A Democracy Upgrade

This is the long version I link to in my previous post.

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

Approximate Democracy

The obvious way to upgrade popular representation would be to digitize voting.  Not only would this make one’s franchise much easier to exercise, but actual, direct democracy would then be conceivable, which in turn would promise an end to the petty corruption of special interest lobbying.

Unfortunately, security concerns make e-democracy all but impossible, at least for the foreseeable future--until blockchain technology, for example, is fully tested.  Fortunately, however, there's a way around security concerns, and that's Approximate Democracy.  It promises a radical scaling back of petty corruption, all the while maintaining our current electoral landscape.

Here's how it would work in this country:  

A.  In today’s world, a voter who makes an opinion known to her political representative needn’t worry about security.  As long as the politician isn’t required to heed it, this is simply political expression.

B.  Now imagine many thousands of voters making their opinions known.  Still no need for security, but the politician will likely pay more attention.

C.  And finally, imagine a polling firm hired to accurately sample those thousands of opinions, and generate truly representative ‘voter opinion’ that will almost certainly influence the affected politician.

This three step walk-through points to our Approximate Democracy, a simple process that at a minimum begins to separate politicians from monied interests (due to voter opinion holding sway), and attacks the party line conformity that prevents important political progress.

First, let’s describe how approximate democracy would work, then we’ll address specific questions about its chances.

1) A participating member of the House of Representatives would have a webpage featuring videos (each perhaps five minutes in length) covering both single issues and more general topics.

2) Voters, after viewing a randomly assigned video, would register their opinions by choosing from among multiple-choice options on a series of questions. 

3) Polling firms would sample constituent opinion, then publish results.  Politicians could choose to abide by these opinions when representing their constituents, could decline to offer this service in the first place, or could select from individual polling results as they saw fit.  That is, they wouldn’t be legally bound to concur with these polls, but could advertise their willingness to do so. 

4) This system, once fully implemented, would tend to focus election campaigns on video presentation (actual issues), and adherence to constituent opinion, rather than the carefully constructed ‘talking points’ generated to mislead, since a politician’s actual votes on issues could be pre-determined by constituent input.

5) Importantly, a representative’s webpage would enable dissent, amendment, and other feedback.  In this way, a politician would be one cog in a veritable thinking mind, grappling with alternatives, and defusing otherwise explosive issues with contextual background.

6) In an age of cynicism over the motives and performance of our politicians, Approximate Democracy draws the voter into the deliberative process, furnishes context, discussion and closure, all the while building political sophistication.

And now for specifics:

FAQ

Q: A District’s Polling Results Would Be Reflective of Constituent Age, Sex, Income, etc., Wouldn’t They?  

A: Yes.  First time visitors to their representative's webpage would be asked to provide basic demographic information.  Then, when a 30-something female with a secondary education, and an income of $40,000 is needed to complete a sampling of 50 similar people, all opinions generated by that demographic are in effect shuffled and drawn from, as one would pick a single, unseen playing card from among many. 

  

Multiple polling firms could be hired for relatively little to essentially plug in data, since a district’s demographic profile would change very little year-to-year once a polling firm’s proprietary profile were set.  A polling average of those multiple firms would then refine results.

Q: What About Poll Reliability?  We Recently Had An Election In Which The Unexpected Happened.

A: Yes, but in 2016's presidential election, the polling average (Real Clear Politics) was only off by 1.1 percentage points compared to the final popular vote.  And because there was 1) an unusually large number of undecided voters late in the process, 2) the dramatic revelations involving the FBI investigation, and 3) the flood of Russian hacking and fake news, the misdirection that affected mainly rural, low-information voters was not surprising.  Thus, a 1.1% divergence from pre-election projections actually makes the case that modern polling is worthy.  

Besides, most of our proposed system's results won't be close.  The minority, those within a point or two of 50/50, would naturally suggest a judgement call.

Q: Why Not Rate Polling Firms and Weight Their Results Accordingly?

A: This might best be implemented once firms have a chance to acclimate.  Ratings could be based on projections for congressional elections.  Polling firms would publish predictions the day before an election, and would be rewarded depending on how close they modeled the result.  Success would mean both greater influence (additional weight in polling averages) and financial compensation (contracts with performance bonuses).

