Assisted Debate

My mother is a physical therapist who specializes in gait analysis, which is a fancy way of saying, "she studies how you walk and suggests modifications to alleviate chronic pain." This is often frustrating for new patients. She gets a lot of, "I know how to walk, I've been doing it for thirty years. Just give me a massage to make the pain go away." After so many thousands of healed patients, she has the confidence, and the patience to explain why what she does works.

Debate (formal or informal) suffers from a similar problem. We as a society have been doing debate the same way for so long that it rarely occurs to us that the source of frustration is not due to "the other guy being a moron", but due to the format we use: semi-structured oral turn based blurbs. What prevents someone from simply changing the subject? From giving a flowery answer that does not in fact address the question? From answering with facts that neither party has true access to in real time? The list of problems goes on and on. And importantly: this is vehicle by which we make the worlds most important decisions.

In a few weeks I'll be coming out with software which is an attempt to improve upon this most important activity: two or more minds coming together to form understanding.

This little post is dedicated to my mom, who taught me strength when exploring new ways to help people.

You Can't A/B test in Reality

As a programmer, I get to run usability tests. So when a user comes to my website, I can offer 50% of the traffic one version and 50% of the traffic another version, and see which works better. This is called A/B testing or split testing.

Ah if only we could do this in real life. Would crime really go down if we got rid of (legal) guns in D.C.? While I believe this to be the case, ultimately we can't know unless we do. And even when we do, there are other factors - perhaps a contract for a new stadium created many new jobs, lowering crime rates. The point is, we can not perform perfect tests. So what do we do?

When discussing issues, its important to agree upon metrics. While this sounds obvious, its tricky because metrics suffer the A/B testing problem. Looking again at gun control, one person might feel looking at two different areas covering the same time span is a good metric, while another person might feel that looking at the same area over different time spans is a good metric. Amazingly, before the issue of gun control even comes up, the pre-debate about which metrics are best often turns out to be a difficult talk. The time is not wasted however, because in actuality you are learning the deep (usually unspoken) beliefs about what drives someone's final opinion.

Its not only a nickel

On Thomas Jefferson's epitaph at his home in Montecello, he listed three achievements. The three achievements were:

AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE

OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

Given these three achievements, and given what is NOT there (his presidency, his role as diplomat, his role in forming the Constitution, etc..) we can safely say that he considers these achievements with highest regard. Focusing then on the second achievement -- The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, (one of the inspirations for our First Amendment), how can we put his face on a government issued nickel and write above it: "In God We Trust"

Delegatory Representation

When our Founding Fathers created our government, they chose a republic because it offered a solution to multiple problems:

1. Acumen: It allowed citizens to entrust decisions with others who were more educated on the issues.
2. Federal Representation: It overcame the logistical problem of informing remote districts.
3. Constituent Representation: It overcame the logistical problem of remote districts informing the central government.
4. Federation Concerns: It's bicameral structure satisfied those who wanted proportional votes (with the House) and those who did not (with the Senate.)

The question is, given where we are today from the standpoints of technology, ethics, economy, stability and security, is the Republic still the best answer to all of the issues raised above? Lets take them on a case by case basis:

1. Acumen: The more time one spends studying something, the more informed they are. It is overwhelmingly probable that members of the Congress know more about the issues (bills and resolutions) than the average citizen.
2. Federal Representation: With the advent of instant communication, access to television and internet, we no longer have this problem. it is no longer the representative's job to keep her constituents informed.
3. Constituent Representation: It is certainly still true today that a representative's job is to promote her constituents wishes.
4. Federation Concerns: There are still those who desire both forms of Congress, though desire alone does not suffice. Historically, while Madison was very much for proportional representation, the smaller nations (such as Rhode Island) were being asked to give up their sovereignty, and it is understood that the Senate was required to assuage the smaller states concerns that they would be bullied by states with large populations. We will revisit this issue shortly.

To summarize, points 1 and 3 are certainly still relevant, point 2 is not, and point 4 seems to be up for debate. Lets first take a closer look at points 1 and 3, since they seem to most strongly encourage the relevance of our current system. Firstly, we have Acumen. As stated above, it is true that members of Congress will know more than the average citizen. But what of those citizens that actually study enough on their own, and wish to make their own decisions. What if their representative falls in line with the citizen's views in some ways, but not in others. For example what of financial conservatives with liberal civil rights views? And conversely what of financial liberals with conservative civil-rights views? We are capable of tremendous diversity. So what can we do? On one side we need a way to express our views as individuals (the extreme scenario being a pure democracy with no representation). On the other side we have citizens who are happy with our system and want to delegate responsibility to others, except for the occasional vote for the representative. Can we one-up our current form of republic and satisfy both sides? Yes we can. We can do it with something we might call a Delegatory Republic. Here is what comprises a Delegatory Republic:

1. Each citizen has one vote, and citizens vote directly on all legislature.
2. A citizen can delegate their vote to any other citizen.
3. When a citizen comes of voting age, their default delegations are to their representatives.
4. Both voting and delegation can be done securely online, and at voting stations, which might take the shape of kiosks in federal buildings (like the Post Office).
5. Citizens may change their delegates at any time, with no restrictions on frequency or choice.
6. A citizen can associate different representatives with different keywords. So a citizen might delegate all bills regarding women's rights to their mother, while delegating all issues surrounding agriculture to their uncle (who is of course a farmer), while finally leaving all other keywords resting with their representative. In this way, we establish default behavior that a citizen may set up (and alter) at any time with the effect that once set up, the citizen may leave their preferences alone for years knowing that each type of issue is being handled by the exact person they want.
7. By extension of point B, citizen 1 may delegate their vote (on agriculture) to citizen 2, who might in turn delegate their vote (on agriculture) to citizen 3, so that agriculture votes by citizen 1 will end up being delegated to citizen 3.
8. If you accept the responsibility of representing another citizen, then all votes you make as a representative will be made public.

