NOTE TO READERS: For now, think of every graphic on this page as an individual section, and every section's text as a stand alone observation or thought, one not necessarily connected to those that precede or follow it.
INTRODUCTION:
Not all, but probably nearly everyone with a comprehensive knowledge of the history of democracies agrees with two thousand plus years of conventional political wisdom (CPW) which says 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, democratic societies 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...
(RADICAL) FOOD FOR (RADICAL) THOUGHT: What if democracies in the modern era, generally, but American democracy in particular, are in various stages of decline/failure/collapse for a reason that has nothing to do with their voters' cognitive and other shortcomings, but because literally every self-governing society is practicing democracy---a.k.a. engaging in the process of self-governance---incorrectly.
In which case, we have an incorrect vs. correct "theory" of self-governance (S-G) problem---in the same way, for example:
- astronomers practiced astronomy incorrectly when they ascribed to the theory (taught to them by their astronomy professors) that our Earth sat stationary at the center of our solar system,
- medical doctors practiced medicine incorrectly when they ascribed to the theory (taught to them by their medical professors) that good vs. poor health was determined by the body's four major humours being in vs. not in their "proper" balance.
Which, long story short, means the ultimate fault for American democracy's "inexorable decline" lies with our academic experts on the democratic process, i.e., our political science and civics educators.
BRIEF DISCUSSION: fairly early in our nation's history, our elected representatives at the state level assigned to our political and civics educators the responsibility of teaching our future voters what voters in free societies should do to fulfil their civic duty in their capacity as voters (layman's takeaway: a voter's two biggest "civic" responsibilities: 1) be informed on the issues, 2) get out and vote come election time).
Yet, apparently, in all this time it has never occurred to our academics to compare, or even explore, the relative efficacy of different voting strategies---derived from different theories of S-G---which voters can use most notably in their national legislative election process (NLEP). And based on either the actual outcome, or the predicted outcome, of each strategy conclude, for example, that the strategy that results in Congress permanently overflowing with two or more factions of self-serving, politically ambitious, power-craving, perks and privileges-addicted "politicians" is definitely NOT the correct S-G strategy voters should be using.
While the strategy (and theory) that results in Congress permanently overflowing with two or more factions of PKQ-Caliber legislators definitely is the correct strategy/theory---which, fyi, we might also describe as the normative strategy/theory.
In other words, in a nutshell: what if the key to democracies succeeding spectacularly has nothing to do with how intelligent the "average" voter is, or how educated and/or informed he/she is, or whether they're gullible or naive or greedy---or whether 90% of eligible voters vote vs., say, 60%, etc.---but merely requires that those societies' political/civics educators teach their future (and current) voters an easy to understand, easy to implement voting, or S-G, strategy, one that will enable them to keep their national legislatures filled with PKQ-caliber legislators?
********** < = new section
Adrian Pabst, Professor of Politics, University of Kent, suggests how a modern day democracy's "inexorable decline" might manifest itself:
- "The argument is not that democracy is becoming the same as a dictatorship, but rather that liberal democracy mutates into novel forms of illiberal authoritarianism. A new oligarchy seeks to centralize power, concentrate wealth and manipulate public opinion by using media spin, closing down debate, and ironing out plurality."
TWO LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAYS:
ONE: Professor Pabst is describing not only American democracy's current situation, but that of the last few Administrations as well. Meaning illiberal authoritarianism comes in two forms: liberal/left-of-center and conservative/right-of-center.
TWO: Even if America doesn't collapse into a full blown, Putin-style autocracy in the near- or mid-term, there is no best case scenario for the "illiberal authoritarianism" American democracy has already started mutating into. Our nation's myriad of major economic, financial, fiscal and (poverty related) societal (EFFS) problems are going to continue getting worse, much worse in many cases (see next section). Meaning, among a long laundry list of problematic issues confronting our nation:
- The joyless ordeal that passes for daily life for an increasing number of Americans will only get more joyless, their ordeal more debilitating.
- The civilizing values and attitudes that keep civilizations civil--- i.e., honesty, courtesy, charity, altruism, duty, respect for the free speech rights of others, respect for the rule of law, respect for the outcomes of elections, etc., etc.---will continue to "wither on the vine."
