A new possibility for political reform is complex. In the last post and the one before it, I described a Facebook conversation I had. It was mostly me talking, at length. And the posts were long. Was that necessary?

Common ideas in our culture vs uncommon ones like political accountability

“Laughing out loud” is a cultural meme. Even before it was abbreviated “LOL” it was a three-word phrase. The more common an idea is in the culture, the shorter its description.

Did Ted Cruz commit a fraud against voters when he spread the rumor that Ben Carson had withdrawn from the race right before the Iowa primary? Will this be his Watergate? Most of us know what “Watergate” refers to, a violation that leads to a politician’s downfall.

On the other hand, “political accountability” is two words, and few people are very familiar with what it means. Here’s one definition that describes it in abstract terms. This is how most people hold it, as something abstract that comes from elections where it’s enforced.

But check out this definition from the world bank, in paragraphs 3 and 4 at the bottom of the first column:

accountability exists when there is a relationship where an individual … [is] subject to another’s oversight, direction or request that they provide information or justification for their actions. Therefore, the concept of accountability involves two distinct stages: answerability and enforcement.

This is foreign to most Americans. It makes sense, but when I’ve asked people what political accountability is, they usually say something about responsibility and elections.

Uncommon ideas like political accountability naturally need more words

So I usually need to describe where real accountability occurs in everyday life, like a student is accountable to a teacher. Or like I say in our How it Works page, an employee is accountable to an employer.

And only when they have a workable understanding of accountability can they begin to understand how it can occur in elections.

Another way is for you to imagine you were accountable to people. What would you DO to be accountable? Currently, you would just try to be responsible. You’d try to know what they want and try to do what you know is best. Again, we’d have to look at the full definition to see you need a relationship, a way to be answerable- to report regularly, plus be fire-able.

It’s not that complicated, but it takes a lot of words.

This has been particularly challenging with potential investors. Many want a business to describe themselves in a few words, like: Amazon for Groceries, or MapQuest for hikers. For PeopleCount, where do you hire someone or use a service to make others accountable? A lawyer does this, but we’re not really being “your political attorney”. This sort of thing is needed for remodels, but to my knowledge doesn’t exist. Perhaps we could try: “Your general contractor for politics.” Again, it’s not really accurate.

If you think of something good- please let me know!

But my point is that it’s not a common notion in our culture, yet, so it requires a lot of words.

Please help us make working political accountability to citizens a reality. Please add your email to our announcement list.

In the last post, I gave part of a paraphrased conversation that I had with a friend on Facebook about people hearing a new possibility. So I told

He then read the How it Works page, and focused on the first part, where you, the citizens, will direct your representatives. He said,

I must admit, I’m probably NOT going to support you in “You will direct them.” That sounds like our officials will be slaves to the whims of the people. Maybe that is why people are not listening to you or supporting you?

I said “You will direct them”, not command them. That’s an example where your listening created “they will be slaves.” That came from your brain, your listening. Plus, it’s more common for people to think that due to reading it, rather than speaking with me. Few people think it when I talk with them. We’ll definitely produce a video.

Listen for a new possibility, like an employer/employee relationship

This new possibility is more like an employer/employee relationship. We, the employer, say what we want and our employees, our representatives, actually hear us and respond. This is like an employee given a problem and a recommended solution. She is free to study it and recommend a different solution. Imagine we citizens say “We want a wall!” She might say, “75% of people want this, so we’ll move ahead, but 25% of people don’t, because of the expense. So we’re looking at a compromise- a wall in a few places and electronic surveillance in others.” Or she might say, “Our committee analysis shows that a wall would invite all sorts of tunneling. So we’re looking at some other solutions. You can read more about it on this linked page. We’ll publish our analysis in 3 weeks and work with PeopleCount so you can vote on new solutions as well.”

