Why Vote?

Why vote?

Clearly one individual vote does not influence the outcome of any election, so not voting is rational from that standpoint.

So why vote: To know what you believe and to register that belief with society.  Politicians do keep track of it, and adjust their positions accordingly. 

A big fallacy is that many of us believe we do make a difference, individually, and so vote for a likely candidate, “to make a difference”. Of course this is exactly what politicians want. All they have to do is gain a small advantage in your thinking in order to gain power and stay in power. 

So what to do? Vote your beliefs! Vote for any candidate that is proposing and/or voting for what you think is fair and just.    If they are not Republican or Democrat ( aka "The Corporate-ocracy”) then vote for another candidate. Your vote shows it is available and sends a message that you don’t approve of the two party candidates. Staying home sends the same message, but not as well.

Why should you vote ONLY your conscience!

Because your views count in "public opinion", and can be adopted by others who often note of how others vote.

The candidate closest to your conscience/beliefs should get your vote. But you must vote to at least have an impact.

Should you vote Republican or Democratic?  Yes, if they are proposing and voting for most all of what you think is fair and just.

What if I don't like either choice?
Then you should vote for neither Republican nor Democrat, but vote your for any other candidate.


An "elected representative" form of government is systemically flawed.  Lobbyists and their money control the politicians and the government, and you don’t have a lobbyist.  There is a better way. Google tgmanifesto or "A Government You Can Love".  

Until we have for Hired representatives, the current flawed system will prevail. All the election tinkering, e.g., electoral college change, new campaign financial rules, etc. won't help. Elected officials serve too many masters, and so serve no one in particular.
.
vote now on "Would you like to vote directly on political issues?"

Is Work Necessary?

Clearly there are not enough high paying jobs to give us the life style that we want and expected.

A vibrant middle class is at risk.

First: What caused this?  (Then: How do we fix this?)

1: Automation: replaced  jobs, first the simpler jobs, like manual efforts such as lifting, transporting, assembly, and part manufacturing, then the service jobs like taking orders, copying data, entering data, calculations, system level assembly, etc.

2. Job transfer: to low income level countries. It was facilitated by low cost communication, instant capital transfer, and ubiquity of knowledge via the internet.

3.  Capital transfer (banking): Capital became accessible anywhere as the rule of law (property  rights) spread to lower wealth countries and lowered risk.

4.  Specialized Information: became instantly transferable through the internet, and further automation reduced the number of most all the high paying jobs, managers, technical specialists and professionals. Business may be able to run without many of these people. Not all, but many.

5. Consolidation: of smaller corporations into larger ones. Large corporations are difficult to grow from the inside, but can acquire smaller entities easily. The popular business idea that efficiency increases with "scale" accelerated acquisitions of smaller companies/start-ups.

6. Political systems: were influenced by the corporations, who had the capital and now the freedom (see the latest Supreme Court ruling) to influence politics;  and who advocated and accomplished a lack of enforcement of regulation and a reduction of "regulation", ref. Stiglitz book: on Inequality...).

7. Combinations: of highly sophisticated computer progams and machines:  take over more and more functions, (a "Watson" for all of us? and a "Google chip implant"?).

What will be he outcome if we become more jobless? 
Here are a few paths:

Path 1. Since corporations influence and control the means of providing products and services, they gain control the government to an even greater extent (see the documentary movie: Inside Job).  The corporations, with control of the media, generate the issues that come before us, the candidates on the ballots, and the "way to vote".  With further consolidation of the producing and financial corporations, the government is/will be "of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation".  The masses still have the vote, but the candidates and issues will be pre-selected and promoted. Enough wealth trickles down in the corporate hierarchys of the corporations to keep the masses from revolting.  The many become (are?) governed by a few wealthy and powerful people (aka corporations). Consolidations of corporations continues and they eventually control all countries, and are essentially nameless. Multinational corporations influence and eventually rule with a "world government". Possible solution: increased corporate taxes, but very unlikely if the corporations control the media/propaganda and thus the voting processes and the laws.

Path 2: The masses, after experiencing a dramatic drop in lifestyle, come to realize that a corporate controlled government (the "corporate-ocracy") is a good idea gone wrong. The masses use social networking and straw votes among themselves that empower them to "vote" independently for neither of the two "official parties". They eventually vote for "other candidates" who vow to change the government to a real democracy (See the blog "A Government You Can Love"). Corporations lose control of the legislative process. Democracy emerges.

