Spoiler alert:

NOTE: Layman's assumption re America's relative handful of "hot button" issues. The overwhelming majority of our nation's Vast Mainstream (VM) will be perfectly happy to either let our 50 states "settle" these issues, or, once PKQ-controlled, to have our U.S. House and Senate enact reasonable, "middle-ground" solutions that the VM agree on, especially the most contentious issues within the ranks of America's extreme left and right, e.g., abortion, immigration, biological (albeit "transgendered") males competing in female sports, etc.

***************

Effective Self-Governance (ES-G) is a layman's working term with a precise definition. It involves or relates to the "process" of America's voters identifying, recruiting and electing (mostly) Ds and Rs to Congress who can and will solve all of America's major economic, financial, fiscal and (poverty related) societal (EFFS) problems (some quickly, others over time) –– because no matter which political faction ends up wielding power in Congress, that power will always be wielded (in both chambers) by a steady supply of a democratic society's version of philosopher kings and queens (PKQs), i.e., highly capable representatives who are NOT self-serving, are NOT politically ambitious, and do NOT crave power for power's sake. 

ES-G –– not to be confused with ESG: Environmental, Social, Governance –– is one of a glossary of new terms/ideas/concepts that, hopefully, will:

1. become a critical part of our society's working "S-G vocabulary,"
2. be instrumental in turning an idea that no rational person could possibly take seriously into an idea that every rational person takes seriously: PKQ-controlled Congresses. 

"Throughout the centuries there were men* who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision.”  Ayn Rand  (* and women)

Three observations re the New S-G Knowledge Thought Experiment info-graphic 

• This “new knowledge” info-graphic suggests the "new road" the vast mainstream (VM) of America's left- and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters must "boldly go" down to avoid the Orwellian future that conventional political wisdom (CPW) says awaits our nation (and planet). 

• Our voters' sole obstacle (to "transitioning" to PKQ-controlled Congresses) will be the Semmelweis reflex, the tendency of people to reject new ideas or knowledge (including strategies) that contradict well established (Think: entrenched) ideas, orthodoxies, theories, paradigms, strategies, etc. In other words, our voters' initial reaction will be, "In twenty-four hundred years, no free society has ever managed, or even attempted, to keep their national legislature filled with PKQ-caliber legislators. Therefore, it can't be done –– so why even try."

• Fortunately, the history of new, paradigm-shifting, status quo-disrupting, course-of-history-changing ideas says it can be done –– and will.  So, you will need to buckle your intellectual seatbelt. Your journey of discovery (of this "strange new" S-G knowledge) is going to make for one hell of a bumpy ride.

re the URGENT MEMO info-graphic 

Many readers may consider the “hellish, freedomless existence” described in the above URGENT MEMO to be overly dramatic, hyperbolic even. Or blatant fearmongering. Yet two thousand plus years of conventional political wisdom (CPW) says otherwise. 

In fact, CPW has been adamant that, one, all democratic societies will "eventually fail” in their effort to govern themselves [successfully, effectively, competently].
 

• Plato, circa 400 BC: “Democracy will inevitably become tyranny”
• Aristotle, circa 400 BC: “Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.”
• Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)  "The body politic, like the human body, begins to die from its birth, and bears in itself the causes of its destruction." 
• John Adams, 2nd U.S. pres. "There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
• Thomas Babington Macaulay, British historian, poet, Whig politician (1800-1859): “I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.” 
• Shawn W. Rosenberg, Political/Psychological Science, UC-Irvine, 2017: “Particularly in well-established democracies like the United States, democratic governance will continue its inexorable decline and will eventually fail..."

Two, they will fail because, "for the most part," their voters simply aren't intelligent enough to govern themselves successfully/effectively/competently. They also have a number of other human "shortcomings" that don't help matters. For example, far too many are woefully uneducated, or are insufficiently "informed on the issues." Or they're misinformed, naïve, gullible, greedy, etc.

• (The ever perspicacious) Winston Churchill (1874-1965): "The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." 
• Shawn W. Rosenberg, Political/Psychological Science, UC-Irvine, 2017: “...people lack the requisite cognitive capacities for integration and abstraction needed for the kind of systemic understanding, considered judgment and critical reflection that liberal democracy requires of its citizenry." https://www.academia.edu/81028655/Unfit_for_Democracy_Irrational_Rationalizing_and_Biologically_Predisposed_Citizens...

One doesn't have to be an expert on current national (and world) events to understand that the mountain of major economic, financial, fiscal and (poverty related) societal (EFFS) problems America is buried under is only going to grow larger –– and at an accelerating rate –– especially as: 

1. millions of low skill (take your pick)[undocumented immigrants, illegal aliens] continue streaming, unchecked, into our nation, and continue putting considerable strain on a considerable number of our nation's already over-strained systems, e.g., healthcare, education, social services, criminal justice, etc.  
2. The proportion of our population who rely heavily on our nation's already strained entitlement programs, i.e., our very old, very sick, very disabled, and/or very poor, grows significantly relative to the rest of the population (whose tax dollars are keeping those programs afloat).
3. Moving forward, an already unacceptably high (yet growing at an ever-accelerating pace) percentage of our federal budget is going to be devoted simply to servicing our (as of 5-23-24) $34.8 trillion national debt. If the debt grows faster than America's GDP –– long story short: we're screwed; America's societal/civilizational collapse "will be nigh."

"You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” (Ayn Rand)

There's no getting around our harsh reality.

• America is facing a bleak future.
• That future is getting bleaker by the day. 
• No one has the slightest idea how to slow, much less reverse, our nation's (and planet's) downward civilizational spiral.
  

So, what's the way out of our civilizational quagmire? 

Simple. "Invent" the S-G knowledge that will allow our LOC and ROC voters to, in a manner of speaking: see, in detail, with their mind's eye:

1. what a (nearly utopian) American future would/might look like, and
2. how to use their NLEP to "create" it.

"The best way to predict the future is to create it." (various)

Takeaway of the Laughing PhDs info-graphic:

There is one way –– and only one way –– our society's LOC and ROC voters can escape the part-Groundhog Day, part-Twilight Zone "S-G nightmare" they and generations of their predecessors have trapped themselves in.

Adapt. 

A LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAY:

Since today's CPW was already well established when our founders set out to give form and function to their “American experiment,” they knew the odds were stacked against them if they didn't opt for what, presumably, they all recognized was the closest thing to the perfect form of government: a benign dictatorship, a.k.a. a philosopher king. 

The monarchy option (think: King George Washington) was discussed/debated by Jefferson, Madison et al. But they decided to go the self-governance route, so developed a system of “checks and balances” (i.e., our federal government's three co-equal branches) to keep our species' innate “lust for power” in check –– inasmuch as the corrupting effects of power (on those with power over those without power) is the single greatest threat/obstacle to freedom and liberty (and happiness and sustained, broad-based prosperity as well IMO). 

In hindsight, our founders should have taken one additional exploratory step in their effort to craft a "more perfect union."

