Team Mirai and Democracy

Japan’s election last month and the rise of the country’s newest and most innovative political party, Team Mirai, illustrates the viability of a different way to do politics.

In this model, technology is used to make democratic processes stronger, instead of undermining them. It is harnessed to root out corruption, instead of serving as a cash cow for campaign donations.

Imagine an election where every voter has the opportunity to opine directly to politicians on precisely the issues they care about. They’re not expected to spend hours becoming policy experts. Instead, an AI Interviewer walks them through the subject, answering their questions, interrogating their experience, even challenging their thinking.

Voters get immediate feedback on how their individual point of view matches—or doesn’t—a party’s platform, and they can see whether and how the party adopts their feedback. This isn’t like an opinion poll that politicians use for calculating short-term electoral tactics. It’s a deliberative reasoning process that scales, engaging voters in defining policy and helping candidates to listen deeply to their constituents.

This is happening today in Japan. Constituents have spent about eight thousand hours engaging with Mirai’s AI Interviewer since 2025. The party’s gamified volunteer mobilization app, Action Board, captured about 100,000 organizer actions per day in the runup to last week’s election.

It’s how Team Mirai, which translates to ‘The Future Party,’ does politics. Its founder, Takahiro Anno, first ran for local office in 2024 as a 33 year old software engineer standing for Governor of Tokyo. He came in fifth out of 56 candidates, winning more than 150,000 votes as an unaffiliated political outsider. He won attention by taking a distinctive stance on the role of technology in democracy and using AI aggressively in voter engagement.

Last year, Anno ran again, this time for the Upper Chamber of the national legislature—the Diet—and won. Now the head of a new national party, Anno found himself with a platform for making his vision of a new way of doing politics a reality.

In this recent House of Representatives election, Team Mirai shot up to win nearly four million votes. In the lower chamber’s proportional representation system, that was good enough for eleven total seats—the party’s first ever representation in the Japanese House—and nearly three times what it achieved in last year’s Upper Chamber election.

Anno’s party stood for election without aligning itself on the traditional axes of left and right. Instead, Team Mirai, heavily associated with young, urban voters, sought to unite across the ideological spectrum by taking a radical position on a different axis: the status quo and the future. Anno told us that Team Mirai believes it can triple its representation in the Diet after the next elections in each chamber, an ostentatious goal that seems achievable given their rapid rise over the past year.

In the American context, the idea of a small party unifying voters across left and right sounds like a pipe dream. But there is evidence it worked in Japan. Team Mirai won an impressive 11% of proportional representation votes from unaffiliated voters, nearly twice the share of the larger electorate. The centerpiece of the party’s policy platform is not about the traditional hot button issues, it’s about democracy itself, and how it can be enhanced by embracing a futuristic vision of digital democracy.

Anno told us how his party arrived at its manifesto for this month’s elections, and why it looked different from other parties’ in important ways. Team Mirai collected more than 38,000 online questions and more than 6,000 discrete policy suggestions from voters using its AI Policy app, which is advertised as a ‘manifesto that speaks for itself.’

After factoring in all this feedback, Team Mirai maintained a contrarian position on the biggest issue of the election: the sales tax and affordability. Rather than running on a reduction of the national sales tax like the major parties, Team Mirai reviewed dozens of suggestions from the public and ultimately proposed to keep that tax level while providing support to families through a child tax credit and lowering the required contribution for social insurance. Anno described this as another future-facing strategy: less price relief in the short term, but sustained funding for essential programs.

Anno has always intended to build a different kind of party. After receiving roughly $1 million in public funding apportioned to Team Mirai based on its single seat in the Upper Chamber last year, Anno began hiring engineers to enhance his software tools for digital democracy.

Anno described Team Mirai to us as a ‘utility party;’ basic infrastructure for Japanese democracy that serves the broader polity rather than one faction. Their Gikai (‘assembly’) app illustrates the point. It provides a portal for constituents to research bills, using AI to generate summaries, to describe their impacts, to surfacing media reporting on the issue, and to answer users’ questions. Like all their software, it’s open source and free for anyone, in any party, to use.

After last week’s victory, Team Mirai now has about $5 million in public funding and ambitions to grow the influence of their digital democracy platform. Anno told us Team Mirai has secured an agreement with the LDP, Japan’s dominant ruling party, to begin using Team Mirai’s Gikai and corruption-fighting Mirumae financial transparency tool.

