Consenus of Seven Billion
Hi! Happy Thursday!
Today I'm going to introduce consensus voting. For some of you this will elaborate a little more on the Vote Bank and six-degrees voting. Tasty! The Vote Bank is one of the twenty big fancy pants ideas Irreni is founded upon. The idea is simple enough. to make your vote count where today your vote is lost in thousands, hundred-of-thousands and millions.
Conversation equals consensus.
We need to start talking about our votes. I'm not talking about confirmation biased web sites and their comments. I mean to each other. The Vote Bank's purpose is the same as the Irreni right to individual currency; it is intended to improve the power of the voting franchise for the individual voter. It does so by encouraging conversation and building consensus between us voters first so we can do a better job of helping our politicians build consensus. If we can come to a consensus then we can communicate that consensus to the powers that be.
Voting is ultimately about making decisions, even if through a proxy or representative. When we think about making a decision then the best decisions are where we all agree, a.k.a. unanimous decision. Everyone buys into the decision and everyone supports it.
Unanimous decisions, however, don't scale. Sure, every once in awhile you can even see the U.S. Congress unanimously agree upon something. But rarely and this is because unanimous decisions require small groups. Like say 10, 20 or 30. Much more than 30 people and unanimous decisions are nigh impossible. Consensus is nigh impossible.
What we have today in American politics is one person, one vote voting that results in disenfranchising dilution. A representative today in the House represents on the order of one million people. One million people. Get your mind around that. A representative cannot answer to one million people. But things get more ridiculous than that. The Senators from the Great State of California represent 30 million people. What can a Senator from California vote on and in any way claim to represent California? Thirty million people is an impossible consensus. Everyone's vote is diluted with large pools of voters; albeit a pool of one million or thirty million. It just doesn't matter whether the topic is abortion, guns, capital punishment, welfare, or you name it. Our votes are diluted.
You know that old saying where you can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but not all of the people all of the time? It doesn't scale. That doctrine as told by Abe Lincoln doesn't scale. You can't please some of the people some of the time. This is because politicians vote on a spectrum of issues where sooner or later everyone is pissed off about something. You may be pleased with your representative about say guns, but pissed off about welfare. The result is that when weighing "some of the time" being pleased voters ultimately become more displeased with their representatives. As a result today Republicans and Democrats alike are equally distrusted and disliked by their voters and Congress has a 10% approval rating. So with large scales of voters you cannot in fact please some of the people some of the time effectively because no one person represents a single topic. You can't please one million across the wide spectrum of politics today and the things representatives displease us on far outweigh the things they please us on.
So what can we do? What can we do to scale voting? How can we fix this? Nothing is going to change until we change the system. We have to change the system. Just wiping the slate clean and voting in a new slate of candidates is not going to change a single thing. The fundamental problem is one of scale.
Pleasing people has a method: consensus and conversation equals consensus. How do we scale consensus with one-million people. Seven-billion people. How? We scale conversation to get to consensus.
The key to understanding scaling consensus is to understand compromise. What's missing in our public conversations is good old fashioned horse trading among us voter folk, we the people. We need to understand as a people that there needs to be compromise. No issue lives in isolation. At the local level, at the family level we accept compromises. We need to take local consensus and scale that up.
For example, with our siblings we might agree for everyone to come to our house for Christmas and another sibling's house for Thanksgiving. A compromise. While we might prefer having both Christmas and Thanksgiving at our house we understand with consensus we compromise. Consensus comes natural on a small scale.
And on a large scale? When was the last time Liberals and Conservatives did some horse trading say in public on tough issues such as abortion and guns and we the public bought into it? For example a Congress person might say, "we'll agree to lay off our campaign against guns if you agree to lay off your campaign against abortions." That just sounds weird because it is. Large scale compromise is missing from our political landscape.
The vote bank with six-degrees voting brings large scale compromise into our political landscape.
How do we coordinate conversations of consensus?
You ready? Here we go.
