We Invent Meaning

Posted on October 24, 2015 by Rand Strauss

We invent meaning, including all the meanings that keep us stuck in our current dysfunctional politics.

In my article What IS Possible?, I said:

Too often, we confuse the facts and what they mean.

Let me illustrate.

Many Americans say they don’t care about politics. That’s a fact. Then we make up, we invent, that this means they won’t participate in a PeopleCount. What if they don’t care because it’s painful to care? What if they don’t care because the system is broken and too frustrating? What if they don’t care because the media seems to ignore their burning issues, or because despite attention, nothing seems to change?

Most Americans think a big problem with politics is the huge amount of money that is poured into it, and that almost always, the campaign with the most money wins. These are facts. Then we invent, we make up, that this means we need to overturn the Supreme Court decisions that money is speech and corporations should have the same rights as people. And we invent that we need to enact tougher campaign financing laws, or give each citizen a voucher to spend on the campaign of his/her choice.

Yes, these might help. But thinking these solutions to how money is supplied to campaigns blinds us to the possibility of a solution on the demand side. PeopleCount‘s proposal is to make effective campaigns inexpensive- and not as the only solution, but as an easy first step.

Another fact is that there are lots of web sites that have tried to improve politics, and none have made a qualitative difference in the main problem areas. Many of them involved answering multiple choice questions. Many investors then invent that a difference isn’t possible. They also invent that they must not invest until a solution proves itself.

In my post, A Life-Changing Experience, I told of how when I was three years old, for a moment my mom was busy with a new baby, and I invented that I wasn’t wanted. It wasn’t true. But it was the same kind of invented nonsense as all the rest.

In 2011, I discovered I was resigned about politics and realized it was due to more invented nonsense. Society mostly agreed with me that politics is a hopeless mess, so it seems more like a reasonable adult reaction than a childish mistake. My point is just that both conclusions, that I wasn’t wanted and that I should be resigned about politics, are simply logical mistakes.

PeopleCount has not taken off. Worse, I have a tiny team, and no full-time partner beside me, much less any traction. My brain invents daily that it has failed and I should quit. It’s all made-up nonsense. I have two part-time partners, a few people helping here and there, and many more rooting for me. Almost certainly I’m simply using them poorly, not making effective requests.

I suggest you do what I do, and do what I say. Accept the meanings as invented, not true. And as many others have said, be the change you want to see in the world. Ignore the reasonable thoughts that tell you real change is only possible by fighting. Join me by supporting PeopleCount, or don’t. Either way, create the future you want for yourself and the coming generations.

What’s Sociology?

Posted on October 12, 2015 by Rand Strauss

A friend posted, on Facebook, an interesting article about how economists are cited 3x more than sociologists. This seems mistaken, since they seem so often wrong and the economy is such a small fraction of our social world.

I googled “number of sociologists in the us” and the Occupational Outlook Handbook from 2012 says 2,600. It says the number of sociologists is about 16,900, 6.5 times as many! If these numbers are accurate, it probably just points to our obsession with money. Money is such a commonly used abstraction that it seems very concrete to most of us. We think there MUST be a way to manipulate the economy!

Sociology seems more abstract, fuzzier. I was surprised when I took my single sociology class in college in 1980- so many wonderful insights about so many specific things! Yet it seemed too huge a field to wrap my head around. It seemed “fuzzy” in the sense that after one class, I could not play with it and produce new “things” like I could with a computer.

Though there are 6.5x as many economists, the article above says economists are mentioned only 3x more. So perhaps each sociologist is considered to be of double the value of an economist. (Joking, that’s certainly consistent with economic principles- the greater the supply, the lower the price, an indicator of perceived value…)

I’m building PeopleCount.org to transform democracy. We have a wonderful, concrete plan, which, to be understood, I present as a simple solution. Of course, it’s just the trim-tab on the rudder, and will be just the start of fixing our ship of state’s steering mechanism to navigate to our desired future. If you are (or know of) a sociologist willing to be an advisor, please contact me, Rand. At PeopleCount.org

In 1978, Anwar Sadat said, “He who cannot change the very fabric of his thought will never be able to change reality.” One of the key ways we change the fabric of our thought is to develop a new understanding. Some of our most profound reality-changing understandings are about ourselves and our society. We’d be well served to put more emphasis on sociology.

A New Way to Politically Organize

Posted on September 20, 2015 by Rand Strauss

Americans, and American understandings about politics are organized around a lot of erroneous thoughts. Let’s look at some of these and create a new way to organize.

