Seems much like I just need to troll harder... I don't see much in terms of discussion solutions at all.

I've been thinking frequently about map-reduce politics. I feel like a lot of trouble comes from a lack of involvement in politics, partly due to corruption and whatnot making involvement mostly a pesky annoyance. And partly because people don't know how to be involved, can't be bothered to spend the time to learn, and well, because it doesn't matter anyway. Individual opinions are irrelevant, unless you're elected, in which case it matters quite much quite suddenly.

So, what we do:

Starting with a population we convene in groups of 20. These groups elect a single person to represent them (not to rule them, but to represent). They can do so with a 16/20 agreement, if they fail to achieve that agreement they will not be represented. The grouping method should be geographic by default, but allow people to form groups at will. A variation with randomized groups provides weaker convergence as geography correlates with cultural norms, and does not provide greater safety per se.

This first level electorate (1 person out of every 20) will also form into groups of 20, and again elect a single person. This causes a tree like structure, leading up to a top level of less than 20 people which will not select an elected (there is no president of the world).

It scales decently

^1 20 (very small school class)

^2 400 (a moderate/small school)

^3 8,000

^4 160,000 (two very large football stadiums (like Real Madrid's)

^5 3,200,000 (~population of Kuwait/Uruguay/Lithuania)

^6 64,000,000 (~population of the UK/Thailand)

^7 1,280,000,000 (~population of India/China)

^8 25,600,000,000 (about 4 times humanity, top council will be 6 people)

(group size rationale, skip if you don't care) I chose 20 because larger groups are favorable, to cause lower levels to have a higher degree of professionalism. Additionally 20 * 7 (=140) is still an almost first-name-possible group size. I also think 8 layers seems like a good quantity. Reducing the group size to 10 causes there to be 10 levels, with the highest being 7/10 filled. There's some chance there'll exist an 11th level in the not-too-distant future, the 20 groupings are expected to be stable even with "optimistic" population growth estimates. Importantly, I think 20 provides a good balance of being able to get to know people, yet not uncomfortably personally. Culture and other factors may make tweaking of group sizes favorable. Especially in remote regions it may be hardly/unfeasible to group into neat groups. This effect is noncritical.

Every level is allowed to make law for the levels below it. The extend of permissible law is limited by higher level law.  In accordance with the laws the levels may levy taxes and manage budgets. If law permits they may contract natural/legal persons to perform tasks, even legal persons of their own making.

Somewhat interesting to note is that this is not at all a peaceful setup. Every representative will continue to fight for it's group's unfair advantage. I would hope the highest level will create a legal person that is exclusively granted military rights, with elaborate safeguards, so as to enforce a demilitarized planet (let's at least get that out of the way as best we can..). Similarly I imagine multiple levels of courts. I wish for free migration, because we are all human and our place of birth was not a choice, but who am I?

After all it will be an exceedingly fair struggle. A very pure form of democracy, with exceptional clarity of authority and robustness in growth. It would fail only because of the people. But to my sorrow, it just might.