**********
LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAY: The seemingly unstoppable force pushing American democracy toward "eventual failure" is the mountain of major economic, financial, fiscal and (poverty related) societal (EFFS) problems America is buried under. That mountain is only going to grow larger––and at an accelerating pace––if:
- millions of low skill Americans---combined with millions of low skill [take your pick: undocumented immigrants, illegal aliens] living in America---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.,
- the proportion of our population who rely heavily on America's already strained entitlement programs, i.e., our very old, very sick, very disabled and very poor, grows significantly relative to the segment of our population whose tax dollars are keeping those programs afloat.
- 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 service our national debt ($36.67 trillion as of 4-12-25). If the debt grows faster than America's GDP –– long story short: we're screwed. America's "debt spiral" will reach the point of irreversibility, which means our financial/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.
- The America people AND American democracy are both 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.
"If you want something you've never had, you must be willing to do something you've never done." (various)
So, what must our ~160 million left- and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters do to "save" their republic from the fate that CPW says awaits us? (And in the process provide a self-governance template for our planet's other democracies, maybe even a few autocracies, as well.)
Answer: a critical mass of our voters "must be willing to do something" no free society's voters have ever done.
A new body of S-G-based knowledge must be developed that results in our LOC and ROC voters becoming acutely aware of their myriad of shared ANI objectives---e.g., PKQ-controlled Congresses---then acting upon the means by which our two factions of voters can use their "power of the ballot box" to easily achieve those ANI objectives.
NOTE: Chances are you're here because you were notified via email (or the email was forwarded to you), because you either are, or one day might be, a member of our nation's intelligentsia, i.e., (from Wikipedia) "a status class composed of the university-educated people of a society who engage in the complex mental labours by which they critique, shape, and lead in the politics, policies, and culture of their society; as such, the intelligentsia consists of scholars, academics, teachers, journalists, and literary writers." [boldface and underline added]
(aside: to this list we should also add (erudite) political/public policy podcasters and sociopolitical influencers in media and elsewhere.)
Which means you should (in theory) find the new S-G terms, concepts, solutions, etc. on this page –– along with their myriad "spectacular" implications –– of particular interest.
However, no matter how you got here –– or what your current, future or former station in life may be –– if you care about America, about American democracy, about its people, about their ability to remain a free, prosperous society; about the future of freedom as an inalienable human right across our planet –– your:
- academic responsibility AND "civilizational duty" if you are a scholar or educator,
- civic responsibility AND civilizational duty if you are a voter or student,
- civic responsibility AND civilizational duty AND sheer self-interest if you are a billionaire,
...is to explore this page's wealth of new terms, concepts, Layman's Takeaways, etc.
Then DETERMINE in your own mind if:
- 0% of it has academic or other merit, but just might give rise down the road to a new line of investigation or exploration for political philosophers, political economists, public policy thinkers/developers, good government advocates, etc. that WILL be of eventual "democracy-saving/civilization-enhancing" value,
- Or 1% of it has academic worth and WILL give rise....
- Or 10%....
- Or 50%....
- Or >50%...
Then DISSEMINATE anything you consider worthwhile, or potentially worthwhile, as far and as wide as you can –– a.s.a.p.
and/or...
Become a financial supporter/benefactor. If you want to sit on the sidelines, not play an active role in the dissemination process -- perhaps because you would rather take a wait and see approach, or you're concerned about potential repercussions, ridicule, etc. from your inside-the-box thinking peers, pro-status quo [businesses, industries, social media influencers, etc.] -- but deep down you really want to see this effort succeed spectacularly; i.e., you want to see our society (and species) take the logical next evolutionary step in the way a free people govern themselves, you can help this webpage achieve its "civic mission."
That mission: make, largely via a national awareness/education effort, everyone in America old enough to have a "political" view:
- "fluent" in the language of Effective S-G –– because when enough of our society can speak a "normative" S-G language, but more importantly start thinking in Effective S-G terms, a critical mass will begin practicing it,
- a believer in the power, and promise, of the holy grail of effective S-G: Effective Sortition (ES), a quasi-random variant of Sortition.
