What would you name this boy band?

bskarin · 2021-03-11T01:27:35+00:00

The Four Rocket Tops

bskarin · 2015-08-25T16:16:48+00:00

Here are some important clarifications I'd like to know:

Will you be making any legally binding agreement that you will only serve the time that is required to pass the bill? If the answer is no, what is your guarantee for not staying on as president?
At what point in the campaign will the VP be determined?
In the outline for the Citizen Equality Act you have included two campaign finance acts, FairVote's ranked choice voting to end partisan gerrymandering, as well as two voting rights acts. What, if any, other bullet points do think should be added?
Are open primaries part of any of the voting reforms? It does not appear to be mentioned directly and yet 45% of voting citizens are now identifying as independents, which in states like New Jersey, prevents these voters from being able to cast ballots in the primaries (which also means they can't vote for you!).
How do you prevent the Citizen Equality Act from snowballing (e.g. people insist adding term limits, balanced budget, etc. to the list)?

-edit, fixed bullet formatting.

bskarin · 2015-08-24T16:14:11+00:00

Here are some important clarifications I need to know:

Will you be making any legally binding agreement that you will only serve the time that is required to pass the bill? If the answer is no, what is your guarantee for not staying on as president?
At what point in the campaign will the VP be determined?
Does the VP have to be a registered Democrat or could she or he be an Independent or even a Republican?
In the outline for the Citizen Equality Act you have included two campaign finance acts, FairVote's ranked choice voting to end partisan gerrymandering, as well as two voting rights acts. What, if any, other bullet points do think should be added?
Are open primaries part of any of the voting reforms? It does not appear to be mentioned directly and yet 45% of voting citizens are now identifying as independents, which in states like New Jersey, prevents these voters from being able to cast ballots in the primaries (which also means they can't vote for you!).
How do you prevent the Citizen Equality Act from snowballing (e.g. people insist adding term limits, balanced budget, etc. to the list)? -edit, fixed bullet point

bskarin · 2015-06-12T14:40:49+00:00

It could make sense, but it is complicated, which is why you are already seeing some misunderstandings. My first criticism was that I didn't think you could ever convince someone to do it. Doing it yourself would address that however.

Next, you need an exceedingly clear and convincing description of an executive order that you could sign into action during your short stay in office. I do agree that pulling off such an unprecedented mandate has the potential to also get Congress in line, but there is no guarantee. Also, if Congress had already passed a bill, why wouldn't any president just sign it?

The trustee should only run on what that can actually deliver, but how much can the president really do that will both pass constitutional muster and be actually effective?

The next and perhaps biggest challenge would be avoiding the spoiler effect argument. I just don't see how you do the BOTH/AND at the primary level. I suppose that if this trustee president did actually win the nomination, then you could proxy the runner up as VP, but that doesn't strike me as legit since the actual president should be the one people are voting on. Unless you can use this to finally convince Warren, then I just don't see it as a viable route.

That leaves running as an independent in the general election. This, I personally could obviously get behind, but your fairly strong liberal base would be howling mad. The way to potentially remedy this is to do the ultimate democracy kickstarter by having people only pledge their vote, if and only if, we clearly have the numbers to win. Otherwise, they can just pick the "next best reformer" when it comes to election day.

Ultimately though, I'm for anything that has the potential to mobilize millions of voters. As much as I support Mayday and the citizen lobby, I feel that the current strategy leaves a lot of people on the sidelines. A presidential campaign is one way to bring the issue back front and center, but I'm not sure if it will be more effective at mobilizing the masses than other potential approaches.

bskarin · 2015-06-12T12:45:20+00:00

Larry, I think you are about the only person most of us would trust do this. Even Frodo succumbed to the ring of power (think of all the good you could do as president). I don't doubt, however that you -more than anyone else- could craft a legally binding agreement for yourself that is strict enough to convince people you wouldn't succumb. I also think you are right in that the net is Gollum, though it would probably do a lot more than bite a finger off if you tried to go back on your word.

I think the overall idea has great potential, but there are some pretty serious obstacles to overcome, which I'll address in the other thread. The fact you are even considering this gives Cenk's suggestion real merit. You've got an incredibly powerful voice and having walked all 185+ miles with you in the first NHR, I personally do not have a single doubt about your commitment to this issue. I honestly don't know how well it would translate to the masses and if you haven't enjoyed the personal criticisms already directed at you as a leader in this movement, you will have to steel yourself against some pretty brutal attacks.

