I have read a number of the Society's posts but I still don't know how I can get into the system and what I can do to help in forwarding this movement along. Any suggestions from anyone?
Once the collective swarm intelligence system is finished we will open it for everyone to use. This isn’t a club. It is a way of problem solving that anyone can use. Thanks for reading!
I know what you mean. I get the feeling this is a club and I ain't in it.
Nevertheless, the electronic town hall has existed since the first private website projecting political and geopolitical opinions and evidence emerged. My own sites (oziz4oziz.com/ and SUBSTACK oziz4oziz) were consciously predicated on that concept but these and many others that have been around, some for decades, will never be welcome in this club. That is my impression. Perhaps I am alone.
At the other end of the concept consideration spectrum are notions like those projected by Solo D. Votes, and qualifications thereof, are the very antonym of town hall. If this is where this bus is headed, please let me off at the next stop. And please then do not throw me under it.
Fair question. But as the saying goes, "Fail to learn from history and be doomed ever to repeat it". Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, and later, Lord Acton, expounded on the single solution... government of the people, by the people and for the people.
LITERALLY.
No representatives, no parliaments or congresses, no elections. For a century or more this has been known as Citizen-Initiatied Referenda. Switzerland has a corrupted version but the most recent was in a country where Indonesia currently rules, but which was destroyed by the Dutch colonial power.
Acton observed that if we divert our power to determine our own future to another, the recipient accumulates yours and the power of others. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely That is why the US was always destined for tyranny. Maddison excised Paine's clauses from the Constitution. The first ten amendments were hopeless attempts to reinstate thiese but by then the comprehension was lost and propaganda ruled.
I am Australian, so you should be telling me this, not vice versa.
I do not understand how so many obviously intelligent and erudite people, you in this instance, insist on some mythological perfection in this very serious matter.
Somehow, we have to call a stop to the madness.
The peaceful, prosperous world we all hope and dream of begins when the responsible Citizens develop a way to evaluate the current situation involving 200 Thousand pages of law speak per day.
This evaluation must be public, transparent and in a form that can be viewed by everyone in order make certain that the Law being enforced is congruent with the will of the people.
In 1992, Presidential Candidate Ross Perot called it The Electronic Townhall. “It is only logical that it will become our Fourth Branch of Government”, he said.
How it works:
Before a new law, tax, or expenditure can be put on the books it must first be Ratified by the Citizens.
Existing laws can be Annulled by the same super majority required to Ratify them.
This program can be applied to every level of government and will ultimately solve every problem we have.
To prevent chaos, the basic law, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, would be exempt from review.
Citizenship is about the Ratification or Annulment of each line of every law, rule, regulation and supreme court decision on the books or that is on the docket waiting to be turned into law, policy and taxes.
Nothing short of this is going to ameliorate the present situation, nor will we get to the Stars without it.
So, who gets to participate in this amplified voting, and how are the votes counted and what specific impact does the sacred vote have at the business end of government?
Right now, the first question is:
# 1. Who gets to vote in the: general election?
a. citizens only - Yes No
b. natural born citizens only - Yes No
c. natural born citizens with four natural born grandparents - Yes No
d. naturalized citizens (legal immigrants) - Yes No
e. legal immigrants not yet naturalized - Yes No
f. anyone with a drivers license not otherwise prohibited by law of the various States – Yes - No
I like that. But I am the same as you, in that I believe my opinion on matters that I am brave enough to express is valid. And I will need some reassurance that my *vote* is being counted. So will everyone else.
You guys are obviously technically astute in these computer matters and I do not see how/why you refuse to use the Electronic Towhall to segue into the more perfect system you are developing.
In the Townhall articulated by Perot, a million citizens could read and pass judgement on a 2 thousand page law in five minutes. Five hundred citizens would read one page each and ratify or annul every line of text in it.
Every citizen could see that his vote was counted accurately.
I trust that you will make life enhancing decisions in this matter as I hope you will trust me for the same. Five hundred thoughtful caring people, at a minimum will read and evaluate each page of the proposed law.
And it could be put into play today.
Is that also not collective intelligence?
And you do not have to trust me for anything. Five hundred intelligent, caring people will vote on the same page. My vote counts as 1/500.
The fact that you so bitterly criticize a workable plan that could technologically be implemented today is proof that you are not here to assist in finding a solution to our problem of how to correct errant government policy.
This, also known as The Electronic Townhall, is the only way forward.
Not all votes are equal. Simply because someone has an opinion does make it a valid guide for someone else.
The first step in establishing the platform must be a quantifying of the opinion. Who offers this advice and what is their experience that could add validity to it?