They should have posed the following “blue-sky” question: 

• How do we design, or configure, America's national legislative election process (NLEP) –– i.e., what "algorithm" do we create –– which will essentially guarantee that, no matter who or what political faction ends up wielding power in Congress, that power will always be wielded (in both chambers) by a steady supply of a democratic society's version of philosopher kings –– and queens ––(PKQs), i.e., highly capable representatives who are NOT self-serving, are NOT politically ambitious, and do NOT crave power for power's sake? (aside: impossible to imagine that algorithm? Yes. Easy to design/construct it in 21st century America? Yes.)

My guess is that nearly every modern-day political scientist can talk at length on the difficulties our founders would have faced had they set out to build this feature into America's NLEP (and, moving forward, probably will talk at great length on this subject). 

But, what if... 

...our academics (and others), instead of only talking about why our founders didn't, or couldn't, design that "holy grail" algorithm, actually designed one? And not for 18th century America's electorate but for 21st century America's LOC and ROC voters? 

Then what if today's political academics took one more small step (relatively speaking) –– but, fyi, it would represent "one giant leap" forward for civilization –– and actually taught their students, and America's voters, how to use it in our NLEP? 

Short answer: the era, or the age, of PKQ-controlled Congresses would begin. The vast mainstream (VM) of America's LOC and ROC voters would be able to start keeping both chambers of Congress continually replenished with a steady supply of (mostly) Ds and Rs who were PKQ-caliber.

Here's the first mind boggling takeaway (MBT): Congress' 535 representatives would be able to start legislating and governing, i.e., performing their oversight, foreign policy, etc. duties, collectively, with the:

• intelligence of an Einstein,
• wisdom of a Solomon,
• compassion of a Mother Teresa,
• logic of a Mr. Spock,
• ingenuity of a MacGyver,
• vision of a Steve Jobs,
• backbone of a Wonder Woman,
• moral compass of a Nelson Mandela,
• common sense of a Mark Twain.

Second MBT: Legislative solutions to most of America's EFFS problems would start being CO-JOINTLY CRAFTED with LEGISLATION that: (1) was neither distinctly "liberal" nor "conservative," but a synergistic mosaic of both, (2) would have essentially the same legislative language and provisions regardless of which party controlled either or both legislative chambers, (3) would be strongly supported by significant majorities of Americans: 

• from across the political/ideological spectrum,
• of every racial, religious and ethnic group,
• of every age, income and educational level.

Notably:

1. In most cases, the legislation would solve the problems (relatively) quickly, completely and permanently –– even the seemingly intractable ones. 
2. As our mountain of EFFS problems began to get solved, our federal government would stop running deficits every year, and start producing surpluses –– sometimes sizable surpluses. 

MBT #3:  When our nation's ultimate role models are 535 selfless, non-demagoguing, non-finger pointing, "problem solving-focused," etc. Olympic-caliber national legislators, i.e., near perfect role models –– although it may not be immediately clear why, as a society, we will quickly (very quickly IMO) become much more thoughtful... conscientious... respectful... principled... courteous... forgiving... peaceful... not quick to anger... unbiased... non-judgmental... non-discriminatory... generous... civil... altruistic... resilient... resourceful... self-reliant... stoic... goal oriented... civic-minded... community focused...  apolitical... non-ideological... etc... etc... etc. –– because that's how much "good power" emanates from outstanding, national-level role models.  
 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: On the flip side, this suggests how much societal harm has been inflicted on literally generations of Americans (adults AND their children) by the "bad (role model) power" that has been radiating/spewing out of our "PAP-controlled Congresses" for literally generations.    

With just these three MBTs in mind –– there are many more –– how many of today's political academics, or entire political science departments will (individually or in groups) devote a small part of their enormous cognitive capabilities (fyi: this is not a put down, just stating a fact) to developing that algorithm, a.k.a. the holy grail of "effective" S-G?  

A handful? Ten percent of them?  Fifty percent? > fifty percent?

***************

Digital Post-it note to our species' blue-sky thinkers in and outside academia: 

• Not to be overly dramatic, but twenty-four hundred years of CPW is screaming at you: "HELP!!! Your species needs you to save them from the freedomless, impoverished, Orwellian existence awaiting them IF YOU DON'T DEVELOP THAT ALGORITHM!"

*****************

re Effective sortition 

The following is one of many possible ways America's vast mainstream (VM) of left- and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters can use ES in the pre-primary process phase of their national legislative election process (NLEP): 

1.  Every two years, from, say, ten distinct regions across each of America's 435 U.S. House districts and ~33 States, ten groups of LOC voters, and ten groups of ROC voters (with, e.g., 6-12 per group) –– all of whom have volunteered in advance to involve themselves in this process –– are randomly selected (similar to how individuals are selected for jury duty). (For now, let's call these voters: Talented Xers.)  (fyi: each district has ~700,000 people.)

2. Each group will then:

• identify, using a combination of social media and standard recruiting methods, then 
• recruit/draft/arm-twist via a quasi-random process, 

... several extraordinarily capable LOC and ROC candidates from their district/state who have high POM (purity of motive) ratings –– think: PKQ-caliber (but not aristocrats, or aristocratic). 

In other words, these will be highly capable candidates who:

1. do not have (relatively speaking) self-serving, politically ambitious or power hungry bones in their bodies –– AND of equal importance,
2. understand going in that they will only be serving a “few” years as a one-time civic duty because both they and the voters understand how easily political power, especially at the national legislative level, can corrupt even the best of us. 

3. From each district's/state's pool of identified and recruited LOC and ROC candidates, one LOC and one ROC candidate will be randomly selected via a lottery –– and, subject to the approval of the Democratic and Republican parties' primary voters in the NLEP's primary process phase, will face each other in the general election phase of the NLEP. 

FYI: extraordinarily capable (Think: Olympic caliber) = someone:

• with an excellent formal education,
• intelligent enough to be able to digest and synthesize large amounts of oft times complex material,
• with a demonstrated body of general knowledge acquired over decades of meaningful life experience, a.k.a. wisdom,
• who has achieved a level of financial success in life (and therefore will be reluctantly agreeing, if elected, to perform a thankless task: serve in Congress for a "few" years as a one-time civic duty, rather than enthusiastically agreeing to serve in the House or Senate because they need the money),
• with demonstrated leadership and life-and-death decision making experience.

KEY POINT: ES makes it possible for LOC and ROC voters to insure that, in the general election phase of the NLEP, both major parties' candidates will always be PKQ-caliber. Which means both factions of voters will never have to confront the "moral" quandary: "Do I vote for the other side's PKQ-caliber candidate since my side's candidate is, by definition, a PAP (and therefore also, by definition, self-serving)?" 

