Take the most egregious situation, law, grant, program, non competitive bid or policy you can find and parse it with AI into questions regarding its particulars.
Post The Questionnaire on your web site.
Charge the voters, your patrons, one $ to vote on it.
Have the same AI take the patrons demographics and congressional district and post that too. This will show how many educated women are against abortion, and how many successful businessmen are in favor of DEI.
Have the AI post the results in real time and send results to the respective councilman, commissioner, judges, congressman, state representative, senator and governor!!
One Questionnaire should earn you many thousands of dollars per month and AI can do it for you!
Become an active Petition for a Redress of Grievances, and get paid for doing it!
++++++++++++++++++++
Take this survey and help the government decide what to do about your personal social, economic and political future.
Citizen Voter Demographic Questions
1. I am
a. man
b. woman
c. employed
d. employer
e. retired
f. unemployed
g. self employed
h. wife, mother home maker
i. wife, home maker
j. 20 – 30 years
k. 30 – 40 years
l. 40 - 50 years
m. 50 – 60 years
n. 60 – 70 years
o. 70 years +
2. I pay property tax
a. less than $5000 per year
b. more than $5000 per year
c. more than $25,000 per year
3. I pay income tax
a. less than $5000 per year
b. more than $5000 per year
c. more than $25,000 per year
4. My democratically elected representatives are doing the best they can to help the body politic create a life of prosperity and dignity.
a. yes
b. no
c. undecided
5. My city government is run as if the decision-making officials are friends and share the same common fate with all the citizens.
a. yes
b. no
c. undecided
6. My county government is run as if the decision-making officials are friends and share the same common fate with all the citizens.
a. yes
b. no
c. undecided
7. My state government is run as if the decision-making officials are friends and share the same common fate with all the citizens.
a. yes
b. no
c. undecided
8. My national government is run as if the decision-making officials are friends and share the same common fate with all the citizens.
a. yes
b. no
c. undecided
9. I believe that the earth is being visited by extraterrestrial intelligence from either another star system or dimension not of our world.
a. yes
b. no
c. undecided
10 The middle class American family fields two workers and earns less than $59,500 per year. They are four paychecks away from foreclosure and bankruptcy. Presently, the Federal Government ALONE takes four months of their labor as TAX.
QUESTION: How much of their pay checks should the American workers be allowed to keep?
a. 100%
b.90%
c.80%
d.70%
e. 60%
f. 50%
g. 40%
11. In 1976 The United Nations conducted a study and found that four people could live comfortably in a 600 sq. ft. shelter with one bath and one toilette. As part of the UN's efforts to make things better for humanity, they plan to shelter hundreds of millions of deserving third world homeless people in the under utilized houses located in the industrialized world. For example, a retired American couple with an 1,800 sq. ft. house will be required to take in ten homeless people. The UN has publicly stated its plans to enforce this program as soon as possible.... So, how do you feel about getting some exotic new house guests?
A. this is a good thing, sharing
b. I shall pretend that it isn't happening
c. third world sexual experiences sound good to me
d. your lying, they would never do this to us
e. I will ignore your hatred
f. I will get active politically and fight this insanity
How I understand swarming is how it has been presented to me and others by someone who has a company that works on software for it.
So, the question is how do YOU understand/explain swarming. That's why I asked if you have an article for how you propose it. Since you didn't show me to one, let me help:
To me, Direct Democracy needs a long and intricate process for complex problems:
* Issues get voted up or down and get prioritized.
* The top few issues then gain momentum for discussion. People express their points of view on them, which, interestingly, are not one point of view per observer, but up to 5.
* Moderators (and/or AI) help consolidate similar but differently worded points of view to the basics. Moderators are not positions of leadership/power.
* Specialists on the issue contribute. Research is done, if necessary.
* Up/down voting synthesizes those points of view into a more encompassing understanding of the issue.
* A similar process now takes place, with ideas on how to address the issue.
* An action plan is formed, with alternatives ready.
* Possibly affected by the action plan minorities feed back into the loop, and solutions for them are incorporated into the plan.
* The collective of citizens act massively and decisively, no violent confrontation needed. Just implementation.
* Feedback from the field back into the system may lead to re-evaluating and adjusting solutions/regulations/actions.
Fluid Democracy. Laws obey the people, more than people live to obey the laws.
Do you still think I'm describing congress in its current form?
I do not claim that the described process is the only way to go.
I recognize that collective intelligence is vastly superior to mine, that's why I don't think of myself and a small group as having all the answers or being leaders.
That's also why I'm here, exchanging views/suggestions on the way to designing/building a prototype Platform technology.
