Education is Not the Solution

... although it should be available to all who are interested.

Look, while I'm very happy that I got an education, and I very much value the opportunity to have a job that relies on my abilities that are based on my education and intelligence (i.e. my geekiness), I'm beginning to have my doubts about the value of our pro-geek culture.
Let me put it this way, if I was in school, and struggling with math, and everyone around me was telling me that I needed to be good at math, I'm going to look for alternatives. Right now the alternatives are looking less and less appealing all the time. Do I really want to become a fast food worker who goes to church and is forever in debt? Fast food workers are starting to unite to insist that their value to society be recognized... but other articles are very dismissive of this value, and insist that such movements may start to disrupt the system.

So, lets consider that, while education and critical thinking are valuable, they may not be best for everyone, how do we ensure that other strengths are valued in society, and people who do not excel at education or critical thinking, are allowed, and valued for, their ability to contribute to society in other ways? How do we make sure that the value we put on fast food workers, is truly reflective of their value to society when compared to the value of an executive?

While I don't have any magic bullet solutions, this is a critical topic for the left and central political movements to consider, as it has become a dividing issue between the right and the left. It is imperative for a progressive movement to make sure there is room for those who don't want to educate themselves any further, who want to belong to a community that helps them discern between right and wrong, and who are hard working, and valuable members of our society, whether or not they have a post-secondary education. The progressive left needs a coherent and simple enough rhetoric that anyone can feel comfortable that they are joining a moral group that is representing their concerns.

Following up thoughts on Distributed Politics

Distributed Politics - A Local Global System, based on the people you know.

This paper is intended to explore the idea of an alternative, internet based, electoral and political system.

Currently the governing system is made up of a number of people, who propose and debated policies in a house of representatives. These representatives are elected, and are supposed to representing the rights and wishes of their constituents. They are often affiliated with a party of people that are intended to have similar views on a variety of topics. With the increasingly complex and busy world we live in, there has been a decrease in the discussion of policy and an increase in the focus on the personal characteristics of the party leaders.

To improve the transparency of the system and increase populist engagement, it is proposed to introduce a system of Distributed Politics, which this paper aims to explore.

Voting is completed through a web-portal, which can be accessed at home, or in publicly available internet accessible spaces (i.e. libraries). A person can vote over a longer period of time on any proposed policies/projects that are applicable to their local. This includes; block, neighbourhood, city, region, province, country, continental, or global. Policies remain unimplemented until they receive a minimum number of votes (for, against, or neutral).

The number of votes required is related to the area and population affected. Typically political boundaries remain static (with a border changing only when both sides vote to change it).

A block is defined as a geographical unit with approximately 150 persons living in it. Blocks can have a population of +/- 75 people without having to change their boundaries. If the population of a block hit’s 225, then the block is split in half, creating new blocks of 112 and 113 people.

Each block will elect (majority) a block representative, who will partake in neighbourhood debates, and will vote on the neighbourhood representative (transparently). Each neighbourhood representative will participate in citywide debates, and will participate in the election of a city leader, and so on. Policy is still passed through the vote of individuals, but is debated through the representative, or, if the representative feels that an individual that they represent can better present the case for or against the policy in question, than the representative can defer their debating privileges to that individual. To pass a policy, it must be voted on by at least %5 of the population in question.

Each leader will hold “town hall” meetings on a monthly basis, both digitally and physically to present new policies, voting results, solicit comment, host debates, etc.

Each block representative will be given 1/3rd of their time, at their existing salary, to conduct the affairs of the block.

Each neighbourhood representative will be paid a salary equivalent to the mean + 25% of the income of their neighbourhood, and the position will be full-time.

Each city representative will be paid a salary equivalent to the %95 student-t distribution of their city.

Each provincial representative will be paid a salary equivalent to the top paid city representative + 5%.

Each country representative will be paid a salary equivalent to the top paid provincial representative + 5%.

etc.

No person can represent two positions, and the terms are a minimum of 1 year at the block level, or 2 years for levels representing larger populations. Elections are held annually at the block level, with the incumbent representative gaining 1.25 votes for every vote they receive.

Anyone can present a policy for review by their block representative, who will spend part of their time helping to improve the presentation of these policies, and part of their time crafting their own policies for presentation to the neighbourhood representative.

