SWIFT Public Policy

The Better Ballot Box Score on Replacing Plurality Voting

This week, POLI blew the whistle on whether or not better ballots would make for a better America and, for that matter, the world. Welcome to BOX Score Friday. The problem is the two parties love old voting methods because they protect their political monopoly. The solution is better ballots.

Gaming the
Choice Creation

Voting for the person you hate the least is absurd when you could so easily vote for all the candidates you approve of, perhaps even in order, instead. The two-party system, which has a monopoly in the political industry, uses public funds for private primary elections—to tell most of us who will be on the ballot. Almost half of the country is independent. That’s not what the founders had in mind, or they would have put the two parties in the constitution, which they didn’t.

Electoral Reform

What’s the Flap
over Voting Methods?

Plurality voting, or First Past The Post (FPTP), often distorts democratic representation by allowing candidates to win without majority support. It discourages independent candidates and stifles third-party and independent voices, leading to a two-party dominance that perpetuates a cycle of polarization and political stagnation.

Approval, Ranked Choice, Score, or Star ballots means voting for all the candidates you approve of and/or in order of most to least. You can find links to all these voting methods in the Fly Higher section at the end of the article.

Shortly, we’ll also be scoring Proportional Representation. We rank solutions by individual components whenever possible. Before we get started, here are our values.

Politics 4.0
PolicyKeys Values

  1. Be open to private and/or public sector solutions.
  2. Talk about public policies, not public figures.
  3. Score any solution (but leaderboard-worthy solutions first).
  4. Show our work (be transparent).

SPOILER
ALERT

If you’d prefer first to role-play this week’s puzzle, then swoop on over to the…

Puzzle of the Week

Puzzle Drop Introduction
MONDAY
First Past the Post Voting is WAY Past It’s Due Date

Tiebreaker
TUESDAY
Voting Methods, Mudslinging, and Parrot ‘n Boots

Politically Strange Bedfellows
WEDNESDAY
Voting in Bed 2: New Ballots Can Fix Our Democratic Republic

Political Digital Twin
THURSDAY
Your Twin’s Double Take on New vs Old Ballots

Now, here’s the…

Replace Plurality Voting
BOX SCORE

:Weighted-Average:
Forecast of 128 Societal Roles
Super Nonpartisan Score, out of 100%

:67%: ± 5%

Sides of the Table 4/4
Walls of Information 6/8
Cultural Windows 10/16
Influence Rows 12/16
Bias Columns 6/8

Top Four Key Reasons
IN FAVOR of the
Replacing Plurality Voting

The most approved of candidate wins

No more run-off elections

Platform over personality or party

FPTP is a third-party blocking tool

Top Four Key Reasons AGAINST
Replacing Plurality Voting

FPTP is the classic way to vote

Any computer can be hacked

FPTP is a barrier against unneeded change

Voters are confused by other methods

Odd Couples
Leaning Against
the Pro-Family Act

Moralist Republicans &
Rank and File Democrats

Pro-Immigrant &
Landlords

Free Press &
Republican Hawks

Rural PT &
Billionaires

Odd Couples
Leaning In-Favor
of the Pro-Family Act

Activists &
Gun Owners

Ethicist Democrats &
Digital Republicans

USA Made &
Exporters

Urban Full-Time &
Rural Professionals

Four
Aha Moments

(Yes) because strategic voting is eliminated
(Yes) because government policy will be easier to forecast

(No) because of a higher chance of reformers being elected
(No) because military interventions will become more difficult

Conclusion: 
LEADERBOARD
WORTHY

The US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) ranks solutions so ‘us people’ can keep track of what’s most important to the silent supermajority. Political parrots hate it when we think for ourselves.

Should We Replace Plurality Voting?

POLI found VAST SUPERMAJORITY support. Our editors were a bit less convinced. Nevertheless, we predict a 67% ±5 (13 roles) STRONG SUPERMAJORITY of roles in this country to support Replacing Plurality Voting including a majority of each of the four sides of the political tablemaking this a US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) worthy idea. 

90% and up Near Unanimous
80% – 89% Near Consensus
75% -79% VAST SUPERMAJORITY
67% – 74% STRONG SUPERMAJORITY
60% – 66% Supermajority
50% – 59% Majority

By Contrast

SCOTUS’s approval rating is 40%,
the media is 27%, and
Congress is 13%.

The average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) Sweet Sixteen is 76%, with many above 80%Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 5x better model of US political sentiment and direction than politics as usual.

Cue the
Patriotic Music

Imagine an America not paralyzed by political squawking. A Parrotopia oasis in a desert of division. Where the sounds of the silent super-majority drown out the droning of the hyper-partisan parrots.

We’ll be freed from the cages of entrenched ideology to fly higher in the big sky of American beliefs, attitudes, values, and ethics. To boldly go where no political parrot has gone before—rating solutions with a nonpartisan score.

Anthem

Where Can We Agree? 
(Why Don’t You Want To Know?)

Methodology

Politics 1.0 is each party wanting to be a one-party system. Then, Politics 2.0 is the two-party gridlock that blocks the silent supermajority from getting what it needs. Next, Politics 3.0 is all the noise from special interest groups trying to influence us to see things their way. Finally, Politics 4.0 ranks solutions with a nonpartisan score and lets the best ideas rise up the leaderboard so people can choose.

The Four Laws of
Public Policy Formation

The First Law of Public Policy Formation is that people with short-term focus will naturally protect their wages, jobs, status, profits, and wealth.

The Second Law of Public Policy Formation is that people with a longer-term focus place bets to make life better, longer, easier, or different.

