Blog

Terminology is at the heart of any explanation. Profit-generating systems like religion rely on slogans to promote their products and therefore deliberately confuse the meaning of words. For example, “religion” is not “belief”. Belief is personal, sacred, and a matter of what appeals and makes sense to an individual. Leave that alone; it doesn’t belong to you; it belongs to your neighbor. Slogans stick to the brain like burrs and create their own terminology. Like memes or earworms created by bubblegum rock tunes, buzzwords become the basis for your thoughts and actions unless your intellectual immune system is healthy enough to fight back. You have to defend your mind from this garbage or you become easy prey to the plan.

Let’s straighten out something. VotePlusPlus is predicated on the idea that not everybody deserves equal formal status and authority in the world. This is of benefit to all. If you don’t enjoy the cold smiles and duplicity of life in the corner office, then why should you be condemned to make your career there? Go get the welding equipment and have at it. Fun at work is mandatory for productivity, if inconvenient for some misfit management staff. However, let’s not hand a machine gun to a chimp. That’ll be the end of all the furniture in the room. So, don’t appoint an unsuitable leader to a position of power.

There is clearly good and evil in the world. Where the line should be drawn is not possible to prove, because you have no idea about two things: what is the true nature of an individual and what would be best for the rest of us if an individual were allowed to manifest their natural behavior. All you can do is take a guess. However, the better the guess the more safe, productive and healthy the world becomes. Being in a position to be able enact guesses into law is critical to the survival of society. Electing the wrong person to do that is something we should never tolerate.

Knowing someone’s true nature is ultimately impossible. Proof? Anyone can lie. I immediately bristle when someone feels compelled to tell me “I am an honest person”, right out of the gate. What’s that supposed to do? Save me time deciding for myself through actual experience? Let my guard down and sign anything they put in front of me? I consider self-proclamation to be a mere tactic in most cases, designed to misdirect or disarm another person. I say nothing about myself as a rule unless the topic of conversation is introspective, or I feel comfortable sharing preferences within a trusted group.

So, what do we do with good and evil? Well, we can bow low and throw luxury vehicles at the “good” and perpetrate unspeakable horrors upon the “evil”. History has shown that this mistaken approach can have disastrous consequences, including the eternal condemnation of notorious tyrants who approached this problem wrongly. It’s a matter of terminology confusion, once again. Let’s untangle the words “good” and “evil” from “worthwhile”. The latter is intended to convey an intrinsic value that is deserving of respect, preservation and even reverence. Every human being should be afforded this benefit simply on the basis of having shown up and able to order a sandwich. This is why, flawed as it may be in your locality, the justice system in most places in the world does not chop off the hand of a thief or execute a citizen for having been involved in a bar fight. This civilized restraint is at the heart of the death penalty debate. I personally detest arguments that break out over “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenarios. Nobody is wrong because nobody can be wrong. All decisions about matters that rest on a split hair should be made on a case-by-case basis, with the understanding that no results will ever perfectly fit the situation. Yet, urgent problems still require a really good guess to solve, no matter how complicated or inscrutable. They should preferably be offered by an expert who has dealt with similar problems, up-close and first-hand.

VotePlusPlus recommends that we ascribe worth to everyone and formulate our policies on that basis. Then, if we need to make a judgement about what’s “good” we can do that thoughtfully and by consensus. You cannot obtain consensus – where dilemmas can be resolved by choosing what’s behind “Door Number 3!” – without broad representation. And, you cannot lead a representative government without having power, influence and a mandate to proclaim and declare. Having the wrong individuals assigned to positions of authority is like populating a zoo with armed monkeys. Have a look at the political situation today and tell me what you see.

Do we really need another U.S. Civil War? Or another series of Yugoslav Wars? Think about it: that would be bad, especially if it is preventable. There is a legal precedent in the U.S. that was instituted because of the horrific and bloody battles of its Civil War, which were shocking to even the most jaded observers. Built into the highest law of its land, the U.S. Constitution, there is a prohibition of sedition. Today, 3 major U.S. cities have been declared to be in violation of this statute by the Federal Courts. What a mess!

