Introduction
This new proposal initiates the steps which will provide an equal opportunity for all citizens to become representatives within government.
Problem Statement
There are many problems within our current election system. The most significant problem is lack of transparency. Without transparency available information is limited, and the ability to make informed decisions is not facilitated. Lack of transparency is a problem that exists throughout every governing system we have, and we should always seek to promote a level of transparency necessary to make an informed decision. As technology is able to provide more opportunity for transparency, we must adopt that technology in an efficient manner. I will specifically address election reform. A candidate who represents within the government can easily speak lies about themselves and their opponents. They will uphold a value in election time and act differently afterward. I have a proposal that will minimize deception and promote opportunity for increased understanding. Through transparency, we can better understand the reasoning of the representatives to say one thing and do another. My proposal will help provide valuable information to the voters.
Unnecessary expenses are a large problem throughout our governing systems as well. I will speak about significant changes to address problems within the election system, but I will address these problems in a way that is significantly less expensive and more efficient than our current processes. By altering the funding processes and providing transparency, campaign contributors will not be needed. And by reducing the monetary influences of the candidate along with increasing transparency, candidates are more likely to serve the voter instead of the campaign contributor. Representation of the electorate is a necessary component of a democratic republic. And true representation is only achieved when the candidates are equally committed to each individual they represent.
The two-party system is limiting in its ability to address problems. Instead of solving problems, the two parties often play games of competition. There are no two people who are exactly the same. There should be no label by which we stereotype an individual. People may agree upon issues. But there will always be an issue which two people disagree upon. Stereotypes should be avoided while specific issues are addressed. The funding changes I suggest will promote this revolutionary evolution away from illogical ideology toward individual responsibility.
Responsibility is needed from the candidates, the voters, and the government. I will suggest processes that promote responsibility within all of these areas. We cannot force people to be responsible, but we can encourage it. We encourage responsibility by addressing the problems which I have mentioned.
Current Options
We have historically held barriers for allowing people to vote. We maintained literacy tests and poll taxes that prevented some people from voting. The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for preventing less educated people from voting because such a law targeted people of a specific "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". This act removed a significant voting barrier for the citizens of the United States. We should not have removed all voting barriers. The voting barriers were created to encourage responsibility. The inaccessibility of education to people of a particular "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" has been altered and we can now implement a fair barrier that deters complete irresponsibility.
Along with a system without barriers for the ignorant, we have also maintained a system of elections by which individuals represent a group of people, referred to as a party. A party presents a representative who is then a candidate for a position of responsibility. Unlike the 15th amendment which attempts to assure the voter’s rights, there is no symmetric legislation that assures a citizen equal ability to obtain a position of responsibility. The two-party system has traditionally limited the ability of an individual to obtain a position of responsibility unless that individual rises within one of the two parties. This candidate filtering process prevents fair representation when compared to my proposals. Voters are manipulated into one of the two ideologies although no two people have an identical ideology. Because geographical regions consist of different ideologies and the smaller regions of government are undermined by larger regions of government, the representatives of the larger regions represent a large number of different people and change within that large region is deterred. As we increase the power of smaller populations, like-minded people will congregate and implement changes that represent personal ideology. In order to reduce the power of larger governments and increase the power of the citizen no matter their ideology, we must implement a non-corruptible election system where ideology is ignored while individual characteristics are highlighted. The current system will continue to bring corruptible representatives into power while nobody is represented except the wealthy elite who maintain the current election system. It is the election system that prevents us from gaining representation because only the extrinsically motivated candidates rise to power.
The candidate is forced to become extrinsically motivated. The two parties are funded by wealthy individuals, companies, and the average voter. Because the amount of campaign contributions has had a historically verifiable influence on the outcome of an election, candidates are more easily influenced by the wealthiest contributors. When viewed in light of the campaign system, we can immediately see the possibility that our democratic republic is being undermined by the powers of wealthy campaign contributors. The United States Government is not representing the population. Our system encourages corruption by allowing the possibility of wealthy minorities to influence decisions that are often at the expense of the average taxpayer. As we elect intrinsically motivated candidates enabled by logical election reform, the power of the national government will be reduced to its proper level so that the citizens are free to make decisions that effect them locally.