David Roberts wrote an article in Vox titled:

Tech nerds are smart. But they can’t seem to get their heads around politics.

His conclusion:

Only when they understand politics, and figure out how to make it work better, will all their dreams find their way into the real world.

It’s a beautiful article, full of things to expand the understanding of most of us. My conversations with people show that most of us think in very human ways- we simplify. We make sense out of the world pretty quickly, and stop when we’ve put a sensible picture together- not an accurate picture, just one that’s sensible to us.

And then we act on that understanding. We talk, we rant, we complain, many of us proclaim and even preach. And most of us end up generalizing, not particularly respectfully, about the “others”.

David gives a number of statements that pierce our generalizations.

Aren’t 45% of American voters registered as independent?

“…independents are not independent. … (they) resemble weaker partisans much more than they do real independents. In actuality, real independents make up just over 10 percent of Americans, and a small fraction of Americans who actually vote”

But aren’t many of these independents moderate?

“…moderates … gravitate toward the political center, splitting the difference between the mainstream positions of the two parties. If that’s a moderate, then America doesn’t have many of those either.”

They should be more centrist than others, shouldn’t they?

Moderates also tend to be more disengaged from politics. More engaged voters will tend to follow … the positions of party leaders. People who know little … will tend to support positions outside the mainstream… A voter with deeply informed, mildly center-left positions will code as “more partisan” than a moderate who has ill-informed positions that are all over the map, but that doesn’t mean the moderate is more centrist…

At PeopleCount.org, we say that political parties organize us and divide us. They capture allegiance on a few issues, often offering an emotional hook like an injustice or threat. Then they pretend to represent us on a host of issues, usurping our power for their own purposes which often seems to be battling “the opposition” for power.

This is why so many people are registered as independent. Not because they don’t favor one party, but because each party represents a platform and ideology that doesn’t agree with them in important ways and are they are run to use their power regardless of what The People want.

PeopleCount.org proposes a new way to politically organize. Let’s organize separately around each issue, see where we stand and hold Congress accountable for results. While we are buffeted by new circumstances, we are organized by old parties. We react to old ideas and drift, paralyzed, into a random future. Let’s try something new. Let’s deal with each issue on its own and design our future together.

Instead of politicians being accountable to the parties, let’s have them be accountable to you and me, The People.

PeopleCount.org is now making progress and targeting our launch this Winter! To help us succeed, please register and vote on some issues. And please donate a few bucks and join our mailing list.

Why Technology Hasn’t Aided Democracy

Posted on June 10, 2015 by Rand Strauss

Why hasn’t technology delivered more democracy? This article missed a key answer.

Technology hasn’t aided democracy because few people have tried to improve democracy. Some have tried to improve our poorly functioning system, but the improvements to democracy were tiny.

Consider GovTrack.us. I used it recently to find the text of a House Resolution 207- it’s great! But it doesn’t change the system, it just makes it easier to use. Consider PopVox.com, a great tool for voting on bills. But who has time to evaluate and vote on bills?

Today’s political system wasn’t designed. It was just assumed that voting (or caucusing) to choose representatives would deliver “representative democracy”, that it would magically make politicians represent citizens and be accountable. Since many politicians labored under this belief as well, it sort of worked. But over the centuries it has failed many times. Similarly, our founding fathers did not accommodate political parties in the design, yet quickly they became fundamental (undesigned) parts of our system.

A basic foundation of representative democracy has been missing- a way for representatives, as well as citizens, to know what The People want, and a way for politicians to be accountable. Poor ways of doing this have existed, such as surveys and newsletters. Working poorly, they’ve simply been part of today’s failing system.

The real reason that technology hasn’t delivered a democratizing solution is that no one has had

A solution
A realistic plan for implementing it
Backing.

As far as I’ve seen, the only real solution with a realistic implementation plan is PeopleCount.org‘s. So far, we’re lacked backing (the website is just a working prototype).

There are two vital pieces to understanding the solution. The first is imagining American society using PeopleCount.org’s proposed solution- oversimplified as:

Vote on issues
See the results
View politicians’ reports.

It’s oversimplified. Imagine what it’d be like to vote on issues, then register on the site and try it. Most people report it’s very different from what they imagined. And there are many details to these features that are outside the scope of this post.

The second is understanding how to get from what we have today to the system we want. Please don’t mix these two concepts. Getting there isn’t hard but it takes resources we don’t yet have. Its details are also outside the scope of this blog.