Path 3:
If the world only needs less than 5 % of the population to provide basic food, shelter and clothing, what will the other 95% do? Maybe what retired people do: sports, entertainment, education, teaching, travel, volunteerism, and the arts. We live vicariously through spectator activities. Malcomb Gladwell: the super rich ascend to be rock stars. Rock star worship is bestowed by the masses. Why? Worship of "number 1" and the ego satisfaction of being a witness to their glory. The exclusivity of being a witness is an ego satisfier. (I was there, you weren't) One-up-manship is the popular game. Some of the population gets pleasure from adding to our knowledge base by engaging in research into the unknowns. 

Path 4: War has been a typical and historical path for uniting the masses.  Nationalism and ego is tweaked by propaganda, and become the driver as fear also fosters militarism.  "Defense" is used for offense (humanitarian purposes). Conflicts are manufactured. The people unite to fight a common enemy. The victor gets the ravaged spoils, and the obligation to restore the "enemy". Repeat the loop.

Which path will we go on? Which path do you want? How bad do you want it? See the blog "Citizenship Metrics"

Direct Democracy at the Local Level

Each citizen has a direct vote on all proposed laws via his/her own HIRED/lobbyist/proxy representative.

Steps toward a real democracy:

1.     A city council member agrees to vote with the majority of a poll (vote) of the residents.

2.     The voter poll is run by a hired third party with appropriate security and transparency.

3.     Residents may assign their vote in the poll to a proxy (a person who follows the issue, your lobbyist).

4.     The resident voter may provide conditions regarding how the proxy is to vote, or may rescind the proxy and vote personally.

5.     A proposed law is generated and approved for polling by the voters (or their proxies) before an enactment vote.

6.     There may be many rejected proposed laws before one is approved to be voted upon.

7.     The poll is protected by password and can be audited by the voter.

8.     A voter can be anonymous or named at the option of the voter 

9.     The Council Member votes according to the results of the poll.

See the other blog: "A Government You Can Love" below for answers to frequently asked questions about this special form of direct democracy. 

Vote on an example on whether Sunnyvale should dedicate 1 of 3 lanes of El Camino to busses and bikes only.

A Government You Can Love

Citizens feel powerless and disconnected from their government. 
The government continues to act without the will of the people. 
Grotesque compromises are made in order to get any legistation completed. 
Is your "vote" counted or considered?
Is this the way you want it?  

Currently you have four federal representives, your Congressman, two Senators and a President. But their objective is to get elected, and not necessarily to vote the way you would prefer.

But citizens can take charge of their government.

A new process is outlined below, and how to get it.
  

The process requires a radical change, and you will have a lot of questions!  Some are answered if you read the FAQ below, after reading this short outline.

The key idea is:

Each citizen has a direct vote on all proposed laws via his/her own Lobbyist/Hired/Representive (HR). 

Lets call it Hired Representative Democracy  (HRD)

1.    The HR has your voting authority (a legal document with signatures) to vote Yea, Nay or Abstain on proposed laws.

2.     The HR uses your directives/conditions to vote on proposed law.

3.     The HR may be the same person or a different person for each proposed law.

4.     The HR casts the number of votes equal to the number of voters the HR represented (some would be yea, some nay, some abstain)

5.     The HR has US citizenship (can be prosecuted for malfeasance) but is not an elected official.

6.     The HR is hired and/or fired by you (at any time), and based on ability (see below).

7.     The HR is paid by you for each vote, but you are reimbursed with a government tax credit or refund.

8.     The HR is highly informed on the issues surrounding the proposed law, and is articulate, persuasive, and a savvy negotiator (your lobbyist, with your vote!).

9.     The HR has your directives/conditions regarding the law, but must interpret the acutal wording in the proposed law and decide whether your directives mean a Yea, Nay or Abstain. (You don’t need to be involved in the details).

10.   The HR knows when to compromise in order to get a proposed solution. But you can stipulate conditions for compromise ahead of time. Or, you can be on call to decide choices as they come up.

11.    The HR is in contact with you though a secure link, just as you are with your online bank account or stock market account (similar to how you vote on company business issues on stocks).

FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions:

Understanding all issues and voting is a full time job. How do I function?