AI is the issue driving the most societal and economic change we will encounter in our lifetime, yet US political parties are largely silent. But AI and Big Tech companies and their owners are ramping up their political spending to influence the parties. To the extent that AI has shown up in our politics, it seems to be limited to the question of where to site the next generation of data centers and how to channel populist backlash to big tech.

Those are causes worthy of political organizing, but very few US politicians are leveraging the technology for public listening or other pro-democratic purposes. With the midterms still nine months away and with innovators like Team Mirai making products in the open for anyone to use, there is still plenty of time for an American politician to demonstrate what a new politics could look like.

This essay was written with Nathan E. Sanders, and originally appeared in Tech Policy Press.

Posted on March 24, 2026 at 7:03 AM12 Comments

Comments

Vesselin Bontchev March 24, 2026 8:11 AM

When I read “Mirai”, I thought it was going to be about the botnet…

R.Cake March 24, 2026 8:29 AM

This sounds very promising, fingers crossed that the new party are not drowned in procedures or otherwise silenced by people that can spend way more money than this new party can summon in terms of funding.

One interesting aspect will be how parties that operate in this “AI assisted” way can still produce feet on the ground. By definition, political parties are built from local organizations and a somewhat broad membership. Purely virtual engagement via apps may be much easier to achieve than to get people to actually sign up and regularly show up to local meetings… unless the concept of such a party would include a complete virtualization, where there are simply no feet on the ground, nobody to staff an information booth in the pedestrian zone, but only the app.
But if that were so, how can voters even tell if a party is real, or consists exclusively of AI plus a few strawpersons that sit in parliament?

Chris Becke March 24, 2026 9:15 AM

In the American context, the idea of a small party unifying voters across left and right sounds like a pipe dream.

Thats because it is. the American system is not proportional at many levels and cannot be made so without structural changes. The kind of structure changes that are impossible once the system has collapsed to 2 parties because it would require the majority party implementing policy against its own best interest.

Winter March 24, 2026 10:58 AM

@Chris

Thats because it is. the American system is not proportional at many levels and cannot be made so without structural changes.

Especially as one of the parties has worked hard for over 4 decades to get rid of general voting.

Mr Smith goes to Tokyo March 24, 2026 12:36 PM

AI driven populism is still populism, even if it cloaks itself in milquetoasty centrist woo woo.

Imagine if the Naxis used this tool. Still cool with it? Why not?

Remember most actual politicians treat listening, outreach and engagement exercises as propaganda and meessage control. An AI mediated Nuremberg rally in cyberspace is still going to suck for whomever is the declared enemy.

lurker March 24, 2026 1:20 PM

… a radical position on a different axis: the status quo and the future.

This position is only radical from a western viewpoint, and thus it may appear radical in those Asian societies which have engaged with western style democracy: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the ex-British colonies of South-East Asia. While these countries may appear to have attained material wealth and success, social unease bubbles up from time to time.

The “status quo and the future” form the basis of China’s 5 Year Plans, and each plan has built into it a trajectory which determines the form of the following plan. While China may appear to be a one-party state, there is a natural churn of the leadership through death of the elders and the need for replacements from the younger generation. Yes, votes are bought in China for as little as a few cigarettes, or as much as fast cars and mansions. But the politician is judged first for his path through life, then for his allegiance to the party.

When a traveller in China engages a local in conversation the first questions asked are almost always:
Where have you come from?
Where are you going?

The Tao means the path, or the way. This has been a guiding principle of oriental life for millenia. So “the status quo and the future” is not so much a radical position, as a return to a basic philosophy of life which should satisfy many oriental voters. In spite of the headlines[1,2,3], the technological wrappings are a trivial modernisation.

[1] https://thediplomat.com/2026/03/the-untold-story-of-japans-election-the-quiet-breakthrough-of-team-mirai/

[2] https://www.chosun.com/english/world-en/2026/03/24/3MYTFMTVMZD65NABIVFHPQY6CM/

[3] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/05/08/japan/politics/takahiro-anno/

Dave March 24, 2026 1:26 PM

The unanswered question is: what is the ceiling? Let’s note the the election in question was won by the ultraconservatives with overwhelming margins who used the age old tool of promoting a female and handing out pink pens to hide its sexist agenda. Oh, and let’s not forget she is a drummer. So let’s put the old wine in new wineskins and watch the public gobble it up. Which they did.

The real advantage of a two party system is that it can use minor parties to trial run agendas and then co-opt their policies should they prove popular. I suspect that is what is occuring in Japan.