Layman's observation: ES will not be a big hit with our nation's rabid ideologues (and others). But it will turn out to be wildly/massively popular with the VM of our LOC and ROC voters, i.e., our ~140 million go-along-to-get-alongers –– including, in my view, quite a few big tech and other billionaires who:

1. agree with CPW's dire prognosis, i.e., moving forward, the "end is nigh[ish]" for American democracy (and Earth's other democracies), and
2. don't relish the thought of being under the thumb of an autocratic, albeit democratically elected, "imperial" president, e.g., Vladimir Putin –– who can, via demagoguery and other undemocratic devices, whip up the kind of frenzied, mob mentality within society that sets into motion the chain of events that end up turning free societies that don't value freedom into unfree societies that cherish it. 

REASONABLE GUESSTIMATE: America has roughly one million PKQ-caliber citizens, which works out to ~0.3% of our population. That's a recruitment pool of ~2,300 PKQ-caliber candidates in each 700,000+ person congressional district.

(reminder)

PAP: politically ambitious "politician"

PKQ: Philosopher K/Q (-caliber)

LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAY re EFFECTIVE SORTITION (ES):

• Political science's CPW will continue to be 100% valid so long as the vast mainstream (VM) of America's ~155 million left- and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters (= ~ 140 million) continue using the “primitive S-G paradigm/model/algorithm” they've used for the last century to elect their 535 members of Congress. But said CPW will become 100% invalid when a critical mass of our VM voters begin using a “non-primitive” paradigm/model, i.e., Effective Sortition (ES).

• ES is the only way America's LOC and ROC voters can transition from PAP-controlled to PKQ-controlled Congresses.

• PKQ-controlled Congresses are the only way to avoid the Orwellian future that CPW says awaits us.

***********

REASONABLE FIRST REACTION to the idea of 535 Americans –– who very well may not look, act or talk like "slick," smooth-talking PAPs –– "running" our nation/wielding the reins of power:  How can 535 "amateurs" possibly run a modern nation as large, as powerful and as complex as the United States? 

That question will be answered in greater detail later on. For now, here's the best short answer: 

First, it should be obvious that Congress doesn't "run" America (thank goodness). Our nation is "run" by tens of millions of Americans distributed throughout:

• dozens of major federal agencies
• 50 fully functioning state governments
• thousands of county, city and other government bodies, and
• millions of:
  • [small, medium, large] businesses
  • community and social organizations
  • school boards, churches
  • charities, NGOs, philanthropies, etc.

Second, common sense suggests that our (commonsensical) Vast Mainstream of LOC and ROC voters will quickly begin doing in the House of Representatives what they've done all along in the Senate: elect new PKQ-caliber candidates in one-third of the 435 House seats every two years, and essentially rubber stamp the other two-thirds. 

So at any given point in time –– just as it now is, and will continue to be, in the Senate –– one-third of the House members will have 4-5 years of experience; one-third will have 3-4 years of experience, and one-third will be true freshmen legislators.  

Making sense of this "new S-G knowledge" info-graphic's takeaway with a novel thought experiment:
 
 

Imagine that students in a 4th grade class are voting on which name they want for their classroom's pet goldfish: Spot or Nemo.

Turns out that about half the students adore the name Spot but loath Nemo, and for the other half it's the exact opposite.

If they use the standard "bloodless war" (BW) voting paradigm/strategy that America's voters have always used (and probably most/all voters in most/all democracies), i.e., "to the victors, i.e., 50% + 1, go the spoils of war" strategy, then the "right/power" to decide the goldfish's name will be determined by the side that "wins," i.e., casts the most votes.

Result (worst case scenario): 

1. A non-violent battle is fought, so no blood is spilled. But, 
2. the winners are very happy –– they love their goldfish's new name ––while, understandably, the losers are very unhappy since they loath the goldfish's new name.
3. Human nature being human nature, this inevitably leads to hard feelings between a significant number of pro-Spot and pro-Nemo students, who begin segregating into their respective tribes.
4. Friendships are destroyed; trust, cohesion, comradery, etc. between the tribes evaporate. A carefree zeitgeist gives way to a state of "permanent disagreeableness." Nothing is too trivial, too insignificant to spark heated, drawn-out arguments that never get resolved.
5. "Beating" the other tribe at every opportunity, a.k.a. "one-upmanship,"  becomes the centerpiece of the students' daily lives.

Moral of the story: Even bloodless/non-violent "battles," can lead to the creation of tribes who exist in a permanent state of hostility. Ergo: goodbye everyone living (and co-sharing) a "neartopic" existence. 

Welcome to Dystopia, U.S.A.

Now imagine the students, before voting began, having a class discussion. And out of that discussion they determine that 95% are perfectly fine with calling their goldfish, GF, if it will avoid causing hard feelings. 

So our students do what a massive number of "the vast mainstream" of our society would do: they decide to go with GF even though it's no one's first choice (because for our students (the VM of society, too) it isn't about power, but about going along to get along). 

This would be an example of our students, not compromising, i.e., meeting half way (because that would result in them naming their goldfish Spmo or Neot), but taking a radically different approach (although the distinction might not be readily apparent): pursuing the "S-G strategy" of Strategic Cooperation, i.e., working together (as allies) to achieve (often times, highly desirable) shared objectives. 

With this thought experiment in mind, and relating it to the above Zombie-Warrior info-graphic:

There are a massive number of shared (and also highly desirable) "apolitical/non-ideological (ANI)-based "legislative solutions" to America's myriad of economic, financial, fiscal and (poverty-related) societal (EFFS) problems that the vast mainstream (VM) of America's voters would wholeheartedly support Congress crafting/enacting –– solutions that Congress' two political factions could be “co-crafting” and enacting into law right now (and could have been co-crafting/enacting for generations).

But our two political factions aren't because both factions are overwhelmingly dominated by, by definition, self-serving, politically ambitious, majority status-craving, perks and privileges-addicted "politicians" who –– notwithstanding how well-meaning nearly all of them may be –– care astronomically more about getting re-elected and/or growing their or their party's power than they care about doing what is in the best interest(s) of their constituents and nation. 

This has been the situation is Congress for many generations, many will argue since soon after our nation's founding. And it will, if anything, only get worse moving forward unless our political and civics educators start developing the body of new S-G knowledge that will enable the vast mainstream (VM) of America's ~155 million left- and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters to start identifying, recruiting and electing the kind of liberal Ds and conservative Rs to Congress who could AND WOULD start co-crafting that legislation. 

Given the Orwellian future that conventional political wisdom (CPW) says awaits our species, why our academic experts on the democratic process aren't developing that new knowledge may be one of the greatest mysteries in the field of political science.

Will this website be the two-by-four that gets their attention, and prods them into action? 

We shall find out soon enough.

One thing is clear: we need our society's blue-sky thinkers/problem solvers to start thinking "outside-the-PI-War" box –– ASAP!

FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

In theory, this body of new, "how-to" S-G knowledge should be the mainstay of all (rationally/effectively) self-governing societies. Yet our nation's political [scientists, philosophers, psychologists] will, at best, studiously avoid acknowledging it, at worst, dismiss it out of hand.

Why is that?