1.     You select an HR who has your general viewpoint, i.e., a general HR for all issues (similar to a medical doctor as a general practitioner).

2.     In specific areas you could form an opinion and select another HR who covers a specific area (similar to a medical specialist, e.g. a surgeon)

3.     Or you could elect not to vote, (see Citizenship Metrics Blog)

Having an opinion is hard work and time consuming. How do I become sufficiently informed?

1.     Read the summary positions of leading HRs (the pros and cons of a bill)

2.     Or read the full text of the bill.

3.     Select the HR that suits you best, and add your conditions for yea or nay. 

What are the qualifications for an HRD in a given subject area? 

      1. HRD should be a subject matter expert. 

      2.  And demonstrate knowledge of both sides of the issue

      3.  And provide appropriate criteria for an informed vote

      4.  The HRD should identify benefits, beneficiaries, and costs under a set of study assumptions.

      5.  The weighting of the criteria would specified by the voter. 

What does a directive to the HRD look like?

      1. For informed voting, it would have multiple criteria: 

      2. The bill must be of limited scope (pages) so that nasty compromises are avoided. 

      3. The costs and the benefits should be enumerated and weighed. This implies detailed studies, probably provided by both advocates and opponents. 

      4. The studies must be transparent and allow suitable changes in the assumptions. 

      5. The distribution of the benefits should meet general rules of fairness. i.e perhaps for rich people, homeless people, homeowners. and other public policy entities. 

      6. The weighting of criteria can be provided by the voters. For example, if smaller government is highly valued, then the cost of the bill would be more highly weighted than the benefits. 

      7. At least there would be an alternative to single criteria voting, which probably is often prevalent with direct democracy. 

      8. Deciding might be easy with all this information, and the voter would know the benefits/costs. 

What if the bill is too big?

1.     One of the first things to accomplish is dividing huge bills into separate bills, so that nasty compromises are not required.

2.     Suggestion: Vote no an any large bill

What happens to Congress?

1.     They become HRs, in competition for your voting authority. They actually work for you. 

Do we still elect a President?

1.     Yes, he executes the laws, but does not make them

2.     He operates with the budget that is voted upon by you

3.     He is evaluated as an executive, not as a politician.

4.     He/she will have presidential powers for emergencies. 

Why is there an Abstain vote?

1.  An intention to abstain during negotiations encourages changes in the bill. Typically, straw votes are tallied continuously as the bill is ammended. Abstains can be the swing votes if their conditions are met.

How is a bill drafted and do I have an input? 
1. The most democratic way to draft a bill is to use a “wiki” with restrictions.
2. A wiki starts with a proposed law by an HR who has general instructions from several of the HR's citizens.
3. Other HRs modify the bill by wording changes.

4. Votes are taken to accept the changes or not.

5. HRs are restricted from participation if repetition or subversion is attempted.  

6. The bill is ready for a final vote when no more changes are allowed (by a vote) and there are a sufficient number of voters (say 30% of the  electorate. In a close vote that would be 15% yea and 15% nay)

7. Wiki voting allows minorities to register their position, even though the bill may fail passage.

8.  Private polls would be less influential. 

9. There is some history on wiki voting

Where, When and How is the vote?

1.          The vote is electronic and on a predefined schedule.
2.   Approval of bill wording is voted upon prior to votes to enact the legislation.

3.          There is time between votes for amendments. 

4.          Your encrypted authorization (to your HR) to vote is from any secure internet device. 

              

Is bribery or coercion of voters possible?

1.     Yes, as it is now with voting by mail. (A briber could watch you vote and/or mail your ballot.)

2.     Bribery would carry penalties.

3.     Your vote would be online with a serial number, known only by you and secured by encryption. 

4.     A voter could change his vote if the briber were not present. (not the case with US mail type voting)
5.     See the security for Bitcoins as very secure process.  

Will voters vote themselves money/privileges?

1.     The majority probably will not vote for excessive funding, or property grabs, outrageous proposals, etc.

2.     The Constitution still rules, and laws are enforced through “due process”.
3.     The courts are still used to process any law suits.
4.     Tax reform and other gridlocked areas could be addressed.

Are voters too dumb for Hired Representative Democracy?
1.     The voters have an actual say in what happens to them and theirs, so most will take it seriously, as in Estonia.
2.     Also, each issue will have a pro con list that can quickly inform anyone who wishes to be more knowledgeable.