Incidentally, polling firms would likely report both constituent opinion, and likely voter opinion, thus, in some cases, allowing candidates further leeway in following that opinion.

Q: What About Security?  Is Any Internet Portal Safe?

A: Because ‘contacting your political representative’ involves a politician knowing how you feel about a given issue, our information exchange is two-way, much like a credit card company and its customers, rather than a one-way secret ballot.  An email or text receipt could be sent to each constituent to confirm their expressed opinions. 

Plus, because videos are assigned to constituents randomly—and eventually there would be hundreds of videos--there is little chance of intentionally influencing a particular issue.  

Q: Are constituents voting on as many videos as they want?

A: No, a limit would be advisable to preserve sampling viability.  A constituent who successfully opined on the content of, say, three videos, could be allowed to pick a fourth of their choice.  In the case of all such fourth-of-four, ‘free choice' picks, however, opinions would be part of a separate tally that gauged ‘feedback ferocity’, only.   Following their fourth video, constituents would be told they had reached their limit, and would be politely asked to return after, say, 24 hours.

Q: Those Sharing The Same Device In The Same Household Would Be Able To Register Individually, Right?

A: Right.  A pin number based on an ID (possibly, eventually, fingerprints), would likely be used to distinguish constituents.

Q: How Would This Idea Be Implemented?

A: It would probably begin with several politicians and a handful of prominent issues.  Then, in subsequent elections, challengers could offer the service if the incumbent hadn't yet done so.  Videos, meanwhile, would likely be produced by political parties, factions or interest groups, and used by multiple representatives. 

Q: Is It Likely That Large Enough Samples Are Possible?  A House District Is ~ 711,000.    

Most likely, to begin with, politicians would only take opinion tallies under consideration, but could then switch over to actually abiding by poll results once polling firms were hired and samples were large enough.    

To encourage participation, especially in smaller constituencies, there will likely be a place for prizes of some value.  Most likely, though, because outside groups would organize members to take part in the separate, ‘feedback ferocity’ tallies (a viewer’s fourth, free choice video), and because constituents would have to make their way through three other videos first, this would likely create the necessary participatory volume for sampling to be successful.  To quickly transform our democracy with overwhelming participation, we would almost certainly need prizes.

Q: Pretty Hard To Imagine Low-Income Constituents Using This System, Especially The Computer-less, no?

A: There is a gut-level truth here, obviously; if you don’t have leisure time, you won’t be able to sit through a 5-minute video, let alone four such presentations.  

There are, however, fairly credible comebacks to this point.  The first involves statistics.  If there are 500 low-income viewers of a video, and 5,000 each for those with middle and high incomes, and there is only a need for 400 from each group, the polling interface would simply select all it needs, no problem.   

A second comeback involves the question of prizes.  If there are prizes, and if they are of some value, constituents with lower incomes will experience a greater relative benefit.  For example, the chance to win $1,000 in Savings Bond might be worth five minutes for those with modest incomes, but perhaps not for the otherwise occupied wealthy.

Q: But Shouldn’t Participation Be Based On Interest?

A: Certainly.  And yet the logic for replacing our current representative democracy model, with its marginally corrupt framework, argues for speed in implementation.  The sooner that a representative has a constituent feedback loop up and running, the sooner that representative can tell a lobbyist “sorry, but my constituents have spoken”.  And the sooner this happens, the sooner the representative’s unscrupulous challengers in the next election will be partially disarmed.  

Imagine if, in the year 2023, all participants who visited their House of Representative's webpage at least once during a given month were eligible for one of ten $1,000 drawings.  Ten drawings for each Congressional District (Washington D.C. adds one, for 436), involves an annual cost of only $52.32 million in savings bonds: 1,000 x 10 x 12 x 436.  This is a very modest sum, and one we are comfortable in proposing, given the overwhelming urgency of the challenges we face.

Q: How Can We Be Sure About Constituent Data?

A: At first glance this would seem to be a problem. Wouldn’t some more cynical constituents pose as underrepresented demographic groups in order to increase their chance of being heard?   First, the number of cheaters is likely to be very small, and unlikely to affect outcomes if the sample size is large enough (adding one or two duplicate opinions will seem all but futile to most people).  Second, some kind of verification is possible.  Public records, for example, can match residents with specific addresses. And third, polling firms use census data as the foundation for their demographic profiles.  When census / polling data are mismatched in an anticipated direction, a slight adjustment to a demographic profile can be made.  And when we remember that polling firms will be using their models to predict legislative races, and thus constantly fine-tuning them, this seeming problem evaporates.  