If this "instructive" knowledge will prevent what CPW, based on 2,400 years of experience, says is essentially a done deal, i.e., American democracy, along with Earth's other democracies, will all eventually collapse/decay/devolve into either left- or right-wing pseudo-democratic autocracies –– which, fyi, means the human race is doomed to an Orwellian existence, a planet of nation-states ruled by [self-serving, narcissistic, power-craving, glory-seeking,...] left- and right-wing "Caesars" –– why would our political scholars and academics ignore it, or worse, dismiss it out of hand as academically "invalid," not serious, utopian, etc.? 

The three likeliest reasons:

1. The Semmelweis reflex, i.e., the tendency of people (especially extremely intelligent people in this layman's view) to reject new ideas or knowledge that contradict well established (Think: entrenched) ideas, orthodoxies, theories, paradigms, etc.
2. Intellectual hubris/a lack of intellectual humility, i.e., the view, especially among academics from elite universities, i.e., our deepest, most erudite, thinkers, that if cutting edge/paradigm-shifting/visionary "political" concepts do not emanate from their wheelhouse, but are the brainchild of  a non-academic –– then the concepts/ideas can't possibly stand up to intellectual/academic scrutiny (i.e., they're foolish, naïve, utopian,...).  
3. This new way of thinking about, and engaging in, not in the democratic process per se, but the "mechanics" of S-G that LOC and ROC voters use in their respective national legislative primaries –– in order for them to start achieving shared ANI objectives, e.g., routinely fielding PKQ-caliber House and Senate candidates –– will (massively, albeit temporarily) upset the applecarts and/or threaten the lucrative cash cows of a great many individuals working in fields involved in, associated with, and/or impacted by, national politics, e.g., our national news media, political commentariat/punditocracy, overtly [liberal, conservative, etc.] public policy think tanks,... 

But, in this layman's view, that's a miniscule price to pay to teach society writ large how to approach the process of S-G (in their NLEP) with a 90% ANI Cooperation mindset.

Recap: this webpage...

1. Introduces a new category of S-G concepts, complete with a glossary of new S-G-based terms and acronyms, into America's marketplace of new self-governance (S-G) ideas. Terms and concepts that, hopefully, will have the intended effect of compelling everyone in America old enough to have a “political” opinion to radically re-think what our nation's ~155 million left- and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters should be “using” their national legislative election process (NLEP) to accomplish.

2. Makes the case that it's (long past) time for our political and civics educators to create a new science/academic discipline in the field of political science: the study of Effective S-G Theories, Models and Strategies.

 
“Change your language and you change your thoughts.” Karl Albrecht  
 

The following is a glossary of acronyms/terms/concepts which are designed to both: 1) massively expand our society's (including our intelligentsia's) understanding of America's "democratic process," and 2) fundamentally transform the way society perceives/views/sees its voters' role in that process.

• Primitive Self-Governing Man vs.
• Modern Self-Governing Man

• PI: Political/Ideological
• ANI: Apolitical/Non-Ideological

• S-G: Self-Governance
• ES-G: Effective Self-Governance

• ES: Effective Sortition
• POM: Purity Of Motive (rating)
• CTG: Capacity To Govern (rating)

• PAP: Politically Ambitious Politician 
• Dystopic [Democracy, Capitalism, Legislative Policies,...] 

• PKQ: Philosopher King/Queen(-caliber) Legislator
• Neartopic [Democracy, Capitalism, Legislative Policies,...]  

• Dystopic vs. Neartopic systems: e.g., free market, financial, healthcare, education, mental health, criminal justice, immigration, social services,...

• (permanently) PAP-controlled U.S. Congresses (= Dystopic Democracy) 
• (permanently) PKQ-controlled U.S. Congresses (= Neartopic Democracy)

• PAP- vs. PKQ-governed (representative) democracies. 

• 100% (bloodless) Political/Ideological (PI) War [theory, paradigm, strategy, mentality]  FYI: this is the "S-G strategy" our LOC and ROC voters have always used in their NLEP to elect their members of Congress, as well as their S-G mentality, i.e., the attitude they have as voters, especially re the NLEP.
• 90% ANI Cooperation/10% PI War [theory, paradigm, strategy, mindset]  FYI: this is the strategy/mentality they SHOULD use/have. 

• Dystopic Democratic Process (= 100% PI War-based democratic process). 
• Neartopic Democratic Process (= 90% ANI Cooperation-based democratic process)

• ineffective S-G mentality vs. effective S-G mindset
• Sheeple vs. Spartan S-G mindset

• Leviathan's "Head" (From Hobbes)  (= Our U.S. Congress)

• 100% PI War vs. 90% ANI Cooperation Civilizational Paradigm   

“All important advances are sudden intuitions, new principles, a new way of seeing."  Marilyn Ferguson (1938-2008)   

Here are three radically new S-G concepts:

One:  "Congress is broken because the "system" is broken" is not the correct way to state the American people's "S-G problem." The correct/instructive way to state it: 

• Because America's LOC and ROC voters are using, or involving themselves in, a 100% PI War-based democratic process, Congress is overflowing with, by definition, self-serving, majority status-craving, corrupted by power PAPs –– who (in varying degrees) care more about wielding political power, and enjoying the many perks and privileges that come with national legislative office, than they care about doing what is in the best interests of their nation (and their civilization and their species). 

Therefore, for our LOC and ROC voters, the S-G solution is for them to transition to a more evolved, or advanced, civilizational paradigm, i.e., begin using/engaging in a 90% ANI Cooperation-based democratic process, the core feature of which is Effective Sortition (ES).

Two: re ES:

• By using Effective Sortition (ES) in America's national legislative election process (NLEP), i.e., a uniquely 21st century quasi-random identification and recruitment process, it is possible for our nation's LOC and ROC voters to insure that, at the end of every NLEP –– no matter which political party wins control of the U.S. House and Senate –– political power will always be wielded (in both chambers) by a steady supply of a democratic society's version of philosopher kings and queens (PKQs), i.e., highly capable representatives who are NOT self-serving, are NOT politically ambitious, and do NOT crave power for power's sake. 

Three: (permanently) PKQ-controlled Congresses will make possible our society's transition to a 90% ANI Cooperation Civilizational Paradigm.

Obvious question:  Why is this page pointedly directed to our society's current/future intelligentsia?  

Because, in the same way our medical community is responsible for matters pertaining to our society's physical/bodily (and mental) health and wellbeing, our intelligentsia is responsible for matters pertaining to our society's [democratic, societal, civilizational] health and wellbeing. 

Given our intelligentsia's (might we say, moral) responsibility in this area, it is incumbent on our best and brightest “civilizational” "critiquers, shapers, and leaders" to step up to the plate and "lead" the transition away from America's “18th century” 100% PI War-based democratic process in favor of a 90% ANI Cooperation/10% PI War-based democratic process –– inasmuch as the 100% PI War-based democratic process has produced (and will continue producing) a massively long list of horribly unsatisfying/disastrous outcomes.

