My Vision

I'm passionately working towards creating a Crowdsourced Collaborative e-democracy, aimed at establishing an Evidence-based Policy forum. This digital platform is designed with the principles of Deliberative Democracy and the structure of Citizens' Assemblies at its core, prioritizing in-depth cost-benefit evaluations and strong evidence to build a Crowdsourced Cost-Benefit Analysis platform.

Inspired by the ideals of Effective Altruism and the methodology of Evidence-Based Medicine, this project remains faithful to the legacy of employing well-established algorithms and structured processes for informed policymaking. This legacy reflects the strategy of the American Founding Fathers, who depended on a system of checks and balances, in-depth debates, democratic elections, and a solid constitution to formulate effective policies.

The ultimate goal is to form a political party, using the insights and analytical findings from our forum to shape and direct our collective future. Innovations like Ranked-Choice Voting and Nonpartisan Blanket Primaries are central to this vision, refining political processes for more effective outcomes. This approach aims to transcend the divisive and manipulative tactics prevalent in ideologically charged partisan politics.

- See also:**

Public Deliberation: An approach emphasizing the importance of open discussions among citizens to reach a common understanding and make decisions.
Open Government: Principles focused on transparency, participation, and collaboration within government processes.
Civic Technology: Technology applications that enable engagement, participation, or enhance the democratic process.
Participatory Budgeting: A democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget.
Digital Democracy: The use of digital tools to support democratic processes and practices.
Consensus Decision-Making: A group decision-making process that seeks the consent, not necessarily the agreement, of participants.
E-Governance: The use of information and communication technology (ICT) for delivering government services, communication transactions, and integration of various stand-alone systems and services.
Social Choice Theory: A theoretical framework for analysis of combining individual preferences, interests, or welfare to reach a collective decision or social welfare.
Civic Engagement: Involvement in any activity aimed at influencing public policy or the provision of public services.
Liquid Democracy: A form of delegative democracy whereby an electorate engages in the collective decision-making process directly instead of through representatives.
Ethical Lobbying: Advocacy to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies, with ethics and transparency.
Political Efficacy: The citizens' faith and trust in their ability to influence the government and political affairs.
Direct Democracy Platforms: Platforms that allow citizens to vote directly on legislative proposals or other political decisions.
Collaborative Governance: The process of facilitating and operating in multi-stakeholder governance systems.
Smart Contracts and Blockchain for Voting: The use of blockchain technology and smart contracts to secure and automate the electoral process.

Professional Background

This editor is a licensed Professional Engineer, Project Management Professional, and LEED AP BD+C.

You're welcome to leave a message on my talk page: User talk:Myclob.

Contributions

You can find my contributions here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Myclob

Personal Views

This user knows that
Facts Matter

This user knows that
Reason Matters.

This user knows that
Science Matters.

This user knows that
Truth Matters.

This user values reason
over faith.

Towards Data-Driven Political Parties: Wikicrat and Wikipublican Parties

Proposal

We aim to launch political parties inspired by the transparent and collaborative model of Wikipedia. Distinct from conventional parties that may tailor facts to suit established narratives, our proposed entities will prioritize data. Our allegiance is to methodologies proven most effective through transparent, online cost/benefit analyses, edited collaboratively in a manner akin to Wikipedia entries. We plan to harness platforms like Wikipedia, alongside Blockchain technology and algorithms that elevate insightful ideas, to consistently illuminate the most advantageous courses of action.

Envisioning an E-Democracy represents a significant shift from our prevailing political landscape. As a step towards this ambitious goal, we propose the creation of a political party that embodies the principles of E-Democracy, applying its methodologies to enhance decision-making processes.

Rationale

Utilizing Wikipedia as a model for a pure direct democracy presents practical challenges. For instance, expecting every user to vote on each minor edit across the plethora of articles is unrealistic. Wikipedia's model, where individuals contribute when and where they can, enhances the platform's collective intelligence efficiently. Similarly, the idea of the public fully educating themselves on every issue and casting informed votes is not feasible. Following Wikipedia's example, we propose enabling individuals to contribute to our collective understanding of the best policy directions in a manageable way.

The concept of convening everyone in one place for a comprehensive, ongoing debate on every subject is not viable. The founders of democracy recognized this dilemma and introduced the system of elected representatives as a solution within their technological constraints.

Our proposal doesn't aim to replace representative democracy but to augment it. We advocate for the creation of political parties focused on data-driven decision-making. This approach offers a solid, practical pathway forward, combining the strengths of representative structures with the insights of a more engaged, informed electorate.

Methodology for the Idea Stock Exchange: A Detailed Overview

The Idea Stock Exchange introduces a groundbreaking methodology for discourse around policy-making, centered around evidence, transparency, and collaborative analysis. Here’s a refined look at its comprehensive methodology:

1. Structured Argumentation Framework:

Reasons to Support (Pro) and Oppose (Con): Arguments are systematically categorized into supporting and opposing sections, fostering a balanced assessment of each policy proposal. Dynamic Scoring System: Employs an algorithm to dynamically score arguments based on their evidence strength, relevance, and impact. This process encourages an evolving dialogue that adapts with new insights.

2. Comprehensive Costs and Benefits Analysis:

Multidimensional Evaluation: Undertakes a thorough analysis of costs and benefits across various dimensions such as financial, social, environmental, and health, to provide a holistic view of each policy's implications. Algorithmic Likelihood Calculations: An algorithm evaluates the likelihood of predicted outcomes by balancing supporting versus weakening evidence, ensuring a nuanced understanding of the policy's potential impacts.