Q: How Would A Video Allow For Dissent and Amendment?

A: The likeliest system would probably involve a comments section like those found on many websites.  A poster could tag a comment as a ‘challenge’, which, if it gathered enough support, would become a ‘rebuttal’ that would be added to the original video.  These challenges and amendments would, by law, be prominently featured on a politician’s website.  They would then be linked to by that politician’s challengers in future elections.

To keep politicians honest, a general record of challenges and amendments should be kept.  These could be sorted and accessed by:

 - the amount of support they generate per hundred views (separated into several categories of popularity) 

 - the relative percentage of up-votes to down-votes

 - the subject matter in question

 - the date on which they occur

This alone should make our representative politics a more fact-based, consensus driven endeavor.  What sane politician would want attention drawn to his worst biases, snubs, and factual errors?  

Most likely, dissent and amendment wouldn’t be allowed for those choosing to view their fourth, free choice video, as this would encourage a flood of astroturf reaction.

Q: Why Haven’t We Seen Approximate Democracy Before?

A: In a nutshell: timeliness.  Only very recently has the digital revolution--specifically internet access--approached 100% in most developed countries.  This was always the biggest hurdle, since democracies require that everyone be at the table, and patchwork fixes like public library access are all but unworkable for large numbers of people.

There are other reasons, too:

   ·  Refinement: In the US in 2010 a House candidate from South Dakota garnered 6% of the vote.  He advocated a much simpler system than ours that lacked safeguards like polling, random video access, etc.

   ·  Flexibility: While direct democracy may be an ideal for some, it can be critiqued as allowing the rabble to rule.  We, however, allow politicians a choice of whether to pick and choose from among poll results, or, whether to solicit opinions in the first place.

   ·  Interest: Even if polling had previously been considered as a way to render constituent opinion, there was always the problem of interest.  Sampling requires not dozens, but hundreds of responses.  This is where ‘feedback ferocity’ and savings bond drawings come into play.

   ·  Two-Way Security. The internet is not secure.  To be taken seriously, E-democracy must be an exchange accountable at both ends, rather than an attempt at a ‘secret ballot’ on one end (unless, that is, blockchain technology is proven viable).

Conclusion   

Often, political reformers attempt too big a bite: a change to a country’s government structure, or a hoped-for rising up of the downtrodden.  Instead, Approximate Democracy is easy.  Just one politician is all it would take. Simply put up a webpage with the idea in brief, several dozen videos to get things started, and a ‘challenges’ page for critiques and mistakes.  Send out notifications on social media.  Compose a press release and send it to local and national news outlets.  Contact key political journalists, inviting long-form articles.  Most importantly, contact organizations with legislative outreach staff.  All this should generate traffic to the website, and may induce some organizations to produce additional videos (once enough videos are in place, a polling firm can be hired).  Finally, invite fellow representatives to join the digital revolution.

T. R. (Theodore Roosevelt) Shows 'Em

Why Not “Four Years More"—Theodore Roosevelt, Opportunity, Optimism, and the 2020 Elections

Introduction

In late 2015, as the Republican candidate field was taking shape for the following year's presidential election, I wrote an article on this blog suggesting that Republicans were setting up a losing candidate to be knocked down by a foregone conclusion.  I used the words “borderline buffoon” to describe the eventual nominee.  Not only was I wrong about that candidate losing, but the thrust of my article: “13 Positions For A Republican Reboot” (suggesting ways for the Republican party to transform itself) was wrong-headed too.  The Republican party isn’t about to transform itself, though I’d of course love to be wrong about that, too.  What is possible, is a rump Republican party, left behind as the relatively sane split off in a more moderate direction.

The opportunity this presents Democrats, then, is where my focus should've been, and will be, in this follow-up article.

                                                                              1

The title I’m using, Why Not “Four Years More"—Theodore Roosevelt, Opportunity, Optimism, and the 2020 Elections, looks back at that iconic Republican, T. R., and uses his personality and policies to construct a bridge to disenchanted GOP voters of today.