Even if you do not see the truth which I share, consider this: because the two-party system is a filtering agent for potential candidates and wealthy individuals influence the outcome of an election, we can reasonably calculate the possibility that these wealthy individuals are able to provide candidates that do not actually represent the citizen. It is an unhealthy possibility. Combine this calculation with the fact that candidates say one thing and act differently, and we can conclude that there is a high probability of manipulation at the citizen's expense. We have moved away from the principle of representation toward opportunity for an oligarchy of the wealthiest individuals. Many of the wealthy individuals do not have an allegiance to the American Citizen. Like most citizens, the wealthy are more concerned about their self. By changing the election system and electing candidates that empower the electorate, the wealthy can only influence areas of which they are represented. American citizens have been fooled into pushing their ideology nationally. Only by implementing your ideology along with like-minded people locally, can we obtain maximum freedom and representation. It is unrealistic to expect a large group of people to agree upon an ideology. It is more realistic that a small group of people will agree upon an ideology. The only ideology which we can share is that we deserve equal opportunity. Our current election system does not provide equal opportunity. Abraham Lincoln's actions assured that people of similar wealth have equal opportunity no matter their skin color. Within America, opportunity is dictated by your possession of wealth. We must begin to reduce the unequal ability of the wealthy to influence the outcome of elections. This is the first step toward equal opportunity.
Many voters are unaware of the platform and ideas which their candidate presents. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the candidates are usually liars and the information available may not be true. Or maybe the voting population is merely participating in the two-party game, attempting to win seats for their side. I even suspect that some people simply vote on the candidate who appears to be more intelligent based upon their own individual stereotypes. Whatever the reason, a reasonable barrier is necessary to encourage responsibility among voters while deterring complete irresponsibility.
The number of individuals who register and vote has historically been less than 65% of the eligible population. I suspect that the potential voters feel in their hearts that our current system does not provide the opportunity for true representation. Perhaps their feeling or reasoning is derived from the inertia behind the stereotypical two-party system that usually produces a manipulative candidate. Or maybe these people who don't vote are disheartened by the ability of irresponsible voters to place an unqualified individual into a position of responsibility. My proposal deters absolute irresponsibility and promotes responsibility, but it does not force the individual to decide to act responsibly. Equal representation is not currently facilitated, and the average American feels this in their heart. With my knowledge, the average American will understand the processes by which we promote equal representation.
My Solutions
The electorate need information that allows us to become responsible citizens. We need the ability to identify the character of the candidates which we will elect to represent us within positions of responsibility. And in order to do this, potential candidates must submit to rigorous lie detection systems. We need access to election results so that citizens can implement technologies that facilitate the ability of citizens to verify the results. This increases efficiency and reliability of the verification processes associated with voting. We move from government provided systems to citizen provided systems by implementing transparency of information in a way that enables the citizens to volunteer their time. Our goal should be that response systems are implemented by the citizens instead of the government. The citizens are the government.
Candidates must participate in government provided processes that attempt to promote truth through the lie detection systems. The surveillance at these government provided sessions are made available to the public in an intelligent manner so that anyone may highlight portions of the surveillance that seem informative. In this way, we can view the relevant data to determine if the candidate is probably speaking truth. As lie detection systems evolve, we adopt this technology to decrease the possibility of deception, and we increase efficiency to reduce costs. The best technology is provided for the most important positions. The most important positions will become the local officials as we increase representation. The need for a president is unnecessary. The position will become an honorary role deserving of no extrinsic award.
