As promised, I've just added a page to the Unity-USA Wiki, which suggests specific tasks for building and vetting the New American Agenda collaboratively.
Please review it and provide you edits and comments.
We can use this Forum Topic for discussion about what must be done and ways to carry out the work collaboratively and efficiently. I will update the Wiki page as per the discussions we have here.
Thanks,
Steve Beller, PhD
Negotiating Tips and Ground Rules have been incorporated into this agenda building task section. Please review these sections and provide critical input as appropriate. These sections lay the groundwork to faciliate an orderly collective effort at agenda building. It is ultimately up the Delegates to determine how their efforts are to be guided.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
In addition to determining if the suggested tasks are valid, we have to answer this question:
How can we work together to get the job done since we are all volunteers and many have their own jobs and family life that needs our attention?
It seems to me that we need some way of divvying up tasks based on each of our abilities and external time commitments.
I'm open to suggestions.
Steve Beller, PhD
I would like to see those that are more partial to their favorite issue, as opposed to other issues, take it upon themselves to take some sort of lead in transferring salient points from the Shoutbox to the wiki. It doesn't have to be one individual. Perhaps individuals that disagree would be best suited to such a task as their differences would help keep each other in check.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Shouldn't this be an organized effort whereby each participating delegate selects the Agenda items s/he wishes to work on based on their interest and/or knowledge? If so, then we would need a way for them to "sign-up" so we can work collaboratively in teams.
For example, I would like to be involved in the reforming healthcare Agenda item and would want to team with people having the ability to evaluate (a) the economic impact of different healthcare reform proposal on people in different socioeconomic classes and (b) the estimated costs and savings of implementing quality and efficiency improvement strategies. I'd also like to be involved in the dealing with terrorism Agenda item and would want to team with people having the ability to evaluate the likely cost and effectiveness of different foreign policies related to terrorism.
Any comments or other ideas, anyone?
Steve Beller, PhD
Maybe the best that can be done is to encourage and exercise patience. I see the number of registered wiki participants growing all the time. See Link.
I would like to see Andy weigh in on the direction of the wiki and its relation to U08 plans. Since we are only two weeks into this wiki process I hope that answers to your thoughts will be forthcoming through a growing delegate membership.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
delete - dup
I just realized that something important missing from the Agenda-building tasks overview. Since the New American Agenda will serve as a platform against which Unity08 members will evaluate candidates, we will be developing a simple & basic Fact Sheet on each Agenda Item, which is built on a foundation of deep understanding and profound knowledge of the facts. As I just added to the wiki page, the Fact Sheets ought to contain:
There are different points of view about all this. Consider the following.
Building the Agenda based on deep understanding requires a great deal of research, analysis, and discussion of alternate viewpoints, as well as the facts and assumptions surrounding the different points of view. This takes much time, effort, negotiation and dedication. The result of this approach is the creation of a solid platform that holds up to attack and leads to the implementation of pro-social polices that have the greatest likelihood of success. As such, the fact sheets would provide a "gateway" into the wealth of underlying knowledge and understanding that supports our position.
On the other hand, building the Agenda based on emotional opinion, superficial knowledge, and/or one-sided views requires little research, analysis, and discussion of alternate viewpoints, facts and assumptions. While this approach would require much less time and effort, it would also make our Agenda much more vulnerable to attack since we would not have done due diligence in obtaining and evaluating the facts and figures to support our positions. I think it would also we also mire us in shouting matches between people with different personal opinions based on emotional reaction, rather than enable us to debate issues through critical thinking and sound reasoning. Yet, I'm concerned that this is the path that appeals to many of us. After all, we live in a sleep-deprived, over-worked, fear-based society, where we tend to have short attention spans and look for the easy way out. As such, it is of little surprise that we continually fall for short-sighted/short-term superficial solutions to complex problems, which inevitably fail. Word-play, double-talk and insincere promises from politicians manipulate our emotions, which convince us to follow their ill-conceived plans like sheep to slaughter. This is what those in control of our current broken political system would like to see continue.