Are voters too impulsive for Hired Representative Democracy?
1.     Impulsive voting would have to be deliberate, since legislation will take time to prepare, especially if done with a wiki, which allows voting on the wording of the bill.
2.    There will be time consuming contention in drafting a bill. The actual vote on the bill occurs only after a bill is satisfactory to a significant part of the electorate, say 30%, Only then will a vote for passage take place.
3.     Note that the HRs will do the “wording” work/negotiation, not the voters.

How and why will Congress approve this?
1.    By a voter referendum 
2.    By elections of supporting candidates (Third party candidates).
3.    Probably takes several election cycles.
4.    By copying success at the local level (See below)

Violates the constitution?

1.     Not if written and enacted under the rules.

Corruption possible?

1.   Encryption is pretty standard now  (e.g. banking, broker accounts) and getting safer. See the encryption of Bitcoin. 

2.   Your name would be on a public register of voters (as your name and address is now)

3.   Your vote would by identifiable only by you via encryption.

4.   Your vote would have a serial number, known only by you.

5.   You could see your vote and change it.  The total would change to verify it.

6.   Hacker defense would be needed. (like banks have)

7.   If the HR intentionally voted not in accord with your directives (fraud), your diligence would be needed.

8.   HR fraud would be transparent to you and reportable to a District Attorney.
9.    Fraud would be punishable, as the HR is a US citizen and eligible for prosecution by a District Attorney.
10.   HRs make their living off of success as a HR, so would avoid fraudulent behavior. 

11.   Voters could switch HRs, who compete for voters and are paid by voters.

12.   Coalitions are minimized (again, avoiding nasty compromises and parties, very important!)

Why do I need an HR if I specifty the conditions for a vote?

1.   Because the wording in the bill will not be a perfect match with your conditions. Therefore, you would always vote no. Your objective is have negotiations that get the words close to what you want. This is the main job of the HR, to interpret your words and decide if your words and the bills words are close enough. The HR then has some negotialting power depending on the wording. So your HR can negotiate on the words to get the final bill close to your wishes. 

How can this help get fiscal order?

1.   Suggestion: Your HR directive could generally vote NO on all earmarks or "riders" (aka special interests amendments).
2.  Note that “coalitions” (aka “parties”) are not needed to get legislation completed (extremely important).  Independents would have a real vote.

3.  Suggestion: Your instructions to your HR could be to generally vote for 90% of last year’s appropriation to Government Departments /Agencies.  This reduces the size of government in a minimally traumatic way. 

Where does it start?

1.        At local level

2.        On the internet

What is the process at the Local Level?

1.        Local is the most likely place to start, and would show feasibility.

2.        Candidates run for election on a single item: To vote the way the voters direct them to vote.

3.        Voters join a web site that directs the elected official’s vote

4.        Elected officials are now the HRs and vote only the proxy votes that they have from the web vote results. 

5.        Voters are registered publically by US Mail address, signature, email account, etc.

6.        Web login is protected by password.

7.        HRs operate as described above
8.        See details at the blog here "Direct Democracy at the Local Level" 

How does it start on the internet?

1.               Voting websites exist now and could form the basis for the needed software.

2.               People would sign up and cast a mock vote on current legislation.

3.               Alternative bills could be introduced and mock voted upon.

4.                When a web site had enough “mock voters”, it would draw advertising and be self sustaining.

5.                When the web site had enough voters it would become a force in politics.

6.               This is actually a business model that could be a good “start up” company.

7.                Or, just email this to Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook

Should there be “voter qualifications for voting on an issue”, not just “one person, one vote”?

1.            The founding fathers debated this one, and there were various criteria (property owner, gender, slave, etc.)

2.            Qualifications would make better citizens

3.            There could be simple criteria, such as, a simple test on facts regarding the bill.

What if we don’t do this?

1.          Government representatives want to stay in power, and do so by raising money for re-election. Substantial funds come from lobbyists, and the funds are used in TV advertising.

2.        This effective process is devisive, distractive, dishonest and filled with inuendo and slander.

3.          The influence of money will be more severe since the Supreme Court has removed political funding limits on Corporations and Unions.

4.          The influence of money in politics is systemic, increasing, causing harm and will not change without this radical change to the governing process.