VotePlusPlus is the kind of answer we are looking for and therefore deserves its chance to succeed. I know of no other viable substitute being proposed. The questions before us are: “Do we want a plurality or are we content with tyrant rule?” and “How did we get here, anyway?”

We got here because we were asleep and confused. There are two aspects that settled like cement onto two extremely opposite sides of a polarized debate. We need one of these aspects to trade places. Ready to “switcheroo”?

On one side, we have the Polite and Accepting. On the other, the Rude and Refusing. There is one issue that does not survive this kind of treatment without causing stagnation and an ultimate world-wide meltdown. Namely, the issue is: “Do we believe that our hero and their truth is on our side, only our side, and everybody else be damned?” versus “Personal variations of interpretation and judgment will help us find the best solution. Let’s hear from everybody and hash it out.” The media today yells at folks who believe the latter: “Shut up, snowflake, and shame on you besides. One way is the right way, so move aside.” And the plurality enthusiasts respond by being Polite and Accepting of this direct challenge: “Be cool man, we’re chill.” Now here’s the switch: when we hear “No room for you in all this, buddy” we need to become Polite and Refusing in order to prevent ourselves from being locked out and marginalized. Of course, we need to be sure our own conduct is as consistently inclusive as possible in order to claim the higher moral ground. Intransigent believers then need to become Rude and Accepting: “I hate your self-absorbed B.S., but I vigorously defend your right to say it and to act as you best see fit.” Do not be shamed into declaring “Oh, the hell with Gandhi!” when quotations are being hurled against you. Personally, I am a big fan of Gandhi but my interpretation is that some who loudly promulgate his cause are on the wrong track. He himself confronted this same problem on notable occasions during his lifetime. Consequently, the newly Rude and Accepting folks can learn to support Free Speech, as was championed by the civil rights heroes of the past.

We had better diffuse and gently correct this endemic behavior. Mass mentality can be traced to mass action, and this can cause untold destruction, misery and suffering that will eventually be condemned by history.

First Lady Nancy Reagan coined this phrase during the War on Drugs in 1982. What’s laughable about it is that the definition of addiction involves an impairment of choice. Personal willpower has no effect on a raging addiction. What can be taken as positive is at least being able to say “OK, I’ll admit this sucks”, and that’s honest. And, it implies that intervention from a benevolent community is the only viable recourse for afflicted individuals.

We are all vulnerable. Suffering is right around the corner under dangerous circumstances. Life can become a tragedy beyond words without warning. Our whole reality is like that. When a mule is tied up in the Superstition Mountains in Arizona and a prospector meets his untimely demise, things do not end well for that animal. Restriction of freedom of movement can obviously be fatal, caused by a single rope. So, here’s a good question: “Why bother with reform?”

If an asteroid comes hurtling toward Earth on-course to crush an orphanage, whoever designed that game-play… well, their mama didn’t raise ’em right. Silly asteroid, move aside! VotePlusPlus is not going to solve that one. Yet, even animals seem to know how to run from a tsunami as demonstrated in Thailand in 2004. There is something about communication, cooperation and decisive action that can make the difference between life and death under extreme circumstances.

Let’s look at our day-to-day lives and political situation. If you push a child out of the way of an oncoming bus, you just saved a life. If you have a safety net in place to lower the so-called “cost of living” so that those who fall outside of an exclusive or restricted area of participation are not crushed by deprivation, disease and crime you have saved lives and reduced suffering. Looks like civilization actually does make a difference. Also looks like you can personally step up and be a hero. Does that sound a bit like the “meaning of life” to you?

The main point is that most of the suffering we see around us is entirely needless. We tolerate it, ignore it, explain it away, perhaps even lament it. However, it drags us all down. You cannot remain unaffected. You can try to comfort yourself with luxury, but you cannot ultimately deny the consequences of your actions, or inactions.

