Home   Table of Contents   Previous Chapter   Next Chapter

Chapter 14
The Demos Would Serve as the Predominant Place to Study and Debate the Included Issues.

The demos would serve both as the means for voting on issues included in the demos and as the predominant place to study and debate the included issues. The initial screen should include a list of all of the demos issues. Some of the issues would be simple enough to allow the voter to alter his or her vote on one or more issues on this initial page. Some issues would need to be presented in a graphic form and would require that voting be done on their own pages. Each issue listed on the demos’ initial page would have a button to click which would take the voter directly to a page containing only that issue. A voter would be able to jump among the pages as desired.

The demos’ initial page would contain a list of the issues, but it should not contain any discussion of issues. Each of the individual issue pages, however, should contain further information. For example, a page on which a particular value may be increased, kept at the current amount, or decreased would state what the current value is, ask the voter to make a selection, and contain a button for each selection. Depending on what information is most relevant to a given issue, its page may contain more buttons which when selected lead to more information about the issue. Such information may include charts and graphs, historical data concerning the issue, or discuss the relationship of this issue with other issues in the demos.

Each issue’s page should also contain a brief pro and con discussion of the issue. The issue itself and its voting buttons could be displayed vertically along the left half of the screen, and the pro and con statements could be displayed on the right half of the screen. The “point-counterpoint” pro and con arrangement currently used in some states for the discussion of referendums is best. On an issue’s page, a pro argument could be followed by a con argument, each about 25 words or less and focused on the merits of their own positions. Then the pro position could make a 25 word argument specifically against the con position and the con position could make an argument against the pro position. Each of these four brief statements should be accompanied by a button. Selecting one of the buttons would lead to a page containing an elaboration of the point or points being made.

An issue’s demos page should also contain buttons leading to other forms of discussion and areas of interest related to the issue. Beneath an issue’s simple voting page a hierarchy of pages would exist, Internet style, covering virtually every aspect of the issue and every point of view. There could be relevant newsgroups, chat rooms, e-mail capability, and even links to the pages of organizations, groups, and individuals who have strong interest in the issue. Down to a certain specified level of this discussion and its hierarchy of pages no view could be expressed to which an opposing view could not be attached. But ultimately, somewhere down in the lower regions of the hierarchy, independent groups and persons should be able to link their own sites, pages, and unopposed discussions to the issue. The boundaries where the formal demos pages end and the privately designed web pages begin should be clearly indicated.

While the members of the demos electorate would only deliberate and vote on twelve issues, the discussion and debate would not be nearly so limited or restricted as it may seem at first glance. The electorate would have a significant direct voice in government.

Listing as briefly as possible the twelve issues that would be included within the demos, they include: the length of the Standard Workweek, the amount of the minimum wage, the amount we tax ourselves in support of the federal government, the distribution of that tax burden on three sources of revenue, the corporate tax scale, the income tax scale, the inheritance tax scale, the amount of national debt or savings, tax revenue allocation, and the selection of candidates for president, senators, and representatives.

The first nine issues listed are among the most fundamental and important issues of our society. Some of the most profound philosophical and practical aspects of good governance and “the good society” would be deliberated: How large should the public sector, i.e., government, be with respect to the private sector? Should there even be a private sector or a public sector? What should be the distribution of the tax burden and, therefore, the distribution of wealth in America? Perhaps we should not have a national debt but a large national savings? How much of the total collected tax revenue should go to each major area of government? Should we limit via taxation the size of corporations? How much leisure should we grant ourselves? What are the minimum requirements or essentials for something of a living in America? It can readily be seen that the electorate would not be discussing minor issues in the demos but the most essential issues which form the very foundation of our relationship with each other.

Further, as candidates ran for office within the demos and presented their views and proposals and as members of the demos entered into pro and con debate about candidates and their views and proposals, almost every major issue and aspect of our society could be examined and deliberated.

Obviously, not every member of the demos would be up to or into such profound deliberation. Many members would have sufficient interest and capability to read and support various views expressed by others but not write views of their own. Many members would seldom if ever delve into the esoteric depths of the issues but only vote using whatever wisdom they felt they already possessed. But for those who are interested and capable, the demos deliberations would be vast and richly textured.