And, no, I don’t mean to suggest that Democrats should strive for a ‘middle ground’ to accomplish this, such that energetic, partisan positions are left behind in favor of a flaccid ‘compromise'.  No, I’m suggesting that in addition to standard Democratic party policy, T.R.’s greatness may show a possible way forward that is progressive, and a natural bridge for the 5-10% of Republicans cut adrift by our current president and his cohorts in Congress.

Perhaps the easiest challenge this project poses is to first separate the historically naive T.R. from the visionary.  We’ll then draw on T.R.’s example in identifying our bridge to Republicans.  And finally, we’ll see what all this means for the Democratic party.  In other words, this article will attempt to identify the likeliest path to the healthiest victory margin in 2020, assuming no significant modification of core Democratic party principles.

1

  “Four Years More” was the chant heard 110 years ago at the 1908 Republican National Convention as some delegates encouraged T.R. to run for another term (having become president in 1901, he served out the remainder of the assassinated William McKinley’s term, and then in ’04 was elected in his own right).  He declined to run again.

…………..

That Brilliantly Lit Mind

That T.R. was a great president is hardly in doubt.  His enthusiasms and accomplishments are legendary and he richly deserves his place on Mount Rushmore in the company of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.  A short list of his presidency's highlights would include reining in corporate excess, establishing consumer protections, negotiating peace, creating the first national parks, cracking down on corruption, and fighting for “A Square Deal” to encourage opportunity for all.

Realistically, though, one must admit that in several ways he was all too caught up in the times in which he lived.  Did he consider westerners and western culture superior?  Did this mean he thought countries like The Philippines benefited from US occupation?  And should we use the term ‘imperialist’?  The answer to all such questions is probably 'yes', though I'm willing to set that fault aside, along with the lack of progress on Race, Gender and Indigenous Rights.  Others may not be so willing.  Most importantly, though, we know where we, ourselves, stand on these issues, and can, if we so choose, chalk these matters up to the naiveté of our nation’s early development; and, instead, focus on the good.  If so, T.R.’s example is all we need.  And adding 5-10% of the Republican vote is likely all it would take to bust up the congressional logjams that beset our political institutions.

……………

The T.R. Agenda

In the order listed above, we have:

1. Reining in corporate excess

2. Consumer protections

3. Diplomacy

4. Conservation

5. Anti-Corruption

6. Opportunity

1. Reining In Corporate Excess

There will be much to undo from the excesses and negligence that describe our 45th president.  The problem, though, will be that closing loopholes, breaking up monopolies, net neutrality, re-imposing safeguards, fining wrong-doers, even returning corporate tax rates to their previous levels, are actions that aren't going to get too many people excited.  Instead, what's needed are stunning proposals, ...which we'll get to.

2. Consumer Protection

In T.R.’s day the problem was mislabeled and unsanitary food, along with unscrupulous economic actors, problems the president aggressively, and in some cases effectively addressed.  What are the equivalent consumer protection issues of our age?  There's the long-term issue of climate change, opioid addiction, lead contamination, the wrong people having access to guns, one could even include health care and retirement security.

3. Diplomacy

Most historians give T.R. high marks for leading the world toward peace during the Russo - Japanese War of 1904-5, and again in defusing tensions in China.  And of course he's known for the famous quote: “Speak softly, and carry a big stick…” which suggests strength, but with a deft, light touch.  This would translate into modern-day restraint, calibration, and cultivating positive trends.

4. Conservation

Even the most ardent treehugger has to admit that T.R., despite some mercantile instincts, was a godsend for conservation.  He helped establish five National Parks, 18 National Monuments, 51 bird reserves, four game preserves, and 150 National Forests. In all, approximately a quarter of a billion acres.  In our day, there's a need for speed in protecting the natural world we now enjoy, as well as for sharing it, especially with those having little access to nature.

5. Anti-Corruption

We think of corruption as the scourge of developing economies, like the graft and mismanagement that T.R. dealt with over a hundred years ago.  But what is the illegal drug trade, sex trafficking, and illegal resource extraction, not to mention the ’special interests’ badgering our capital, but our own modern-day corruption?

6. Opportunity

In T.R.’s day, impediments to the American Dream were rapacious corporations, unhealthy living conditions, unfair economic structures, and a lack of economic vigor.  We share many of those same problems.