3. Evidence-Based Arguments:

Robust Scientific Research: Gives precedence to high-quality scientific evidence, categorized by factors like sample size, randomization, and blinding procedures, ensuring the most reliable research informs the evaluation. Balanced Media Evaluation: Accounts for both supporting and weakening media sources, including scholarly articles, documentaries, and expert interviews, to present a comprehensive view of available evidence.

4. Logical and Ethical Reasoning:

Deductive and Ethical Analysis: Integrates logical deductions and ethical considerations, ensuring policies are not only viable but morally justified. Linkage and Unique Scoring: Arguments that support one another receive linkage scores to determine connection strength, along with unique scores to emphasize their distinct contribution. Unique scores are crucial for grouping similar arguments, reducing redundancy, and highlighting truly unique reasons to agree or disagree.

5. Continuous Improvement and Adaptation:

Open, Collaborative Editing: Inspired by platforms like Wikipedia, the Idea Stock Exchange encourages open editing of arguments and evidence, embracing the principles of collaborative e-democracy. Leveraging Technology: Incorporates advanced technologies like blockchain to enhance the transparency and integrity of the decision-making process.

6. Political Impact and Innovation:

Policy Influence: Aims to shape policy through evidence-based consensus, with the potential to influence the formation of new political entities or the direction of existing ones. Electoral Innovations: Promotes electoral reforms, such as ranked-choice voting and nonpartisan blanket primaries, to improve political processes for more equitable outcomes.

My apologies, you're right about the bolding format. Here's the revised version using instead of double square brackets:

What Next?

The roadmap ahead is not set in stone, and your collaboration is invaluable. What can you contribute? I have a wealth of ideas to share, and I invite you to explore them further through the following resources:

GitHub Repository for ReasonRank: Dive into the technical details of the linkage score system and contribute to its development.
The Idea Stock Exchange Blog: Discover insights and updates on our projects, and join the conversation on evolving the platform.
Instagram Page: Get visual updates and engage with the community through comments and direct messages.
Official Website of Idea Stock Exchange: Learn more about our mission, ongoing projects, and how you can get involved.
Twitter Feed: Follow us for real-time updates, news, and interactive discussions.

Your insights, feedback, and contributions are what will shape the future of this platform. Let's collaborate to refine and evolve these ideas into tools that enhance our collective understanding and decision-making processes.

I hope this is the formatting you were looking for! Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Redefining Debate: Reasons to Agree and Disagree

My objective is to transform the process through which we arrive at conclusions and propagate our beliefs in arguments and politics. Essentially, the proposed format seeks to overcome the shortfalls of ineffective debates.

The model I propose places the belief at the top of a page, with a section for supporting arguments on one side and countering arguments on the other.

A wide range of elements can bolster a belief, including reasons, books, videos, individuals, songs, interests, and more. Utilizing crowdsourcing, efficient algorithms, and programming, we can create a system that attributes scores to elements supporting or countering a belief. The goal is to weigh the total points supporting a belief against the total points opposing it.

I have devised algorithms for each type of element that can support or counter a belief. For instance, users can list reasons to agree. Others can then rate these reasons on a scale of 1 to 10, based on the utilization of logical reasoning, verified data, etc. I find the comparison of the number of reasons to agree with a notion versus the number of reasons to disagree particularly intriguing. However, the quantity of reasons shared by an online community does not necessarily denote the quality of an idea. To address this, I have iterated my algorithm, enabling the repurposing of arguments and attributing individual scores to each reason. As a result, each argument holds a score, and ideas backed by a high number of robust arguments (and a low number of strong counterarguments) are deemed persuasive.

For instance, if you argue that we should establish wind farms in Wyoming, a supporting reason could be that wind energy in Wyoming is more cost-effective than coal. This secondary point would then be debated separately. If it's validated as true, its positive score would bolster the primary argument. Conversely, if it's debunked as false, its negative score would undermine the primary argument.

To delve deeper into this concept or to view illustrative examples, please refer to the following websites:

Technical Explanation of the Concept:

Google Code: Idea Stock Exchange This is an open-source site I've created to propagate my idea.

Engagement Across Various Forums

Myclob's Blog
Create Debate is a platform that counts reasons to agree and reasons to disagree. However, it does not apply sophisticated calculations to determine the potency of an idea. I've offered a few suggestions, but they seem to be interpreted as critiques.
Myclob on Halfbakery
Idea Stock Exchange, on GitHub

Additional Links

A forum I founded for enthusiasts intrigued by my idea. http://myclob.pbwiki.com/ I anticipated people would be attracted to engaging content and subsequently adopt the format. This content pertains to Mitt Romney, where I have attempted to utilize reasons to agree and disagree.

Favorites

Books

David’s Sling by Marc Stiegler: This novel vividly envisions potential outcomes if my reasons-to-agree-and-disagree websites succeed.
Deschooling Society by Ivan Illich: An eye-opening critique of conventional schooling, urging readers to question the status quo.
Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court by Mark Twain: I have spent much of my life daydreaming about how I would assist in historical times, equipped with modern knowledge.
I Robot by Isaac Asimov: A gripping narrative that departs significantly from the movie adaptation.
One Billion Americans