Economics is the technology of societal organisation. The governance of economics is politics. Governance of Technologies matures in monopolies (micro-states). If monopolies are too strong, they blend into the governance of economics (the macro-state) and they can halt innovation (lobbies). How to disrupt a technology that is obsolete? How to disrupt an obsolete system to organise society, to make a society that can constantly and harmonically innovate ? This is something I would die for and live for.

Here a few comments on campaigns functional to current societal organisation. What people “likes”, “feels”, talked in a way they feel comfortable to hear are more effective rather than debates on they don’t like — (debates with your enemies carries are more informative than ones with your friends, at least to improve your way to execute your ideas so that they are inclusive of your enemies, too. So if you want a better world, either you wipe out your enemies (Macchiavelli said that about Signories, first foreigners did that with native America to built US, German Nazi almost did that, ) either you include them to allow them live decently as you do (northern european countries are designed on that, tribal cooperative systems are based on that).

Current Economics is a network where network gain on transactions are capitalised by the owners of infrastructures. That is, the trader gains on the products that are commercialised more than the producer that make them. This holds true for information and opinions transacted over the internet (including IoT, social networks, web engines). As effects, there is an exponential reduction of the competition running an industrial sector towards monopolies, and the stakeholders of monopolies having a control quota in multiple industries. Relatively speaking, there is a fewer and fewer percentile controlling the more and more of infrastructures enabling industrial sectors.

As a consequence, the democratic systems is also affected. People delegate power in democratic systems. Having access to the peer network of electors, what they like and the tone of narrative they buy into allows the owner of the infrastructure to:
1) create a market to expose people to peers who have likely mindset (network gain effects on the producers’ opinions);
2) influence users’ opinion (the producers’ opinion) by filtering exposure of information so to maximise gain.
Gain could be not necessarily always monetary, could also be political gains, or vision gain, that is, an investment.

In history, it did happen that monopolies gained so much relatively power VS all the other citizens (states) that monopolies start to have and execute political choice — during mercantilism. The where responsible for an outstanding expansion, including colonoliasm, personal company armies, choices on security and external politics. Nazi propaganda was a primitive way to bond with people choices, and nazism was then defeated because of two major forces external to systems where nazism was (Russian and US): if Nazism would have stayed in Europe, they may have stabilised and created a new stable system, with people liking each other and thinking that history is history, like native Americans are, like indios in Brazil are, like Aborigens are, respect to new citizens of the countries they still live in.

Now, the context of exponential technologies in our time is that:
1) the World is “fully” connected and it is a closed ecosystem — no competitors on the border (more and more difficult to oppose an Anti-Trust law if you are a company with a relative power larger then the country you want to tack on; TTIP negotiate is about relative power of monopolies VS countries).
2) who owns infrastructure to expose people to content that emotionally can trigger or calm them, can control uprises (can control the micro-states in which people self-organised, and thus the resulting macro-state of societal structures, including political associations — Orson Wels “Citizen Kane” was about television, now Facebook demonstrated in one of their paper they can influence opionion-making with no need of in-persona interaction);
3) the information gained is an open question mark(?): if the infrastructure enabling research of new information, strategically segment users to allow them to buy into information they like, that is a gain for the company but an information loss for the political system: it would be like you buy the newspaper to expect reading what you like — and it is, but to a different degree because the time you invest to consume a news on the newspaper is last more that a reading a title on a social network.
Differently from historical times in mercantilism and nazism, you may have a stable world that can innovate, but structured, de facto, as an empire — a very stiff hierarchy where we can say leaders are distinguished by >~10⁶ times the wealth of their citizens. What the effects of empires? Are they still enhancing exponential tech? Which consequences they had in history?

Without attaching moral or ethical clues, history shows that the pyramids, colosseums, the commonwealth, the colonies, are all legacy of economics characterised by a very hierarchical organisation (kinda of empires) with a very steep relative richness where relative richness overlaps political choice. Innovations had a legacy of centuries, but a slow rate — for indeed the political stability lasted centuries.
But the breakthrough, it was done during French Revolution (an example), where peasant took on the knowledge to become makers (science and tech), with a result of leverage the relative richness overlapping political choice. That ignite the possibility to leave, instead of pyramids, rockets on the moon, water urban sanitation, electrical grid.
Innovations had a legacy of years, shortly replaced by others that take them and change them and improved the, at a fast rate — and indeed the political stability underwent different changes.
Are you going back to emperor times?