Surprisingly, to approximate a winning agenda for 2020, one has only to toss into this diagnostic mix a needed respect for others, at home and abroad (a perspective that we all but take for granted here in the 21st century).

But how does one reach voters who'll yawn at the mention of T.R.?  By making his fight for opportunity come alive.
What follows is T.R.'s agenda one hundred and ten years later.

……………...

Our Framework (T.R.'s approach in bold)

 * Emphasize “Speak Softly…” Overseas

 * Accept and Embrace Both Urban and Rural Perspectives

 * Reach Out to Marginally Motivated Voters With Enthusiasm

A. Emphasize “Speak Softly…” Overseas

Realistically speaking, the only way--without raising taxes beyond 2016 rates--that additional revenues can be found--funds needed on the home front for a dynamic agenda, and also to tackle deficit spending—is to:

1. Reduce our involvement overseas

2. Invest instead in diplomacy,   and

3. Scale back the upgrade of our nuclear forces, and reduce other excesses and duplication in heavy weaponry, instead emphasizing a light tread.

B. Accept and Embrace Urban/Rural Perspectives

Again, realistically speaking, the sure way to appeal to Republican voters fed up with vulgarity and venality, and seriously thinking about voting Blue, is to chart a way forward for both Urban and Rural America; because, if you live out in the country, an agenda with nothing in it for you is an open and shut case.

To wit:

 * a recognition that federal policy impacts farm and ranch size, and thus the vitality of rural economies (smaller farms = more farmers = bigger local economy)

 * an appreciation for how a corporate economy differs from homespun, creative livelihoods 

 * a vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws to promote local and regional businesses

C. Reach Out To Marginal Voters With Enthusiasm

Here we find what will likely transform our approach from plodding to plausible: tapping into pure opportunity--the chance to get rich--to attract broad participation in civic life. We address:

  * the weaknesses in our democratic system

  * the problem of unemployment as artificial intelligence/robots do ever more of our work

  * the erosion of economic vitality in much of our country's interior

Weakness in our Democracy

It's simple.  If your congressman is dependent on corporate cash, he isn't representing you and your fellow voters.  There are difficult ways to fix this, involving Supreme Court justices retiring, or the even more unlikely constitutional amendment process.  Or, there's what I'm calling Approximate Democracy.
For the long version, read my next post.

Here's the short version:

1) A participating congress-man or -woman would have a webpage featuring videos (each perhaps five minutes in length) covering both single issues and more general topics.

2) Voters, after viewing a randomly assigned video, would register their opinions by choosing from among multiple-choice options on a series of questions. 

3) Polling firms would sample these opinions, then publish results.  Politicians could choose to represent constituent opinion, could decline to offer this service in the first place, or could select from individual polling results as they saw fit.  That is, they wouldn’t be legally bound to concur with these polls, but could advertise their willingness to do so.

4) The public would be encouraged to participate, with the drawing of 10 names per month per House district.  These 10 constituents would each receive $1,000 in savings bonds.  The chance to win such a prize would likely generate enough participants to make the system work, and would cost a mere $52.32 million a year.

So, a single representative, choosing to listen to constituents is all it would take to get the ball rolling.  Eventually, the entire House of Representatives would be telling corporate lobbyists that, sorry, but constituent opinion comes first.

Employment/Artificial Intelligence

First, return the federal budget to its 2016 near-balance.

Second, commit some savings from 'speaking softly' overseas to expanding those $1,000 payouts to $100,000.

Third, take on additional wasteful government spending, and redirect it (subsidies for fossil fuels, for example) to larger prizes, say $500,000.

And, fourth, winners are encouraged to drop out of the corporate economy's labor force and start their own break-even business/craft.

Economic Vitality In The Country's Interior

First, create tax and benefit incentives for those who live and work at home (farmers who live on their own farm), and remove them for absentee owners and overly large land-owners (with regional variability: large states, large ranches).

Second, coupled with enforcing and promulgating anti-trust laws, this allows small-scale, locally based businesses to flourish and reinvest in their community. 

Third, similarly, encourage coop business models that give farmers and other producers bargaining power.

And, fourth, nurture a land-based, craft economy that is shielded from the efficiencies of our other, corporate economic system.

  

What This Means For The Democratic Party

The above proposal highlights the enthusiasm and Square Deal opportunity that T. R. represented, and the way we might reimagine those political assets in our own time.

