Welcome to The Idea Commons, our living experiment in the democracy of ideas.
Before we decide what to vote on, we get to decide how we vote.
This is our first act of co-creation.
Round 1. Poll (Substack’s 5 choices)
Pick the voting method you would like us to try first:
Up / Down votes only — simple and clean
Like + comment system — support through resonance
Move beyond Substack — e.g., AllOurIdeas, Pol.is, Consider.it
Count me in — I’m observing for now
Something else — share your idea in the comments
Cast one vote above.
Then scroll down. The real vote happens in the comments.
Round 2. Comments (this is where the Commons breathes)
If you chose option 5, or if something new sparks for you:
👇 Add your idea in the comments using 💬 Idea:
❤️ Heart ideas that resonate
🔵 Add a Blue Spark to ideas that feel generative
🔵 Remix @name: when you want to build on someone else’s idea
🧩 Dissent: if you see a risk or disagreement
🕊 count me in if you want to participate without choosing a side
x3 / x10 if you shared this post with 3 or 10 friends (optional, honor system)
A vote is only complete when the Dissent Quorum is met:
at least three dissent comments or one third of all comments, whichever is greater.
This is how the Commons learns from disagreement instead of avoiding it.
What Happens Next
We will gather:
the winning poll choice
the top ideas from the comments
the most thoughtful dissents 🧩
the Blue Spark concepts 🔵 that deserve attention
Then we will share a short Field Note summarizing what we learned and what we will try next.
This is our first test of the Dissent Quorum and the shared rhythm of the Idea Commons.
Quiet Invitation
This is not a performance.
This is a beginning.
Help us shape how ideas move here.
Quietly. Honestly. Together.
👇 Cast your vote above, then scroll down and add your spark below.
x10
I shared this with my trusted 10.
💬: when this community grows large enough, I think it makes sense to move to a different platform for voting. But Substack works for early development.
Sometimes it can help if a group agrees on criteria for choosing first - e.g., "Reaches more people" or "Is lower in cost" or "Is easier to understand" etc. That can lay the groundwork for more consensus vs. the numbers game that voting is too often based on (as if human decisions can be reduced to kilograms on either side of a scale). Also, I am reminded of Follett's quote that what we should be aiming for in democracy, at any scale, is the evolution of an idea created in common, and not simply evaluating only the ideas put out for consideration (and certainly not the simple "either/or" that our culture so often defaults to. And finally, I am reminded of Follett's reminder that even total consensus may not necessarily reflect the common will; it really depends on whether the common will has been evolved (like mentioned above) or if it's just been assumed because 51% or 75% or even 100% of people assent). Now, assenting isn't all bad; sometimes a choice is naturally very limited and obvious. But often it isn't.