(From Wikipedia): In governance, sortition is the selection of public officials or jurors using a random representative sample. This minimizes factionalism, since those selected to serve can prioritize deliberating on the policy decisions in front of them instead of campaigning. In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the traditional and primary method for appointing political officials, and its use was regarded as a principal characteristic of democracy. [boldface added]
re Effective Sortition
The following is one way 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, ten groups of LOC voters, and ten groups of ROC voters (with, e.g., 6-12 voters 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) from, let's say, ten distinct regions across each of America's 435 U.S. House districts and ~33 States. (For now, let's call these voters: Talented Xers.) (fyi: each congressional district has ~700,000 people.)
2. Each group will first identify, using a combination of social media and standard recruiting methods, then recruit/draft several extraordinarily capable LOC and ROC candidates from their own distinct region of the district who have high POM (purity of motive) ratings –– think: Philosopher King/Queen (PKQ)-caliber, i.e., highly capable candidates who do not have (relatively speaking) self-serving, politically ambitious or power hungry bones in their bodies –– AND of equal importance, understand up front that, if elected, 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 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: an extraordinarily capable, PKQ-caliber candidate is 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.
REASONABLE GUESSTIMATE: America easily has one million-plus PKQ-caliber citizens, which works out to ~0.3% of our population---and probably as many as ten million (= 3% of our population). FYI: at 0.3%, that's a recruitment pool of ~2,300 PKQ-caliber candidates in each 700,000+ person congressional district.
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 if my side's candidate is, by definition, a PAP, i.e., politically ambitious politician, (and therefore also, by definition, self-serving)?"
KEY ACRONYM:
PAP: Politically Ambitious Politician
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 overwhelmingly popular with the VM of our LOC and ROC voters, i.e., our ~140 million go-along-to-get-alongers –– who agree:
- with Conventional Political Wisdom's (CPW's) dire prognosis, i.e., moving forward, the "end is nigh[ish]" for American democracy (and Earth's other democracies).
- that the only way they can escape the hellish, part-Groundhog Day, part-Twilight Zone (S-G) nightmare they are trapped in is by "doing something they've never done," i.e., adapting/evolving.
FYI: We are likely to find that, within America's ~140 million go-along-to-get-alongers there will be a number of discrete groups –– we could call them, "mini-Vast Mainstreamers" –– who will be strongly pro-ES –– although, not necessarily at first, and certainly not publicly (unless they're extraordinarily brave).
For example, a VM of:
- billionaires,
- the top 2% of our income earners,
- state legislators, mayors, governors,
- school boards, parents, grandparents,
- college students, post grads,
- PhDs, MBAs,...,
- professional athletes,
- tech geeks, sci fi geeks,...,
- entrepreneurs,
- Hollywood: directors, producers, actors,...
- professional musicians (amateurs, too),
- etc.
- etc.
These mini-groups of VMers will strongly support America's VM LOC and ROC voters transitioning from PAP- to PKQ-controlled Congresses –– because, presumably, even an [Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.], or a state legislator or governor, or an A-list actor, or Wall Street billionaire, or etc., etc. would much rather that America be governed by PKQ-controlled Congresses than accept where our two permanently warring factions of PAPs in both chambers of Congress –– in their never-ending, all-consuming struggle for power (much of it purely for power's sake) –– are almost certainly going to lead our nation:
- directly to a Putin-style pseudo-democratic left- or right-wing autocracy whose "leader" can, on a whim –– with the backing of his/her sycophantic, (and cowardly?) PAP-controlled national legislature (and the "thunderous" silence of his/her national political media) –– take your assets, destroy your name/your career; imprison you, even kill you... because that's what people with unchecked power end up doing to maintain their grip on, or grow, their power (while their complicit sycophants in and out of government stand passively, silently by).
FINAL TAKEAWAY re EFFECTIVE SORTITION (ES):
- ES is the only way America's LOC and ROC voters can transition from U.S. Congresses permanently controlled by PAPs to permanently controlled by PKQ-caliber legislators.
- PKQ-controlled Congresses are the only way to avoid the Orwellian future that CPW says awaits our nation.