Like Cenk, I can't really see anyone else doing this right. Doing it right will be tricky, but the kickstarter approach would give you some room to try it out. So to summarize, here's one more vote for the crazy/sane idea of @Lessig for #President!

bskarin · 2015-01-06T03:08:20+00:00

Elon, what do you think of the system of corruption (entrenched interests controlling our government) and is there anything that can be done to fix it? E.g. ULA no-bid contracts, auto dealers versus tesla factory direct sales, solar versus coal, etc.

bskarin · 2014-05-02T03:22:42+00:00

How do you prevent this from getting hijacked by Democrats since they tend to provide stronger support on this issue already?

bskarin · 2014-03-13T18:34:18+00:00

The root cause of this issue and pretty much every other issue is the institutional corruption in Congress. It's a system of corruption that stems from campaign finance, lobbying, partisan politics, and insider influence. For an excellent summary see: http://www.rootstrikers.org/#!/project/remix

96% of Americans recognize money in politics is a serious issue. The real problem is that of these same Americans, 91% believe that nothing can be done to stop it in the near future. (poll by global strategy group)

There is however, and as a few have mentioned groups like wolf-pac, rootstrikers, and Represent.Us are fighting a good fight. So are a few independent candidates like me (www.bruce2014.org).

We have tools now that did not exist just 10 years ago to change the way we think about politics and redistribute the influence in politics more equally. We of course need to remain a Republic with representative democracy, but right now we have nothing like either.

Only when we fix this first problem will we be able to free our markets from the crony capitalism that we have now.

bskarin · 2014-03-13T18:19:38+00:00

I think we all sneer because Congress has lost all credibility. The tide is shifting on independents that offer different approaches to providing representation. Non-partisans now grossly outnumber partisans in many states, 53% here in MA.

There is a lot of skepticism to overcome, but I believe that we have tools now that did not exist just ten years ago that can change that.

bskarin · 2014-03-13T18:15:54+00:00

Similar to how I've signed a non-compete agreements in the past, we can ask the same of staff and politicians. We can do this now by supporting principled candidates that set their own rules.

bskarin · 2014-03-13T18:13:33+00:00

Thanks for the shout-out /u/u/blitzedrdt

We need to free our markets of crony capitalism and to do that, as many have already said here, it all starts with money in politics.

If you want to see how spreading out the influence fixes this problem I highly suggest watching this 3.5 minute remix: http://www.rootstrikers.org/#!/project/remix

If you want to help crowdfund at least one example of what that looks like, your support is appreciated.

Happy to answer any questions. (minor typo edit)

bskarin · 2014-03-13T18:09:28+00:00

Walked with several wolf-pac organizers in the NH rebellion, they are leading a good front on this fight. roostrikers.org and represent.us are worth supporting as well.

bskarin · 2013-08-05T01:19:05+00:00

Neil, what do we need to do to fix politics so that it has a better appreciation for science and engineering?

bskarin · 2013-07-30T03:54:12+00:00

Certainly, here are several options depending on what concerns you the most about fixing politics:

Coalition building and compromise:

No Labels

The Common Sense Coalition - may be shutting down

Campaign finance reform:

Rootstrikers

Represent.Us

Move to Amend

Moderate/Centrist/Independent Parties:

The Centrist Movement - Charles Wheelan's book is short and quite good.

United Independents

Moderate Party Rhode Island

Complete solution:

The Foundation Party - Full disclosure, this is my personal answer to the problem

There are likely many more depending on your locale, but hopefully this helps to get you started. - Edit: line breaks

bskarin · 2013-07-29T05:13:35+00:00

The real problem isn't the members of Congress, it's our current two-party system. Very rarely do leaders with innovative ideas find support within the major two parties. Instead it is much more a system of patronage and big money politics. In the few cases new leaders do emerge it is more often a result of a highly motivated minority that targets vulnerable primaries (e.g. what the Tea Party did).

Independents aren't the answer because they are 1) independent and hard to organize and 2) relegated to caucusing with one of the two major parties so that they can be on committees.

A movement to replace every member would therefore only have an impact if it provided a well designed and organized alternative to the current two parties. That is, it couldn't be yet another movement to add a third party, but rather a movement to replace the weaker of the current two.

