[ 23/March/22 ]
I hope never.
The idea of existing multi party democracy structures being anything like an optimal solution to the deeply complex issues of governance is clearly wrong.
It is certainly preferable to any sort of single party or dual party or single actor governance; but we actually have the tools to create something much more powerful.
What is needed is multiple levels of distributed governance, with individual agents having the maximum freedom reasonably possible given the levels of responsibility displayed.
What seems to me to be needed is systems of governance where individuals retain their personal right to vote on any class of issues, but can assign it to a trusted person for any period of time (revocable at any time), for any set of issues.
The requirement would then be for substantive majority of the votes held to reach a consensus on any issue. For most classes of issues I would expect the consensus requirement to be something over 90%.
There would need to be additional mechanisms to prevent bad faith actors from dominating, and every level of cooperation demands such things if it is to survive long term, so it would evolve into something quite complex, and it would allow for the depth of issues present to be explored in a public way that was also reasonably timely. Simple multi-party democracies tend to be more polarising and therefore incapable of dealing with the depths of complexity and nuance actually present in most of reality.