I think we should shout to the rooftops that we don’t like the innocent in harm’s way, that we can make a difference in rescuing others and that a functional civilized system is the answer to it all. That’s why we are motivated to propose reform and make it happen, A.S.A.P.

There is a threshold where objection is met with violence and rage until it is so authoritative as to be irrefutable, then jerks finally back down. That is how Germany came to its senses after WW2, in ruins. This is why it is so important to remain reasonable and open, so you aren’t eventually counted among the idiots of your time.

Calibrating reason and creativity with the challenges of the day is something the rules of the game should provide. Obviously, they don’t and possibly never have. Turns out, it is far more intellectually challenging to design the Mission to Mars than it is to figure out what those should be. VotePlusPlus recommends you take a moment and listen.

If leadership qualifications such as quick wit, empathy, comfortable in your own skin and good with people were promoted in a way that matches the sentiment of the governed, I’d like to know “who loses?” Not a single mention of martyrdom here, bloody battles and victory dances simply not required. In other words, this idea helps everyone involved move forward in their pursuit of a civilized life.

At the root, all you have to do is ask. VotePlusPlus is an “asking” system, then a “what are they all saying?” system. Your leaders have to participate and see this, and so do you. The resultant information and recommendations can’t be unseen and could be life-changing. As a citizen, you want to be heard and your views considered. As a leader, you want to be understood and approved of. When we have that in-place and working, things will change. And forward momentum will stay steady because there is now a driver at the wheel. I think that was what was meant by “democracy”.

I have heard the exhortation “Shut up and sing!” hurled at celebrities with too much notoriety and not enough sense, at least in the eyes of the beholders. However, that complaint and accusation becomes futile under this current system. All political winners are forced to become celebrities. In fact, not only is today’s “yes/no” binary vote an insulting reduction of the true worth of your personality and viewpoints into a simple “dead or alive” indicator, but there really is no “no” vote about it.  You can’t vote “no” for everybody. A “yes” for anybody is taken as a round of endorsement, making matters worse.  Manipulating you into one simple behavior – pulling that lever – becomes the obsession of the media machine.  Those who won that contest by other means – sports heroes, movie actors, singers, musicians, magnates, etc. – all mistakenly believe they have also won the leadership round on the basis of their own merit.

This does not mean that celebrity necessarily disqualifies you for public office – quite the contrary, depending on your locality.  Clint Eastwood was elected mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, because the citizens wanted some additional notoriety for their town, even if on a novelty basis.  Sonny Bono became mayor of Palm Springs, California after being heard loud and clear in the media about the frustrations of small business owners in the area.  The point is: there was at least a modicum of legitimate cause for their endorsements and the citizens had a right to choose.

However, why would we reward an ability to turn something intrinsically insincere into a display of convincing sincerity?  We ask for that in an entertainment context where reading from a script or a Teleprompter, so as to bring tears to the eyes of an audience, is met with enthusiastic applause. Wait – is that “really” what you want from your leaders in times of crisis?  That has not worked out well for us historically, and the conflation of proper qualifications and alignment with awareness of a household name has certainly led to vast shortfalls of political potential.

This abuse of privilege will not cease until a system like VotePlusPlus delivers the real alternative: align a complete voter profile from each and every one of us with the candidates who best fit the bill, and recommending the next leadership structure on that basis.  That way, fame and fortune can be more directly associated with the actual perceived skills and specialties involved, without straying onto a dangerous course.

When the going gets tough we deserve the best and brightest at the helm, continually aware of our views and interests and accountable to consider and uphold them.

That’s called “representation”.

I have heard it said that “well-being matters for everyone”.  Well, yes – but one type of person with one type of heritage in one type of community may be feeling more than their fair share of intimidation, harassment and danger.  This is what infuriates me about the current system that VotePlusPlus is intended to reform.  The role of representative government is to be vigilant and protective of any citizen or group of citizens under attack.  If you nip that in the bud, our people don’t have to burn down a convenience store in order to exclaim “Can you hear me now?”  When that starts happening, it implies that something is very wrong at the heart of the representative process.