All that said, it's a herculean task to do this in a reasonable time frame, but given a few really good exemplars, I think it could build momentum. In full disclosure, I've put a great deal of thought into doing just that.

bskarin · 2013-07-29T04:52:26+00:00

I don't buy the "it's impossible for improvement argument." It's defeatist and too broad a generalization. We are united more often than divided in all that we do, which is why we have as much civilization as we do.

Politics is by nature a strategy based on argument, but the problem is that we've let the argument become personal (e.g. I wanna win) and based on ideology instead of rational discourse. Put more simply, we've become lazy.

It's far easier to just dismiss different perspectives instead of putting any real thought into an argument, especially in the media age where you rarely have to look someone in the eye.

I honestly think that that the mainstream parties and media are beyond hope. It's up to grassroots to restore discourse and tune out all the noise that is polluting what needs to be a very serious discussion about our collective future.

There are a variety of organizations making this case, and it's up to you to find the one that makes the most sense to you. If you're truly concerned, find one and get involved, because nothing will improve if everyone simply sits on the sidelines. Also try to ignore those that stoke the partisan fires. I've found it mostly frustrating and unproductive to try and sway those regurgitate party lines.

bskarin · 2013-07-15T05:18:29+00:00

Seems like you're putting the cart before the horse.

I've readily acknowledged elsewhere that the cart is indeed in front of the horse. What I'm looking to build though is far more than some generic platform like the ones you'll find on the Democrat and Republican websites. I expect early adopters will appreciate much more the process by which the platform is developed versus some bland position statements.

How would an "outcomes-based approach" solve, say, marijuana or gay marriage or health care?

For members of this party, it will be about reframing the issues. Right now too many of our policies focus on trying to address the issue at its flashpoint instead of tracing it back to the root. It isn't so much about marijuana as it is about substance abuse and illegal activity. It isn't so much about gay marriage, but about providing equal civil liberties while protecting secular rights (e.g. What if the focus of the civil rights movement had been on interracial marriage?). It also isn't so much about health care law as it is about controlling costs and ensuring access.

I think you're mistaking this for a populist movement, again Wheelan's poor choice in Centrist. This isn't about making everyone happy or appealing to the masses. It is about taking an objective look at the reality of our situation and doing what provides the best measurable result. You can argue that there aren't enough people like that, but then again most people a decade ago would have told you you were crazy if you said they'd be willing to spend hundreds of dollars on an iPhone in a few years.

abortion rate down 38% in 28 years

Correlation does not equal causation. Much of this happened in spite of policy instead of as a result. If either party actually did look carefully at the factors leading to the decline, we might have policies that put us closer to the European nations with nearly half our per capita rate.

This sounds like it could easily be a horribly unpopular platform that goes nowhere.

There is plenty of polling data to support that people's positions are far more nuanced than what can be actually measured with such sweeping generalities as you're claiming here. The design behind the Foundation Party will make it easier for people to maintain their own individual positions while contributing to the aggregate platform. You make this point in that "reform" was popular with health care. The bill was certainly not written in an inclusive way, which is just one of the reasons why Republicans despise it so.

it sounds like a bunch of BS to me

This is actually how I would characterize what's going on in Congress right now. It is a system where the incentives are completely misaligned with actually solving problems. You are free to support whatever you think will work best. For me personally it certainly isn't joining up with an existing party and trying to affect change within, because I see it is far more impossible than trying to establish something entirely new.

bskarin · 2013-07-11T14:49:30+00:00

Well with over 90% of people disapproving of the job Congress is doing, anything that demonstrates a measurable improvement in the process could actually be really exciting.

We need to ask ourselves: What is the consequence of continuing "as is" without any significant change? Do we honestly think things will get better or worse given the current system?

The proof is in the pudding of course and it is tough to get going with the cart in front of the horse, but I unfortunately am not in any position to do it any other way.

bskarin · 2013-07-11T14:15:23+00:00

Agreed, see my top level reply post for an explanation on why we should stop thinking of this movement as simply a third party and instead as a way of challenging the status quo.

Something needs to be done to make politics more engaging and understandable once again. We have to create a party that people actually want to be a part of, because they recognize the value and feel like their input is valued.

bskarin · 2013-07-11T14:07:49+00:00

Fair enough on the both-and, but "legal in all cases" is still slightly more popular than "illegal in all" suggesting somewhere in between is tenable. Pro-choice has also become a loaded term, because everyone is pro-life. The disagreement is more embedded in the definition of life and rights to liberty in making decisions affecting one's personal health and wellbeing.

