Update -- My Little Twitter Idea Gets Better

Resurrecting A Past Topic

Google's blogger platform allows me to update older posts.  So, if I notice a typo, or I come across a relevant link that enhances the article, I can add to or even rewrite the original.

If you're a dedicated reader hanging on the action here (Hi Emily!) this may mean you'll want to revisit one or another post.

For example, My Little Twitter Idea--Finally Revealed now incorporates a link, and a comment that dramatically improves my original idea.

Here's a recap:

* I suggest Twitter is great because it's bite sized.  But it's hard to find the best writers, unless they relentlessly promote themselves.

* So, I suggest if Twitter users rated the people they follow (top 5), this would give everyone a handle.

* Problem is, it'd be hard to get users to rate those they follow; that's human nature.

* A commenter suggests ratings based on how many followers a user has.  With a slight tweak this works.  Only count followers who themselves submit a top-5 rating.  Problem solved, since this provides a reason to submit a top-5.

* Using this system, Twitter would eventually reveal the best, most popular writers.

My Little Twitter Idea just got a lot better thanks to feedback and an update.

So, here's my top-5 list:

1: https://twitter.com/AlisonTyler --a veritable raised bed of composted meaning...that we carefully parse

2: https://twitter.com/paulkrugman --brilliant, correct writer has knack for explanation

3: https://twitter.com/kasie --the fluency, the big gets, the fun details: success

4: https://twitter.com/thegarance --gotta have a retweeter-in-chief

5: https://twitter.com/neiltyson --ever-entertaining spinner of fantastic factoids

Playing The President

Solitaire Boardgaming: Being President

This will be a post that I update periodically as my thoughts ripen.  We start on March 16th, 2016 with my initial notes.

GMT Games' Gene Billingsley is developing a game that will, ideally, replicate a contemporary US president's four years in office.  Here is the link.

Engaging with foreign powers, advancing a domestic agenda, the game will have it all.  Or at least that's the hope.

My focus here will be on any shortcomings I see as preparations for publication unfold.  It goes without saying that I'm greatly interested in the concept and have already pre-ordered a copy.  Publication is expected in late '16 at the earliest.

1.  There's been considerable push-back against GMT's choice of a title for this project.  It is currently known as "Mr President".  In addition to being the same name as an earlier, well-regarded boardgame (and thus a cause for confusion), there's also the obvious grounds for a charge of sexism inherent in using the "Mr." at a time when one of the two likely candidates for the office is female.

2.  My other initial take on GMT's effort is that not enough time is being allowed to develop the game's potential.

We'll get into specifics as the days pass, and I have time to gather my thoughts.  There'll also be updates from Mr. Billingsley that I'll occasionally link to.

Update 3/17/16 ........................................................

Right off the bat I can say that of the two points above, the first is the no-brainer.  Boardgaming is gradually attracting women to the table, and so insisting on a title like Mr. President, for whatever reason, won't win any points for charm, at best, and at worst, aligns with hard-line fundamentalists at home and abroad.

With that said, let's lay out how the game seems to work, and where it might be improved.

You, as the player in the Oval Office, choose your cabinet to start the game.  Each cabinet member has an effectiveness rating that is used during the game to implement your agenda at home and abroad.  This takes the form of die rolls to see whether you're successful with your agenda items.  Your cabinet members act to add points to these die rolls, and each roll, plus modifiers, must reach a certain level to be successful.  Successful rolls result in progress on your agenda, leading to an increased standing in public opinion, for example, and other positive spillover effects.  Thus forward momentum.

There is, of course, a crisis around every corner.  Cards that contain Events are drawn and revealed, some of which help you, but many of which set back your plans.  The key is to react intelligently to unfolding events.  

A possible problem (Mr. Billingley has revealed only a few sample turns so far, so we will see) is that foreign affairs dominates the game.  Since GMT Games is mainly a wargame company, this is not surprising.  Plus, it's much more difficult to model an economic system, or most other domestic policy interactions, at least compared to the relative strength of armies, for example.

Naturally, I have suggestions to augment the domestic system:

A.  Have 2-3 possible presidential styles to choose from.  Maverick, where a greater range of policy choices is on offer.  Bridge Builder, where opposition to your agenda is weaker and more variable, as is party support.  And Party Animal, where choices are constrained by the party line, but your cabinet has greater effect.

B.  A binary choice between a Democrat/Republican.  For each party there would then be the above 2-3 choices that would afford a slight edge in some respect; these would be marked, once chosen, on the relevant Candidate Card.  A Maverick, Bridge Builder, or Party Animal token with strengths and weaknesses would be placed on top of one's candidate card.

