voting has advantages.
Place A Vote is going with the algorithmic candidate idea. I think we should at least be able to do better than what they are doing. A DAC can be a perfect algorithmic candidate because if elected and if like you mentioned we have a decentralized storage capability then that DAC could know everything about us. It could represent our interests better than any human being because it could know the most private details about us without us having to give up our privacy. It may be a radical idea to go algorithmic but if you want to attract the brightest minds you have to work on the ideas which have the greatest potential.