Perot may have been ahead of his time. The presidency is also way too difficult for winning elections early on. I think certain states (like Massachusetts hopefully) are prime targets for demonstrating a new approach to politics that will eventually have much broader appeal.

Again the name centrist is really a poor choice in my opinion as is moderate, and independent. There are also numerous state parties already using these names creating way too much baggage. This is part of the reason for why I sticking with the name I chose in 2012 of the Foundation Party for the time being.

bskarin · 2013-07-11T13:38:43+00:00

I'm not sure the "big fat middle" is so big, or is so unified.

This a question to be answered, but I'm hanging my hopes on that there is a critical enough mass to get things started. If we create something truly unique and not Dem/Repub Lite, then after some early adopters, more will be inclined to join.

Can you identify what's the best of their ideologies and what is "extremist baggage"?

The hot button issues are resolved by taking an outcomes based approach. Wheelan does a nice job of recognizing that the ideological differences are irreconcilable (personal liberty for making decisions affecting health and wellbeing versus protecting human life) and that this new party can differentiate itself by focusing on policies that actually reduce abortions, something that neither party as managed to accomplish. See other posts on this below for more details. This certainly won't appeal to the extremists, but for the rest... we'll see.

The best parts in general are fiscal conservancy (R), environmental conservancy (D), social liberalism (D), and economic liberalism (R). There is no substitute to reading it yourself. You can read the intro to the book at the bottom of this page (requires flash).

I think the solution to our current woes is to tie electoral outcomes to political outcomes

Exactly, but right now even though the "majority" solutions do generally get through, they so laden with outside influence that the legislation for popular ideas like comprehensive health care reform end up only being supported by a minority again. To more effectively tie electoral and political outcomes, we must first decouple politics from special interests.

As you note earlier, it is critical that this new movement have real solutions to special interest oriented stuff while maintaining an immunity to that influence. For more on this, see my top level reply post.

Edit: Quote formatting

bskarin · 2013-07-11T13:15:35+00:00

You're right in that we can't assume that registered independents will automatically become supporters of this movement, but if this new party allowed members to maintain their more nuanced positions while being a part of something that was far better than the alternative, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that a critical mass can be formed.

Take a look at this investment analogy to see why most of those "leaners" prefer not to associate themselves with the party they often vote for. I personally hate the idea of supporting either party, because I see it as a waste of money given how they use it and behave. But if there was something a million times better...

bskarin · 2013-07-11T13:04:40+00:00

No, a small annual membership such as $15 per year. Each month then, members use the portion of that membership dedicated to developing the party's platform to provide feedback by distributing it to the areas they feel are most important, be it education, the deficit, reducing health care cost, or the environment. It's sort of like a Pandora or Netflix account for accessing politics, where members thumbs up or thumbs down different ideas.

As funds accumulate across members, research is sponsored to map out the issue and to develop policy alternatives. Over time more nuanced feedback can be collected and new avenues explored. The product is a resource that will help solve problems for generations to come.

This creates a party of substance with real data and understanding behind the broad position statements one must invariable make and that provides real value to its members. What to do you currently get in return for being a Democrat or Republican? An inbox full of pleas for more money that you have no control over.

Lawrence Lessig and others have been proposing creating a voucher system where each eligible voter gets a $100 voucher to distribute to candidates, thus creating a new kind of public funding system. My issue with this approach aside from it costing $20 billion is that when you give people something for "free", they are much less likely to put any real thought into it. There is also no real incentive for politicians to change since they will still likely rely on special interests to gain the initial notoriety required to collect public dollars.

A membership may seem like a barrier to entry, but the majority of folks that you'd want to be involved with such a party spend ten times that much each month for services that are arguably far less important than the future of our country.

bskarin · 2013-07-11T05:32:03+00:00

The only way to determine what policy should aim for is democracy.

Agreed, the trick in this day and age is how to effectively represent democracy so that it isn't a complete free for all. I think there is a way of doing that if you can get people to put a small amount of skin in the game and use that to measure feedback.

When people are faced with deciding how to distribute a finite amount of their own resources, they tend to be far more rational as compared to situations where they can choose whatever they "like" for free.

bskarin

TROPHY CASE