The point is, they’ll know what we want, and can account to us for their actions and intentions. This is very different from what we have today, where our representatives are effectively silent. Most of us can’t hear them because we have no way of just listening for reports on the issues we care about. Plus, we don’t know what others in our district or state want, so we don’t know what we all prefer, so we don’t know whether our representative is representing us well. Public polls are only done annually, are untrustworthy because of the low rate of participation, rarely poll a specific district or state, and even when they do, few of us find them. On our site, we’ll show everyone how people are voting as the votes come in. You’ll know what your representatives know about what people want.

If people are not hearing a new possibility for political reform,
what are they hearing?

People find it hard to hear for a variety of reasons. Some people are listening for how hopeless or rude politics is. Some are listening for how they can win or how they are losing. Often our listening is shaped by the negative campaigning about how evil the other party is. Some are listening for how unjust things are, how expensive it’ll be to take action, or how the real problem is something else. Most people are hearing what they are listening for.

I’ve talked to many people. Few people are listening for how to achieve accountability. Most of these are certain that the only way is to express their anger and/or elect their people.

Others are certain the only way to achieve accountability is to limit campaign financing and pass anti-corruption legislation. These seem to me to be fine things to do. It will lessen accountability to wealthy donors a bit. But it doesn’t do anything to lessen accountability to parties, or cause accountability to citizens.

As you can probably tell, the real problem is that I write too much. I’ll tell you why in the next post.

In a Facebook thread, a friend said (paraphrasing)

I seem to be finding few people willing to actually engage in inquiry. They mostly want to be right and make others wrong. They are stuck to a single point of view and just want to prove their point.

I responded:

Perhaps they’re just not willing to engage in YOUR inquiries. Lots of us are busy. Many of us have inquired into some of these things at great length and moved on. When you ask a question, they hear an issue they already have made a decision on.

For instance, I have a great way to transform democracy. Few people can hear a new possibility when I give the 1-minute intro. I could conclude most people are too narrow minded or stupid. (That would be akin to your saying they just want to prove a point or are stuck to a single point of view.) But there are many other explanations, and making them wrong doesn’t serve me. Or you.

About 80% of these people will talk with me more about it. After ten to thirty minutes, they hear a new possibility and are eager to try it out. 

But few people get it from anything written. A few people get a bit of possibility from the current How it Works page. It went through many iterations before it was even a little effective. You shouldn’t be surprised that your written comments are misinterpreted. Even excellent writers are not nearly as expressive as a speaker.

It’s always a mistake to generalize a reason why people do or don’t do things. It’s almost always a mistake to think I understand why a single person does or doesn’t do something. If the reason makes them wrong, that’s a good signal that it’s particularly bogus and it’s time for me to realize I’m being presumptuous.

CM: Hmm, thanks Rand. That sounds like a great example! Do you have a video explaining your transformation of democracy?

Not yet. We’re working on an animation. Some people do videos well. I’ve tried, and they haven’t been worthwhile. I certainly agree, a video is a good way to communicate a new possibility.

I will continue this in the next post.

It was good to see an argument that fixing our dysfunctional political culture is possible. I read Efosa Ojomo’s Medium articles about How the Same Employees went from Being the Worst Performers to Being the Best.

It’s about the NUMMI plant. This was the GM plant in Fremont, California. There were strikes, grievances, absenteeism, low productivity, even sabotage. And then management tackled the culture at the plant.

A Dysfunctional Culture can become Highly Productive

To turn it around, they started with a vision: Quality Cars. They gave them better tools, like the ability to stop the assembly line. They put trust into the system. They wrote down the entire process for firing someone. The workers learned that their hard work and loyalty would earn respectful treatment from their employer.

They started with a culture that asked: Who’s to blame for problems? They supported the transition to a culture that asked “Why did this happen?” so problems could be fixed.

Culture is Malleable

The above post was his second on the subject of culture. In his first post, Ojomo wrote about culture. The definition:

“a pattern of basic assumptions — invented, discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration — that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.”

 

What about Politics?