That such depth and breadth of deliberation is possible within the demos should not cause one to think that the populace would not be capable of functioning effectively. As will be discussed later, four years of the study and practice of direct democracy would be taught at the high school level. Although their views would be indicated as those of students and their votes would not actually be tallied, students would learn by actually participating within the demos how to use the demos hardware and software and how to participate in deliberations. They would be helped to formulate and express their own political thoughts, philosophies, and opinions. Further, the method by which one votes on each of the twelve demos issues, discussed in Appendix 1, is surprisingly simple.

Within the hierarchy of pages beneath each of the twelve demos issue pages, there may be a variety of situations to which the following discussion would apply. With the enormous amount of information that would be competing for the eyes of the demos electorate and with everyone wanting their own point of view displayed on the top of the heap, there should be a formal method for structuring and ordering the various views. Not every member of the demos would have an interest in such ranking and ordering of views (or even in reading them), but among those who did have an interest the ordering of views should involve in part the voting of members, each member casting a vote for only one view for each demos issue. These views could be new views that the member writes.

If simply voting were the whole of the method used for the ordering of views, then the more popular views would become quickly and more or less permanently ordered at the top of the heap, and all other views would remain permanently buried beneath them out of sight and out of mind. But less popular views should also have their moment before the eyes of the demos members. It is by our coming in contact with new ideas that our thinking evolves.

Therefore, the method used for the ordering of views should have an additional mechanism within it, a mechanism something like this: For each demos issue, the number of votes received by each view would be expressed as a percentage of the total number of votes cast for all views. The view currently possessing the largest percentage of votes, say 23%, would not simply be displayed continuously in position one in the list of views until it finally got bumped by some other view but would occupy position one 23% of the time. Out of every twenty-four hour period, which contains 86,400 seconds, this view would occupy position one for 23% of 86,400 seconds which equals 19,872 seconds. Throughout each twenty-four hour period, a demos computer would randomly assign the 19,872 one-second intervals during which the view occupied position one in the list. Say the second most popular view received 14% of the vote. It would occupy position one in the list of views for 12,096 randomly selected one-second intervals during each twenty-four hour period. Etc. Whenever a demos member at a voting terminal visited an issue’s deliberation area, whatever view occupied position one for the current one-second interval would occupy position one in the list of views sent to the terminal.

Depending on its percentage of the total vote, each view on the list of views would occupy position one for fewer and fewer random one-second intervals. As was done with position one, every other position on the list of views would receive a mathematical treatment such that each view occupied each position for the appropriate amount of time. Views with higher percentages of votes would remain mostly but not always within the higher regions of the list. Views with lower percentages of votes would remain mostly in the lower regions, but they would also enjoy their fleeting moments at and near the top of the list.

This mathematical “round robin” method of presenting views should be used by default each time a member of the demos goes from an issue’s voting page to the issue’s deliberation area. There should be a built-in pause of, say, twenty seconds while the view currently occupying position one is displayed. This would be a very critical period for a view. However long the view may be, its writer would be wise to include a brief, effective, initial summary to be displayed during this duration. It is only by earning the interest and votes of demos members that a view could enjoy more and more time before the eyes of voters.

Obviously, a view would have to gain a number of votes before the round robin process caused it to enjoy significant amounts of time before the eyes of voters. These initial votes would have to be earned mainly outside of the round robin process by, for example, individual and group political activities outside of the demos such as word of mouth, media promotion, rallies, door-to-door campaigns, etc. Once a view has gained a significant presence within the round robin process it may gain additional votes from the round robin process itself as more and more demos members see the view.

Once the view currently occupying position one has been initially presented for twenty seconds by the default round robin process, then a demos member would be able to peruse other views in the list as slowly or quickly as desired and order the list of views by other methods such as percent of vote rank, random selection, categories, search terms, etc. The member would be able to read, write, search, tag, and vote for demos issues’ views and share them with others.

Whenever a view was displayed, its percentage of the total vote would also be displayed. Each view should also be assigned a reference number by which it could be directly located. Members of the demos could share interesting views with each other by sending the reference numbers of views to each other or including the numbers on printed flyers, in media ads, etc.

Within American society at-large money would still “talk” and, therefore, have its indirect effect on the demos. However, within the demos itself only a formal and consistent format and structure set by the demos’ officials and, within that structure, a method such as that just described should rank and organize views, discussion, and debate. No doubt large moneyed, political, and other organizations would strive to “get out the vote” for their favored views on various demos issues. The round robin scheme would allow other views to break though such efforts enough that if any among them have merit they have a sufficient chance to be seen by and gain the votes of demos members.