What can I do?
1.   Do not vote Republican or Democrat. The system is broken. Your vote for any other candidate will send a message that your vote is available, but you are fed up and want real change. 
2.   Improve your citizenship ... see the blog here on Citizenship Metrics
3.  Take on some of that action!

"Oversight" ... Not, "Audit" ... Maybe, "Transparency" ... YES.

The government is on an "oversight" kick. Congress wanted "oversight" of GM, BP, etc. until they realized how much work is involved. So they opted for "an agency" to provide oversight. But oversight means a "second boss" who has no stake in the matter, and is not accountable. We don't need that! 
Perhaps what is needed is a third party "auditor" who attests to "usual and customary practices". And that is all. 
What if the practices are not "usual and customary"? That begs the question: Is it legal? If not there must be "justice".  And it is the job of the Justice Department or District Attorney. We don't need oversight, but we may need an auditor to "attest". 

Actually we don't need an auditor if we have "transparency". There is enough natural oversight by employees and others who can "blow the whistle" if there are "unusual and non customary" practices. Of course, a prize for whistle blowing makes sure that it occurs. 

One final cog to make it all work. There must be clear laws that define "legal". Otherwise we have endless litigation. We need a legislative body that can provide "clear laws" with "clear teeth" and a Justice Department that acts!! To get that we need a voting system that gets clear and unambiguous laws, not the lobby written, loophole filed monster laws that we now pass. Please see "A Government You Can Love" on this blog . 

Free Information and the Impact on Employment

What will be the impact on employment of an internet that is providing "free information"? What is to become of employment by people with special "information" or "knowledge", such as a Teacher,  Doctor or Engineer?

Perhaps history and the impact of tools can suggest an outcome. First, most all people were hunter/gatherers, but their tools continued to improve until a small fraction of the population (farmers ~1-2%) could supply all the food needed by the whole population. Next, in the industrial age, people found employment by use of their physical dexterity, ability to learn, and to a lessor extent, their strength.  In the latter stages, machines started to replace these workers. (The process was delayed by the emergence of the undeveloped countries that could supply labor at lower cost than the machines.)  Many people became employed as "knowledge workers" and used their brains for business practices such as transactions of all types, including sales, record keeping, and planning. Part of this "knowledge base" population practiced law, medicine, engineering, science. etc.  All of these functions are now being automated rapidly, as  machines coupled with computers take over both the production and services job base. What will be the outcome?

The usual measure of an economy is GDP and growth of GDP. In other words, transactions as measured by the cost of goods and services. What if  machines with computers take over the creation of goods and services? The cost of these goods, services and the machines/computers are likely to decrease rapidly.  This is deflation. It means we may live with low cost goods and services and with minimal employment. Really?

Probably not, because we naturally strive for a higher standard of living. That means new goods and services, and NEW types of employment to provide these NEW things. New things require Research and; Development, R&D. So the economy will depend largely on new and improved products and services.

Product life time is reducing exponentially (See Kurzweill).  A prescient public policy would be to recognize this and strongly support an R&D economy. This means providing an environment for innovation, including patent protection, tax incentives, capital, and human skill development for the R&D processes.

Andy Grove (Intel founder) noted a warning to nurture manufacturing: He suggests that R&D is a small part  of supplying new products and services. Manufacturing requires major investment and produces the most jobs The machines to make the machines are often in the "manufacturing sector". My inclination is to include them in R&D. Each new round of manufacturing technology is R&D driven. So production and manufacturing can also be called R&D in this view. For the purpose of increasing employment, perhaps we should add a M, and call it RD&M,  for research, development, and manufacturing. OK, lets add marketing and sales and call it "business".

So to provide new jobs, we need an environment that provides:
  Stable and fair laws for businesses and workers,
  Incentives for the corporations and the workforce.
     (especially Tax policy)
  Incentives by direct government spending (maybe? and prizes?)\
  Regulated competition

Free market?

The next time you hear someone hawking a free market, remind them of the eventual outcome. ... like the free market in ... Somalia.  There the rule is by thugs with AK-47s, not by "rule of law" (aka regulations).

The "Free" idea needs to balanced with "Rule of Law", also known as "regulation". All enterprize has rules and regulations. The question should be are the rules "fair" or beneficial to society in general or on the whole. Or do they favor a select group?