REASONABLE FIRST REACTION to the idea of 535 non-politicians "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 at a later time.
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, 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 freshman (albeit extraordinarily capable) legislators.
"The best way to predict the future is to create it." (various)
What our society’s intelligentsia must do is help introduce a small lexicon of new, “normative-based” S-G terms into the American people’s working vocabulary. Terms that, by their very nature, will both provide the conceptional roadmap AND be the driving force propelling the transition of America from a dystopic democracy, i.e., a democracy whose national legislature stays permanently controlled by PAPs, to a neartopic democracy, i.e., a democracy whose national legislature stays permanently controlled by a steady supply of PKQ-caliber legislators.
Remember: "Change your language and you change your thoughts." Change your thoughts and you change your decision making calculus.
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a first step."
The task for our society's thinkers and problem solvers -- in their (new S-G knowledge) journey of a thousand miles -- is to turn a radically new self-governance idea, one that nearly everyone will initially dismiss as S-G quackery, into the obvious S-G "fix" to our voters' broken Congress problem, deeply divided society problem, crumbling democratic institutions problem, not to mention our nation's long laundry list of major economic, financial, fiscal, and (poverty related) societal (EFFS) problems.
This new body of S-G knowledge will finally provide the knowledge tools our voters must have if they are to have a realistic chance of taking the logical next evolutionary step in the way free societies govern themselves.
Hard though it may be to imagine, our nation's voters, including even our intelligentsia -- particularly our political academics -- don't have the slightest idea of what it means for our ~160 million left-and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters to govern themselves "effectively" -- most notably when it comes to the way our voters ARE using vs. SHOULD use their national legislative election process (NLEP).
That's all but entirely because, while most of us have a sense of what it means to be an "informed" voter or a responsible voter, the myriad of concepts associated with a free society's voters governing themselves effectively doesn't yet exist -- other than (presumably) on this webpage. So important, democracy-saving concepts like, for example, normative S-G strategies voters can use in their NLEP to achieve their shared ANI objectives, are not yet .part of our society's self-governance (S-G) zeitgeist. The requisite S-G terms are not in our S-G lexicon; the indispensable S-G strategies are not yet in our voters' S-G toolbox (in fact, voters don't even know they have an S-G toolbox).
In a very real sense, our 21st century voters are practicing democracy the way doctors practiced medicine in the Middle Ages, i.e., primitively/horribly incorrectly, before French chemist, Louis Pasteur, introduced the mid-19th century medical community to his radical concepts (which, fyi, now constitute modern medicine's Germ Theory).
**********
aside to today's establishments in political science and elsewhere: Pasteur's concepts were initially considered medical quackery by physicians, medical schools et al. because his Germ Theory, if true, would force the medical establishment to toss 2,000+ years of deeply ingrained medical orthodoxy -- one based on the Four Humours Theory of Medicine -- out the window. So, just as entrenched establishments throughout history have been prone to do, the medical establishment derisively dismissed Pasteur's Germ Theory as nonsensical, and essentially "cancelled" him as a crackpot, a snake oil salesman.
aside: there's even a term for this reaction (from Wikipedia) The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs, or paradigms.
One teachable takeaway of this short history lesson is that it is our woeful ignorance/primitive understanding re the concept of effective S-G that best explains (among many things) why our Congress is "broken" (and no one knows how to "fix" it); why so much of our society is deeply divided along political, racial, educational, income, cultural, regional and generational lines (and no one knows how to "effectively" bridge those divides); why the spirit of Classical Liberalism is slowing ebbing from America's soul (and no one knows how to stop the process, much less reverse it).
Our ignorance of effective S-G concepts, particularly that of an effective S-G strategy, most definitely explains the following graphic:
In cause/effect terms, 21st century America's ~160 million left-and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters are permanently trapped in a part-Groundhog Day, part-Twilight Zone S-G nightmare solely because of political science's unexamined assumption that there is only one way for America's LOC and ROC voters to "practice democracy" -- i.e., engage in the process of self-governance -- in their National Legislative Election Process (NLEP): wage 100% Political/Ideological (PI) War against each other every two years to determine which side's PI warrior-politicians will control Congress for the next two years.
