I think both of these assumptions, that development must be local and that development must be driven by federal government, miss the important element of collective intelligence that would occur under a Collaborative Democracy.
Brent - I would concur, if you could further define in a Collaborative Democracy how the roles of Federal,State and Local governments would operate together in the field of edcation, that would be helpful.
Initially, the Secretary of the Department of Education would be replaced with a council of nine people randomly selected from a qualified pool of applicants. This would eliminate political bias. Each year, the council member who had served the longest would be replaced randomly with a new member. (The same would occur for other executive positions. There would be no political appointments.)
Associated with each council would be a Citizens Governance Website. Through this website, citizens could develop solutions through laws and policies using a new direct democracy process that is collaborative and based on consensus rather than divisional and emotional such as current yes/no voting processes. It enhances the collective intelligence of the large group involved. It turns out that large, diverse groups such as this with a better decision process create better solutions than any experts, individuals, or political parties. These two features completely eliminate undo influence from political parties, unions, other nations, and outside groups allowing each citizen an equal voice.
Working together, Citizens could determine which laws and policies should stay at a federal level and be improved as needed. It would create an environment of continuous improvement. Otherwise, they could be require that the decisions be made at a local level or at a state level as they determine was best.
The specific blueprint and an implementation plan are contained in the book End Politics Now. For a short time, it can still be read for free on endpoliticsnow.com.
Thank you. It is very interesting. This approach seems ideal for participatory drafting of goals, objectives, even legislation. But how does a council of nine people run an executive function which likely requires dozens of immediate decisions every day?
Thank you for asking that question! First of all, many agencies are run by councils not individuals. The Federal Reserve is run by a council. Switzerland does not have president. It has a Federal Counsel of seven, all with equal authority. They do a great job of making daily decisions instead of an individual. Benjamin Franklin and others at the Constitutional Convention advocated a "plural executive," i.e a council, instead of an individual president of the United States. (The Federalists had the majority power and they wanted an elected king chosen by the elites.) The Supreme Court is a council making decisions on issues and running the federal judicial system. Councils would discuss and then vote (each with an equal vote) on decisions. Councils are better at both tactical and strategic decisions than individuals because they have a degree of collective intelligence and they are less biased. Individuals overestimate their own intelligence and decision ability, often jumping to conclusions based on individual biases and a command-and-control attitude. They believe they are there to make decisions so they simply make them, often without data or a sound methodology (from my personal experience as a management consultant dealing with the C-suite of large companies). And as political appointees, often the political parties make the major decisions instead of the executive. For example, where participatory budgeting has been practiced without political interference, citizens have done a better job at budgeting because of their collective intelligence. Whereas, at first glance, this would seem to be a better job for an individual department head.
How such councils specifically operate would be up to them. Perhaps they would each take assignments to investigate issues and then report to the group for a decision. If you imagine the Federal Council over Switzerland as independent instead of political appointees by the legislature, I think it represents the ideal model. It has no legislative authority, it only administers the laws and the operations. Or the Supreme Court without the influence of political parties.
In a Collaborative Democracy, councils would administer over the department but not make legislative decisions or policy decisions. Those would be made by the citizens through the department's Citizens Governance Website. The staff of the department under the council would administer the process on the website as described in the book as solving issues under the new process contains multiple steps. (A form of participatory budgeting is built into the process.) Think of it as a distributed legislative process instead of a process controlled by political parties through the majority leaders in each chamber.
I think both of these assumptions, that development must be local and that development must be driven by federal government, miss the important element of collective intelligence that would occur under a Collaborative Democracy.
Brent - I would concur, if you could further define in a Collaborative Democracy how the roles of Federal,State and Local governments would operate together in the field of edcation, that would be helpful.
Initially, the Secretary of the Department of Education would be replaced with a council of nine people randomly selected from a qualified pool of applicants. This would eliminate political bias. Each year, the council member who had served the longest would be replaced randomly with a new member. (The same would occur for other executive positions. There would be no political appointments.)
Associated with each council would be a Citizens Governance Website. Through this website, citizens could develop solutions through laws and policies using a new direct democracy process that is collaborative and based on consensus rather than divisional and emotional such as current yes/no voting processes. It enhances the collective intelligence of the large group involved. It turns out that large, diverse groups such as this with a better decision process create better solutions than any experts, individuals, or political parties. These two features completely eliminate undo influence from political parties, unions, other nations, and outside groups allowing each citizen an equal voice.
Working together, Citizens could determine which laws and policies should stay at a federal level and be improved as needed. It would create an environment of continuous improvement. Otherwise, they could be require that the decisions be made at a local level or at a state level as they determine was best.
The specific blueprint and an implementation plan are contained in the book End Politics Now. For a short time, it can still be read for free on endpoliticsnow.com.
Thank you. It is very interesting. This approach seems ideal for participatory drafting of goals, objectives, even legislation. But how does a council of nine people run an executive function which likely requires dozens of immediate decisions every day?
Thank you for asking that question! First of all, many agencies are run by councils not individuals. The Federal Reserve is run by a council. Switzerland does not have president. It has a Federal Counsel of seven, all with equal authority. They do a great job of making daily decisions instead of an individual. Benjamin Franklin and others at the Constitutional Convention advocated a "plural executive," i.e a council, instead of an individual president of the United States. (The Federalists had the majority power and they wanted an elected king chosen by the elites.) The Supreme Court is a council making decisions on issues and running the federal judicial system. Councils would discuss and then vote (each with an equal vote) on decisions. Councils are better at both tactical and strategic decisions than individuals because they have a degree of collective intelligence and they are less biased. Individuals overestimate their own intelligence and decision ability, often jumping to conclusions based on individual biases and a command-and-control attitude. They believe they are there to make decisions so they simply make them, often without data or a sound methodology (from my personal experience as a management consultant dealing with the C-suite of large companies). And as political appointees, often the political parties make the major decisions instead of the executive. For example, where participatory budgeting has been practiced without political interference, citizens have done a better job at budgeting because of their collective intelligence. Whereas, at first glance, this would seem to be a better job for an individual department head.
How such councils specifically operate would be up to them. Perhaps they would each take assignments to investigate issues and then report to the group for a decision. If you imagine the Federal Council over Switzerland as independent instead of political appointees by the legislature, I think it represents the ideal model. It has no legislative authority, it only administers the laws and the operations. Or the Supreme Court without the influence of political parties.
In a Collaborative Democracy, councils would administer over the department but not make legislative decisions or policy decisions. Those would be made by the citizens through the department's Citizens Governance Website. The staff of the department under the council would administer the process on the website as described in the book as solving issues under the new process contains multiple steps. (A form of participatory budgeting is built into the process.) Think of it as a distributed legislative process instead of a process controlled by political parties through the majority leaders in each chamber.
Reading this makes me proud to be connected to you, Seth. Thank you for your commitment to the integrity of our nation AND to our democracy.
Thank you Terri. Please feel free to forward to those in your circle who might appreciate!