Only the current consensus on the twelve demos issues serves as our binding social contract which sets the parameters within which our government and nation must function. Voting on members’ pro and con views on the demos issues by those who elect to participate in demos deliberations only orders the views, making some more visible in certain lists of views than others. However, much can be learned by everyone, including those who work in the media and those in the other branches of government, about what views the American electorate truly embraces on a host of significant political, economic, and social issues.

Along with the list of demos issues, the demos’ initial page should contain a button which when clicked would lead to a hierarchy of pages containing discussion about the demos itself. The discussion that existed below this button should follow rules and procedures similar to those used to discuss individual issues in the demos.

This discussion and debate of the demos itself should include as one of its topics the content and meaning of the constitution. The demos would come into being as a result of one or more amendments to the constitution. Those amendments and all the rest of the document that forms the basis of the government of which the demos is a part would be legitimate objects of study for the demos.

During and ever since its creation, the constitution has been the subject of critical examination, discussion, and deliberation … among certain circles, usually people with legal expertise. But it has never been the subject of critical examination among us all.

At some point in the educational process most people are taught in reverent tones about the constitution, that is, what it contains and what one should think and how one should feel about it. In Washington, millions of awed tourists parade past this holy document preserved within argon gas. But the vast majority of Americans are never invited to critically examine the content of the constitution, to ask what its basic assumptions are and to question the legitimacy of those assumptions. In the entire history of the American school system, how many students have been asked to improve the constitution or to write an entirely new one? Are students made to understand that it was a privileged few who wrote the constitution, and that today only the privileged may amend it?

Sometimes it’s not what you see in the media but what you never see which is most obscene. We have seen technical discussions within the popular mass media about how the constitution, the physical document, is preserved. We have never seen in the mass media a penetrating debate concerning the possible creation of a new, better constitution.

In the hands of only the elite, the constitution and the government based upon it are merely tools for self-service. Only a constitution in the hearts, minds, and hands of all of us can be considered to be a document that truly lives for us all. The demos would serve as a place for everyone to engage in perpetual, penetrating debate and deliberation of the constitution. The constitution’s very roots and foundation, its legitimacy, and its quality and utility should always be subject to expert and popular questions. We should not merely eternally reinterpret the current constitution but actively seek ways to transcend it and move another evolutionary step as a society toward greater humanity and happiness.

Part of this area of the demos could serve as a permanent “constitutional convention.” The members of the demos could work together creating modifications to the current constitution, an entirely new constitution, or several possible constitutions. Such work could range from rapid “brainstorming” to long-discussed and deeply pondered proposals. None of the ideas brought to light here need actually be incorporated into our current constitution. But the process that takes place here would enrich our thinking on the matter of good governance and “the good society.”

A savvy member of the demos might only on rare occasions sit at a voter terminal, quickly alter a vote on one issue or another listed on the demos’ initial page, exit, and not return again for months on end. Another member wanting more information on some particular issue might go to the issue’s individual page. Being satisfied with the brief pro and con discussion on the issue’s page, he or she might alter a vote or not and exit. Yet another member, intensely interested in a given issue, might linger almost as a way of life, within the hierarchy of pages, discussions, and groups that existed beneath the issue’s page.

None of this would prevent people from discussing the demos issues outside the demos structure. But the discussion within the demos, being so very close to the actual voting, would become the principal center for the discussion of issues. Any person or group could discuss any issues anywhere at any time. Every kind of truth, half-truth, and outright lie would exist out there somewhere, on people’s lips and within every kind of mass media. And, just as today, politicians would be able to use their offices as bully pulpits. The wealthy would still be able to buy whatever advantages they can find. Others would create new power and opportunities in their organized numbers. Members of the demos would be harangued on every side.

The main thing that would be really different is that for the first time in American history “we the people”—all of the people—would have votes that really count on our nation’s most important issues. That would be powerful motivation for caring about voting once again and for caring about the discussions surrounding issues. And the demos electorate would soon enough consist of people who studied and participated in four years of politics and true democracy in high school, both in their highest ideal and at their seediest. Voters would soon enough come to understand what is really important, what is not, and what is truly in their own self-interest.

Home   Table of Contents   Previous Chapter   Next Chapter   Top of Page
 

Beyond Plutocracy - Direct Democracy for America    www.BeyondPlutocracy.com
© Copyright 2001   Roger D Rothenberger    All rights reserved.