Why must our voters wage a PI war? Because the whole point of legislative elections in a free society (local, state, but especially federal) is to enable voters to choose from among competing sets of policies---e.g., the Democratic Party's liberal/progressive policies vs. the Republican party's conservative/libertarian policies---which set of policies the majority wants their elected representatives to pursue/implement.
QUESTION: have our academic experts on the democratic process NOT been teaching their students how to govern themselves intelligently, i.e., using an intelligent S-G strategy, because our:
- students aren't intelligent enough to learn how to govern themselves intelligently, i.e., using a normative S-G strategy, minimally in their NLEP,
- political educators aren't intelligent enough to teach their students how, or
- educators are more than intelligent enough, it simply never occurred to them to develop a normative S-G strategy voters could use, most notably in their NLEP.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: assuming #3 is the correct answer, is it possible that our political academics have been so caught up in their (centuries-old) political/ideological (PI) "urinating contest," that they've never made the effort to think/explore/venture outside the "PI War" box?
Political Science’s unexamined assumption re America’s NLEP.
The unexamined assumption:
Inasmuch as most elections are, in effect, bloodless battles between factions of voters, America’s NLEP can be thought of as a battleground. And on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every even year, her LOC and ROC voters wage, in polling stations around the country, 100% Political/Ideological (PI) War against each other to determine which side's PI warrior-politicians will control Congress for the next two years.
re that unexamined assumption's collateral damaged.
In cause/effect terms, America is buried under a mountain of major EFFS problems because her political science community allowed their perfectly legitimate, centuries-old, academic debate: which governing philosophy creates/leads to the greatest good for the greatest number of people? to devolve into a largely vacuous, attention misdirecting, (all-consuming for many) intellectual urinating contest.
That urinating contest also goes a long way toward explaining why so many of today’s political thought leaders and influencers are the intellectual equivalent of mindless zombie-warriors.
What our political scientists and political philosophers SHOULD have done was stop urinating (figuratively speaking) long enough to jointly develop a uniquely 21st century, “normative” S-G strategy that our LOC and ROC voters could use in their NLEP (fyi: it wouldn't have taken very long to come up with a strategy).
One that would have enabled critical masses within both factions of voters to easily transition to PKQ-controlled Congresses.
LAYMAN'S OBSERVATION: It is impossible to overstate the cumulative EFFS damage, not to mention the "civilizational" cost, of our political academics NOT pausing their urinating contest long enough to jointly develop a uniquely 21st century, “normative” S-G strategy.
Had our academics developed, and our voters started using, that strategy in, say, as little as a few election cycles back, our nation's ultimate (national) role models would now be 535 selfless, non-demagoguing, non-finger pointing, "problem solving-focused," etc., Olympic-caliber national legislators, i.e., near perfect national---and international---role models.
And while it may not be immediately clear why---as a society, we would now be much more thoughtful... conscientious... respectful... principled... cooperative... goal oriented... apolitical... non-ideological... resilient... resourceful... self-reliant... stoic... courteous... forgiving... peaceful... slow to anger... unbiased... non-judgmental... non-discriminatory... generous... civil... altruistic... civic-minded... community focused... etc... etc... etc., because that's how powerful "good power" emanating from outstanding, national-level role models is.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: On the flip side, this suggests how much societal harm (and civilizational 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.
REASONABLE LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAY #1: There exists a small but critical mass within the vast mainstream (VM) of America's left- and right-of-center (LOC/ROC) voters –– we could think of them as America's Talented Xers.
What that critical mass is, size-wise, is an unknown. But it could range from a talented:
- "tenth" of VM voters (to borrow from a term popularized over a century ago by black scholar, W.E.B. Du Bois) (= 15,500,000 voters), or
- twentieth of VM voters (= 7,750,000 voters, or
- thirtieth (= 5,200,000 voters), or
- fiftieth (= 3,100,00 voters). or
- hundredth (= 1,550,000 voters), or
- thousandth (= 155,000 voters),
TAKEAWAY #2: even a small percentage of our VM of voters is a very large number of people who are:
- easily capable of grasping the existential imperative of them "updating" their NLEP in order for them to:
- start keeping both chambers of Congress "continuously replenished" with highly capable, PKQ-caliber (mostly) liberal Democratic and conservative Republican legislators.