Would such a system work? Would it work better than the current system? Would such a system be feasible? Lets take a look:

Would such a system work? A Delegatory Republic weaves itself seamlessly into our current structure, in that if a citizen decides to ignore it completely, their vote would by default rest with their representative, which is how our system works today.

Would it work better than the current system? Given the way a Delegatory Republic could behave just like ours, we need only look for benefits resting outside the capability of our current structure. We find them immediately. Consider a bill proposing stricter gun control. Economic liberal who are conservative with civil rights would be unhappy if their representative followed the party line and voted against the bill. The diversity of our nation is endless, with factions within factions within factions, and a Delegatory Republic would embrace this diversity.

Would Delegatory Representation be feasible. Certainly. While we are not quite in the era of electronic voting, we are getting closer every year, and even if we stick with our current form of government, the opportunity-cost of electronic voting will force us to purse the technology.

Finally, lets take a look again at the issues the Republic solved, in particular point 4: Federation Concerns. The Senate was required to satisfy the needs of the smaller states who did not want to be overshadowed by the large states in a strictly proportional vote. At the time, this concession was necessary, as we were trying to convince small states to give up their rights as a sovereign nation. But what exactly does this accomplish today? Small states get a disproportionate vote in Senate. Can we find even a single justification for this? I can not. Note however that in truth this is somewhat of an unrelated issue: Delegatory Representation would work just fine with our bicameral Congress.

There are obstacles to overcome with the implementation of a Delegatory Republic, though they are largely technological, which is the best kind of obstacle, because between technological evolution, human evolution and social evolution, technology is by far the fastest.

Issue Awareness and Mandatory Voting

State and Local issues are numerous. To stay educated on the matters is difficult. Yet in a Democracy (and in a Republic) it is informed voting that makes the machine operate at its greatest potential. What follows is a method to raise awareness of issues:

Upon every issue where citizens may vote, randomly select a small group of people that MUST vote on the issue. This sample would be determined by population. We might shoot for 1/10th population. Not only must these people vote, but there would be a series of questions about the issue, a "test", that would expose the level of knowledge of the voter. If the voter does not pass the test, they are fined.

If there are ten issues on the ballot, then it is likely that each citizen would be required to learn about at least one issue. Socially, people would begin to talk about the issues much more. And from a tax standpoint, there would be revenue from those who do not pass the test.

Our country demands very little from its citizens. We do not regularly draft young adults into the military, and we offer immense freedoms. To demand that people educate themselves and vote, if such practice leads to a better democracy, seems reasonable.

Why Kirsten Gillibrand makes me sad

1. She opted not to co-sponsor HR 1246 during her time in the House:

   To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

   
   
2. She opted not to co-sponsor HR 1820 during her time in the House:

   Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation, introduced on March 29, 2007, that would equalize tax treatment for employ-

   er-provided health coverage for domestic partners and other non-spouse, non-dependent beneficiaries. As of Oct. 3, 2008, the measure

   had 120 co-sponsors: Democrats 116; Republicans 4.

3. She opted not co-sponsor HR 2221 during her time in the House:

   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.

4. She opted not to co-sponsor HR 3326 during her time in the House:

   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit States the option to provide Medicaid coverage for low-income individuals infected with HIV

5. She scores a 100% by the NRA. She voted yes on HR 6842, offering a slew of ways to ensure someone can easily get an automatic weapon in D.C.

Here is the Source for points 1-4) above.

Note: In an interview she says something I really like regarding Civil Unions, but so far her actions speak louder than her words.

When she was in the House she represented district 20, a rather conservative district (voted for Bush twice), so the question is, as representative of this district, was she simply following her constituents orders? Now that she represents the entire state (which is more liberal), how far will she swing back to the left? The great promise of a Republic is that the people we elect to represent us are better suited, more informed and perhaps more passionate about the issues and not simply representing the plurality of their constituents. If representatives were simply extensions of the plurality, I'm not sure I'd be such a big believer in the usefulness of a Republic.

LGBT Rights and a "Find and Replace" Bill

The LGBT community is taking a circuitous route to achieving their goals. In particular, they should not be fighting for "Gay Marriage." A more direct approach would be focusing on the 1st Amendment, and arguing that the word 'marriage' be taken out of all laws, and replaced with 'civil union'. Marriage should be considered a religious concept, and left to religious institutions. This disarming move would leave conservatives without much ground. Our president would like it -- as he is not for gay marriage, but he is for gay civil unions. The ACLU and LGBT community should be pushing for a "Find and Replace" bill, not "Gay Marriage."