Here's a tiny number of those horrible outcomes:

• Congress is now deemed permanently “broken,” i.e., unfixable. And by broken most of us probably mean corrupted by power, craven, utterly incapable of governing responsibly, or rationally. And by utterly incapable we mean our national legislators are incapable of solving even one of a long laundry list of legislatively solvable economic, financial, fiscal and societal (EFFS) problems with common sense legislative solutions that voters across the PI spectrum would/will strongly support.

• Our national debt is now so large, and growing so fast, it will soon require cuts in entitlement spending (major in some cases, massive in others) simply to service the interest on it.

• Middle Class poverty is increasing/Lower Class destitution, and hopelessness, is going to begin skyrocketing.

• Divisions along [racial, cultural, political, income, education, regional, generational, etc.] lines are growing. 

• Societal/civilizational norms are decaying. As a group our society is becoming ruder, cruder, louder, (significantly) less "well-read/well-rounded," more grievance-obsessed, more judgmental, more self-righteous, increasingly intolerant of opposing views and values, etc., etc., etc. (you get the point).

re the Semmelweis reflex: 

 
Many of this page's "democracy-saving/strengthening" concepts and ideas are so radical that the Semmelweis reflex will be a major obstacle to our political scientists and others accepting them as academically valid, or feasible, realistic, etc.

• Semmelweis reflex: the tendency of people to reject new ideas or knowledge (including strategies) that contradict well established (Think: entrenched) ideas, orthodoxies, theories, paradigms, strategies, etc. 

In an effort to provide an antidote to the Semmelweis reflex, this page consists of "new S-G knowledge" info-graphics, Thought Experiments, Foods For Thoughts, What Ifs, Mind Boggling Takeaways (MBTs), and assorted Digital Post-it notes –– enough, hopefully, to counteract this reflexive response.

ASIDE: one of the most interesting MBT (of many MBTs) concerns some of history's major inflection points:   

• A major “new knowledge” inflection point (IP) occurred in the field of astronomy in the 16th century, the Geocentric to Heliocentric IP. 
• An analogous inflection point occurred in the field of medicine in the 19th century, the Humoralism to Germ theory IP. 
• In the 2020s, to avoid the Orwellian future that CPW says awaits our, and Earth's other democracies, a new knowledge inflection point must occur in political science, the 100% PI War to 90% ANI Cooperation IP.   
  

Two housekeeping notes:

• Much of the text on the first 40% of this page has been culled from the other 60%.  
• This web page is an ongoing, never-ending work in progress, it will probably never be (officially) finished. As of 6-20-24, new (un-edited) prose is being created, then revised, then re-revised ad nauseam. New ideas/partial ideas are being formulated, new graphics built. So my sincere apologies for, among things, the horrible sentence structure, dangling modifiers, half formed thoughts, etc. you have, and will continue to encounter.
  

BY THIS POINT, your intellect has been body slammed by enough (mind-boggling) S-G concepts and ideas –– particularly the idea of PKQ-controlled Congresses –– that, but for the Semmelweis reflex (mostly), you would have already begun:

A: Radically rethinking what democratic societies in the 21st century should be "using" their national legislative election process (NLEP) to accomplish.  

B: Coming to several conclusions, most notably:

• The  "vast mainstream (VM)" of America's ~155 million LOC and ROC voters have the ability to transition the United States as close to an "ideal" democracy as is humanly possible, i.e., a liberty-loving, extraordinarily stable, cohesive multi: racial/ethnic/cultural society –– with a prosperous multi: racial/ethnic/cultural middle-class and poverty as we know it all but nonexistent.

aside: how this "democratic miracle" could/will be brought about, legislatively, will be dealt with in due course.

• Transitioning to that nearly-ideal, or "neartopic," democracy, depends 100% on the willingness of a critical mass of our VM voters to upgrade, or modernize, their NLEP, i.e., start using Effective Sortition (ES) to elect Congress' 535 members.

• Bringing their NLEP into the 21st century is the only way our VM LOC and ROC voters can "fix" (completely and permanently) their horribly “broken” Congress –– which, it cannot be stressed enough: only our two factions of voters can repair (and only via ES as opposed to government "reforms") inasmuch as, (a) our divided society cannot be mended (completely and permanently), and (b) the spirit of Classical Liberalism cannot be restored (completely and permanently) to America's soul, until Congress' 535 members are able to govern America "optimally" (new concept), i.e., craft optimal legislative policies, and perform their government oversight duties optimally. 

• Our two political factions in the House and Senate will be able to govern America optimally ONLY when both groups in both chambers are overwhelmingly dominated by a "steady supply" of a modern democracy's equivalent of (non-aristocratic) philosopher kings and queens (PKQs).

Worth repeating: It's probably safe to say that America easily has a million PKQ-caliber citizens, which works out to ~0.3% of our population, which = a recruitment pool of ~2,300 PKQ-caliber candidates in each 700,000+ person congressional district.  

...

Above quote: H/t: AR 

The info-graphic's takeaway –– or, if you will, the "reality" our intelligentsia (and others) really, really need to stop "ignoring" –– is that the existential threat to American democracy is not that our society doesn't have enough intelligent voters –– and as should become apparent, we also have the good fortune of having a sizable number of voters who aren't inadequately educated, aren't uninformed, aren't naïve, aren't greedy,....  

What we don't have, and have never had –– because our political philosophers/thinkers never took the time to closely examine their superficial, demonstrably flawed, "it's The Voters' Fault" theory –– is an "intelligent"/instructive theory of "effective" self-governance (S-G) that makes it unambiguously clear what a democratic society's voters MUST do, mechanistically/procedurally/algorithmically, to insure that all of their nation's democratic institutions always function/operate spectacularly well.

******************

 QUESTION: Which "S-G mentality" should America's civics curriculum be designed to inculcate/enculturate into America's future LOC and ROC voters?

• Sheeple mentality, i.e., 100% helpless/powerless: "as an individual voter, my one vote (in the NLEP) doesn't matter because nothing will change in Congress, no matter which party ends up in control (of either chamber); if anything, things will just get worse" –– so I'm going to put all of what little hope I have in our nation's "leader," i.e., our (Imperial) President, to change things, get things done."

• Spartan mentality, i.e., 100% NOT helpless/powerless: "the S-G strategy of me and my fellow voters (from both parties) using ES in our NLEP will absolutely matter, and it will matter massively because everything will change in Congress for the better (so goodbye quasi-authoritarian  Imperial Presidents who "rule" by Executive Orders), no matter which party ends up in control of either chamber in any given election cycle."

******************

recap:

If we want to see America's LOC and ROC voters start electing Ds and Rs to Congress who can turn America's mountain of EFFS problems into (relatively speaking) a molehill –– via a largely ANI-based legislative agenda that LOC and ROC voters BOTH strongly support –– the concept of primitive vs. non-primitive S-G [theories, models/paradigms, strategies, mentalities] will have to be introduced into America's marketplace of new S-G ideas. 