Regarding which types of policy get’s handled at which level, this is determined through discussing the effects of the policy, as well as assessing the geographical area of impact.

With regards to taxes. Taxes are determined through weighted averages, and policy driven tax rates. Each block is responsible for paying tax on their income, which is weighted by their personal income level compared to the incomes in their block. Their tax = Policy driven tax % * Personal Income + (Block Average - Personal Income)/2. Each block is responsible for paying to the neighbourhood, Block Tax = Tax Rate * Block Income + (Neighbourhood average - Block Income). Each neighbourhood is responsible for paying the Neighbourhood Tax which = Tax Rate * Neighbourhood Income + (City Average - Neighbour Income). Tax rates are directly tied to budgets, and are voted on alongside the budget. Tax rates for an individual are determined by comparing the total sum required for the various budgets to the income/asset levels of the previous year. Assets are considered taxable income if they are transferred (i.e. sold/bought, inherited). The rate that taxes are paid on asset purchases is ½ the income tax rate, but asset sales are taxed as income (i.e. the seller pays tax on the income generated by the sale as it is considered part of their income).

Annual budgets are presented at every level. An additional %50 of the annual budget shall be held in reserve against potential budget over-runs (which still have to pass policy elections, but this ensures against tax collection mid-year).

Policy is used to represent any group decision, deference of responsibility to a representative, in principle project approval, project review process, etc. And can be intensively prescriptive, or extremely limited and defer the majority of responsibility to the representative. Representatives are responsible for promoting their point of view with regards to policy, and proposing new or revisions to existing, policies.

So... now that I've got a first, rough draft, of some thoughts, I guess the next step is to see if they have any validity. Do they? Is there a similar proposed system or active system like this? 

Phase 1 of the system implementation would be to start building a web-site that would present currently proposed policies to it's constituents, and essentially try to act as a poll for a current representative, including a forum for debate, and a wiki/document space for interested parties to post their opinion/research/propoganda.

Users would need to be verified through as secure a method as possible, potentially something similar to the federal government's tax system.

Phase 2 would be to refine the above proposed system, and implement it on a city-wide scale, with the goal of eventually moving to larger and larger venues.

Random Thoughts on Electoral System Reform

So... a quick lunch hour blog.

I was reading this article and thinking that a big part of the problem is that media/advertising has left the realm of product promotion, and entered into other parts of our life, i.e. politics. That's just crazy.

The more I think of it, the more it seems like the article is hitting the nail on the head, we're busy, we don't have time to delve into the issues and make educated decisions, so we pick the pretty face, or the sound bite that grabs our attention. This is nuts. It awards the flashiest catchiest and sometimes stupid policies/politicians/platforms...

I'm an optimist though, and I think we still have the capacity to pull up before we become a global Idiocracy. I think the internet, while exacerbating our downfall, is also a tool for the future. We exist in a world where we can get access to anything, and express an opinion on it. Why aren't we using that for our politics? Why are we so attached to electing someone that is like us? Screw that, I want someone who's smarter and more educated, and who's leading a team of experts. How do I get that?

1. Voting is done via internet. Internet access is provided to everyone either directly or through public facility access (i.e. libraries)
2. Voting is done on specific policies and/or platform points (for and against), and is done over a longer period of time. With every user having to click to confirm that they've actually read the policy/platform point in question. The party/person in charge is the one who get's the most votes. Each policy/platform point provides a space for links to popular web-sites/social media for unstructured debate, and links to supporting evidence/rationale as compiled by the party. (i.e. a pro-life policy would potentially provide statistics, scientific articles, etc. supporting the policy)
3. During non-election periods, a party can pass a policy even if it doesn't have popular support (as determined through the still active system described in point 2), but they must clearly state that they are doing so. (Sometimes the masses are stupid, and it's better to have decisive leadership)
4. Funding must be transparent and limited.
5. Peer reviewed journals should be carefully considered to ensure that they're beyond the influence of concerned capital concerns.

The result of this would be that "boring" policies might get only a few votes, while others might get massive attention, resulting in a lively debate. The quality of the evidence/rationale would be a determining factor (rather than the looks or fidelity of the person supporting it). Ad campaigns supported by industry would still potentially exist, but any party/person endorsed advertisement would need to be separate (with transparent funding). No policy is boring to the people it affects, unless they don't really see the difference with or without the policy, and you should only get to vote if you actually read enough to care.