We can't build consensus with 7 billion. So we are going to build consensus with a tribe of about thirty people. Further, for consensus to work Irreni requires heterogeneous tribes and not homogeneous tribes. It is no good to form homogeneous tribes where everyone is of the same culture, same religion, same ethnicity, same language and same everything in the modern world. Homogeneous thinking is antithetical to modernity, a world with billions has billions of variations to consider. In the modern era we all need to strive to find our diverse tribe with the people who are the most not like us and yet at the same time they like us personally. <3
Essentially we want our tribes to be a sample of the world political spectrum. This way consensus means broking agreements with those unlike yourself. Once you get the hang of consensus in your tribe with people you talk too and people you can have dinner with then consensus at large scales become simply extensions.
Conversations are promoted by the elimination of the way we vote today: one person, one vote. Instead Irreni promotes six-degrees voting, which means you can only vote for people you know. There is only a chain of six people between you, the people you know and any other person on this planet. Just six people. Every community will put its own cap on how many people you can claim to know and how you go about authenticating that relationship. Once you have your legal tribe of people who both like you and disagree with you on many issues then consensus building is off to the races. You vote for Bob, he gets one vote. Bob votes for Alice who now has 2 votes, your vote and Bob's vote. and so on until large voting blocks of voters are built.
And that's how you scale. You first learn how to implement consensus in your day-to-day life by voting for people you know. People you can talk too. Then you begin to appreciate what your representatives are up against, the competing tensions and priorities. To whit, you walk a mile in politicians shoes with your own diverse tribe. Soon a national conversation about horse trading of competing issues will fall into place.
Six-degrees of voting. Vote for who you know. Whoever you vote for becomes your proxy. They vote for someone else who then becomes a proxy for the entire chain. This forms a voting block. These voting blocks grow until they begin to resemble the size of a political party. Except. Except they are not political parties because they are throw-away and short lived. Six-degrees voting blocks are good for exactly one candidate and one election. Every election has distinct blocks. Other elections you can participate in completely different voting blocks. Political parities that we have today dissolve over night. What we have instead of permanent political parties are flash parties analogous to flash mobs. These flash parties are voting blocks good for one candidate, one election and then gone. A good defense against corruption where parties today are all about corruption.
Conversations equal consensus.
Cheers!
Welcome to the 21st century!
Scale your empathy, scale the world!
Find your tribe!
Be sexy people!
The future is coming!
Innovate at a rapid pace!
Slow speed ahead!
Well come! and well met!
Today I'm going to introduce consensus voting. For some of you this will elaborate a little more on the Vote Bank and six-degrees voting. Tasty! The Vote Bank is one of the twenty big fancy pants ideas Irreni is founded upon. The idea is simple enough. to make your vote count where today your vote is lost in thousands, hundred-of-thousands and millions.
Conversation equals consensus.
We need to start talking about our votes. I'm not talking about confirmation biased web sites and their comments. I mean to each other. The Vote Bank's purpose is the same as the Irreni right to individual currency; it is intended to improve the power of the voting franchise for the individual voter. It does so by encouraging conversation and building consensus between us voters first so we can do a better job of helping our politicians build consensus. If we can come to a consensus then we can communicate that consensus to the powers that be.
Voting is ultimately about making decisions, even if through a proxy or representative. When we think about making a decision then the best decisions are where we all agree, a.k.a. unanimous decision. Everyone buys into the decision and everyone supports it.
Unanimous decisions, however, don't scale. Sure, every once in awhile you can even see the U.S. Congress unanimously agree upon something. But rarely and this is because unanimous decisions require small groups. Like say 10, 20 or 30. Much more than 30 people and unanimous decisions are nigh impossible. Consensus is nigh impossible.
What we have today in American politics is one person, one vote voting that results in disenfranchising dilution. A representative today in the House represents on the order of one million people. One million people. Get your mind around that. A representative cannot answer to one million people. But things get more ridiculous than that. The Senators from the Great State of California represent 30 million people. What can a Senator from California vote on and in any way claim to represent California? Thirty million people is an impossible consensus. Everyone's vote is diluted with large pools of voters; albeit a pool of one million or thirty million. It just doesn't matter whether the topic is abortion, guns, capital punishment, welfare, or you name it. Our votes are diluted.