AND, every American old enough to have a "political" view must become conversant with these ideas, especially the idea of having a primitive vs. non-primitive S-G mentality. The good news: these new terms and concepts will spark a great deal of curiosity about them, including among our young (and, young or old, no one will want to think they have a primitive S-G mentality).

*****************

This next info-graphic is a graphical primer that sums up the thought process/mind set/mentality our best and brightest "political" minds (and everyone else, too) should adopt moving forward.
 

...which explains why our democracy is failing.

re 3 Democracy Destroying Pathogens (DDPs)

The following analogy should cause your cognitive gears to start turning: 

• The Four Humours theory/mentality of medicine is to the Germ Theory T/M as the 100% PI War T/M of self-governance (S-G) is to the 90% ANI Cooperation T/M.

**********

From time immemorial humans have looked upon “politicians” with a considerable amount of contempt (some of it deserved, some of it not). And the more politically powerful the office, the more contemptible the behavior of the politician(s) seeking it –– or, if they already “possess” the office, the more contemptible the unethical measures they use to keep it, e.g., demagoguery, pandering, influence peddling, etc.

So most of our society, and certainly all of our political academics, are aware of the three DDPs, and understand how much they undermine our democracy, how detrimental they are to the S-G process.

But it's probably safe to say that most everyone treats all three, not as full blown DDPs, but as nuisances to be endured. Or, to the extent they are deemed democracy destroying, the only remedy is via government "reforms," e.g., ethics, campaign finance, redistricting, etc.

Unfortunately, that fatal flaw in our public's AND our intelligentsia's thinking is a direct consequence of the “100% PI War” mentality that overwhelmingly dominates society's S-G zeitgeist –– most notably and especially re our NLEP.

Meaning, 

• LOC voters' singular objective in the NLEP is to see both chambers of Congress controlled by Democrats who will pursue a liberal/progressive agenda based on, or that reflect, the Democratic Party's values, ideals, etc. 

• ROC voters' singular objective is to see both chambers controlled by Republicans who will pursue a conservative/libertarian agenda based on, or that reflect, the Republican Party's values, ideals, etc.   
  

Here's the additional irony: in recent generations the battle has taken on a moral dimension inasmuch as a large slice of our electorate, including much/most of our intelligentsia, now believe that one of the two agendas poses an existential threat to American democracy, while the other is seen as a bulwark against that threat. 

As a result, here's the moral calculus of our LOC and ROC voters respectively::

• For democratic/LOC voters, “better to vote for the contemptible liberal/democratic "politician" who will consistently vote for the Democratic Party's (morally superior/democracy-saving) policies/agenda, than vote for the considerably less contemptible conservative/republican politician who will consistently vote for the Republican Party's (morally contemptible/democracy-destroying) policies/agenda. 
• For republican/conservative voters, it's the polar opposite moral calculus.
  

Fortunately, when our society is governed by PKQ-controlled Congresses, our voters' moral calculus will change. To get a sense of why it will, consider this 4th grade class thought experiment. 

Students in a 4th grade class are voting on which name they want for their classroom's pet goldfish: Spot or Nemo.

Turns out that about half the students adore the name Spot but loath Nemo, and for the other half it's the exact opposite.

If they use the standard "bloodless war" (BW) voting strategy that America's voters have always used (and probably most/all voters in most/all democracies), i.e., "to the victors, i.e., 50% + 1, go the spoils of war" strategy, then the "right/power" to decide the goldfish's name will be determined by the side that "wins," i.e., casts the most votes. 

Result (worst case scenario): 

1. a non-violent battle is fought, so no blood is spilled. But, 
2. the winners are very happy while, understandably, the losers are not (and many are so unhappy they demand a recount),
3. pro-Spot and pro-Nemo students form their own tribes, then start segregating themselves into them.
4. friendships are destroyed; trust, cohesion, comradery, etc. between the tribes evaporate. A carefree zeitgeist gives way to scheming and plotting,
5. fixating on "beating" the other tribe become the whole point of the students' existence.

Now imagine the students taking a poll before voting and determining that 90% are perfectly fine with calling their goldfish, GF, if it will avoid causing hard feelings. 

So our students do what a massive number of "the vast mainstream" of our society would do: they decide to go with GF even though it's no one's first choice (because for our students (the VM of society, too) it isn't about power, but about going along to get along). 

This would be an example of our students, not compromising, i.e., meeting half way (because that would result in them naming their goldfish Spmo or Neot), but taking a radically different approach (although the distinction might not be readily apparent): strategically cooperating. 

That's the analogy for the not yet formally conceptualized basis of optimalism, which will be touched on later. 

If applied to Congress, we would be talking about two factions of legislators who are wide apart on the PI spectrum but, because they are PKQ-caliber, are willing to co-craft a wide array of legislative policies that are neither side's voters' first choice, but that among all possible legislative policy solution "configurations," VM voters on both sides will be the most satisfied with (in fact they'll be overjoyed/ecstatic) given that the legislation the PKQ-caliber legislators co-craft and implement:

1. will be neither (distinctly) "liberal" or "conservative," nor (distinctly) government solutions or free market solutions,
2. will actually solve the EFFS problem(s) the legislation intends to solve –– (in the lion's share of cases) quickly, completely and permanently. 

Re Optimalism as an apolitical political ideology.

Many of us have heard [governors, mayors, presidents, etc.] from the state/federal Executive Branch say, "Most people don't care if the solutions are liberal solutions or conservative solutions. They just want their government to solve the problems."

CPW's likely (cynical) takeaway is that this is the perfect example for demonstrating why political science's "It's The Voters' Fault" theory is correct, i.e., what voters are really saying is that they want government to solve the problems, but they don't want to have to pay for it (which explains America's ~$30 trillion national debt).

Leaving CPW's superficial/unexamined takeaway aside, it's probably fair to say that our VM of voters would much rather that the choice for them re, say, which healthcare system they want NOT BE a binary choice between:

• liberalism's Medicare For All (i.e., government solution/control), and
• conservatism's "50 laboratories of democracy" (i.e., free market solutions)

Rather, what they really want, but don't know they do (yet), is the "optimal" solution (which, fyi, only PKQ-controlled Congresses can craft and implement): a healthcare system that provides the highest possible quality of healthcare to the largest possible number of Americans at the lowest possible cost to the patients and is the fairest possible to America's taxpayers (and to our children's' generation, and their children's generation,...). 

It's probably also fair to say that our VM of voters would strongly favor optimal solutions for all of our nation's EFFS problems that either impact on or derive from our major systems, e.g., public education, immigration, criminal justice, mental health, etc., etc.

TAKEAWAY: we can now add to liberalism and conservatism (and socialism and libertarianism, etc.) a uniquely 21st century, apolitical/non-ideological governing philosophy: optimalism.

Re an incomplete explanation of Optimalism as a legislative policy formulation process. 

The best oversimplified example of optimalism in action is our 4th grade class, via a pre-vote brainstorming session, arriving at a name for their classroom's pet goldfish acceptable to both sides.