1) Specialists are not needed. This is testable and proven and talked about in the book The Wisdom of Crowds. The only thing that is needed for a swarm to work is for people to understand the problem. Yes, this may require study, but it does not require authority or expertise of any kind. In fact many solutions come from outside the realm of the problem.
2) Simple binary or yes/no voting is archaic and is not the best way to solve problems in groups. You didn't say it was but that should be clear whenever we use voting at all. How we populate the answers matter. did the answers come from the top down and we were allowed to vote on them? Or did we help problem solve? Our epistemology must always start with the problem, then try to solve it together. If we use voting at all it has to be a form of ranking answers in order, and weighted averages, to get dynamic problem solving in the group.
3) The better a system is, the less moderators it needs. To use our system will require you to graduate "Swarm Academy" to understand group problem solving dynamics. Some swarms might require skin in the game as well. We will have swarm coaches, but hopefully move towards leaderless systems.
4) Action is another problem. Are you familiar with DAOs? Actions plans for DAOs use "job boards" posting jobs that need to be completed by the DAO and offering bounties of money, and crypto rewards for completing them. Action plans always need to have funding attached to them. How do we fund the action? Actions usually cost money.
Not yet. Do you have people that would be interested to fund it?
Before that, there is a number of issues that you don't seem to be aware of, at least in the article you linked me.
If those are not taken into consideration and planned into the system, the outcome will be one more among a couple dozen well-meaning projects with good funding that died off.
The main problem I see with your idea is this:
You appear to trust the swarm to find a solution to a problem but you don't describe how you build up knowledge about it before voting.
Solution, based on what information?
Currently, available information is the narrative, which is nothing less than brainwashing in most subjects. And people's weird ideas about reality.
Research requires specialists (people with positions in the industry for example), investigators, whistleblowers. Also people to chip in with their personal experience on the issue.
Only after exhausting all sources, and having people actively participating in the information gathering as it unfolds, I consider the swarm mature to start the voting process.
No, I don't think that a swarm academy or coaches are sufficient. They may help with how to think (good luck finding open to that), but that doesn't cover the need for a knowledge-building process.
What do you do with ideological bias?
People see immigrants working the fields and yell about them taking our jobs. When they are asked to step in and take those jobs, no one does. Ideology.
No moderation... What do you do with neurotic toxicity? It takes 23 minutes in a public forum till someone calls another a fascist.
You start on a topic. Someone expresses a position that is full of ideological triggers. Before you know it, you have a percentage of people triggered and voting for that position, according to their own mental manipulation. And you have another percentage that vote against that position, even if it has a good basis for discussion, just because of the ideological triggers. You are back to polarized animosity. One or the other ideology wins, not a rational problem-solving process.
What do you do with overlapping positions? There is but a short number of points of view on each subject. There are 7 billion ways to express them. People -without moderation- don't care that someone else expressed the same position. They will say the same thing and will try to take credit for something already said. They will even compete, pretending that their position is different and better. Ideological triggers will mess that up even more.
Where is the work on finding an empathetic approach that will not leave a minority reeling? What is the process where there is talk with the people that feel affected by a decision? How do we figure out if they are right to feel affected, and work on a solution that will cover them without compromising the will of the majority?
Empathy and a method to implement it, has to be built in the system.
That is why the Direct Democracy Platform acknowledges that the problem is not just building a system that works for us, but solving for the reality of humanity's current psycho-social challenges that we WILL face on day one.
* Citizens list the issues that matter to them. What Im wanting to do is take a feed of all local national issues so that every issue whether Citizens list them or not is there. Ive already got that kinda running.
*The job of the system as far as Im concerned is to act as the middleman between authority and the system, to keep each team honest and to ensure neutrality its structure. Its not to be either the authority nor the public, its manage the interface between those for an outcome that benefits the community
*Wanting a choice in fluid democracy by topic and status
*Everything spatially managed on a map
* People MUST understand to a reasonable level all presented sides of an argument before they vote or also it will a fluid vote
* Experts being involved where they can directly be questioned and where there provide the arguments for the public to quiz them over, including authorities
I agree with all, except I envision a collective governing without authorities at all. So, the system would be how we make decisions, not the middleman.
I want in. How can I help?
The ONLY way to win this game is NOT to play ...
De-centralize, DE-fund the government !!!
Is there any part of the word "NO" that they will not understand ???🤔🤔🤔🤔
Then, feed any black-swan turning-up in your pond and let it procreate to will ...
*How to make money with your website.*
Take the most egregious situation, law, grant, program, non competitive bid or policy you can find and parse it with AI into questions regarding its particulars.
Post The Questionnaire on your web site.
Charge the voters, your patrons, one $ to vote on it.
Have the same AI take the patrons demographics and congressional district and post that too. This will show how many educated women are against abortion, and how many successful businessmen are in favor of DEI.