This is a great way to look at our political structure. Our politics developed over many years as we learned to cope with being a new country. It worked well enough to be considered valid, so people learn about it as the “correct way to perceive, think and feel” about politics.

Yes, our political system works poorly. Yes, it has some corruption. And our rules about Congress are rife with conflicts of interest. Yes, it’s very partisan and congress is in gridlock. Yes, it not only favors the two major parties. They prevent any encroachment on their power, even though most people in America think a third party is needed.

Fixing our Political Culture is Possible

His study of culture validates my view. If people can learn that there’s a new way to cope with our political challenges, this new way can be integrated into our culture. Fixing our political culture is possible. Yes, it might be a few years before it spreads to be “the correct way to perceive, think and feel” about politics. But a few years of positive transition would be welcome.

Please join us in trying out this new solution. Please put your email address on our announcement list and we’ll notify you when the site is ready in Spring, 2016.

^{PeopleCount, Inc is a California benefit (B) corporation, dedicated to the benefit of society.
We’ll never sell your contact information and we’re committed to being non-partisan.}

Many Americans want problems fixed, such as our high deficit spending, our high un-and-under employment rate (only 44% of Americans have a full-time job with a regular paycheck), climate change is devastating the planet and threatening health, and many feel the impact of illegal immigration. We’re constantly trying to fix problems rather than design a future.

In his recent blog post, Peter Fiekowsky, who’s heading up the Citizens Climate Lobby 100 Year Plan wrote, “A powerful campaign requires a good outcome.” He cited Kennedy’s declaration in 1961 that America would put a man on the moon and bring him back safely by the end of the decade.

Yet our news is blanketed by problems. Where are the discussions of what our real goals should be? Very few people are like Peter in asking what we want for our future and then flesh that out.

We do the same thing when it comes to political reform. Most Americans would settle for passing an anti-corruption law or a campaign finance law and simply hope it will have a sufficiently positive effect. The media reports on problems that have continued to plague us for decades.

What do I really want for our future? I want Congress to be fully accountable to citizens. I want them to be responsive to our problems and work on solutions. I want us to reimagine the American dream and do what we do best, build it using innovation and team-work. The private sector will have a huge role to play. And so will government.

We need Congress to be freed from the influence of money and the dominance of parties. We need to have a truly American democracy, where Congress is accountable to us, the citizens. Only then will have a government of, by and for the people. Only then will we have the freedom to build the American dream.

How can we do this? This is our mission and plan. Add your email address to our announcement list.

People position themselves to respond to the failures of politics and government. We keep politics the way it is mostly with our resignation, but also with our complaining and our dislike of it.

The one thing we don’t do is demand a solution. If you’ve listened to the presidential debates, no one even questioned what the candidates would do about the problems with partisan politics, gridlock and the alienation of citizens. Some of the democrats talked about making election day a holiday and other voting changes, but no one tackled the bigger question of accountability.

True, Lawrence Lessig organized his candidacy around this but “politics” prevented him from being able to debate. And no one invited PeopleCount, either…

Politics is expensive and combative, so citizens stay away, keeping it expensive. When citizens approach, it’s often with weapons raised, so it adds to the combative atmosphere. Government is full of fighting and little communication. It’s not surprising it’s unresponsive. Of course we keep politics at arms length, it’s a negative experience.

So when approaching PeopleCount, even though it’s new, different and promising, people think of the negative “politics” they know and can’t get that it can be constructive, fast, easy, even rewarding. All the current problems and negative experiences crowd out the possibilities.

In politics, it’s common to try to beat the other side. So people want to beat politics itself. Lessig’s previous attempt to reform politics was to fund political fights. Lots of people don’t want to fight or beat people, but our culture says loud and clear that’s the only thing that works.

One of the beauties of PeopleCount is that it empowers the current political players as well as citizens. Since most people are listening for a solution that beats the “other side”, they can’t hear, at first, that PeopleCount offers a real solution.