The Third Law of Public Policy Formation states that the short- and long-term clash causes noise, angst, conflict, and harm.

The Fourth Law of Public Policy Formation is that nonpartisan scoring can rank ideas.

(OPNT) One-Page
Narrative Tool

Uses the following ground truth:

There’s a time to save
and a time to spend,
a time for freedom
and a time for laws.
Where can we agree?”

This yields four legs of the political table: Abundance, Thrift, Governance, and Commerce, poetically our Political DNA, ACGT.

A Level
Playing Field

The four sides of the table are…

Abundance Governance (AG)
National Public Sector and NGOs,

Abundance Commerce (AC)
Technology and New Businesses,

Thrift Government (TG)
Local Municipalities, Guilds, and Consumers, and

Thrift Commerce (TC)
Established Supply Chains and Jobs.

Each side has a bias for change and a bias for the status quo. We scan these eight Information Walls for Key YES and NO Reasons, no cherry-picking.

Treasure
Hunt

The Political Parrots have a key reason they don’t want us to know about because it ruins their argument. We search for these, like a treasure hunt, and sort them using our EMIT format: Emotions, Money, Information, and Timespan. We listen for these key signals in the political noise.

Key Reasons can look similar, so we edit for redundancy and look for errors, omissions, and innovations.

We search for solutions with the highest hypothetical nonpartisan rating. Something that would solve 80% of the problem with the simplest 20% solution. The Pareto principle, hence a Parrotopia.

Definition of
Political Parrots

Are you making up your own mind or marching to the beat of a political parrot?

  1. Political Parrots get paid to squawk the same thing over and over again.
  2. They don’t listen if you’re not paying.
  3. They don’t fully understand what they’re saying.
  4. They are charming and sport every color.

We look to filter out the GRIFTERS, Gaslighting, Red-herrings, Idolizing, False-dilemmas, Tunnel-vision, Exclusions, Reductions, and Straw-man arguments. 

You can make up your mind. Where can we agree?

Birds of a Feather
AI

Once the Key Reasons are set, we use the Birds of a Feather AI for loose ties to beliefs, attitudes, values, and ethics. Over 16 million combinations are possible for the 128 roles. The game board starts balanced at zero, with an equal bias for change and the status quo.

We then prescore the puzzle using 56 arch-type roles that most embody each of the 56 loose ties. This yields a general bias for change or status quo and reveals ties.

The editors break the ties and review all 128 roles for specific reasons to overrule the general AI where necessary. These are noted in the Tuesday Tiebreaker article.

Then, we finish the puzzle by applying the most fitting YES or NO reason per role on all four sides of the Political Table: eight Information Walls, sixteen Subcultural Windows, sixteen Bias Columns, and sixteen Influence Rows.

SAT9
AI

When the scoring is done, a second AI looks for inconsistencies using the SAT9 AI filter (Situational Assessment Tool). This is 256 ‘supreme courts’ where each role is the chief justice in a presumed 5-4 and 4-5 bench. This generates a ± error margin.

The engine for the AI is our One-Page Narrative Tool (OPNT), which we gamified for role-playing at policykeys.com. We call our AI, POLI for Political Omnibus Leadership Initiative. Soon, you can use it as your Political Digital Twin and generate a personal public policy advisor report on any PolicyKeys puzzle.

You can read more about PolicyKeys™ in the upcoming book, Politics 4.0: How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for digital engagement.

We seek to partner with a lead university to host a national collegiate PolicyKeys association for political depolarization, innovation in public policy, idea competitions, team competitions, AI, polling, data science, and journalism.

Weekly
Puzzle

new PolicyKeys™
Where Can We Agree?® puzzle 
drops every 
Monday at 7 a.m. Eastern at PolicyKeys.com.

PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? is a real-life role-playing game. Each week, there are sixteen sets of eight ‘rival’ roles. Sit awhile in each of their eight chairs and predict whether a majority of people in those roles would say Yes or No to the week’s question.

The best ideas land on the US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) if a majority of each of the four sides of the political table agree.

YOU CAN PLAY THIS WEEK’S PUZZLE AT POLICYKEYS.COM.

Fly
higher

Record Number of Political Independents
Axios

63% of Americans Want a Third Party
Gallup

Winner-Take-All Elections: A Formula for Unfair Elections
Second-Rate Democracy

The Flaws of Ranked Choice
Law & Liberty

Why First-Past-The-Post Voting is Fundamentally Flawed
New Scientist

And the Loser is…Plurality Voting
Hal Science

Science Can Restore America’s Faith in Democracy
Wired Opinion

Should We Choose Ranked Choice Voting
Cato Unbound

Top Five Ways Plurality Voting Fails
Center for Election Science

Campaign civility under preferential and plurality voting
Iowa Public Policy Center

Pros and Cons of Instant Runoff (Ranked Choice) Voting
League of Women Voters

US presidential election: the problem is majority voting, not the Electoral College
The Conversation

Eight Ways Ranked Choice Voting Can Improve Voting and Elections
Campaign Legal Center

The Case For Approval Voting
Springer Link

The Problem
EqualVote

Approval voting: The political reform engineers — and voters — love
Roll Call Opinion

Can STAR and Approval Voting Fix Our Elections?
Divided We Fall

More US locations are experimenting with new voting methods
Pew

Could Math Decide the Perfect Electoral System
Scientific American

Ranked Choice Voting
Fair Vote

Score Voting
Wikipedia

STAR Voting
starvoting.org

Approval Voting
The Center for Election Science

It takes guts to see things from all four sides of the political table.
[::]


Posted

in

by