Have the AI post the results in real time and send results to the respective councilman, commissioner, judges, congressman, state representative, senator and governor!!
One Questionnaire should earn you many thousands of dollars per month and AI can do it for you!
Become an active Petition for a Redress of Grievances, and get paid for doing it!
++++++++++++++++++++
Take this survey and help the government decide what to do about your personal social, economic and political future.
Citizen Voter Demographic Questions
1. I am
a. man
b. woman
c. employed
d. employer
e. retired
f. unemployed
g. self employed
h. wife, mother home maker
i. wife, home maker
j. 20 – 30 years
k. 30 – 40 years
l. 40 - 50 years
m. 50 – 60 years
n. 60 – 70 years
o. 70 years +
2. I pay property tax
a. less than $5000 per year
b. more than $5000 per year
c. more than $25,000 per year
3. I pay income tax
a. less than $5000 per year
b. more than $5000 per year
c. more than $25,000 per year
4. My democratically elected representatives are doing the best they can to help the body politic create a life of prosperity and dignity.
a. yes
b. no
c. undecided
5. My city government is run as if the decision-making officials are friends and share the same common fate with all the citizens.
a. yes
b. no
c. undecided
6. My county government is run as if the decision-making officials are friends and share the same common fate with all the citizens.
a. yes
b. no
c. undecided
7. My state government is run as if the decision-making officials are friends and share the same common fate with all the citizens.
a. yes
b. no
c. undecided
8. My national government is run as if the decision-making officials are friends and share the same common fate with all the citizens.
a. yes
b. no
c. undecided
9. I believe that the earth is being visited by extraterrestrial intelligence from either another star system or dimension not of our world.
a. yes
b. no
c. undecided
10 The middle class American family fields two workers and earns less than $59,500 per year. They are four paychecks away from foreclosure and bankruptcy. Presently, the Federal Government ALONE takes four months of their labor as TAX.
QUESTION: How much of their pay checks should the American workers be allowed to keep?
a. 100%
b.90%
c.80%
d.70%
e. 60%
f. 50%
g. 40%
11. In 1976 The United Nations conducted a study and found that four people could live comfortably in a 600 sq. ft. shelter with one bath and one toilette. As part of the UN's efforts to make things better for humanity, they plan to shelter hundreds of millions of deserving third world homeless people in the under utilized houses located in the industrialized world. For example, a retired American couple with an 1,800 sq. ft. house will be required to take in ten homeless people. The UN has publicly stated its plans to enforce this program as soon as possible.... So, how do you feel about getting some exotic new house guests?
A. this is a good thing, sharing
b. I shall pretend that it isn't happening
c. third world sexual experiences sound good to me
d. your lying, they would never do this to us
e. I will ignore your hatred
f. I will get active politically and fight this insanity
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I was looking for the word "leaderless" in the text. I found it as a # after it. So, I agree almost 100%.
I'd like to know your position on deliberation. Issues can be very complex, and often they're complicated by design from those in power.
Decision making without detailed and nuanced deliberation, based on a yes or no vote, can be catastrophic.
If you have an article on that, pls link
Actually, do you understand swarming? It’s not a yes or no vote at all. It is a form of deliberation where the group learns as it solves problems
How I understand swarming is how it has been presented to me and others by someone who has a company that works on software for it.
So, the question is how do YOU understand/explain swarming. That's why I asked if you have an article for how you propose it. Since you didn't show me to one, let me help:
To me, Direct Democracy needs a long and intricate process for complex problems:
* Citizens list the issues that matter to them.
* Issues get voted up or down and get prioritized.
* The top few issues then gain momentum for discussion. People express their points of view on them, which, interestingly, are not one point of view per observer, but up to 5.
* Moderators (and/or AI) help consolidate similar but differently worded points of view to the basics. Moderators are not positions of leadership/power.
* Specialists on the issue contribute. Research is done, if necessary.
* Up/down voting synthesizes those points of view into a more encompassing understanding of the issue.
* A similar process now takes place, with ideas on how to address the issue.
* An action plan is formed, with alternatives ready.
* Possibly affected by the action plan minorities feed back into the loop, and solutions for them are incorporated into the plan.
* The collective of citizens act massively and decisively, no violent confrontation needed. Just implementation.
* Feedback from the field back into the system may lead to re-evaluating and adjusting solutions/regulations/actions.
Fluid Democracy. Laws obey the people, more than people live to obey the laws.
Do you still think I'm describing congress in its current form?
The above is described here: https://directdemocracy.substack.com/p/decision-making-on-the-direct-democracy
I do not claim that the described process is the only way to go.
I recognize that collective intelligence is vastly superior to mine, that's why I don't think of myself and a small group as having all the answers or being leaders.