C.  Starting with one party or the other, we can then begin to model economic, environmental, even drug policy and how much room to maneuver a Maverick or a Party Animal would have, how much each could rely on party support, even the time required to fundraise for the party, time that would otherwise be spent on an agenda.  In general, these models would allow greater government activity for a Democrat and less for a Republican, with corresponding costs and benefits.

 ........................................................

Update 3/20/16

An accounting for how a president projects not just power, but cultural awareness.

Perhaps the game as designed already accounts for this.  If not, it could be a card that appears periodically and that sees the player taking a chance at connecting with popular culture.  Factors could include whether a foreign or serious domestic crisis is currently on-going (negative), previous attempts to connect (successful +1 or unsuccessful- 1) and perhaps an initial chance to spend time each turn on this facet of the game in order to increase one's odds in the form of a positive die roll modifier cascading into other die rolls.

..........................................................

Update 5/30/16

My hopes for this game took a surprising turn for the better when it was announced that the election window for this game, Nov. '16, would be missed.  Ideally, this design would wait for 2019 or so, giving numerous developers a chance to submit ideas.  Instead, this will be the first in a series, and subsequent titles will likely correct past mistakes and flesh out inadequacies.

My Best Blogging

A Look Back At My First Five Years

I'm getting better at blogging.

I now link to my blog on twitter, and increasingly, more people read my posts.

Here, then, are my top ten most popular, followed by my ten best, both in countdown order (below, you'll find these same lists tabulated at the time this piece was published--March 16th:

As of May 22nd, 2016:

Most Read
10.  Supreme Court 4/4 Tie in November -- The Scariest, Worst-Case Scenario (Feb. 29, 16)  ^1
9.  Why The Young Love Bernie (April 1st, '16)  New on list
8.  Trump's Possible Veep Picks (May 14th, '16)   New on list
7.  Gamified Labor -- On The Clock (Nov. 24, '13)  ^1
6.  The Case For Bernie (March 14, '16)   New on list
5. My Little Twitter Idea (May 5, '15)   ^1
4. Rock's Mighty 55 - The Meta-View (Nov. 22, '15)  ^1
3. Presidential Aplomb (Nov. 17, '13)   ^1
2. 13 Positions For A Republican Reboot (Nov. 12, '15)  ^1
1. Feedback On My Little Twitter Idea (Jan. 8, '16)    3 slot advance


Best

10.  My Favorite Web Links (constantly updated)
9.  Unbundling Pay TV -- An Exercise In Game Design
     (Ordering TV a la carte)
8.  Monetizing Online Journalism   New to List
7.  Hillary's Secret Weapon: Bernie   New to List
6.  Presidential Aplomb
     (I rank US presidents)
5.  Take It To A Higher Level
     (using on-line voting to make Congress work)
4.  The Mighty 55 -- Rock 'N' Roll's Greatest
3.  Supreme Court 4/4 Tie In November -- The Scariest, Worst-Case Scenario
     (having nine justices on the court is vital)
2.  Meet, Greet 'N' Seat
     (designing a more democratic presidential primary system)
1.  Gamified Labor -- On The Clock
     (encouraging efficiency at work)

As of 3/16/16:

Most Read

10. Meet, Greet 'N' Seat  (March 11 '16)
9. Supreme Court 4/4 Tie in November -- The Scariest, Worst-Case Scenario (Feb. 29, 16)
8. My Little Twitter Idea -- Finally Revealed  (Jan. 3, '16)
7. What A Schock! (Oct. 18, '10)
6. Gamified Labor -- On The Clock (Nov. 24, '13)
5. Feedback On My Little Twitter Idea (Jan. 8, '16)
4. My Little Twitter Idea (May 5, '15)
3. Rock's Mighty 55 - The Meta-View (Nov. 22, '15)
2. Presidential Aplomb (Nov. 17, '13)
1. 13 Positions For A Republican Reboot (Nov. 12, '15)


Best

10.  My Favorite Web Links (constantly updated)
9.  Unbundling Pay TV -- An Exercise In Game Design
     (Ordering TV a la carte)
8.  America's First Published Poet
7.  Looking Back At The Architect
     (I review a revisionist book about Christ)
6.  Presidential Aplomb
     (I rank US presidents)
5.  Take It To A Higher Level
     (using on-line voting to make Congress work)
4.  The Mighty 55 -- Rock 'N' Roll's Greatest
3.  Supreme Court 4/4 Tie In November -- The Scariest, Worst-Case Scenario
     (having nine justices on the court is vital)
2.  Meet, Greet 'N' Seat
     (designing a more democratic presidential primary system)
1.  Gamified Labor -- On The Clock
     (encouraging efficiency at work)


Notes about these results (3/16):

* Chronologically, 7 out of 10 of my most read posts appeared within the past year, so hopefully I'm getting more interesting.

