If there was an idea that could ‘fix’ democracy, it would have been thought-up already.

1. Appeal to antiquity: This fallacy assumes that because something hasn't been done or thought of before, it can't be done or thought of now. It ignores the possibility of innovation and progress.
2. Status quo bias: This is the tendency to prefer things to stay the same, resisting change even when better alternatives are available. What he's resisting is new ways to think about things, assuming his closed-mindedness is warranted.
3. Limited imagination: The statement assumes that all possible solutions have already been explored, which is rarely true in complex problems. Plus cultures change and develop wholly new perspectives.
4. Overconfidence bias: There's an implicit overconfidence in the collective wisdom and capabilities of past thinkers, assuming they've exhausted all possibilities.
5. Availability heuristic: People tend to overestimate the importance or prevalence of things they can easily recall. If no solution comes readily to mind, especially for a problem they've thought about a lot, they assume none exists.

Here's you right now: (cartoon where someone has a "good idea", and after a lot of work, decides applying it is hard)

This assumes the hard work of applying it wasn't done first.

If you wonder why you don’t see your idea already out there in the world, it’s because your idea didn’t work the hundreds of other times someone tried it.

Wasn’t GovTrack a good idea at the beginning?

It's amazing to me that someone would work on a "good idea" without thinking it through.

I thought I was building an accountability tool.

Why would that be valuable? Making politicians accountable sounds valuable- but just a tool? And if it would make politicians accountable, how would it do that?

In my view, the ideas behind GovTrack never had that potential. I doubt JT even defined accountability rigorously, much less functionally.

If only the American public had more information...

This has been a problem at times, but it's not a solution. Maybe it would be worthwhile if it included a way to distribute the information, ensure people learned from it and used it, and didn't learn from bad information. Those are harder problems to solve.

Members of Congress...have no trouble finding out (what) constituents are thinking

The methods cited only tell what a few constituents think, so they're not representative. And they don't scale- they're expensive to even read. Yes, representatives, especially state legislators, often judge constituent opinions based on the calls and letters they get. On the one hand, it's pretty dumb to do that. On the other, it shows that some of them, least, care and would use better information if they could get it.

Members of Congress...do polling...(to) know what...constituents think

Polling is expensive, so it's used sparingly. And it only tells what surprised, usually poorly informed poll-answerers think.

And no one wants to be polled

This isn't true- it's not "no one". In fact, many more people used to be more open about being polled. (See next item.)

there’s nothing in it (polls) for people to want to participate,

Exactly. Solving this would change a lot. Thus it's a problem to solve, not a reason a solution is impossible.

Only a small fraction of citizens will ever participate...causes selection biases

Again, this is a problem to solve.

Until you’ve worked 5–10 years in government...you can’t see what needs change.

This is just presumptuous, as if study can never provide that.

Plus, campaigns and elections suck- you don't need to work in government to see that.

Plus, lobbying sucks. While how its done could be seen, it's also documented in books. And the solution to it was pretty obvious to me, yet I've never seen it written.

Your idea has no value. It’s all about execution.

Actually, the steps are more like:

1. research
2. understanding
3. idea(s)
4. designing a solution
5. checking (logically)
6. execution.

So your statement is a false dichotomy. It's also a straw-man argument- falsely modeling a person's idea as "just an idea" (an undesigned, unchecked idea that's not based on research) and then deprecating that false model.

No idea you have today will turn out to be right. It’s not how the world works.

What about my other ideas that worked? Plus the ideas I didn't follow up on, but did get some positive market-feedback on?

Find the humility to say your idea might be total crap

This assumes I haven't had that humility from day 1. I was cynical till I spent time thoroughly checking for a fatal flaw. I defined things carefully and ensured things would work. And then still, I entertained others' criticisms looking for a fatal flaw.

While it might not work due to an unseen flaw, an execution error, or the well-financed effort of someone who wants to stop good democracy (there are many), it's worth trying.

It's especially well worth thinking about, which your logical errors, JT, shut you off from doing.

demonstrate that you are willing to let your experiences guide you.

This makes no sense to me.

One should learn from experiences, but not be guided by them! That'll just lock one out of unexperienced possibilities.

Worse, it's possible to shift a paradigm and create a solution that one has zero experience with. Experiences will never guide one to find such a solution.

The key is to think and analyze and understand, not just passively have ideas and thoughts.

If you’re dedicated to fixing democracy, I can’t help you.

That's fine, though a bit presumptuous.

Your ego is far too big.

What are the logical fallacies here?

Ad hominem attack: JT is attacking one's character rather than addressing the problem of fixing democracy. (That said, the whole article is about his albeit misguided reasons- it's a conclusion.)

False dichotomy: The statement implies that one can either be dedicated to fixing democracy or have a reasonable ego. Rather than being mutually exclusive options, these are unrelated. Note also that being dedicated to fixing democracy is very different than being certain that one can do it.

Hasty generalization: He makes a broad assumption about the person's ego without knowledge of them except for their dedication to fixing democracy. Instead he should imagine that he's wrong.

JT is correct in suspecting ego- he should suspect his own. He should think to himself: What if a humble and reasonable person doubted they could fix democracy, but found a solution they saw no flaw in?

Begging the question: The statement assumes that dedicating oneself to fixing democracy is inherently egotistical, without providing any justification for this assumption. In fact, being dedicated to fixing a large societal problem is generous.

Appeal to motive: The speaker is dismissing the idea of fixing democracy by questioning the motives of the person proposing it, saying they're due to feeling superior or self-important, overlooking virtuous reasons, such as it being important to people and society.

Genetic fallacy: The argument dismisses the idea of fixing democracy based on its perceived origin (an egotistical person) rather than its content or merit.