If applied to a PKQ-controlled Congress, we would be talking about two factions of legislators who are wide apart on the PI spectrum but, because they are PKQ-caliber, are willing to co-craft a wide array of legislative policies that are neither side's voters' first choice, but VM voters on both sides will be more than satisfied with (in fact they'll be overjoyed/ecstatic) given that the legislation the PKQ-caliber legislators co-craft and implement:

1. will be neither (distinctly) "liberal" or "conservative," nor (distinctly) government solutions or free market solutions,
2. will actually solve the EFFS problem(s) the legislation intends to solve –– (in the lion's share of cases) quickly, completely and permanently. 

A second example of optimalism as a process: going through every piece of legislation ever enacted into law by Congress and removing every section of every bill that was inserted for self-serving and/or unethical reasons. 

Re Optimalism as a governing philosophy. 

Here's a (super short) layman's overview...   

Almost all of us are familiar with political science's long established political/ideological(PI)-based governing philosophies (GPs), e.g., Marxism, Socialism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Anarchism.   

My layman's take is that these philosophies directly or indirectly grew out of the question debated among political philosophers over the millennia, up to and including today: In a given society, what level, and type, of government control over people's daily lives will end up causing/creating/achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of its citizens?

In recent generations, this academic debate has been weaponized, it has morphed into a never-ending, all-consuming, “all's-fair-in-love-and-political-war” slug-fest* between factions of politicians and their respective "base voters" (even between political academics, too). 

* with much of the slug-fest fought for power for power's sake.

The (now weaponized) question is: (To the extent it's even possible) Which political party's legislative policy agenda (LPA) will best solve our nation's major EFFS problems: 

• the Democratic Party's liberal/government solutions LPA, or 
• the Republican Party's conservative/free market solutions LPA?

• aside: Marxists, Socialists, Libertarians and Anarchists insist that neither of the major parties can get the job done; that to “save” America, voters must toss both party's candidates from Congress in favor of [fill in the alternative party's candidates].
  

As a governing philosophy, Optimalism could be thought of as the philosophy a Mark Twain would embrace, based on the following analysis/thought process.

1. America's EFFS mountain was once a molehill.
2. It did not become a mountain because of either of our two major governing philosophies –– or the political parties espousing them –– but, in cause/effect terms, because Congress has always been "infected" with three "democracy-destroying pathogens"(DDPs): self-servingism, (naked) political ambition and political power-lust.
3. America's EFFS mountain has now reached "democracy-destroying" size; it constitutes an existential threat to our increasingly less prosperous (in terms of individual incomes), less thriving middle class –– and therefore to a healthy American democracy.
4. Only PKQ-controlled Congresses can (relatively speaking) remain permanently free of these three DDPs. 
5. (In cause/effect terms) PKQ-controlled Congresses are the singular prerequisite to America's EFFS mountain being turned into (relatively speaking) a molehill –– via legislative solutions that are neither (distinctly) "liberal" or "conservative," nor (distinctly) government solutions or free market solutions.

Therefore, re turning (via legislation) the EFFS mountain into a molehill, a Mark Twain might muse that the "which is better: [socialism, liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism]?" debate is, as a practical matter: a diversion, a waste of time, misdirection plain and simple.  

Where our federal legislators fall on the Purity Of Motive (POM), and Capacity To Govern (CTG), spectrums matter infinitely more than where they fall on the Political/Ideological (PI) Spectrum.

************

MORE MASSIVELY INTERESTING point(s) to ponder: Let's posit that everyone in America old enough to have a "political" view, say, 260 million Americans, suddenly has a working knowledge, both of ES and the above three (and other) M-BTs.

For identification purposes, and borrowing from the Terminator movies', SKYNET, let's call them ES-aware. 

Let's also posit that, within this group of 260 million, there is a subgroup who are confident that:

1. Using ES in our NLEP will, in fact, produce PKQ-controlled, veto-proof Congresses.
2. Said Congresses WILL result in/lead to this page's myriad M-BTs.
3. Far more than a critical mass of LOC and ROC voters WILL begin using ES to effectuate the transition to PKQ-controlled Congresses. 

Let's call this subgroup, pro-Effective S-G Americans, or pro-ES-Gers. 

So we have two groups: the larger group of ES aware, and within that group the subgroup of pro-ES-Gers.

  
Q 1: What percent of our ES-aware group of 260 million would LOVE to see America's VM LOC and ROC voters start using ES? (A: ~250+ million IMO)

Q 2: What percent of that ~250 million, because of the Semmelweis reflex, will assume there will never be enough voters willing to use ES to make any meaningful difference? (A: Initially very high, close to 100%, but a sufficiently funded awareness/education campaign could easily drop that number to single digits.)

Q 3: How many pro-ES-Gers are needed to effectuate the transition to PKQ-controlled Congresses?  (my layman's view: < 5%...  "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."  Margaret Mead)

Q 4: How quickly will PKQ-controlled Congresses take back all the "governing power" that generations of (craven, responsibility-phobic) PAP-controlled Congresses ceded/forced onto the Executive Branch (and somewhat to the Judicial Branch, as well)? (A: I can't wait to find out.)

 
************

Make no mistake, the importance of our academics creating and developing this new field of study cannot be overstated, because we cannot overstate the magnitude of the beneficial, "actionable S-G power" these new S-G concepts will give voters in their effort to prevent, among a great many EFFS calamities, the (massive) hollowing out of America's middle class –– a hollowing out that, once underway, will accelerate to warp speed the (seemingly impossible to prevent) drift toward authoritarianism that's occurring in America and around the world.  

FOUR MORE TAKEAWAYS: 

• For our nation's ~155 million LOC and ROC voters, this is the obvious “S-G solution” for them, i.e., being able to elect –– with minimal due diligence on their part –– the Ds and Rs to Congress who can actually fix America's major EFFS problems with legislative solutions both groups of VM voters strongly support. 
• This new, how-to knowledge will not make our cognitively challenged voters less cognitively challenged. Not all but most of our woefully uninformed (on the issues) voters will not become less uninformed. Our naïve voters will continue to be naïve. Same with our apathetic, gullible and greedy voters. 

Fortunately...

• Our electorate will not have to be rocket scientists to comprehend ES, along with a number of other new S-G ideas and concepts, or to recognize their existential import. None of these new voter "skills" will take years to master. And once voters start using/applying them in their NLEP, our nation will quickly (relatively speaking) find itself even freer, even more prosperous, more societally cohesive, etcetera, etcetera –– even more "exceptional," too –– than it's ever been.   

    ***********

 aside (another radically new concept): 

For our "political/civics" academics, teaching this new S-G knowledge –– but especially driving home the idea of LOC and ROC voters using ES as a means to an end: PKQ-controlled Congresses –– is a "civilizational imperative."  Meaning, if America's academic "experts" on the democratic process don't start emphasizing the existential necessity of ES to their students, and to society writ large (both our washed and "unwashed" masses), then, per conventional political wisdom (CPW), the "inexorable decline" and eventual failure of our (representative) democracy (Earth's other democracies, too) will be just a matter of time.   