* My most extensive writing involves the Mighty 55.  This is a separate blog devoted to the most important rock 'n' roll.   The blog posts referencing it, above, are summaries.  Here's a link to the blog itself.  Incidentally, the most popular entries are The Kinks and Janis Joplin (tie), followed by Radiohead (5/22/16 update: most popular is now my #1, Natalie Merchant. My #2 "The Greatest Rock & Roll Band" and #46 The Kinks, are tied for 2nd.  Janis, #49, now at #3).

* Here are a few musings RE: my most popular:
#7, from way back in 2010, was a critique of Aaron Schock, the now disgraced ex-congressman who resigned after it was revealed, in '14, that he had misused campaign funds.
#4 is actually another idea that I used to tease my little twitter idea (which, itself, was only revealed half a year later: #8).
#1, my most popular, is a list of positions that the Republican party could adopt in order to move itself back to being a more centrist party.

The Case For Bernie

Best Case Scenario

The case for, paradoxically, begins with the case against.

What most political pundits think they know—based on experience—is that a Socialist like Bernie would lose when matched up against just about any Republican opponent.  

Why?  Left-wing idealism has a long track record.  It’s not just George McGovern in ’72, it’s the myriad races at the state and local level where youthful idealism almost always loses.  The further out in left field, the more likely the loss.  The Green Party is a good example of how being idealistic just isn’t enough.  Rather, political movements that champion things like single-payer healthcare, government funded higher education, legalized marijuana, and so on actually need voters who favor such things.

Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post covers the unlikelihood that voters in this country would choose radical change.

And even if Bernie were somehow, miraculously, elected, it would likely be a relatively close vote, and he’d almost certainly face a hostile House of Representatives, thwarting every one of his plans, as happened to President Obama.

Wait, though, what if he caught fire and won big?  Wouldn’t that make his plans much more likely?  Probably not.  The reason ObamaCare, for example, was so watered down by the time it passed—even with both houses of congress in Democratic control—is that not all Democrats want radical reform.  In fact, most of the 'extra' Democrats elected in a big wave election would be relatively moderate, from districts in which voters would be about as Republican as Democratic.  So, compromise would be all that would happen.

Now that we’ve completely quashed all hope of a leftist revolution in 2016, here’s that case for Bernie:

* Sure, the odds of winning might be 33% instead of 66% for Clinton, but one can trust Bernie.  He fires from the hip without having to think about what he's saying.  He has deep principles based on what's just and equitable.  One can trust his views, no questions asked.

* And his opponent, if Bernie were to get the nomination?  Maybe the worst possible candidate for the Republicans, someone like a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz, is being served up by fate just so Bernie can win this one. 

* Wouldn’t it be such a ‘get’ to keep young Bernie supporters energized?  An entire generation brought into the tent.

So, that’s the case for.  And the most convincing point is probably the last.  An entire generation at stake.  Except that when reality sank in, when, over the course of the first four years, compromise was found to be all that was possible, wouldn’t it just be an awfully big turn off?

Meet, Greet 'n' Seat

Neighborhood Forums

(Updated February '20)
As we’ve seen every four years, the system used in selecting a president begins with contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Why?  Well, as our system has evolved over the years, alternatives have been judged unworthy.  One perennially discussed alternative, for example, is to only have regional primaries, like the gargantuan set of contests to be held this March 3rd.  The objection, however, has always been that this skips the ‘getting-to-know-you’ politics found in small states.  

But if we want voters to meet candidates up close in live settings, and yet also want the first voters to be as diverse as our country (Iowa and New Hampshire being less racially diverse and more rural than average), perhaps we need to think outside the traditional box.  Maybe even take a step into the digital age.

We know Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t about to give up their first-in-the-nation status without a fight.  But what if, in the weeks leading up to the first primary season contests, there was a way for candidates to make pitches to a small, representative sample of all voters?  

We could easily do this.  We know how to select a random sample.  We have digital media that could transfer candidate videos to these voters.  And we certainly know how to conduct on-line polls.

Except, there are potential drawbacks to on-line activity.  Security, for one.