Our political system is creating results consistent with its actual (not intended) design. Citizens, industrialists, wealthy interests, ideologues and parties all look at our political system and do exactly what they think needs to be done. Today’s politics and government are the result. Luckily, we don’t need a revolution. The system we already have can deliver the democratic results we want just by adding what we’ve designed at PeopleCount.org, a structure that supports political communication and accountability.

PeopleCount.org will empower and motivate Americans to be politically engaged and hold politicians accountable. It’ll empower and motivate politicians to represent citizens instead of special interests and donors. Plus it’ll lessen the importance of money in politics and lessen the polarization of candidates. The real changes will be up to you citizens.

Register on PeopleCount.org and vote on some issues. Then donate some money and invite your friends. I promise astounding results.

Solve our Root Political Problem

Posted on May 2, 2015 by Rand Strauss

The root cause of our political problems is none of the things people mentioned in this Quora article about causes, so the solution is missing from this one about solutions. The real problem is that our system was never designed to deliver the results we desire in America today: Congress being responsive and accountable to an informed and involved electorate.

Our founders designed our system in the 1770’s and came up with a first-draft, our Constitution, but it was at a time when there was no real experience with working democracies. And yes, America made small amendments over the past 25 decades, but our political processes were not designed for our modern world of huge populations, highly connected and interdependent, dominated by large parties, industrial and media corporations and other wealthy interests.

The real problem is that the shape of our political system delivers our current state of affairs. We simply do not have a system that delivers power to the people nor empowers people to responsibly wield that power.

A visionary alternative would encompass:

1) A communication system whereby we, the people, can express what we each want and see what we collectively want. This is advisory voting on issues that matter. It must be done in a way that supports and rewards voters being informed. It would allow us all to contribute to the design of our future, directly informing and guiding our representatives.

2) An accountability system whereby we determine on which issues we want our representatives to be accountable, and they can report to us. They’ll also be able to lead us and see how their guidance effects our votes– we’ll be able to change our vote at any time.

3) An inexpensive political communication system so effective campaigns can be inexpensive. This means allowing challengers to report to us as well.

To solve our root political problem, we just need to create this new foundation. This will allow issue-centric, inexpensive campaigns leading our candidates to compete to do what we want without being dependent on wealthy special interests. And knowing what we want collectively, Congress can address it with confidence.

There are many more details to add to this foundation, such as crowdsourcing issues and questions, contributing links to issue-centered articles and rating them, trust networks, ties into forums and Quora and other political sites, and much more, all in a non-partisan manner, secure and assuring privacy.

This has begun at PeopleCount.org, a working prototype of voting on issues. Try it out! Imagine if this were a popular source of information of candidates and representatives.

All the other solutions on that page take political action, but it’s precisely political action that is so difficult because we can’t communicate effectively on issues. Those who can, vested interests, retain formidable power. Americans are raising hundreds of millions of dollars to try to limit money in politics, in an environment where political communication is expensive. Many are trying to reform our voting method, yet our system continues to give power to the major parties that benefit by it.

Instead of all this swimming-upstream and fighting with vested interests, simply vote on issues on PeopleCount.org. Send your friends to the site, and donate. As more people vote, challengers will use the system to state their commitments on issues, and in response, incumbents as well. As more people donate, we’ll be able to roll out new capabilities and realize the vision.

A Political Alternative

Posted on November 16, 2014 by Rand Strauss

In an interview on DemocracyNow, Russel Brand said:

…the apathy doesn’t come from us, the people. The apathy comes from the politicians. They are apathetic to our needs…

Perhaps that’s more of a symptom than a cause. Perhaps most, or even all of our political problems are also symptoms.

In my analysis, we have results exactly consistent with our political system. Our democratic systems were born out of the idea of “representative democracy”, but with typical human shallow thinking, we thought if people voted for representatives, the representatives would know what we want and they’d vote for solutions. While some representatives thought the same and tried to do right by voters, many were corrupt. And as our world became more complex, it became impossible to know what people wanted- we even enshrined this idea in the term “silent majority.”

Later he said:

I look elsewhere for alternatives … alternative political systems …
I’ve not invented it yet

What would a political alternative look like in which government was representative? The usual answer is that representatives would do what we want and be accountable. So what kind of system would produce these?

For government to be representative, the people would need to be representable. We’d have to say what we want in a way that could communicate clearly. An easy way to do this is to enable us to vote on issues.

For government to be accountable, first, our representatives would need a way to account for their actions, to report to us on each issue. If we had a website where we could vote on issues, each issue would havea link to my representative’s report in addition to its questions.

