Peter Levine has discussed the concept of Good Democracy, where inclusive process should be accompanied by the efficient reaching of outcomes (and, of course, vice versa). Meanwhile, Adam Grant in his latest book, "Originals: How Non-conformists Change the World", describes how one notable business organisation foments criticism by all levels within a hierarchy to all levels within a hierarchy, often in internally very public ways, with the aim of achieving highly creative and persistently democratic environments, that at the same time operate efficiently. In order that such democracy does not disintegrate into monolithic battles between a number of often rigid ways of thinking - or, alternatively, engender highly negative groupthink where large numbers of voices agree with the loudest and most important - to the mix that is one person one vote, a series of indices based on previous achievements in particular areas of expertise is assigned to each individual - or in our case, it could be to each Party member/supporter/voter. These indices would serve to determine the "believability" of each person with respect to their opinion and vote on a particular matter. It would *not* mean their opinions would be prioritised over others in everything, but simply in those areas that statistical analysis had shown their worth, accuracy and efficiency on previous occasions. Such indices would be continually assessed and revised as per a complex set of principles around organisational culture, already devised and created before the weighting processes were employed for the first time. The weighting process would never fix a person forever, but would form part of a path, a trajectory of growth re themselves and in relation to their colleagues - ie other Party members, workers, supporters and so forth - where an emphasis on objective performance, results and thought processes would replace the ability of people to get their own way through simply knowing how to impose via force of personality. I'd underline that neither would these indices give the same believability rating for an individual in all areas - unless, of course, it became plain that via the statistics and trajectory - the recorded history of their decision-making - their performance deserved such judgements. In this way, whilst such a system might appear at first sight to be highly elitist, it could actually make it possible for people who are often excluded from major debate through their inability to impose via force of personality and/or presence to make huge contributions as a result of having a system which made it possible for their ideas and proposals to be measured by common criteria, thus giving them the structured voice and reputation a celebrity democracy rarely allows.