The only things that can survive are those that can resist change. If it can’t resist change, it changes. As time wears on, forces are constantly wrestling with everything. The forces that don’t kill it makes it stronger. After 200 years of being buffeted back and forth, our political system has strong, pervasive conversations that survive. Our amount of communication has skyrocketed over the last few decades, but politics has adapted and survived, utilizing its strengths, fear and anger. How can communication win out?

In many ways. Easily. All it takes is a bit of awareness on your part. Recognize how your actions and attitudes feed the status quo daily.

And accept my invitation to support PeopleCount. Be part of a real solution.

The solution presented by PeopleCount is unimaginable.

Imagining occurs in a context. While PeopleCount can be reliably created with a few million dollars of effort, our cultural context makes the startup phase near impossible.

I’ve communicated to a few VCs (venture capitalists) and Angels (angel investors) who really, really, really want what I can deliver. They say no. VCs are very busy and their money is desired by many. So they insist that one submit a business plan, a short written document that describes the effort. It seems like a reasonable request.

The problem is, most revolutionary technologies aren’t expressible to most people in a short bit of writing. We listen from the world we know, through the ideas we know. Written words, especially, are interpreted while read. There’s no emphasis, no cadence, no pauses to steer the meaning. One certainly can’t gauge the audience or answer particular questions.

I’m not saying writing can’t convey the ideas, but it takes a longer work, a real story. It takes painting a picture that sweeps the person along. It takes changing the perspective to see the issues from different angles. This kind of effort takes years and meanwhile, the project languishes.

So I’m working on two books. I can’t really afford not to have an income, much less pay a ghostwriter. But the problem calls for me to solve it, and none of the wealthy have stepped up so far, so I’m spending my savings as well as my time.

At the same time, it doesn’t work to blame others. I need to find a way to say “it” so that it can be heard. And as I do, I’ll try to again get the attention of those with resources who are committed to a healthy democracy.

“Thinking outside the box” led to the solution we’re building at PeopleCount.org. How do you think outside the box of politics?

You can do it through “problem solving.” But with something as complex as politics, it’s not very reliable.

To think outside the box more reliably, first you must identify the box. Let’s start with a list of what’s true today:

• People are apathetic, uninformed and lazy.
• People disapprove of Congress
• Money controls elections
• Money influences Congress
• Congress is for sale
• Congress is corrupt
• Elections hold elected officials accountable
• The parties are fighting each other
• The political discourse is nasty and divisive

This is all “in the box”. If you look closely, none of these sentences are true. You can probably see that none of these sentences are 100% true. At times, things even happen in Congress outside the influence of money! Maybe a bill is crafted by a member who truly believes in it, or two interns discuss how to solve a problem.

But it’s more than that. Money doesn’t control or influence. Congress isn’t this way or that way. Elections don’t act in concert. The parties don’t actually fight. These are all approximations and euphemisms and metaphors. There’s really no “truth” here.

What makes all these sentences seem true? It’s the context. The box is the whole world of meaning of politics. People struggling to be right and make each other wrong. The Republicans trying to dominate Hillary Clinton at the Benghazi “hearings”, and Hillary being patiently amused. Most reporters reported that Hillary won the day, but not Fox News- the only article I found from them for the 22nd was a video they put together of their version of the events and two commentators speaking over videos of Hillary. Huff Post even reported that Fox stopped showing the hearing because Hillary looked good.

On one hand, most of us dismiss it all as drama. We even call it “political theater”. But many think it’s real and their frustrations and anger seem to be evidence of that reality.

Inside the box, there’s good and bad, winners and losers, shoulds and values and tragedies and victories. Outside the box, there’s just stuff happening.

When you look into the box from outside, you can see it’s just a machine. It’s pretty complex, but it’s just a machine. And all the people and their behaviors are just parts and relationships. So to think outside the box, you just identify all the meanings as artificial and identify the contexts that make them real until they’re not real anymore.