Anyway, this is just how I see it. Either we put in the time and energy to build our Agenda on a firm foundation of deep understanding, or we risk making foolish decisions about the future of our nation and the world, and in the process, undermine the legitimacy of grass-roots political efforts.
Please realize that I'm not saying everyone needs to examine all the relevant details about every issue, that's just not realistic. But I am saying that, collectively, we should (a) examine all the information needed to build our Agenda on a strong foundation of collective knowledge and understanding and (b) have a record of such information, as well as a record of the reasoning that went into our decisions.
If anyone disagrees with any of this, please say so. Thanks!
Steve Beller, PhD
I wish to point out that The Criteria Established When I introduced this topic, which Heads every page 1 through 10 - CLARITY'S EACH ASPECT INVOLVED AND EXPLAINS ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN CREATING THE RIGHT AGENDA FOR THE ISSUES WE MUST FACE ..
Hope this helps ..
popo
Please explain what you're saying. Thanks.
Steve Beller, PhD
Steve, do me a favor, go back to The Lead Page in the TOPIC BUILDING OUR AGENDA, Check Te Text & Format Of My Introduction To The Project, then come forward and read the presentation you made above .. I know you will see what I mean.
I was on the wiki earlier this morning - I think it's coming along great - I added some constructive comments with appropriate rationale's ..
We need more people to start contributing now you've got things so well laid out ..
I can't do what you do so well - I'm a great believer let them that can do - and stay to hell out of the way : I managed Millions in business - my wife handled our household finances - she did a lot better job than I did ..
popo
I think that we should ensure that what we build is a range of realistic options. Doesn't need to be ten, but should be two or three. That is, I would specifically avoid having our wiki culminate into a "here's what we figued out for Issue X." Rather, I think that we should consider a real commitment to developing a range of options as a non-threatening gateway into having a realistic view.
There's some benefits to this. If we try to develop a singular option, the usual back and forth debating madness will prevent it. But if we aim for a range of options, those interested in a certain direction can work on those article(s). By avoiding the conflict that would arise from major difference in viewpoint, the participants will find a more productive process. Once we have something complete, the writers of the opposing viewpoints could fill in the criticisms of the other viewpoints in the range.
After this, we could then work on summarizations of the the viewpoints that are digestable to the casual reader. Each of the directions would have this summarization and appear along side each other. Linkage to "learn more" would end each summary.
For those interested, I started developing a "portal Framework" for this. Don't edit it. It's just for show right now. The "Featured Issue of The Week" section illustrates (crudely) the range concept I am talking about.
http://unity-usa.org/wiki/?title=Portals:Sandbox
Would could kick this off by having pages where people, in NO more than 3 sentences, describe a general direction for an issue. Those interested in that direction would branch out on it in a NEW article. That might be the best way to identify where the interest is. We might have a page with 10 options, and 4 of them are described. There's our range.
The fundamental reason I like this range option is because for most issues and delegates we're coming from one political side or the other. To have one option for an issue will make some people brand the whole site "left wing" or "right wing." But if we have a range, it demonstrates that we advocate the exploration of reasonable options instead of the advocation of a singular, "take it or leave it" stance.
-GP (gp.in.minnesota@gmail.com)
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://www.unity-usa.org
I would like to see such a range of such issue formats within each Issue Fact Sheet. Would a format like this be developed from the data on the Agenda Building section? Would the process path be: Shoutbox > Agenda Building Section > Range of Realistic Options? Would these Ranges be itemized within an Issue Fact Sheet?
I think much has been accomplished in two weeks. I would sure like to see Andy weigh in on the wiki development process and how it relates to U08 plans.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
This is the point Bob Bingham is making with his post at Unity08 CEO interviewed by Third Party Watch
Apparently, they believe Sam Waterston will be able to get a politically significant number of people all herded together into a corral prior to adopting any political agenda whatsoever.
Of course, we know this is political nonsense, as their own present low membership numbers indicate. But these people are simple mass media people. This is all they know. I don't think any of them are even capable of changing course in mid-stream, even if they wanted to.
