convergence of possible discussion topics

[Michael Allan]

Bruce and Dennis, (cc Votorola, Election Methods)

About the over-complexity of the issue space in executive elections, I
wanted to share something we discovered last month.

Bruce Schuman said:
> ... dealing with this incredible simultaneity and complexity, that
> so totally overloads normal human thinking. ... Somehow, we need to
> “parse the issue space” – using methods ... that can break down huge
> complexity and simultaneity into bite-sized and regionally-focused
> chunks people can comprehend….

Dennis Boyer said:
> ... I'm wondering if [Americans Elect] might have had better results
> by utilizing some qualitative and quantitative tools that would mesh
> with their issue responses, overlay them with candidate responses,
> and produce a candidate or candidates via that type of approach?

Last month, we came up with a new design for an open executive
primary: http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Votorola/p/power_structuring

It enables the electors (i.e. voters) to form a prior consensus on a
power structure of appointments.  A power structure is still a complex
thing, of course (all the indirect appointments of a president), but
it seems to be the essential issue to be decided in the election.  It
probably ought to be discussed beforehand.  A primary like this might
offer the right supports for that kind of discussion.  Note how the
complex leaves of the primary reach out to the equally complex local
electorate in an attempt to "engage" with them, as they say.

Discussions on normative issues (gun control, say) could be moved to
separate primaries.  Those primaries would have a different structure
befitting the different form of their issues (texts rather than
offices).  Presumeably a competent executive is going to act on any
normative consensus that emerges, if it's at all possible.  (That
seems a good electoral platform, anyway.)  So norms could probably be
discussed separate of the election, even in parallel.

Technically this is called rationalization (you may know); breaking a
confused whole into separate pieces and bringing those pieces into new
and (frankly) more complex relations with each other.  But it might
not be so much the complexity that people can't handle, as the
confusion of issues that are irrationally glued together.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


Bruce Schuman said:
> Just to add a couple of thoughts to a line of thinking that might not really fit in here -- I'm wondering, Dennis, whether you might have been talking about "Americans Elect" when you mention your deep disappointment?
>  
> My own take -- was that they had a powerful website and they got a lot of participation and attention -- but their leadership had a very limited idea on what to do with that energy and motivation  They collected over 19 million responses -- but the best they could come up with as output for the entire $20 million project was 10,000 votes for Buddy Romer.
>  
> They had a really great web interface -- and I saved screen shots from my interaction with it.  So I’ll enclose one below -- very reminiscent of what we are doing here -- trying to focus on a topic or issue.
>  
> >From my point of view, Americans Elect was powerful sign that very meaningful systems can be developed.  People will show up, people will click, and the technology can handle it.  Those “19 million responses” could/should be the basis for an amazing national dialogue.  Those responses showed what “the American people” really wanted to talk about….
>  
> You say, Dennis, that considering the interdependencies tends to make your “head explode”.  I am wondering whether the “exploding heads all over the American political landscape” are at least in part responding to the same kind of conceptual overload issue that you find difficult.  The view from cognitive psychology might be: the complexity of our political situation is far too much for a normal human brain to consider – so what happens is, voters pick a few basic dimensions of issues they can comprehend, see other people picking other dimensions, and declare war on each other on that basis…
>  
> Look how hard it has been for gun-control people to persuade millions of people that “common sense gun safety” does not mean that the Feds are coming in black helicopters to take away their guns.  Politicians know that they have to keep it simple to stay in office – even if that simplicity is unrealistic.
>  
> So for me – the tremendous power of the internet – and of data-processing systems like google – should be put to work dealing with this incredible simultaneity and complexity, that so totally overloads normal human thinking.  “Dialogue” – that involves people sending each other email, or posting prose-based opinion statements – doesn’t seem to me to be a solution – and that seems clear from the huge volume of comments (maybe 5,000, impossible for anyone to read) posted about a major opinion piece on a major news site.  Somehow, we need to “parse the issue space” – using methods like the Dewey Decimal System that helps organize the 155 million items in the Library of Congress – that can break down huge complexity and simultaneity into bite-sized and regionally-focused chunks people can comprehend….
>  
> **
>  
> http://www.loc.gov/about/facts.html
>  
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd082.html
>  
> http://www.americanselect.org/
>  
> Screen shot from Americans Elect, April 9, 2012


Dennis Boyer said:
> Bruce and Bentley, Thanks for raising these possibilities for organizing and summarizing preferences on a large scale. This type of thing is not my strong suit, but I can see where it would be helpful to have a better understanding of these techniques.
> 
> John Spady responded to my questions and it seems that I need to go back and review the national dialogue proposal video. Apparently some details must also be worked out as we go and grow-- a totally understandable situation.
> 
> Yes, Bruce, I was referring to "Americans Elect". Aside from some serious gaps and oversights as organizers, they left many people I know demoralized and even more cynical. I'm wondering if they might have had better results by utilizing some qualitative and quantitative tools that would mesh with their issue responses, overlay them with candidate responses, and produce a candidate or candidates via that type of approach?
> 
> I appreciate your thoughtful responses. Dennis