Here is additional detail:

1. Balance The Books

Economics 101 teaches that an economy needs stimulus during a recession, and can then return to balance during an expansion.  We're in a long expansion, and the prudent thing to do is to return to the near-balance of 2016's taxing and spending levels.  We can then disengage militarily, overseas, to free up additional money to be used at home.

2. 'Speak Softly' Overseas

Being prudent with money is the hallmark of a conservative approach, and in this case, disengaging militarily is also the progressive--and responsible--thing to do.

A small portion of our savings could be reinvested in diplomacy, so that we're in step with our fellow democratic allies around the world, and seen as a steady, reliable partner.

3. Helpful Anti-Trust Action

If a country's economy is dominated by huge corporations, profits will flow out of far-flung localities and into centers of commerce, effectively drying up economic activity in small- and medium-sized towns.  This hollowing out leads to joblessness and misery (addiction, suicide, broken families, etc.).  This is our current situation.

T.R. had a remedy for this problem, and it pertains today: break up and restrict larger corporations in favor of those that enrich local economies.  Link: Here is a good overview of our anti-trust argument.  The overall case for how corporate monopoly drives an under-performing economy with low wages, can be found here.

4. A Modern Online Democracy

The importance of corruption in politics is hard to ignore.  Those with the most money will simply buy their way to victory--or will try to do so.  We can fight back with facts, humor and popular positions, but a quicker way may be to cut out the middleman's role representing public opinion, since that is where money plays its part.

If the electorate is encouraged to, as citizens, take twenty minutes every month to tell politicians what they think, this gradually:
A. Educates voters,
B. Forces representatives to listen and respond, and
C. Means a more rewarded and satisfied electorate
In this way we've cut out the core corruption, rather than trying to handle its many, troubling manifestations.

This approach handles the house of representatives.  The senate, with its tilt toward low-population, rural states is the reason we need that 5-10% of the Republican vote--in other words, the reason for this ' T.R. Bridge ' article.  Note: In a subsequent post, here, I address how the original problem with the senate (dating back to the founding of our nation) could be partially resolved.

5. A Transition To A Robot Economy

At first glance the idea of randomly rewarding 10 voters in each congressional district with $1,000 each, every month of the year, seems jarring (not to mention increasing that amount to $500K).  But let's look at the other possibilities as artificial intelligence begins to displace our economy's workforce:

A. We use a system like the Approximate Democracy idea, above.  This would tax corporations (those owning the robots, for instance) and spread the wealth to a limited number of people, many of whom then exit the workforce, so that our working population declines in tandem with fewer and fewer jobs; thus, instead of growing unemployment, we have a growing secondary, leisure/craft economy.

B. We collect the same taxes, and find the same savings as above, but we give everyone a share; this is often referred to as UBI (Universal Basic Income).  The advantage here is that everyone gets something.  The problem is that getting $50 a month from the government (or even expanding that to $500) is not going to reduce the number of people needing a job.

C. We do nothing, and the rich get richer, there are more and more poor, and those poor have more and more problems.  This is our present course.

And, if we wait too long to choose, there is...

D. Eventually, we collect the same taxes as 'A' and 'B', but, since we've waited so long, we find we need that money to ameliorate all the problems brought about by un- and under-employment.

This comparison makes our Approximate Democracy idea look pretty good.

6. A Secondary, Land-Based, Craft Economy

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) gradually replaces workers, a secondary, home-based economy will develop, either as growing numbers of un- and under-employed (many soon to be homeless), or, possibly, if we make it happen, crafters, rural dwellers, break-even small businesses, and artists at leisure in the world.
If our Approximate Democracy system is allowing one of every two thousand people, let's say, to retire from the corporate economy each year, they'll be living life as a leisure activity.  And, we can make this workforce reduction more dramatic by also encouraging those with small farms, business skills, artistic ability, or just the necessary imagination, to start a new career outside corporate America.  For example, paying no taxes on an individual's first $15,000 of income (see footnote, below).  Or, again, for those who earn less than a certain level, rewarding them for care-taking historically significant property, for rehabilitating housing, for restoring degraded landscapes etc., or eventually, even for simply maintaining a beautiful home.  The rate at which AI/robots will displace the human workforce is hard to predict, of course, and initially, we won't be able to afford subsidies for those living as crafters and small farmers, but something like these ideas is surely preferable to staggering unemployment.