To figure out how to change it, just do a little thought experiment. What do you want to change? What would that change do to other parts? If you can find a way to change it that’ll still let most of it work, you have a chance. Let’s hope…

Or, do more than hope. Embrace an outside-the-box solution.

Earlier this week, I sent our business plan to a possible ally, someone who wants changes in American government that would empower American voters. The person who answered the phone said she’d send it right over for the team to pour over.

I don’t want them to pour over it. I want someone to read it over, perhaps furrow her brow a bit and ask, “What IS possible?”

What we’re up to is clearly impossible from almost every existing viewpoint. Our views are mired in our notions of how our world works. In some ways, knowledge is essential. In others, the more you know, the more your view is constrained by that knowledge. Too often, we confuse the facts and what they mean.

PeopleCount’s solution seems impossible to most people not because of what it proposes, but because of the meanings most people hang on to about “the facts” they think they know. That’s the way humans operate. It always has been. The only exception to that is people like me who study our own beliefs, who challenge our own sense of “knowing”, who examine our feelings of certainty and realize that mostly, they’re just feelings.

Yes, most scientists have been wrong. Most scientists felt certain that Newtonian mechanics was the law of the universe until years after relativity was proposed. Scientists are human. They’re not immune to feelings, nor to cultural understandings. But they have a method that’s pretty good. Yes, they get suckered at times into myths like about fat and cholesterol, but their method eventually pulled us out of it.

Political scientists have a harder time. While nutrition scientists can put people on diets and see the results, everything a political scientist does is immersed in culture. If they get some Americans to try a new way of voting, such as approval voting or ranked choice voting, they must try it with people who are deeply inculcated by our culture. And most people involved in politics are not political scientists, merely enthusiasts with strongly held beliefs.

Please, believe in PeopleCount.org. Or don’t. Simply create a new possibility for yourself, that we can all communicate together peacefully and build a system that enables and rewards members of Congress for being accountable. Then go on the current prototype page and vote. And make a donation. We’ll do the rest. You can believe it, later, as it unfolds. What is possible in your world is your choice.

In part 3 and part 4, we saw ways in which PeopleCount.org will change our political culture. In this article, we mention a few more aspects which will be rolled out later.

In 15-30 minutes a week, over the course of a year, each citizen will be able to learn about and take responsibility for all sorts of issues. And we’ll see wonderful new changes. Congress will become more and more responsive, and less and less partisan.  We’ll be on our way to building the future we want.

There are a lot more details- ways we keep your data private and secure, how we ensure questions aren’t biased and allow full ranges of answers, all sorts of ways the profiles will be more approachable and faster to answer than the simple format in the current prototype. You’ll be able to get great information focused on a particular issue, and there’ll be ways for citizens to create questions and answers to high standards. It’ll be easy to find out what your representatives think, see their short reports, drill down for details, and lots more.

Yes, we’ll need money. But we’ll need less money than a contested congressional campaign, much less money than a presidential campaign. And we’ll deliver better results across America. Think of all the causes that ask for your donations. On PeopleCount, they’ll all find it to be easy, quick and inexpensive to get their issue in front of America and amass the political will to bring about action, or not. If there’s insufficient support, they’ll discover this quickly. They’ll efficiently decide to focus on a non-governmental approach, or focus their efforts on making changes in cities or states that support their cause. Support PeopleCount now, and spend much less money on politics in the future.

We’re a California Benefit Corporation. Our purpose is not to make profit, it’s to transform government to be responsive and accountable, politics to be constructive and to empower people, and elections to be inexpensive and offer real choice. Our purpose is to enable all of us, starting with America at the national level, to work together well. Our purpose will be fulfilled from officials finally being accountable to the people.

Using PeopleCount.org, American citizens will free America from partisan hostility and gridlock. We’ll discover myriad new possibilities as Americans work together constructively.

Join us. Start with a $27 donation and add your name to our announcement list.