Now it looks like that self-organisation of current democratic system is already influenced so much from monopolies that are overlapping into political choices and execution, that the probability of having a “monarchy” as outcome of democratic election almost happened — in the sense that, despite 10⁸ electors, you almost had one person having both parents presidents (like it happens in monarchies): you already had only two families Bush/Clinton alternating through decades (think about the Vice-President and other staff as tribe of 10² members), you still have that votes casted to representatives having from 10³ to 10⁵ times the wealth of a middle-class wealthy elector in California, you still have a winner between these types of order of magnitude. The candidate(s) with 10¹ (equal wealth) did not pass through. Is >10³ times the wealth of a middle-class citizen necessary but not sufficient to become an hub as a political leader (but still necessary)?
I believe that people with similar wealth can share similar lifestyles, so their vision may not be that dissimilar in executions.
Like, climate change and peace and security are talked to be important in different (or opposite) degrees, but the measures taken will keep to be asymmetrically favourable to the monopolistic stakeholders who operate the current infrastructure of energy-oil and military industry, and have a relative stronger weight on influencing political decisions.

In the future, I imagine you may have recreational funny moments on the legacy of divide an conquer strategy (e.g. memes candidates, bold statements on sexism or not, on security or not), they will be less informative (you bond with something you already like) to have an impact on the technology of societal organisations, while the carrier of those memes capitalise on the cost of the campaign. Now about 1$ per vote. So the role of superDonors will have even more impact (unless crowd-funding voting campaigns? hu, who knows? Very difficult to challenge distribution of information circulating on 1B connected users though).
So memes and bold statements about sexism will be more valuable that understanding what a gender theory is, and so be able to make a choice out of what you included in your vision rather than thinking about how you are; and memes about “are you climate change or not”, or “pro-security or not”, will be more relevant than understanding that economics is shaped around energy-oil and army and security industries: if you really want to have a change in your economical or living context too, should better uprise to change the infrastructure that shape your context — like an outcome of French Revolution.

If AI allures to alleviate frustration or exclusions with assuring narrative, it will be an opportunity for propanganda, too. And very difficult to challenge against. Think if Hitler would have had AI, and reach out consensus also in neighbouring countries. Or an a littler tone, think about if ones want to tell you that Migrations are fuelled by cultural enemies. Imagine in the future when you will have populations displaced by climate (climate-refugee) for not having drinking water anymore, and the current politician will say: “these people have values that cannot conciliate with ours, we solved our problems with drinking water and they are parasites”. Rwanda Tustsi-Hutu massacre can be read as cultural, but also — I think more relevant- because agricultural pressure was about 1.900 people per square km, higher than most tech-advanced country in agriculture per densed population : netherlands. So people kill each other. You need an AI that is better to help you move your butt in understanding the cause of effects of phenomenas, and engage enemies in discussion, instead of reinforcing own selfie political identity. But the carrier of the AI, will always gain, if monopoly with overlapping political choice and capability to execute — and so will the owners of that conglomerate, or their ties. Think that noble families in Italy of Reinaissance still have capital and political influence in Italy, after 500 years, as inheritance of that time. That is, political monopolies (signorie that were financing arts and technologies and also held political power) of 500 years ago still influences the democratic system now.

So AI and monopolies could help you bond with people who are just like you, keep you in your comfortable bubble and market segment. Debate allows development of solid arguments but also increasing doubts among electors who cannot mirror in the narrative of the candidates.
Undersanding means experiencing.
You gotta experience your enemy to understand it.
You gotta have an idea of what he/she feels.
AI of emotions may help here, to make you buy emotions of what a girl feels in orgasm or rape or pleasure or family or birth or what a man feels in being in love if monogamous or polyamours or what an immigrant feels in being given a change or what a tycoon feels in convincing new markets, but again, if the economical technology is still shaped on creating monopolies, unlikely the company running AI of emotions will have an interest in helping an élite feels what the plebes feel (maybe just the opposite). Who knows?
Politics that value inclusion may found struggles towards an economical technology valuing profiling users to feed them with what they have been used to.

People could delegate their votes based on the horizons of their life, without even being motivated to understand how that vote will shape the context in which their life occurs — give bread to a starving and will give your vote, give a self-alluring touch to the excluded ones and they will give their vote.
Will the excluded ones have any control on how that vote will be administered in their favour? (Gamification of policy-control?!) Or will an investigative journalist be allured by a self-assuring AI voice like “you’re doing such a great job, Bob” to just produce click-bait links to be consumed by voters bonding their whole identity in either blue either red (or fined more grained resolution political pixels)?