In most local municipalities the city council gives direction to the city manager, who in turn provides direction for the chief of police.  If most city officials were talking about civil liberties and setting the tone, something must have gotten lost in translation or ignored along the way. VotePlusPlus asks of citizens:

“How do you feel about the rule of law and enforcement of order?” and;

“How do you feel about protecting civil liberties?”

Depending on where you are and what’s going on, there is no wrong answer.  However, “your” message needs to be heard loud and clear, and compared to the answers given by your candidates – local to national – “before” it’s all narrowed down to two or three “bad choices”.  I am confident we can find conscientious individuals in our communities who would be thrilled to work this out, come back to the problem often to check it, tweak things and try again.

They should be your candidates and you should “know” exactly what you are dealing with when you vote.

In the technical world, finding compatibility (the best fit among elements) is called affinity. When make your next purchase, you will probably use technology to maximize the affinity between you and the goods you want to buy. This principle works well for groups and systems, big and small, and naturally relates to human aspirations and experience.

Most people would say they feel a lack of affinity for government and industry leaders of all kinds. Being demoralized or discontent is a distracting state of mind and definitely puts a damper on acheivement. If truly needless, it can become an expensive liability for communities and possibly dangerous. Plus, it’s no fun to head up a government or company in crisis.

Perfect compatibility does not demand uniformity. A one-note approach applied to complex or diverse systems makes them wobble and churn, not stabilize. Balance is healthy, as is an appropriate degree of transparency. Even for a historical monarchy, knowing the will of the people can help determine the decrees of the king. Surely the effort, expense and struggle expended for the sake of political reform now deserve the best possible means of gaining greater affinity between leadership and constituencies.

This mandate is further asserted by observing that unstable systems can cause severe collateral damage, which translates into real human suffering. Therefore, if we have the means – and we do today – then let’s start using them now and offering the benefits to everyone.

Individuals are so unfathomably complex and unique! One size never fits any, let alone all. So how can you find compatibility in a world filled with unique individuals?

The cause of justice wrestles with this issue continually when dealing with community standards, means of enforcement and the privileges of power. The answer lies in the neverending pursuit. Having little interest or accurate information is the worst possible state, leading inevitably to anarchy or tyranny. Having a one-person/one-vote democratic process is a vast improvement for many regions of the world and certainly a step in the right direction. However, even a jury trial requires a lot of discussion. Sometimes, those can go wrong too but we still need them. A case is presented and people go into a room and think. The issue of lawful compliance is considered and corrective measures are imposed: a verdict and a sentencing. 100 years could be spent deciding a dispute between neighbors over the fenceline, perfecting the reasoning behind exactly where it should be split. That’s not at all practical so we give up when the budget runs out and take our best shot.

Based on the correlation and interdependence between legal and governmental systems, finding new opportunities for improvement that are still affordable becomes highly important. Ascertaining the level of enthusaism, zeal, and overall passion for issues and candidates while finding compatibilty between all parties, with no value judgments applied, is not only possible in today’s world but necessary and affordable. Plus, the vastly expanded level of refinement and awareness can lead to ratifying electoral results far more easily than traditional systems generally allow.

A Teklection will introduce you to your leaders, first and foremost, and they will get to know you too. The information will be vastly superior to having only your party affiliation, the way you are predicted to cast your vote or other general information that can be presumed about anyone from a distance. You won’t be judged for holding your views and you’ll likely want to have your say. Any conclusions reached won’t be based on knowing you as well as your friends and relatives do, but that’s not necessary to produce dramatically informative results.

The dimensions along which your natural views may lie are aligned according to their intensity and position with regard to the issues. The style and policies you prefer are also inquired about – all in a natural and convenient manner. This fluid and highly variable information let’s you be you and helps elevate the discussion. Eventually, the aggregation of everyone’s contribution can culminate in adjusting governmental structure and electing candidates you and your neighbors can truly believe in. If you’re in a leadership position, you may now count on the support and participation of your community as you strive to execute the duties of your office for the betterment of your community.

Having simply gone through this process is invogorating. Somebody is listening!