At the monitored government sessions, candidates create their platforms while connected to lie detection systems. These platforms are made available to the voters. As a candidate learns more and changes opinions corresponding with their renewed understandings, they should remake a platform in a similar fashion. Question and answer sessions are performed by the candidate a minimum of one hour per day unless questions are not available. Question and answer sessions are performed while the individual is connected to lie detection systems. Voters are free to ask each candidate one question and the voter decides when the answer is suitable. This will encourage a dialog between the voter and candidate so that truthful answers are obtained. The candidate must devote at least five minutes per question per session unless the voter is satisfied with the answer to their question, potentially answering 60 questions or more per session. If the dialog between a candidate and a voter is not closed by election time, the voters can use the available information to make a decision: perhaps concluding that the candidate avoided the question, or concluding that either the citizen or candidate lack an ability to communicate effectively. Technology helps to pick randomly from the available questions.
As elections approach, the voter is given all of the resources necessary to complete a test that assures that the voter has read enough information to make an informed decision if they have desired understanding. The time period to research the information should be suitable so that an individual voter need only spend a minimum of one hour per day for a total of 10 hours per candidate per election. The voter could complete the test by copying if they do not seek true understanding. Voters that do not answer 90% of the questions correctly will not have their vote counted. There is no way to cheat on such an exam because help is allowed and encouraged when a voter takes the test. The answers are provided to the voter. We only desire that the voter has reviewed the question and the answer to that question. It is up to the voter to choose whether or not they wish to gain true understanding or simply vote without understanding. Election results are made available using transparency systems so that citizen provided response systems may act informatively.
There is no discrimination with such a process. Illiterate people can make use of systems that use speech. If the individual has no means of understanding communication, that individual is unable to make an informed vote. By providing each voter the resources necessary to pass the test, we can avoid violating the 15th amendment. Such a voting process will encourage voter responsibility without violating their equal opportunity. Because each voter must read and copy answers from a cheat sheet at minimum, complete irresponsibility is avoided. Voters can no longer make a decision without reading the relevant information. Understanding the relevant information is not tested and that level of responsibility is a personal decision for each voter.
The test is constructed with the aid of the candidates within the election. Information from sessions where the candidate was connected to a lie detection system is used to formulate questions. An unbiased format allows each candidate to pick the same number of questions for each opponent and their self. Answers to questions involve a reference to the source of the information so that voters can obtain the information in context if they desire understanding. Voters may decide to compare the candidate provided information to the results of the lie detection system. Each voter decides the influence of the lie detection system. Each candidate volunteers their own time to identify the questions which the voters must answer.
Each voter has a secret identification number by which they can verify the results of their vote. An identification number is associated with the results of the test which was submitted. If the voter did not pass the test, they may repeat the test once more to address the questions and answers which they failed to provide. Identification numbers and results are provided to the public and citizens may use the database of results to provide tools for the voters to verify their vote. Citizens are encouraged to participate within these citizen-provided verification systems so that fraud is deterred. This is an example of an intelligent response system that does not increase costs because the citizens are responsible for implementation and participation.
Voters are encouraged to vote within a reasonable time period at the available facilities. Technology reduces costs. Public libraries, schools, universities, greenhouses, fish farms, and other buildings with a networked communications system can provide locations to perform tests if the voter does not have personal access to the communications network and necessary technologies. Universities currently have the technological ability to verify that an individual can remotely take a test in a secure fashion. We can use these technologies to assure that the voter is reading and answering each question, and we can be assured of the voter's identity. We must facilitate the voter so that voting is a convenient process. Information associated with each voter is kept secure so that it can be used in verification processes. Information is destroyed when it is no longer useful. Funds used to build the infrastructure will utilize the concept of reusability so that costs are minimized. All infrastructure should be built for multiple purposes. For example, these buildings can double as a shelter for responsible citizens who require a place to sleep for the night while the building would normally be vacant. The technologies for voting can be used for remote education systems along with other purposes.