The Overall Strategy

Using a broad brush, I've sketched a way for Democrats to conceivably win large enough majorities in congress to overcome inertia and turn the country back towards sanity.

This involves channeling T.R.'s enthusiasm and message of opportunity in order to attract not only borderline Republicans, but low-information, impulsive voters.

First, let's review our strategy, then entertain contrarian arguments.

Initially, the goal is to set up a congress and president who'll follow through on our agenda.  We emphasize easily attainable building blocks, like:

 *a return to 2016's tax structure (fairness, as well as fiscal responsibility) which can be passed with a 50-vote majority in the senate.

 *an end to overseas wars (investing instead here at home)

 *enforcing existing anti-trust, pollution, and consumer protection regulation

 *taking the initial steps towards Approximate Democracy with $1,000 in savings bond prizes

Secondarily, our long-term goal is a country once again based on opportunity.

 *initial financing comes from curtailing overseas military excess in favor of multilateral alliances and actions with other democracies ("speak softly...")

 *additional financing is part of a dramatic expansion of opportunity, which becomes a feedback loop that demands even more of a scaling back of military and other corporate special interest spending

 *in the corporate economy, we emphasize rising wages through a reduction of the workforce; otherwise, as AI/Robots remove jobs, wages will fall

 *in the secondary, creative economy, we remove impediments to break-even livelihoods (a higher no tax threshold; other subsidies), allowing further workforce reduction

 *we fund the drivers of economic expansion (targeted R&D, affordable education, and long-term infrastructure), as would old-time Republicans like Abraham Lincoln

Eventually, our opportunity economy:

 *leads to vigorous regional growth, as anti-trust legislation takes effect

 *has both a cutting edge corporate sector, as well as a creative, small-scale sector (these will tend to be found in our larger cities and rural areas, respectively)

 *keeps workforce numbers in line with jobs

But...What About...?

Ok, let's tackle the naysayers in the back of our minds.

What about the war on terrorism?

Besides the importance of our own problems at home, and the reality that some terrorism is due to our troops taking sides on foreign soil, there're the casualties.  Who are we asking to die?  Our own children.

Could there be face-saving ways we might exit, in places like Afghanistan?  Here's a link to one possibility.  Simply make salaries paid Afghanistan's own soldiers so attractive that they'll be fighting for high-paying jobs (compared to the average Afghan), rather than, in some cases, half-heartedly fighting for little more than room and board.  Couple this with diplomacy, in an effort to keep Taliban fighters out, and we could probably withdraw with few repercussions.

What about our nuclear deterrent and other heavy weapons?

The current set of dangers we face involve terrorist actions, cyber warfare, and other covert threats.  To bankrupt ourselves over showy, unusable symbols of power is at best an unlikely gamble, and at worst totally crazy.  But, for the last nearly hundred years fear has driven us to spend enormous amounts on defense--much more than have other countries with our level of wealth.  This time could be different.  If there's an alternative way to spend that same money that appeals to everyone's sense of a dream come true (our Approximate Democracy system with its $500,000 payouts), rather than yet another nuclear missile, voters will have a personal stake in the alternative.

Won't there be a big gap between Approximate Democracy's initial implementation, and big enough payouts to attract attention?

Not necessarily.  $1,000 will likely attract enough participation to get the program up and running, quickly--perhaps even just a few months.  After all, we live in a viral world where websites crash on less important matters.

Once legislation can be crafted to redirect spending on military hardware, to instead, $500,000 payouts, the response will be self-sustaining.

Won't those who haven't won be jealous of those who have?

If winners are announced every month, there's always the chance that the next winner could be you; this continuing hope should effectively deal with any jealousy.

Aren't we ignoring the plight of those who need the most help?

No, we're describing a policy focus that overlays traditional Democratic goals like raising the minimum wage, increasing education funding, enforcing civil rights laws, and supporting ObamaCare.

Yes, but aren't the payouts for Approximate Democracy a form of gambling?

No.  The original action that is randomly rewarded is letting one's representative know one's opinion, and does not require any payment from the participant.  Plus, if not for the payouts, the truly needy would not be participating, since they wouldn't likely have the leisure time that the wealthy have.