For example, a person with my experience clearly does not have a lot of information regarding the mining and processing of radio active nuclear fuel. And even though I might be inclined to express an opinion on the subject, my lack of knowledge should be revealed in the *answers*.
The system must be built to reveal the amount of freight potentially carried by a given opinion?
# 1. Who gets to vote in the: general election?
a. citizens only - Yes No
b. natural born citizens only - Yes No
c. natural born citizens with four natural born grandparents - Yes No
d. naturalized citizens (legal immigrants) - Yes No
e. legal immigrants not yet naturalized - Yes No
f. anyone with a drivers license – Yes - No
# 2.1 Ages of Voter
g. minimum18 years
h. minimum 21 years
i. minimum 25 years
j. minimum 30 years
k. minimum 33 years
l. minimum 35 years
# 2.2 Sex of Voter
a. Male – Yes - No
b. Female – Yes - No
c. Non – Binanry - Yes - No
d. Transgender - Yes - No
# 2.3 Competence of Voter
e. property owners net value over $50,000 - Yes - No
f. property owners net value over $250,000 - Yes - No
g. tax exempt persons – Yes - No
h. those receiving welfare / food stamps – Yes - No
i. those with unpaid child support obligations - Yes - No
j. those receiving WIC – Yes - No
k. those receiving Section 8 – Yes - No
l. those working for government bureaucracies – Yes - No
m. those that will pay a $5000 poll tax - Yes - No
n. those that have paid a minimum of $5000 per year of tax for their combined jurisdictions in excess of any received via SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ATFWDC - Yes - No
# 2.4 Genetic presence of Voter
a. Male without children – Yes - No
b. Male with children – Yes - No
c. Male with children plural vote – Yes - No
d. Female without children – Yes - No
e. Female with children – Yes - No
f. Female with children plural vote – Yes - No
g. Only married males with children, never divorced can vote. – Yes - No
# 3.0 Who should be trusted with the responsibility and power of Public Office?
a. Only those authorized to vote in the general election - Yes No
b. Male without children – Yes - No
c. Male with children – Yes - No
d. Female without children – Yes - No
e. Female with children – Yes - No
f. Only married males with children, never divorced can hold public office – Yes - No
Voting is not the answer. Collective intelligence fails under voting. Why? Because t requires labels, which cause echo chambers, which cause groupthink, which causes tyranny.
The voice of the people is MUCH better heard when we start with the problem, then find a solution. When we do this process we do not use labels at all, and the solutions to the problems stand on their own merit, allowing independent thought to flourish, criticisms to be heard, and more.
The epistemology of voting is wrong, and it is testable.
We can take two groups of 100 people. Let 100 people vote on two shitty solutions presented to them by their corrupt political structures. Or, we can let them solve the problem using collective intelligence systems. The latter will solve it faster and better and with higher confidence scores nearly ALWAYS.
You could ask the participants in this endeavor to post an answer to the question:
*How do you suggest corruption in Nevada could be reduced?*
And take the one with the most likes and parse that into an action plan.
Corruption in Nevada could be reduced by:
Restricting ownership in more than one media operation, thus preventing one rich corporation from owning all media outlets. (This would be simple to do.)
+++++++++++++++
I am all for anything that works but you will probably never succeed in getting enough people to go along with your special system to even get a demonstration of it working.
You are inventing something new, and people adopt new ideas only after they have witnessed someone they admire and respect using the new technology. That hill is steep.
Get something moving in the right direction. If you look for perfection you will die a virgin.
Everyday, today included, the USA Congress votes on 100 pieces of legislation that approach TWO THOUSAND PAGES each. THE HOUSE IS BURNING - PUT OUT THE FIRE.
You are absolutely correct. The plan is to use it small government first and show proof of concept. It has already worked running other less decentralized systems like business. This is a bit of a longer read, but there are photos and videos here. But you are right, we must show everyone. And the system is almost ready for beta.
It will be open sourced.
But here is the thing, several systems tested worked. We can solve collective problems with collective intelligence systems and use confidence scores to guide us. There are many ways to do this. And they all seem to work way better than voting. Allowing people to participate in a creative problem solving process.
We all see the problem. The solution of making better systems and plugging them into the corrupt ones does not have a better competing theory that we can see. Can you?
I second this.. ✍️
I have read a number of the Society's posts but I still don't know how I can get into the system and what I can do to help in forwarding this movement along. Any suggestions from anyone?
Once the collective swarm intelligence system is finished we will open it for everyone to use. This isn’t a club. It is a way of problem solving that anyone can use. Thanks for reading!
Thanks for the info - I'll be watching for it. ❤️
I know what you mean. I get the feeling this is a club and I ain't in it.