You know that old saying where you can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but not all of the people all of the time? It doesn't scale. That doctrine as told by Abe Lincoln doesn't scale. You can't please some of the people some of the time. This is because politicians vote on a spectrum of issues where sooner or later everyone is pissed off about something. You may be pleased with your representative about say guns, but pissed off about welfare. The result is that when weighing "some of the time" being pleased voters ultimately become more displeased with their representatives. As a result today Republicans and Democrats alike are equally distrusted and disliked by their voters and Congress has a 10% approval rating. So with large scales of voters you cannot in fact please some of the people some of the time effectively because no one person represents a single topic. You can't please one million across the wide spectrum of politics today and the things representatives displease us on far outweigh the things they please us on.
So what can we do? What can we do to scale voting? How can we fix this? Nothing is going to change until we change the system. We have to change the system. Just wiping the slate clean and voting in a new slate of candidates is not going to change a single thing. The fundamental problem is one of scale.
Pleasing people has a method: consensus and conversation equals consensus. How do we scale consensus with one-million people. Seven-billion people. How? We scale conversation to get to consensus.
The key to understanding scaling consensus is to understand compromise. What's missing in our public conversations is good old fashioned horse trading among us voter folk, we the people. We need to understand as a people that there needs to be compromise. No issue lives in isolation. At the local level, at the family level we accept compromises. We need to take local consensus and scale that up.
For example, with our siblings we might agree for everyone to come to our house for Christmas and another sibling's house for Thanksgiving. A compromise. While we might prefer having both Christmas and Thanksgiving at our house we understand with consensus we compromise. Consensus comes natural on a small scale.
And on a large scale? When was the last time Liberals and Conservatives did some horse trading say in public on tough issues such as abortion and guns and we the public bought into it? For example a Congress person might say, "we'll agree to lay off our campaign against guns if you agree to lay off your campaign against abortions." That just sounds weird because it is. Large scale compromise is missing from our political landscape.
The vote bank with six-degrees voting brings large scale compromise into our political landscape.
How do we coordinate conversations of consensus?
You ready? Here we go.
We can't build consensus with 7 billion. So we are going to build consensus with a tribe of about thirty people. Further, for consensus to work Irreni requires heterogeneous tribes and not homogeneous tribes. It is no good to form homogeneous tribes where everyone is of the same culture, same religion, same ethnicity, same language and same everything in the modern world. Homogeneous thinking is antithetical to modernity, a world with billions has billions of variations to consider. In the modern era we all need to strive to find our diverse tribe with the people who are the most not like us and yet at the same time they like us personally. <3
Essentially we want our tribes to be a sample of the world political spectrum. This way consensus means broking agreements with those unlike yourself. Once you get the hang of consensus in your tribe with people you talk too and people you can have dinner with then consensus at large scales become simply extensions.
Conversations are promoted by the elimination of the way we vote today: one person, one vote. Instead Irreni promotes six-degrees voting, which means you can only vote for people you know. There is only a chain of six people between you, the people you know and any other person on this planet. Just six people. Every community will put its own cap on how many people you can claim to know and how you go about authenticating that relationship. Once you have your legal tribe of people who both like you and disagree with you on many issues then consensus building is off to the races. You vote for Bob, he gets one vote. Bob votes for Alice who now has 2 votes, your vote and Bob's vote. and so on until large voting blocks of voters are built.
And that's how you scale. You first learn how to implement consensus in your day-to-day life by voting for people you know. People you can talk too. Then you begin to appreciate what your representatives are up against, the competing tensions and priorities. To whit, you walk a mile in politicians shoes with your own diverse tribe. Soon a national conversation about horse trading of competing issues will fall into place.
Six-degrees of voting. Vote for who you know. Whoever you vote for becomes your proxy. They vote for someone else who then becomes a proxy for the entire chain. This forms a voting block. These voting blocks grow until they begin to resemble the size of a political party. Except. Except they are not political parties because they are throw-away and short lived. Six-degrees voting blocks are good for exactly one candidate and one election. Every election has distinct blocks. Other elections you can participate in completely different voting blocks. Political parities that we have today dissolve over night. What we have instead of permanent political parties are flash parties analogous to flash mobs. These flash parties are voting blocks good for one candidate, one election and then gone. A good defense against corruption where parties today are all about corruption.
Conversations equal consensus.
Cheers!
Welcome to the 21st century!
Scale your empathy, scale the world!
Find your tribe!
Be sexy people!
The future is coming!
Innovate at a rapid pace!
Slow speed ahead!
Well come! and well met!
Comments
Post a Comment