There ALSO exists a massively large number of VM LOC and ROC voters who aren't Talented Xers, technically, but would enthusiastically, even ecstatically, support their respective group's Talented Xers identifying and recruiting the required pool of PKQ-caliber candidates in advance of the NLEP –– from which our LOC and ROC VMers would field in their respective House and Senate primaries, thus insuring that, regardless of which candidate was elected in the general election, he/she would be PKQ-caliber.
Therefore, the sooner our electorate transitions to using ES to elect their 535 members of Congress, the sooner we will see PKQ-controlled national legislatures:
- turning our nation's EFFS mountain into a molehill,
- becoming near-perfect role models for our children (our adults, too),
- mending our divided society,
- restoring the spirit of Classical Liberalism to our nation's soul,
- etc., etc., etc.
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 use), 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" the election, i.e., casts the most votes.
Result (worst case scenario):
- A non-violent battle is fought, so no blood is spilled. But,
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- "Beating" the other tribe at every opportunity, a.k.a. "one-upmanship," becomes the centerpiece of the students' daily lives, their raison d'etre.
Moral of the story: Even bloodless/non-violent "battles," can lead to the creation of tribes who exist in a permanent state of ever increasing, hostile aggrievement.
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 strategy of Strategic Cooperation, i.e., working together (as allies) to achieve (often times, highly desirable) shared objectives.
One instructive point/takeaway: Strategic Cooperation, i.e., effective sortition, will produce PKQ-controlled Congresses that will be able to easily do things that are impossible for PAP-controlled Congresses to do, e.g., perform legislative miracles.
Meaning, legislative solutions to most of America's EFFS problems will start being CO-JOINTLY CRAFTED with LEGISLATION that: (1) is neither distinctly "liberal" nor "conservative," but a synergistic mosaic of both, (2) will have essentially the same legislative language and provisions regardless of which party controls either or both legislative chambers, (3) will 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:
- In most cases, the legislation will solve the problems (relatively) quickly, completely and permanently –– even the seemingly intractable ones.
- As our mountain of EFFS problems begin to get solved, our federal government will stop running deficits every year, and start producing surpluses –– sometimes sizable surpluses.
STATING THE OBVIOUS: there will still be a relatively small number of mostly cultural issues---notably abortion and transgender "rights"---that will be passionately fought over by a relatively small number within society who will not, or cannot, reach compromise.
But when PKQ-caliber legislators control both political factions in Congress, they---along with the VM of our LOC and ROC voters AND the VM of society writ large---will become intensely interested in questions like, e. g., what array of legislative policies will result in almost no one in America:
- becoming pregnant unless they want to?
- becoming a rapist?
- molesting young girls (and boys)?
- making bad/irresponsible decisions in the height of passion, i.e., having "unprotected" sex?
First step: teach our society -- and our AI chatbots -- a normative S-G language AND strategy.
The following question was recently posed to an AI chatbot:
If America's voters wanted to start keeping Congress filled with philosopher king and queen caliber legislators, could they? And if they could, how would they adapt their national legislative election process to accomplish this shared self-governance objective?
The chatbot's answer was impressive. But because it only had access to our current non-normative S-G language, its answer was based on the unwritten (and unexamined) 100% Political/Ideological (PI) War theory of self-governance.
Meaning, the bot's answer missed the mark entirely.
Here's the bot's answer:
An intriguing question! While the concept of philosopher-kings and -queens originates from Plato's Republic—where rulers are envisioned as wise, virtuous, and exceptionally well-educated—transitioning America's Congress into such a governing body would be a formidable challenge. However, it's theoretically possible, provided the electorate made deliberate changes to both cultural and procedural aspects of elections.
Here's a roadmap of what this might look like:
1. Shift in Cultural Priorities
- Voter Education: The electorate would need to place a premium on philosophical depth, wisdom, and ethical decision-making over partisanship or popularity. Education systems could emphasize philosophy, ethics, civics, and critical thinking to cultivate voters capable of recognizing "philosopher-king" qualities in candidates.