Equally radical concept: the "democratic" process, a.k.a. practicing democracy, and the S-G process are two distinct/separate concepts –– and functions. Expressed differently, the democratic process consists of two distinct processes: the PI process, which we know a great deal about, and the ANI process, which we know absolutely nothing about.

Next point: the centerpiece, conceptionally, of this new academic discipline, Strategic/90% ANI Cooperation, could easily become (quickly, in some cases) the dominate S-G paradigm for many, if not most (maybe even all) democratic societies –– even democracies whose young, largely ignorant-of-history voters, especially, are being lulled into autocratic rule by charismatic (non pro-democracy) leaders.  

But first, critical masses within those societies (following in the footsteps of our nation's VM, perhaps), must buy into these new S-G ideas –– more to the point, must adopt a new, uniquely 21st century S-G mindset/thought process, and must begin speaking a new S-G language: the language of effective self-governance.  

For this buy-in to happen, the Semmelweis Reflex must be "disempowered" –– an antidote must be found for it such that a respectable slice of our society goes from thinking: 

• "I can't take these new ideas/concepts –– like Effective Sortition, for example ––seriously; I wish I could, but it's never gonna happen –– this is just another naïve Utopian scheme that has zero chance of succeeding..." 

...to thinking:  

• "I'm taking ES and all these other blue-sky ideas very seriously because they're the obvious "fixes" to our failing democratic institutions.  We are still free to choose our representatives, after all; still free to vote for anyone we want –– the 'buck stops' with the voters, right? –– so I'm leaning all the way in on our political scientists, (1) announcing their intention to create this new how-to field of study, then (2) they and our civics educators immediately spending as little as an hour (informally) teaching it's basic concepts to our nation's ~70 million future (and ~155 million current) voters."  

*************

We need to remind ourselves that the "it's the voters' fault" CPW is hardwired so invincibly into the minds of today's academics (political and non-political), along with every other intelligent, informed, “rational” person, that it will be all but impossible to convince them, even via the combination of logic, common sense, and glaringly obvious existential necessity, that a new, uniquely 21st century body of actionable S-G knowledge –– technically, an applied social science: principles of Effective Self-Governance –– can and should be developed*, preferably by a large consortium of academics (and others).  

*reminder:  with a Manhattan Project sense of urgency and a "man on the Moon by decade's end" level of commitment. 

******************************************

re: America's consortium of academics

FYI: I'm pretty sure this kind of corroboration on a textbook will be a first in history –– but understandable given the existential urgency of our voters undergoing a course-of-history-changing change in their S-G mindset, or S-G thought process or mentality ––

• from a "sheeple" mentality, i.e., 100% helpless/powerless: "as an individual voter, my vote (in the NLEP) doesn't matter because nothing will change in Congress (or Washington), no matter which party ends up in control (of either chamber); if anything, things will just get worse," 

• to a "Spartan" mentality, i.e., 100% NOT helpless/powerless: "the S-G strategy of me and my fellow voters (from both parties) using ES in our NLEP will absolutely matter, and it will matter massively because everything will change in Congress (AND Washington) for the better, no matter which party ends up in control of either legislative chamber in any given election cycle."

 
That massive mindset change will be "massively" easier for our political academics and others to engineer if they introduce a number of new, highly controversial terms into our society's working vocabulary, beginning with two for describing two "qualitatively" different [in terms of their "purity of motive" (POM)] types of national legislators:  

• Highly UNDESIRABLE: PAPs (even PAPs who are sincere/well-meaning)
• Highly DESIRABLE: PKQ-caliber legislators

As well as descriptors for two qualitatively different (in terms of their desirability) national legislatures:  

• Highly UNDESIRABLE: PAP-controlled national legislature.
• Highly DESIRABLE: PKQ-controlled national legislature.

As well as descriptors for two qualitatively different (in terms of their desirability) representative democracies:  

• Highly UNDESIRABLE: Dystopic democracy, i.e., a democracy whose national legislature is permanently PAP-controlled.
• Highly DESIRABLE: Neartopic democracy, i.e., a democracy whose national legislature is permanently PKQ-controlled.

Re the "power" of words: Just the aforementioned six new terms will enable (or trigger, perhaps) our society –– including (and particularly) our best and brightest "political" minds (after their initial rejection of its feasibility) –– to begin discussing among themselves a course-of-history-changing question:   

• Do we want to continue using our NLEP merely to decide which party's (endlessly bloviating, blatantly demagogic, shamelessly truth-twisting, etc.) PAPs –– no matter how well-meaning many/most of them may be –– will control the House and Senate until the next election? Or do we want to start using it to decide if we want America to be a dystopic or neartopic democracy?

"Only those who attempt the absurd can achieve the impossible."  (various)   

Our species needs a science of effective self-governance (S-G) –– which includes a language of effective S-G –– because, without it, it will be far more difficult (conceivably even impossible) for our voters (and voters around the planet) to stop making the same horrible "S-G mistakes" election cycle after election cycle.

Case in point. We are taught that our greatest responsibility as voters is to simply vote. To (preferably) become informed on the issues most important to each of us personally, then vote for the political party or candidate(s) that/who most closely aligns with us on those issues and/or whose ideology, i.e., values, ideals, principles, etc., we favor or agree with the most. 

In 1789, or 1791, using this –– let's call it the 100% PI War S-G strategy or paradigm –– might have made sense. There were only a handful of major issues (at the federal level), and each had, in a manner of speaking, only a few moving parts to consider. 

Today, there are from one to, say, three dozen major issues depending on what issues you consider important, e.g., healthcare, education, criminal justice, immigration, domestic energy, etc. And each issue has dozens of moving parts. 

It's ludicrous to expect voters to “become informed on the issues” –– or even one major issue. 

The only thing the 100% PI War strategy/mentality has done is turn our NLEP into a battlefield in which the consistent losers every two years are our LOC and ROC voters, and the consistent winners: our two factions of (in varying degrees) self-serving, (nakedly) politically ambitious, majority status-craving “politicians,” a.k.a. PAPs, whose polar opposite, zero sum legislative agendas have, in cause/effect terms, turned a significant number of our LOC and ROC voters (and academics, news reporters, cable news channel personalities, etc.) into members of political/ideological (PI) tribes –– each with the same, singular "prime [S-G] directive:" win control of the U.S. House and Senate at all costs, no matter how, by definition, unethical (after all, all's fair in love and political war, especially if you believe your side's [policies, agenda, ideals, values, politicians, voters] are morally superior to those of the other side).

aside: Striving to help a third party get a foothold in Congress will only create a third faction of legislators who will eventually become, by definition, PAPs.  We will still be trapped in the part-Groundhog Day, part-Twilight Zone nightmare we're all in and have been in for generations (for some groups of voters, centuries).

And increasing numbers of our LOC and ROC voters will go into their NLEP every two years with the same attitude the two viscous dogs in the next graphic have.