However, all is not lost. Your work, as well as others, will be used by others who understand that true solutions to this nation's problems will only come from one source: the people themselves. In that respect, your work, if continued, will prove to be invaluable when a serious effort to empower the People's voice with the Internet is undertaken.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Of course I'll join. I was just wondering how the "poll" function works.
ex animo
davidfarrar
While you are at it get John Kaczmarowski in with you. You seem to have a relation with him and Kacz had a gift at framing/synthesizing the issues like Steve does - he could help!!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
All I can do is ask, and John Cook.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Not sure if you were referring to mediawiki polling or my statement about writing polling software. If the latter, here was my idea:
Develop a poll system (I'd call it something like "quantified support") in which each voter has 100 points. Instead of ranking options, the user simply "invests" some share of the 100 points to a position they support. For example, if the voter really wants Universal health care more than anything else, they might put all 100 points behind that specific stance. Another voter might put 80 behind that stance and 20 under an education issue.
This would contrast with a ranking type vote in that the quantification of importance on a stance is measured, instead of just ranking 1, 2, 3. Voters can change and "re-vote" any time they want (but can always only allocate 100 points).
AT any point in time we can quantify the support across the entire community, by merely summing up the positions and the collective number of points to them. We can truly quantify an issue or stance relative to another to really see what's important. It's a pretty simple but I think it might work great.
Any thoughts?
-GP (gp.in.minnesota@gmail.com)
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://www.unity-usa.org
I like the 100 points per voter concept, but I'm not sure the 100 should be split among the 15 Agenda items currently on the table. Since the recommended tactics associated with each item are the most "granular" level of each item (i.e., each strategy can have any number of associated tactics), then maybe the voters should be allowed to use any portion of their 100 points to vote for particular tactics on any item. In this way, a voter would have 100 points PER AGENDA ITEM, which can be spit up to vote for any number of tactics associated with an item.
Steve Beller, PhD
The idea is that they'd assign to a specific stance, not to "Civil Rights" or "Education" outright. There would be a minimum entry point that would be a "direction" as opposed to specific stance. The voter could choose to allocate to a generic direction, such as "Leave Iraq", or a very specific stance under the "Leave Iraq" category.
I wouldn't recommend 100 points per area because it defeats the purpose I was proposing, which was to determine which issues are most important by having the voter quantify them relative to each other. By having 100 points per issue area, each issue becomes weighted the same even if allocated differently within. We then cannot determine which area is truly most important. To really learn what is important requires putting the voter in a position of real choice. In this way, the method I am proposing introduces a limitation in resouce (vote points) which in turn makes the voter really think about what they want; sort of like having $100 to spend in across all stores as opposed to $100 in 10 stores. The former case creates a situation where they really think about what they want. The latter just leads to careless spending in the stores they don't care about (but have to spend $100 in).
In my own case, I really don't know much about the education issues, and I don't consider it to be of the same sort of priority as health care or Iraq. Many, if not most voters are single issue voters. They won't become familiar with all the issues. Developing a voting system that requires them to is likely to lead to lazy or careless voting. I think it would be more prudent to just give them a vote total, and let them figure out what few issues are most important.
In any case, this would be a large development effort. I'm just floating the idea around. I would rather see Unity08 do this than me. I am familiar with Drupal (the software Unity08 uses) so I could write a module for it that does that.
-GP (gp.in.minnesota@gmail.com)
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://www.unity-usa.org
For each Agenda item, we will construct a series of "positions," which incorporate the information presented in the wiki. Some positions may have a single perspective (vote on X only), while others may have competing perspectives (vote on X or Y).
Anyway, now that you've explained the logic, I like the idea of limiting the votes to a fixed amount to be distributed across all Agenda items as a way the flesh-out people's priorities. It would allow us to tally the raw number of votes across all position statements in each Agenda item, which would, it seems, give a reliable indication of which items are most important to our membership. Maybe, therefore, we should give 150 votes so, if someone considers all 15 items equally important, they can assign 10 votes to each. Just a thought.
