If a third party did just that, the duopoly would be in serious trouble. The gatekeepers are very jealous of who gets to play, witness RFK Jr.'s attempts to run on a third party platform. Perot scared them to death back in '92. That's the real issue. How can you get the duopoly to open the gates to competition? Can you do it peacefully? 'doubtful.
Something like a siege is in order. They won't relent unless they have to, and they won't perceive necessity unless they're worn down, vulnerable, reduced.
I could imagine a scenario (many actually) in which the uniparty runs into trouble. The country gets in bad shape and the "system" needs a bailout. What if the reform groups that operate outside the system provide the help needed to bail out the uniparty in exchange for structural reforms that reset a healthy system? Just thinking out loud... I could also come up with "a siege" scenario, but that still needs the right context to open the opportunity.
Not only do they choose the questions but they choose the participants. (I think that needs to be emphasized)
What could be done? What about "long" debates where the candidates join a social media forum (perhaps the site is dedicated to only the debate, no mixing in with cat photos, etc) and everyone who wants to gets to participate by throwing in their questions and comments?
Or, since that could be chaos on a large scale, what about having a "filtering" committee. Say fifty people, chosen at random, the questions are submitted to them, voted upon and any question that receives perhaps 25% support would then be publicly posted for the candidates to respond to. If that's too chaotic still, then increase the percentage of support needed for a question to be accepted.
Perhaps even take it out of human hands... let the computer randomly select from the submitted questions (AI could perhaps analyze them for similarity and lump all similar questions together).
Perhaps for those more visually / video oriented, allow the candidates to make short video responses (perhaps cut them off after two minutes?
Preferably the responses would be in writing, that would eliminate a lot of the "vote for the most charismatic candidate even if they are a moron" issues.
I just thought of a problem with computer / AI "filtering". That would depend a lot on the software designers and what they built into the software (it would have to be open source so it could be audited by anyone), it might be too easy to filter out questions that should be included. We each have our bias. There are a lot of "moral" accusations in politics "Don't for that person they slept with XYZ", so I would filter out any of those questions just like I do currently. While I might think a politician's private life should be private, others might feel that knowing the details of each politicians sex life is an important factor in how they want to vote.
Thus I'm leaning back toward my idea of a moderate sized human filtering committee.
It’s 2025, and it’s still taboo to have openly atheist leaders in government. We must ask what superstitions still influence the agenda and how we can overcome those superstitions.
I haven’t given much thought to this issue. Thanks for bringing it up. The echo chambers in our political theater drown out some of the considerations that foster a healthy respect for pluralism.
Atheism is as much of a restrictive and/or prescriptive belief system as any religion. And as of 2023 polling showed approximately 4% of Americans considered themselves atheists. People will vote for those who more closely conform to their belief systems. The majority of Americans have a spiritual affiliation of some kind and their politics will reflect that.
If the current political outcomes are a result of people voting in line with their spiritual beliefs, then it's worth examining how religion has shaped our current situation, especially with Project 2025 being an overtly religious initiative. Arthur Jones, an organizational design expert, said, "Every organization is perfectly designed to get the results it's getting." I think we can apply this as well to governance. What we believe shapes the systems we design and their operational rules.
If a third party did just that, the duopoly would be in serious trouble. The gatekeepers are very jealous of who gets to play, witness RFK Jr.'s attempts to run on a third party platform. Perot scared them to death back in '92. That's the real issue. How can you get the duopoly to open the gates to competition? Can you do it peacefully? 'doubtful.
Great thoughts, Hugh! Structural reform won’t come easy. Perhaps the best plan for change avoids direct confrontation at the outset.
Something like a siege is in order. They won't relent unless they have to, and they won't perceive necessity unless they're worn down, vulnerable, reduced.
I could imagine a scenario (many actually) in which the uniparty runs into trouble. The country gets in bad shape and the "system" needs a bailout. What if the reform groups that operate outside the system provide the help needed to bail out the uniparty in exchange for structural reforms that reset a healthy system? Just thinking out loud... I could also come up with "a siege" scenario, but that still needs the right context to open the opportunity.
By siege I don't mean surrounding the castle with towers and trebuchets. I mean never going away, constant presence, persistence.
To be clear, I only talk and promote peaceful strategies. I assumed your intent. Good add!
Not only do they choose the questions but they choose the participants. (I think that needs to be emphasized)
What could be done? What about "long" debates where the candidates join a social media forum (perhaps the site is dedicated to only the debate, no mixing in with cat photos, etc) and everyone who wants to gets to participate by throwing in their questions and comments?
Or, since that could be chaos on a large scale, what about having a "filtering" committee. Say fifty people, chosen at random, the questions are submitted to them, voted upon and any question that receives perhaps 25% support would then be publicly posted for the candidates to respond to. If that's too chaotic still, then increase the percentage of support needed for a question to be accepted.
Perhaps even take it out of human hands... let the computer randomly select from the submitted questions (AI could perhaps analyze them for similarity and lump all similar questions together).
Perhaps for those more visually / video oriented, allow the candidates to make short video responses (perhaps cut them off after two minutes?
Preferably the responses would be in writing, that would eliminate a lot of the "vote for the most charismatic candidate even if they are a moron" issues.
Love the filtering committee idea (representative and randomly drawn)!
I just thought of a problem with computer / AI "filtering". That would depend a lot on the software designers and what they built into the software (it would have to be open source so it could be audited by anyone), it might be too easy to filter out questions that should be included. We each have our bias. There are a lot of "moral" accusations in politics "Don't for that person they slept with XYZ", so I would filter out any of those questions just like I do currently. While I might think a politician's private life should be private, others might feel that knowing the details of each politicians sex life is an important factor in how they want to vote.
Thus I'm leaning back toward my idea of a moderate sized human filtering committee.
It’s 2025, and it’s still taboo to have openly atheist leaders in government. We must ask what superstitions still influence the agenda and how we can overcome those superstitions.
I haven’t given much thought to this issue. Thanks for bringing it up. The echo chambers in our political theater drown out some of the considerations that foster a healthy respect for pluralism.
Atheism is as much of a restrictive and/or prescriptive belief system as any religion. And as of 2023 polling showed approximately 4% of Americans considered themselves atheists. People will vote for those who more closely conform to their belief systems. The majority of Americans have a spiritual affiliation of some kind and their politics will reflect that.
If the current political outcomes are a result of people voting in line with their spiritual beliefs, then it's worth examining how religion has shaped our current situation, especially with Project 2025 being an overtly religious initiative. Arthur Jones, an organizational design expert, said, "Every organization is perfectly designed to get the results it's getting." I think we can apply this as well to governance. What we believe shapes the systems we design and their operational rules.