Second, we’d need a way to hold representatives accountable. Today, we understand this to mean a way for challengers to run effective campaigns inexpensively, so they’re not beholden to wealthy interests. But this is easy if we had the website above- we could allow challengers to report to us as well on each issue.

While much more is possible on such a website, just the basic functions above, if done well, would revolutionize both politics and government. Embracing a political alternative need not be violent, nor change the basic ideals of our society- it can merely support them.

Please help guide government- log onto PeopleCount.org today and try out what it’d be like to vote on issues. And then support PeopleCount to help us grow.

Comparing Business and Government

Posted on June 7, 2014 by Rand Strauss

Four months ago, Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed in The NY Times: Start-Up America: Our Best Hope. In comparing business and government, he focuses on the dynamism in the world of start-ups versus the stagnation in Washington DC. And, like most complaints, it doesn’t suggest a real cause, much less a solution.

Note that his article isn’t about Startup America, nor even about companies in general, it’s about start-ups, mainly new, Silicon Valley companies. He neglects to say that as companies get large, they mostly do so by narrowing their focus and by being authoritarian. Growing from nothing, they have the freedom to try new approaches, and form solutions to new problems. And though the hand-picked examples are exceptions, most fail and many lose huge sums of money due to mistakes, failures to compete or just working on projects that people don’t really want.

Our government, on the other hand, must solve a host of broad problems, and:

It can’t fail.
We insist it be run by 536 executives (435 in Congress, 100 senators, 1 president)
They’re accountable to 486 different boards, different groups of millions of voters each of whom serves on 3 “boards”, one for the district, state and country.
There’s no way for board members to communicate with each other, much less meet, so there’s no way to direct the executives.

In business, broad authority for change is given to the CEO who is monitored closely by a board of directors that meets in person four times a year. The accounting department and auditors also report to the board and regulations constrain actions and ensure communication to shareholders. In government, the CEO job is split among the members of Congress, the board (voters) are almost impotent, there’s little accounting or reporting on actual performance, and Congress is largely above regulations.

It’s time to empower the board and build an accountability and communication system for government. If we had this, like in a private firm, Congress could propose changes, the board could give the nod or not, the President could implement the changes, and reports would come back to the board. It wouldn’t be exactly like a company- the differences are still huge. But it would give government a lot of the structure that’s currently missing and it would free government to solve more problems instead of fight each other.

It’s time we think outside the box, and consider what’s missing from government- a way for voters to communicate and for executives to be accountable. This is the vision at PeopleCount.org, to build an accountability and communication system for government.

Amount of Effort for Your Political Stand to Count

Posted on February 23, 2014 by Rand Strauss

What amount of effort is needed for your political stand to count?

There are about 330 million people in the US, about 250 million adults. If this were a country of, by and for the people, or even just for the people, then each of us has about 4 billionths of a say in the direction of America. Only about half vote, so those of us who vote each has about 8 billionths of a say.

When you take a stand, or want to express a political opinion, how much effort should be required, how much time and expense should be required for you to express it?

Currently, the effort is large. Say you want to end whaling. Perhaps composing an email to your senator or representative takes about 4 minutes (for many of us, it takes much longer.) Find their website and mailing it takes a couple of minutes. If you bookmark these in your browser, it might take just a minute each. So in 7 minutes, you could send 3 emails. Or, you could take 9-12 minutes and call each office, if you can take time off work during the day and have a cell phone with their numbers in your contact list, and supposedly phone calls rank higher than emails. But let’s say that’s 7 minutes per opinion.

But wait, how long does that opinion last? How long does your representative keep this week’s stats? Do you have to call every week? Do you have to wait till this issue comes up for a vote (which could be forever)? When I try to contact a congressperson in a committee, if I’m not in their district often their website prevents me from sending…

So maybe I need to spend that 7 (or more) minutes every 2 weeks, 26 times a year, so it takes about 3 hours… Or maybe 2 hours if I’m organized and don’t have to compose the message each time… On 50 issues, that’s two and a half work-weeks a year.

That’s why I want us to have a simple place to register our opinions, a vote that counts every day. A vote that I can change at any time, so my votes always represent what I want. And our votes represent what we want. It’ll take 10-15 minutes a week to be expressed on all the issues you care about.

Sure, I could give $10 to Greenpeace. But our government and other governments discount Greenpeace because, though it has 3-5 million members, if at least half of those members are US, that’s only 1-4% of our population. I don’t want to even try to do the math to figure out how much you have to give them so the strength of their voice influences our government at addition 8 billionths… Plus Greenpeace says a lot of things, so only a fraction of your money will go to ending whaling.