Steve Beller, PhD
Iraq and War On Terror
In the above example, the voter might choose the general direction, or a specific option under a general direction. The reasoning is that this allows for nuance to those who are "really into an issue" but is simple enough for those who just know what direction they want the nation to go in.
I would still advocate 100 points because it's simple to understand. Also, this is just an example. I can't "whip this up overnight" and I would rather spend time adding wiki material and organizing it than going off on this tangent for now. That may change in the coming year. We'll have to see how things go and if we need such a mechanism.
-GP (gp.in.minnesota@gmail.com)
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://www.unity-usa.org
You have my vote ;)
Steve Beller, PhD
Just a thought about voting that would rank the items by both weight and the universal importance of the issue. For instance, in order to prevent issues from obtaining too much attention from the single issue voters, a two tiered system of voting could both rank the issue and give weight to selections made. The first tier of voting would be a system where everyone gets a total vote of 3. They rank the issues by order of importance - giving it a 1, 2, or 3. The second tier would be to vote in accordance with the 100 point system.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
I'm guess I'm not against single-issue voting. I'm actually for it. I'd rather (in theory) let people come to the doorstep and be able to easily express what they want instead of trying to jump them through hoops. If they are only into one issue, so be it. I think the major parties are already guilty of trying to bully everyone into their "way" instead of letting the collective voice point out what they really want.
As much as "we the civic gym nuts" want to have a stance on every issue (and probably do), I think the best approach is to encourage a quantification based on as little or as much as the voter is concerned about.
Again, this is only an idea. I see no real reason at this time to go through the development work. I'd rather see Unity consider it for their own voting process.
-GP (gp.in.minnesota@gmail.com)
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://www.unity-usa.org
I responded to Bob's blog with the following, which I believe is consistent with your final point:
The approach that makes most sense to me is for our membership to continue to build our New American Agenda platform on the wiki no matter what, and to invite all other grass-roots political movements to join us in collaboration!
Our goal, imo, is to present our Agenda as a "mirror" into which all candidates from all parties will be pressured to look and reflect on the question: What parts of our Agenda do you support, what don’t you support, and why?
ONLY the candidates who support the key strategies & tactics of our Agenda (or offer good alternatives) AND are willing to be held publicly accountable for implementing those parts of the Agenda (as Peter says: “TRANSPARENCY, PERFORMANCE & ACCOUNTABILITY”), ought to be considered worthy of our votes.
This all assumes, of course, that our "bottom-up" grass-roots approach to building the New American Agenda platform yields wise strategies & tactics that are supported by sound reasoning and valid facts. So, we must be willing and able to work collaboratively & intelligently, while sharing a centrist perspective and focusing on reforming our political system (and other societal systems) for the benefit of the American people en masse.
Even if Unity08 leadership never formally endorses the Agenda we’re building, Bob Bingham is acknowledging that U08 membership will determine the questions to ask the candidates. And since our Agenda-building process includes developing talking points and questions on every Agenda Item for candidates to answer, leadership is actually supporting our efforts! And maybe that’s the role they should be taking: Membership recruitment through publicity and presentation of our questions to the candidates. The rest is up to us here "in the trenches."
Steve Beller, PhD
I CONTEND - The Agenda and the Electable Candidates That Are Committed To Adopting It & Fighting For It WILL WIN THE DAY ... if it's effectively marketed ..
TRANSPARENCY - PERFORMANCE & ACCOUNTABILITY - Are The Key Aspirations Of The People For Their Government for The 21st Century and beyond - they just have to be made aware of it !!
That said, I ask you to remember that until we have solid evidence to do otherwise, our loyalty must remain to those who created the vehicle UNITY08,
Doug Bailey, Jerry Rafshoon and Hamilton Jordan ..
In this regard - I am sending an email to Doug to-day, to please contact me by phone, I don't know Bob Bingham - and what I've been able to learn on the INTERNET - hasn't been of much help...
I'd like the same thing from him - that I want from the Candidates, A Detailed Resume and References : I put in almost 60 hrs a week for free for UNITY08 and we'uns, that should entitle me to some privileges.
I'll let Y'all know what happens.
Pete(popo)evans