Second, randomly selecting winners is the least bad solution to the loss of jobs brought about by digitization/AI/Robots becoming evermore adept at doing our work.  There are no better options, including doing nothing.

Does it matter which political party represents these ideas?

No.

T. Roosevelt in Kansas speech, 1910

"No man is worth his salt in public life who makes on the stump a pledge which he does not keep after election; and, if he makes such a pledge and does not keep it, hunt him out of public life."

Obama, 2010:

...

At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world’s industrial giant, we had to decide: Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low? Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary? Would we restrict education to the privileged few? Because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you pay for progress.

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed. He was the Republican son of a wealthy family. He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy. He believed then what we know is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It’s led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. (Applause.) He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices....

Update (11/11/18): On this Veterans Day, as we look back to the end of World War I, a few additional thoughts:
 * The 2018 midterm elections have come and gone.  The 'rump' party status of the president's politics was confirmed.  Without the warped effect of a senate tilted towards low-population states, the results would have been a complete repudiation.
 * The '18 election results tracked fairly closely with pre-election polls, lending credence to our using them for our Approximate Democracy idea.
 * A significant backlash among rural voters, regarding issues such as immigration and guns, may indicate how an even larger electoral majority could be had, without compromising principles.
On immigration: Take into account factors such as crowding (traffic jams, for example) and reduced natural habitats (land development for housing, for instance) in addition to the current emphasis on economic benefit (a larger tax base, etc.) and moral imperative (helping those in need).  Doing so allows for wavering voters to feel more comfortable, even if their preferred outcomes aren't endorsed.
On guns: See if there isn't a compromise that allows rural areas, small towns, and more conservative urban areas to have whatever laws they wish regarding the carrying of firearms, while enforcing tight background check laws at the national level.  And, allow urban and suburban areas the ability to pass whatever laws they wish to limit guns--aside from the outright banning of all guns.  Making everything but background checks up to localities allows everyone to, in effect, set the issue aside.  Plus, this allows for natural experiments to see which approaches result in the least violent crime, accidents, etc.  Obviously, there may be limits to what the courts will allow, but advocating for a compromise will tend to allow voters to reach a comfort zone on the issue.

Footnote:

From Third Way's website (item #9): 

"...The Working Wage Break would eliminate all taxes on the first $15,000 of wage income. No income tax. No employee Social Security tax. No employee Medicare tax. And it would do it without changing earned benefits at all.

The Working Wage Break will give an immediate and lasting raise in take-home pay of $1,500 for those currently earning the national minimum wage. It will give roughly $1,000 to those earning $60,000 in wages, and it will benefit every worker earning up to $128,700 in wages. The break will be fully financed by a modest, 1.1% hike in the payroll tax rate applied to wage income between $15,000 and the Social Security taxable maximum; a two-point surcharge on wages over $200,000 paid by workers and their employers; and by returning the top tax rate on individual income to its Obama-era level of 39.6% and dedicating those funds to the retirement trust funds. No individual earning less than $200,000 in wages will see a tax increase, and the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds will be held harmless.

The Working Wage Break will fully preserve other tax benefits to families, like the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, but it will have a broader reach. It will help middle-aged and older workers without dependent kids, and it will provide an outsized benefit to women and minority earners."  

My Approach To Social Media

Rules, To Avoid Frittering Away The Day

Twitter, Facebook, Quora are social media platforms I find I can always read more of.  So, I set rules; otherwise, the virtual world overwhelms my free time.

1. Set aside a day (better: an hour in a day) to indulge.  I find that if I don't limit social media, I get a nagging voice telling me I'm floundering, in the backwash of a wave.

2. Keep my posting to a best-of-the-best minimum.  I ask myself, Is this the best I've got?

3. Manage my friending and following so that I don't have too much coming at me.  One way to do this is to not 'like' and 'follow' commercial operations.

4. Cut to my favorite friends / those I follow; I don't always wait for my feed to get to them.  Who do I feel like experiencing today?

5. Avoid distractions; use interactions to express my own feelings.  Ask: What appeals to me right now?  And 'like' and comment on that, not necessarily what everyone else is excited about.

6. Make occasional visits to my old posts.  I'm constantly surprised how many earlier posts are hard to remember, and this reminds me how much of what happens on-line is fleeting.

Meanwhile, I've got extra free time for all those projects I've been putting off.