Before I took a hard look at what’s possible in politics, I wasn’t involved because my participation didn’t seem to make a difference. After taking a hard look, I conclude my participation makes little difference and whatever difference it makes can’t be known. There’s no accountability in politics and our opinions can’t be reliably expressed.

Please support us building an accountability system.

Representative Democracy Isn’t

Posted on January 29, 2014 by Rand Strauss

Representative Democracy isn’t representative. The Free Dictionary defines the adjective “representative” as, first: Representing, depicting, or portraying or able to do so. But the truth is, our representatives don’t represent us, and can’t. They don’t know what we want.

Candidates say what they stand for. Some try to speak their values. Some take stands on issues. Some promise to support certain solutions. They’re representing something, but not us.

Some try to say what they think we want. Some dedicate themselves to some theory of what we should want or what they think is good for us. Again, they don’t represent us.

Once elected, many try to represent their constituents. But they can’t because they don’t know what we want. Not knowing what we want, they’re hesitant to take a position lest it not be popular. So we often hear them promise virtuous things without any commitment to real action. Instead, they actually represent their parties, to give them a known base of supporters and to ensure they can take advantage of the party’s large marketing budget.

Often, once elected, they support a particular industry or wealthy donor group. Partly this ensures more advertising dollars for their next campaign, and partly this ensures a lucrative job in industry if they lose.

Most politicians report they entered politics to represent their constituents interests and make a difference. But the system is set up so representatives can’t represent constituents, and are often rewarded for working against their interests.

Four challenges stand in the way of true representation:
1. Voters and elected officials knowing what the people want
2. Officials being accountable- reporting to the people on their progress
3. Voters hearing reports on officials progress
4. Voters having real choice in elections

In England, some are working to enable voters to impeach Members of Parliament, as if this will make government more representative. It won’t. If we meet the above 4 challenges, ability to impeach can improve representation, allowing voters to hold their representatives accountable more often, it doesn’t solve the basic problems.

Unless officials know what we want, they’ll rarely be responsive. Unless we know what we want, we can’t hold them accountable and others can’t effectively criticize their performance. Unless they can report on issues to those who care about those issues, there’ll be accountability. And unless we have real choice in elections, we can’t hold them accountable.

What’s missing in all countries is this citizen-empowerment, citizen-communication and politician accountability system. Other proposed solutions, like the ability to impeach, or limiting campaign contributions are merely bandages on an inadequate system.

The real solution, and the one PeopleCount.org is creating, is to giving power to The People is making representative democracy truly representative.

Why Voters are Apathetic

Posted on December 11, 2013 by Rand Strauss

A recent article on IVN is argues that Low Voter Turnout Highlights Need for Primary Reform. I don’t believe this. If people really wanted to vote in a primary, they’d join a party.

The real reason for voter apathy is that things seem to drift on no matter who’s in Congress. Our opinions don’t make much of a difference.

If you’re largely aligned with Democrats or Republicans, your vote matters a little. It still often doesn’t matter, because most areas always go one way or the other. How much does it matter which Democrat or which Republican is in office?

And for some, both parties are lousy choices. Centrists want compromises, not one party to dominate. Even most party members don’t support their entire party platform, and want things the party platform doesn’t even mention.

But people DO have positions on some issues, so let’s let them vote on issues. If we all vote on issues, such as on PeopleCount.org, our reps could represent The People instead of the parties. If people can say what’s important to them in a way that’s counted, their opinion would matter and, unlike today, they’d have a reason to be informed.

And if citizens can also see what we all want, we can evaluate whether a representative is delivering that and keep voting out politicians until they elect someone who will represent them.

PeopleCount.org will also be an accountability system, rewarding leaders for communicating, “accounting” for what they’ve done. Challengers will use it as well so elections can be inexpensive and give us real choice. Knowing what we all want and having an accountability system is what will enable people to hold politicians accountable. Knowing what people want, and being able to mine that data for compromises, congress will be able to legislate with confidence and government can be responsive. With inexpensive elections, representatives won’t need to spend time fundraising and money will have much less importance in elections.

Yes, this is a bit simplistic, but it’s the basic recipe for empowering and rewarding citizens to participate in government. It’s a way for all of us to communicate about what we want for our future and actually make it happen.

Why citizens are apathetic is because to most people, the candidates don’t matter much. If they did, more citizens would vote. Let’s have candidates compete to serve the people, instead of serving the parties and special interests. Let’s make their people count.

Blog of PeopleCount.org

Making Your Political Opinion Count!

Category Archives: Government