Nevertheless, the electronic town hall has existed since the first private website projecting political and geopolitical opinions and evidence emerged. My own sites (oziz4oziz.com/ and SUBSTACK oziz4oziz) were consciously predicated on that concept but these and many others that have been around, some for decades, will never be welcome in this club. That is my impression. Perhaps I am alone.
At the other end of the concept consideration spectrum are notions like those projected by Solo D. Votes, and qualifications thereof, are the very antonym of town hall. If this is where this bus is headed, please let me off at the next stop. And please then do not throw me under it.
Please show us what system or thing will, in your opinion, lead us to a better today.
Fair question. But as the saying goes, "Fail to learn from history and be doomed ever to repeat it". Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, and later, Lord Acton, expounded on the single solution... government of the people, by the people and for the people.
LITERALLY.
No representatives, no parliaments or congresses, no elections. For a century or more this has been known as Citizen-Initiatied Referenda. Switzerland has a corrupted version but the most recent was in a country where Indonesia currently rules, but which was destroyed by the Dutch colonial power.
Acton observed that if we divert our power to determine our own future to another, the recipient accumulates yours and the power of others. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely That is why the US was always destined for tyranny. Maddison excised Paine's clauses from the Constitution. The first ten amendments were hopeless attempts to reinstate thiese but by then the comprehension was lost and propaganda ruled.
I am Australian, so you should be telling me this, not vice versa.
Tony Ryan,
My first reply to you is in error. After reading your website, it is obvious that I miss read your remarks.
Please accept my apologies.
(One of the features of The Electronic Townhall is that a man can change his vote on an issue as he matures in his life.)
I do not understand how so many obviously intelligent and erudite people, you in this instance, insist on some mythological perfection in this very serious matter.
Somehow, we have to call a stop to the madness.
The peaceful, prosperous world we all hope and dream of begins when the responsible Citizens develop a way to evaluate the current situation involving 200 Thousand pages of law speak per day.
This evaluation must be public, transparent and in a form that can be viewed by everyone in order make certain that the Law being enforced is congruent with the will of the people.
In 1992, Presidential Candidate Ross Perot called it The Electronic Townhall. “It is only logical that it will become our Fourth Branch of Government”, he said.
How it works:
Before a new law, tax, or expenditure can be put on the books it must first be Ratified by the Citizens.
Existing laws can be Annulled by the same super majority required to Ratify them.
This program can be applied to every level of government and will ultimately solve every problem we have.
To prevent chaos, the basic law, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, would be exempt from review.
Citizenship is about the Ratification or Annulment of each line of every law, rule, regulation and supreme court decision on the books or that is on the docket waiting to be turned into law, policy and taxes.
Nothing short of this is going to ameliorate the present situation, nor will we get to the Stars without it.
So, who gets to participate in this amplified voting, and how are the votes counted and what specific impact does the sacred vote have at the business end of government?
Right now, the first question is:
# 1. Who gets to vote in the: general election?
a. citizens only - Yes No
b. natural born citizens only - Yes No
c. natural born citizens with four natural born grandparents - Yes No
d. naturalized citizens (legal immigrants) - Yes No
e. legal immigrants not yet naturalized - Yes No
f. anyone with a drivers license not otherwise prohibited by law of the various States – Yes - No
We think collective intelligence is the key to an electronic town all.
Imagine speaking to 5 million or 50 million people as if they were one person and could answer you creatively as a group - with one answer.
I like that. But I am the same as you, in that I believe my opinion on matters that I am brave enough to express is valid. And I will need some reassurance that my *vote* is being counted. So will everyone else.
You guys are obviously technically astute in these computer matters and I do not see how/why you refuse to use the Electronic Towhall to segue into the more perfect system you are developing.
In the Townhall articulated by Perot, a million citizens could read and pass judgement on a 2 thousand page law in five minutes. Five hundred citizens would read one page each and ratify or annul every line of text in it.
Every citizen could see that his vote was counted accurately.
I trust that you will make life enhancing decisions in this matter as I hope you will trust me for the same. Five hundred thoughtful caring people, at a minimum will read and evaluate each page of the proposed law.
And it could be put into play today.
Is that also not collective intelligence?
And you do not have to trust me for anything. Five hundred intelligent, caring people will vote on the same page. My vote counts as 1/500.
It's like talking to a brick wall. Roger Waters must be weeping.
The fact that you so bitterly criticize a workable plan that could technologically be implemented today is proof that you are not here to assist in finding a solution to our problem of how to correct errant government policy.
What is the first question for the swarm to resolve?
This, also known as The Electronic Townhall, is the only way forward.
Not all votes are equal. Simply because someone has an opinion does make it a valid guide for someone else.