The next problem with such a system is the need for privacy. Information must be handled in a way that allows verification and provides privacy in an intelligent manner. A voter does not need to know the name of the candidate they are voting for. The voter can view the relevant information and vote for the candidate who provides the answers that they like. Such an approach can eventually remove the possibility that a voter can vote for a candidate based upon their age, skin color, speech, sex, or any other stereotypical identifier that is unimportant. This feature of the new education system aligns with the symmetric legislation to provide equal opportunity for candidates. When the votes are completed and the results are made available, voters can then verify their votes by viewing the surveillance systems. This idea illustrates an intelligent transparency system. Only the relevant information is provided. During the election process, platforms and questions/answers are provided to the electorate corresponding to a non identifying label such as a secret identification number. Once the elections are completed, all of the relevant information is made available for verification purposes. This approach increases responsibility among the electorate while deterring corruption. So long as the relevant information remains confidential, we maintain security through obscurity. As privacy information is no longer needed within verification systems and processes, that information should be destroyed.
The lie detection systems make use of past records of surveillance to indicate non-truth. In this way, the citizen is not burdened with investigating each answer. After an election has been completed, recorded surveillance that was referenced may be reviewed so that lie detection processes are improved. A candidate who has historically acted one way while saying something different will be analyzed based upon their past actions and the current surveillance that monitors heart rate, sweat glands, eye movement, and other indicators of non-truth. The voter can discover that the current words of the candidate do not align with past actions and combine that information with the other surveillance systems. In this way, the candidate's identity remains confidential. The guidelines for analyzing the lie detection surveillance is public knowledge. This allows the individual to give the lie detection systems as much weight as the individual chooses.
Implementation
Candidates should not allow the public to know that they are campaigning. If this information is made available, the candidate should be prevented from speaking outside of the sessions which use the lie detection systems. Candidates can participate at local government sessions which use relevant surveillance technologies. The candidates create their unique platforms and answer questions provided by the electorate while under surveillance. Because the candidates are part of the electorate, they can submit a question to their self and their opponents. Ideally, the candidates would submit to a constant level of surveillance to assure that they are not providing information which allows voters to know the identification number associated with their identity.
Once a sufficient amount of data has been collected, the candidates must create questions and answers related to each candidate's data and provide references to the relevant data. The candidates choose an equal amount of questions and answers for each candidate including their self. If identical or similar questions and answers are chosen, a random pick is done and a substitute question and answer pair is chosen from the back up pairs of the relevant candidate. The identification of identical or similar question/answer pairs is determined by the references to the original data. Each candidate may then decide to reword any question/answer pairs.
The test is created with references to all relevant data. The voter can see the question/answer pairs that were reworded and identify the candidates who submitted the original question/answer pairs along with the original pair. The voter can identify candidates who submitted identical or similar question/answer pairs. The voter can observe lie detection data associated with a question/answer pair. Voters who seek understanding are facilitated, complete irresponsibility is deterred, and responsibility is encouraged.
The questions and answers are provided to the electorate who then redistribute the test so that all people can pass the test simply by copying the answers to the relevant question. A voter who can write would write out the answer corresponding to a question. A voter who can't read or write would audibly repeat the answer to the relevant question. A voter does not need understanding of the questions and answers. An individual who does not speak English could repeat the answer in English without understanding. It would be the responsibility of bilingual citizens to translate all of the data for the individuals who do not speak the native language.
Initially, the test would be optional. Individuals who take and pass the test would get a sticker that says "I passed the test". As we implement the requirement that voters pass the test, citizens may wish to share their personal identification number publicly and associate that number with other tests, illustrating greater levels of understanding. These individuals who illustrate greater levels of responsibility and understanding may willingly associate their secret voter identification number with their candidate identification number. Voters can begin to identify the most responsible citizens through identification numbers associated with information instead of visual appearance and speaking ability.
Conclusions
The government provides enough transparency systems and non bias to assure that the citizens can verify that proper procedures were met and take logical actions if they disagree with the relevant representative(s) who fail to implement a logical transparency system. Candidates and their volunteers provide opportunity for the voter to obtain the answers to questions for the test used when voting, potentially using social networking sites which can be accessed from a provided communications network. Citizen volunteers are responsible for providing instructions to anyone who requires aid using the technology. The candidates and citizens are moved into positions of responsibility facilitated by a technological infrastructure. Funds which would have previously been used for illogical campaign finance can now be used to provide a multi-purpose infrastructure that serves to address many problems along with our current election system.