That's also why I'm here, exchanging views/suggestions on the way to designing/building a prototype Platform technology.
These are interesting ideas. Do you have funding to build your system?
We have written about our system dozens of times. Here is one simple link: https://joshketry.substack.com/p/ask-the-whole-world-a-question-and
A few critiques of your ideas:
1) Specialists are not needed. This is testable and proven and talked about in the book The Wisdom of Crowds. The only thing that is needed for a swarm to work is for people to understand the problem. Yes, this may require study, but it does not require authority or expertise of any kind. In fact many solutions come from outside the realm of the problem.
2) Simple binary or yes/no voting is archaic and is not the best way to solve problems in groups. You didn't say it was but that should be clear whenever we use voting at all. How we populate the answers matter. did the answers come from the top down and we were allowed to vote on them? Or did we help problem solve? Our epistemology must always start with the problem, then try to solve it together. If we use voting at all it has to be a form of ranking answers in order, and weighted averages, to get dynamic problem solving in the group.
3) The better a system is, the less moderators it needs. To use our system will require you to graduate "Swarm Academy" to understand group problem solving dynamics. Some swarms might require skin in the game as well. We will have swarm coaches, but hopefully move towards leaderless systems.
4) Action is another problem. Are you familiar with DAOs? Actions plans for DAOs use "job boards" posting jobs that need to be completed by the DAO and offering bounties of money, and crypto rewards for completing them. Action plans always need to have funding attached to them. How do we fund the action? Actions usually cost money.
"Do you have funding to build your system?"
Not yet. Do you have people that would be interested to fund it?
Before that, there is a number of issues that you don't seem to be aware of, at least in the article you linked me.
If those are not taken into consideration and planned into the system, the outcome will be one more among a couple dozen well-meaning projects with good funding that died off.
The main problem I see with your idea is this:
You appear to trust the swarm to find a solution to a problem but you don't describe how you build up knowledge about it before voting.
Solution, based on what information?
Currently, available information is the narrative, which is nothing less than brainwashing in most subjects. And people's weird ideas about reality.
Research requires specialists (people with positions in the industry for example), investigators, whistleblowers. Also people to chip in with their personal experience on the issue.
Only after exhausting all sources, and having people actively participating in the information gathering as it unfolds, I consider the swarm mature to start the voting process.
No, I don't think that a swarm academy or coaches are sufficient. They may help with how to think (good luck finding open to that), but that doesn't cover the need for a knowledge-building process.
What do you do with ideological bias?
People see immigrants working the fields and yell about them taking our jobs. When they are asked to step in and take those jobs, no one does. Ideology.
No moderation... What do you do with neurotic toxicity? It takes 23 minutes in a public forum till someone calls another a fascist.
You start on a topic. Someone expresses a position that is full of ideological triggers. Before you know it, you have a percentage of people triggered and voting for that position, according to their own mental manipulation. And you have another percentage that vote against that position, even if it has a good basis for discussion, just because of the ideological triggers. You are back to polarized animosity. One or the other ideology wins, not a rational problem-solving process.
What do you do with overlapping positions? There is but a short number of points of view on each subject. There are 7 billion ways to express them. People -without moderation- don't care that someone else expressed the same position. They will say the same thing and will try to take credit for something already said. They will even compete, pretending that their position is different and better. Ideological triggers will mess that up even more.
Where is the work on finding an empathetic approach that will not leave a minority reeling? What is the process where there is talk with the people that feel affected by a decision? How do we figure out if they are right to feel affected, and work on a solution that will cover them without compromising the will of the majority?
Empathy and a method to implement it, has to be built in the system.
That is why the Direct Democracy Platform acknowledges that the problem is not just building a system that works for us, but solving for the reality of humanity's current psycho-social challenges that we WILL face on day one.
* Citizens list the issues that matter to them. What Im wanting to do is take a feed of all local national issues so that every issue whether Citizens list them or not is there. Ive already got that kinda running.
*The job of the system as far as Im concerned is to act as the middleman between authority and the system, to keep each team honest and to ensure neutrality its structure. Its not to be either the authority nor the public, its manage the interface between those for an outcome that benefits the community
*Wanting a choice in fluid democracy by topic and status
*Everything spatially managed on a map
* People MUST understand to a reasonable level all presented sides of an argument before they vote or also it will a fluid vote
* Experts being involved where they can directly be questioned and where there provide the arguments for the public to quiz them over, including authorities
I agree with all, except I envision a collective governing without authorities at all. So, the system would be how we make decisions, not the middleman.
With due respect it will absolutely not happen immediately we need to phase people in over time, probably at least a decade.
Sounds like you are describing Congress in its current form.
Deliberations should take place. So should think tanks and swarming