The first step in establishing the platform must be a quantifying of the opinion. Who offers this advice and what is their experience that could add validity to it?
For example, a person with my experience clearly does not have a lot of information regarding the mining and processing of radio active nuclear fuel. And even though I might be inclined to express an opinion on the subject, my lack of knowledge should be revealed in the *answers*.
The system must be built to reveal the amount of freight potentially carried by a given opinion?
# 1. Who gets to vote in the: general election?
a. citizens only - Yes No
b. natural born citizens only - Yes No
c. natural born citizens with four natural born grandparents - Yes No
d. naturalized citizens (legal immigrants) - Yes No
e. legal immigrants not yet naturalized - Yes No
f. anyone with a drivers license – Yes - No
# 2.1 Ages of Voter
g. minimum18 years
h. minimum 21 years
i. minimum 25 years
j. minimum 30 years
k. minimum 33 years
l. minimum 35 years
# 2.2 Sex of Voter
a. Male – Yes - No
b. Female – Yes - No
c. Non – Binanry - Yes - No
d. Transgender - Yes - No
# 2.3 Competence of Voter
e. property owners net value over $50,000 - Yes - No
f. property owners net value over $250,000 - Yes - No
g. tax exempt persons – Yes - No
h. those receiving welfare / food stamps – Yes - No
i. those with unpaid child support obligations - Yes - No
j. those receiving WIC – Yes - No
k. those receiving Section 8 – Yes - No
l. those working for government bureaucracies – Yes - No
m. those that will pay a $5000 poll tax - Yes - No
n. those that have paid a minimum of $5000 per year of tax for their combined jurisdictions in excess of any received via SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ATFWDC - Yes - No
# 2.4 Genetic presence of Voter
a. Male without children – Yes - No
b. Male with children – Yes - No
c. Male with children plural vote – Yes - No
d. Female without children – Yes - No
e. Female with children – Yes - No
f. Female with children plural vote – Yes - No
g. Only married males with children, never divorced can vote. – Yes - No
# 3.0 Who should be trusted with the responsibility and power of Public Office?
a. Only those authorized to vote in the general election - Yes No
b. Male without children – Yes - No
c. Male with children – Yes - No
d. Female without children – Yes - No
e. Female with children – Yes - No
f. Only married males with children, never divorced can hold public office – Yes - No
g. Depends on the office - Yes - No
Voting is not the answer. Collective intelligence fails under voting. Why? Because t requires labels, which cause echo chambers, which cause groupthink, which causes tyranny.
The voice of the people is MUCH better heard when we start with the problem, then find a solution. When we do this process we do not use labels at all, and the solutions to the problems stand on their own merit, allowing independent thought to flourish, criticisms to be heard, and more.
The epistemology of voting is wrong, and it is testable.
We can take two groups of 100 people. Let 100 people vote on two shitty solutions presented to them by their corrupt political structures. Or, we can let them solve the problem using collective intelligence systems. The latter will solve it faster and better and with higher confidence scores nearly ALWAYS.
You could ask the participants in this endeavor to post an answer to the question:
*How do you suggest corruption in Nevada could be reduced?*
And take the one with the most likes and parse that into an action plan.
Corruption in Nevada could be reduced by:
Restricting ownership in more than one media operation, thus preventing one rich corporation from owning all media outlets. (This would be simple to do.)
+++++++++++++++
I am all for anything that works but you will probably never succeed in getting enough people to go along with your special system to even get a demonstration of it working.
You are inventing something new, and people adopt new ideas only after they have witnessed someone they admire and respect using the new technology. That hill is steep.
Get something moving in the right direction. If you look for perfection you will die a virgin.
Everyday, today included, the USA Congress votes on 100 pieces of legislation that approach TWO THOUSAND PAGES each. THE HOUSE IS BURNING - PUT OUT THE FIRE.
Ok, show us an example of what you propose.
You are absolutely correct. The plan is to use it small government first and show proof of concept. It has already worked running other less decentralized systems like business. This is a bit of a longer read, but there are photos and videos here. But you are right, we must show everyone. And the system is almost ready for beta.
It will be open sourced.
But here is the thing, several systems tested worked. We can solve collective problems with collective intelligence systems and use confidence scores to guide us. There are many ways to do this. And they all seem to work way better than voting. Allowing people to participate in a creative problem solving process.
We all see the problem. The solution of making better systems and plugging them into the corrupt ones does not have a better competing theory that we can see. Can you?
Check it:
https://joshketry.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-corrupt-government-in
It appears to be too complicated to ever get off the ground.
You could use the ETH format today and segue into the swarm when you get it figured out.
Keep me posted. I will join and hopefully become a paid member.