The wealthy can donate money toward the infrastructure and are recognized for their donations. This allows the wealthy to influence people in a positive way. The citizens may see that a wealthy individual or company contributes significantly and decide to vote for the candidate who they support. This is a new approach to lobbying that deters corruption. Because donors are only able to identify an individual candidate based on relevant information, their decision to support a candidate could not be based upon financial associations with the candidate. This is security through obscurity. Donations to the infrastructure are equivalent to charitable donations. A donation benefits everyone equally.
Campaigns are now very inexpensive because everyone is forced into responsibility. The voters must obtain answers to questions. The candidates must provide answers to questions so that the voters will pass the test. Volunteer citizens help to aid individuals who are in need. Citizens are free to provide questions to candidates and present relevant ideas that are answered by the candidate under the surveillance of a lie detection system. Competition between candidates promotes truth and efficiency with such a voting system. Candidates begin to compete based upon their ability to help those who they represent instead of their ability to acquire materialistic wealth. This goal of competition transition is inevitably facilitated by removing the extrinsic rewards associated with representative positions. As the number of representative positions increase and become more specialized, the representative can continue to work within their relevant sciences while intrinsically providing their services as a representative within their field of expertise. After all, we don't need representatives who are not experts. And we always benefit from electing representatives who are intrinsically motivated. The inevitable move is away from a powerful centralized government that controls everyone toward a representative government that acts as autonomously as possible within local governments. Along with this geographical specialization in representation, knowledgeable representative positions within the geographical districts are specified. There is no need for a representative who makes decisions about many areas of knowledge for many geographical areas of people. We have to move toward representation. As we implement relevant technological solutions, we can easily begin to increase representation for each citizen.
We provide opportunity for the citizen to become a candidate by eliminating the filtering processes that have historically acted to deter the democratic republic and promote an oligarchy of wealthy entities who are able to manipulate the citizens through the two-party system, our illogical election processes, and our illogical centralized government. We move away from the system that allows corruption toward a system that deters corruption. All information is eventually available. Some information is not needed at various points in time of the election process. We do not need to know the skin color of the candidate until the elections are finalized and we verify the results. We do not need to know any of the stereotypical attributes when casting our ballot. We need to know data associated with an identification number only.
As the number of potential candidates rise and as governing systems begin to logically evolve, systems are improved to account for such changes. We may traditionally have 10 or less candidates that participate in an election, but we may eventually have hundreds of candidates. A process for eliminating candidates adopts similar approaches to the ones I have previously identified. We inevitably increase representation by introducing new representatives as populations and areas of knowledge increase. We decrease representation as populations and areas of knowledge decrease.
As we move toward true representation, each voter eventually becomes their own representative for all areas of knowledge. This is only achievable as we implement new technologies. New technologies give the citizen more time to participate in government. The citizen volunteers their time to provide new tools to other citizens. As the number of tools increase along with the ability to identify reputable sources of aid, the individual can make decisions that influence their personal and unique governments. We must naturally decrease the influence of exterior geographical areas by decentralizing government in the relevant areas. As we increase technological solutions by increasing the number of specialized representatives within geographical areas, the individual is empowered no matter their ideology.
The goal of government is to increase opportunity and freedom while decreasing conflict. This goal is reached by balancing the power of smaller and larger areas of government. The larger areas of government are responsible for providing information to smaller areas of government. This goal is achieved through transparency processes that promote communication among the smaller governments. As we empower smaller governments to solve problems made apparent by transparency systems, each small government can implement their own experiments. These experiments are made transparent so that other governments can benefit from the information which indicates the success or failure of the experiment.
There is no other need for large governments except to facilitate the transparent distribution of information intelligently. The invention of the high speed communications networks has promoted the opportunity for this next evolutionary step in government.