ResearcherZero March 25, 2026 7:37 AM

@Mr Smith goes to Tokyo, ALL

Listening to nuanced policy input from constituents is not populism. Populism focuses on a deliberately simplified description of a problem, laying blame elsewhere than where the root of problem began and ignoring the measures that are actually required to address it.

Unaffordable housing for example, is the result of long-standing structural issues that were highlighted in government housing reviews three decades ago. Not enough public housing supply pushed renters and first-time home buyers into competition with property investors. As government failed to address housing supply constraints and the root causes, populist policy instead focused on subjects like immigration and border security. The blame for the rise of property prices and a lack of new rental properties was directed at immigrants, yet labor is needed for construction and services to build and fit-out new homes. Additionally labor is needed to meet the growing pressures on public services in expanding settlements.

Immigration is also required to meet the increased labor demands in agriculture, processing, manufacturing, health and aged care. Even if a government wanted to grow the local population, it still requires the labor force to meet the needs of an already aging population and the increased employment demands of a larger economy. With upward pressure on housing, comes upward pressure on other areas of the economy. Combined with constraints to supply chains and energy demand, this all drives up the cost of basic needs and services.

The government receives reports on the future outlook and kinds of shocks that will impact populations. Flood projections, impact on water reserves due to a warming climate, supply chain risks due to the outbreak of conflict in critical areas of transit. Energy deficit and economic shock are obvious risks if the supply lines are impacted by any and all events. The recommendations to shore-up and diversify energy supply were not just made because of climate change, they were made as a direct result of an enormous amount of intelligence that pointed to the risk of interruptions to crucial trade routes and the impacts of prolonged war.

Without constituents having access to information about their long-term future outlook, they cannot make plans accordingly to mitigate risk and make well-informed decisions. Populism does not provide the information that people need to make those kinds of decisions and it does not produce good policy that meets the needs of individuals, communities or the nation as a whole.

Rather, populism distracts from the issues and prevents the public from effectively communicating with their representatives in a rational and measured conversation. If technology can instead be harnessed to effect better communication between the public and the politicians who represent them, then the failings and gaps in the system my be addressed. Currently, it has become difficult for people to directly pass on their concerns to government in a meaningful way and this has lead to frustration and a decline in trust.

Winter March 25, 2026 8:33 AM

@ResearcherZero

Populism focuses on a deliberately simplified description of a problem, laying blame elsewhere than where the root of problem began and ignoring the measures that are actually required to address it.

I always compare populists to Santa.

You can give him your wish list, and if you have been good, you are promised to get your presents.

Only, it is your parents, ie, you, that pay for your presents. And no, you will never get that pony, or whatever really big it is you so desperately want.

We have had one of the more famous populist politicians in our parliament for over two decades. He sometimes lead the largest group in parliament.

He achieved literally nothing for his voters in those two decades. Or rather, he achieved nothing at all.

Rontea March 25, 2026 10:33 AM

I agree that the real challenge here is building a policy agenda that is responsible rather than reactionary. Technology, especially AI, can enhance democratic engagement and provide new ways to involve citizens, but it also amplifies risks if deployed without careful governance. Team Mirai’s tools—AI Interviewer, gamified volunteer app—are promising experiments, but the focus must remain on using these technologies to foster transparency, inclusivity, and long-term trust, not simply chasing short-term political gains. Responsible innovation is the only path to sustainable digital democracy.

Mr Smith goes to Tokyo March 26, 2026 5:56 AM

@Winter

I appreciate your Samta analogy.

Once upon a time someone thought extending the tax base to as muxh as possible would minimize distortions caused by tax. It now appears you can start a party by advocating for subsidies, tax credits and exemptions that work at cross purposes to the original objective

Or more bluntly: enhance your political cateer by getting Peter to pay more tax while Paul pays less.

@ResearcherZero

38,000 online questions and more than 6,000 discrete policy suggestions is obviously not a random sample. It cannot be used to extrapolate the preferences of the Japanese population.

I realize elections are also biased, volumtary response surveys but at least the sample size is larger than 38k or 6k.

And i dont think any of us read any of the survey response data or the discrete policy suggestions so it may or may not have been nuanced.

I genuinely worry about two things.

1, experts who discredit the concept of education, expertise amd professionalism by going into politics amd failimg to manage the electorate’s expectations. I do not think experts should be politicians. It does not work well. The skills required to excel at expertise are too different from those required for superb political acumen.

2, people who confuse sample data with population census data, and who tout data driven policy that serves special interests by carefully manipulating the data set.

Leave a comment

Blog moderation policy

Login

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.