- Public Discourse: Media and public dialogue could evolve to reward candidates who demonstrate intellectual rigor, humility, and a commitment to the public good rather than sensationalism or showmanship.
2. Reformed Electoral Systems
To institutionalize the election of such exceptional legislators, voters could consider these procedural changes:
- Merit-Based Candidate Selection: Introduce pre-election qualifying benchmarks for candidates, such as:
- An advanced understanding of political theory, law, ethics, and public policy (evaluated via exams or certifications).
- Demonstrable achievements in areas requiring intellectual and moral leadership.
- Non-Partisan Primary System: Reform primaries to be less influenced by political parties and more focused on candidates' competencies and platforms.
- Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV): Implement RCV nationwide, encouraging voters to evaluate candidates more holistically rather than making binary choices.
3. Encourage Independent Thinkers
- Term Limits & Diversification: While term limits could prevent entrenched power, fostering diversity in backgrounds and professions might ensure a broader range of perspectives while retaining intellectual rigor.
- Debate & Dialogue Standards: Mandate debates on complex philosophical and ethical topics during campaigns, which would reveal candidates' capacity to think critically under pressure.
4. Transparent Oversight
- An independent body could oversee candidate qualification processes to avoid partisanship or elitism becoming barriers to fair representation.
This vision, of course, raises practical and philosophical questions about feasibility and inclusiveness. For instance, how would one balance expertise with accessibility, ensuring that philosopher-legislators still represent diverse lived experiences and the will of the people? [underline added]
**********
Two notable takeaways from that AI bot's impressive answer:
- The extensive process by which our voters go from where they now are, i.e., electing PAPs to Congress, to electing PKQ-caliber (mostly) Ds and Rs, requires voters undergoing a massive change in their attitudes and voting behavior which approaches a level of cognitive/political sophistication comparable to that of the PKQ-caliber legislators they seek to start electing.
- Had the AI bot drawn upon the details associated with a radically new concept: normative S-G strategies, there would have been an OR attached to the end of its answer: Or forgo all of the above steps and simply show voters how to use a normative S-G strategy to elect their 535 members of Congress.
ODDS & ENDS
It is almost impossible to overstate the amount of economic, financial, fiscal and (poverty related) societal (EFFS) damage done to our nation and society by generations of legislation crafted and enacted into law by U.S. Congresses dominated and controlled by, by definition, self-serving, politically ambitious "politicians" (PAPs).
Equally damaging are the two polar opposite political/ideological (PI) myths propagated by both parties' PAPs in Congress---which are treated as incontrovertible facts by large segments of our population.
LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAY: the easiest, fastest way for our society to see those two myths for what they are is by learning to speak the language of Effective S-G/ANI Cooperation.
...
The stakes couldn't be higher for the American people AND (if the CPW is to be believed) for the future of freedom on our planet.
So, as "absurd" as it may sound, we must transition from being a:
- reading, writing, arithmetic-focused representative democracy
...to a
- reading, writing, arithmetic, effective self-governance-focused representative democracy.
**********
DISCUSSION:
Try to imagine an America where obtaining a license to practice medicine merely requires:
- taking a guided tour of a major hospital’s facilities, i.e., it’s laboratories, operating rooms, examination rooms, treatment rooms, etc.,
- memorizing: a.) the body’s major organs, bones, muscle groups, etc. and their function, and b.) the hundreds of major illnesses and diseases humans fall prey to, and their symptoms.
And that’s it.
Suffice to say, that America would be teeming with incompetent medical doctors.
Now try to imagine an America where obtaining licenses to practice in every other field also did not require a near-encyclopedic mastery of knowledge specific to the field that was acquired over years of study.
That’s what America’s civics curriculum is like. It produces students who, upon graduation into the real world, don’t have the slightest idea of how to practice democracy effectively, or competently---or dare we say: correctly.
After 12+ years of education, our educators are turning out naïve “sheeple voters” who have a primitive/unsophisticated view of the democratic process, when what they should be turning out are decidedly non-naive, sophisticated, S-G savvy "Spartan voters."
...
...