But what if the interaction was live --in a high school gym or hotel ballroom, where security could be guaranteed and the integrity of any polling unquestioned.  Here's one possible scenario I’m calling Meet, Greet ’n' Seat:

1. The Democratic Party would randomly select towns and urban neighborhoods (let’s say each such neighborhood would average 2,024 Democratic voters).  Overall, selected neighborhoods, combined, would be representative of the Democratic Party, whether examined by age, gender, race, religion, income, etc.

2. Democrats and Independents living in these select neighborhoods would then be sent tickets to a local Meet, Greet ’n Seat event, held in the nearest auditorium, hotel, or other large facility.  Follow up canvassing to encourage residents to attend, free dinner, and a token payment (Savings Bond) received following the event (to avoid a majority-rich problem), would ensure enough of a sample to make groups of events statistically significant.

3. Events would include as many candidates as wished to attend, or recorded videos from those who couldn't.  Events might begin with an informal meet-the-candidate half-hour as voters arrive, followed by a 90-minute or so session during which dinner is served, with candidates onstage.  Besides answering questions from the floor, candidates would be allowed to make several-minute speeches.  The evening would then conclude with voters asked to fill out a ballot that would list candidate names.  Age cohort, gender, race, religion, approximate income and party affiliation, would also be requested.  As they left the event, voters would turn in their ballot and receive their Savings Bond.  They could also sign up to receive additional party and candidate material.

The polling results thus obtained would be an on-going primary that awarded no delegates, but that allowed candidates to interact inexpensively with voters, hone their campaigning skills and message, and possibly rise to the status of serious contender, prior to the first contests taking place (a threshold for participation would be established by the Democratic Party).  By November, the field would be effectively winnowed.

Details

Q: Is There Really A Problem With Iowa, New Hampshire…?

A: Probably.  It's conceivable that a milquetoast candidate beholden to the more traditional party interests could do very well with a diet of Iowa and New Hampshire, perhaps doing well enough to be the odds-on favorite, even though more diverse/urban states had yet to vote.

Q: What’s wrong with on-line videos and polling?

A: Security—preventing votes from being hacked.  But also, there’s nothing like a live event to provide a true sense of what a candidate is like.  Otherwise, canned appearances can deceive.

Q: How many invitees would attend an average event?

A: With the Savings Bond, the excitement of meeting celebrities (including the would-be variety), plus dinner (though a buffet or BBQ is probably a more likely description), I’m guessing about 50%.

Q: What about those who couldn’t attend, because of job commitments, for example?

A: An alternate date or two for screening a recording of the event.  For the homebound, a copy of the recording, and mail-in ballots.

Q: Why add independent voters to the mix?  

A: If events are limited to Democratic voters, the act of attending announces one’s party affiliation, something that is likely to scare off all but the ‘base’.  Besides, these events would serve as excellent outreach.

Q: How would Independents be identified?

A: All voters, minus voters in any of the past two or three Republican primaries.  In states where party identification is not know, some other system, perhaps requests for tickets, with statistical adjustments made to weed out any nefarious tricksters trying to ruin the process.

An alternative would be to focus exclusively on early primary states where party identification is known (this is the case in three of the current four early-birds with the exception being South Carolina).

Q: How would the cast ballots be turned into a representative sample?

A: The events would be held in diverse locations.  The raw data would be weighted so as to produce a representative sample.  For example, Independents would be separated from Democratic ballots.  Events could be analyzed as stand-alone data sets, as well as cumulatively.

Q: How many of these events would a candidate have to attend in order to have been to them all?

A: 46, though candidates would likely pick a dozen or so to attend in person.

Q: What would the schedule be like?

A: Events on Saturdays and Sundays in May through November (excluding a few dates like the 4th of July and Thanksgiving weekends) in the year prior to the election.

Q: How much would all this cost?

A: If the cost per attendee is about $100, including a $20.24 Savings Bond, dinner, canvassing, and venue, and 1000 attend, that’s $100,000 x 46 events = $4.6 million, well within the budget of a donor eager to encourage actual democracy.

Overview

These Meet, Greet ’n’ Seat events would accomplish several things:

 * Make the Democratic Party more fundamentally democratic.

 * Reward the best candidate in the primaries, rather than the best fundraiser, or the most familiar face.

 * Provide opportunities for local party organizers.

 * Expose independent voters to Democratic Party ideas and leaders.

 * Provide candidates with the interactive experience they need to begin a campaign.
 * Take the initial decision-making away from Iowa and New Hampshire without actually doing so.