Attach voting laws up or down to Congress officials
The voting mechanisms up or down on this site need to swiftly become law and incorporated into Congress.
Browse Ideas with tag 'congress':
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled1 vote
I disagreeThis idea is active.Legal & Policy Challenges »1 comment for Idea: Attach voting laws up or down to Congress officials -
I agree
Voting is Disabled
10 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Federal Advisory Committees »The new "Compensation Czar"
4 comments for Idea: The new "Compensation Czar"News item: "The Obama administration plans to appoint a "Special Master for Compensation" to ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter."
I hope they start with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Congressional staff members. They have no business messing around in the provate economy.
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
-42 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Making Government Operations More Open »American citizenship or being a citizen of Heaven
If you had a choice between being an American citizen or being a citizen of Heaven, which would you choose? For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; Philippians 3:20 I am choosing being a citizen of Heaven since Obama and his team is taking America straight to world citizenship, and then straight to hell. Citizen of Heaven = Thumbs up Citizen of America ...more »
8 comments for Idea: American citizenship or being a citizen of HeavenIf you had a choice between being an American citizen or being a citizen of Heaven, which would you choose?
For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; Philippians 3:20
I am choosing being a citizen of Heaven since Obama and his team is taking America straight to world citizenship, and then straight to hell.
Citizen of Heaven = Thumbs up
Citizen of America = Thumbs down
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
5 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Do-It-Yourself Government »give public sector labor the same rights as private sector labor
2 comments for Idea: give public sector labor the same rights as private sector laborexcept the right to strike public sector labor should have the same rights as private sector rights and responsibilities.
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
-18 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Public-Private Partnerships »The Tree of Obama
"You will know a tree by it's fruit." Matthew 7:16 The Obama Tree is a black Oak. The leaves protect the tree from the light of truth. The bark is hard and callus to prevent transparency. The fruit is the ACORN, to reproduce itself again and again. The roots of deception go deep into the American soil. By David Craig Mastrianni © 2009 Toalterorabolish.com Please help me report any copying of the ...more »
8 comments for Idea: The Tree of Obama"You will know a tree by it's fruit." Matthew 7:16
The Obama Tree is a black Oak.
The leaves protect the tree from the light of truth.
The bark is hard and callus to prevent transparency.
The fruit is the ACORN, to reproduce itself again and again.
The roots of deception go deep into the American soil.
By David Craig Mastrianni
© 2009 Toalterorabolish.com
Please help me report any copying of the original literary works by David Craig Mastrianni. Visit www.toalterorabolish.com or www.elegalplan.com and contact us.
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
94 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Making Data More Accessible »Dialogue?
I'm sitting here looking at all the people who've had their posts deleted because they are raising a legitimate issue: Where's The Birth Certificate. And at the top of the page it reads, "Open Government Dialogue". It's not dialogue when people are silenced. What exactly is this site's definition of 'dialogue'? Also, I don't place full blame of providing proof of birth on Mr. Obama. I also blame both sides of the ...more »
10 comments for Idea: Dialogue?I'm sitting here looking at all the people who've had their posts deleted because they are raising a legitimate issue: Where's The Birth Certificate. And at the top of the page it reads, "Open Government Dialogue". It's not dialogue when people are silenced. What exactly is this site's definition of 'dialogue'?
Also, I don't place full blame of providing proof of birth on Mr. Obama. I also blame both sides of the isle in Congress for not investigating, nor, calling for an investigation into the matter. If you own a company, and employees are not performing to your satisfactor, you fire them. Remember that in the next congressional election in two years. How's that for dialogue?
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
65 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Rulemaking »Cap Congress
I propose a bill titled the "Congress Citizen ACT" which would give Congress the same benefits as the American citizens. -Limit to 2 terms -No lifetime pension or a pension of 50k a year standard across the board. Currently 2-3 times more generous than Corporate pensions. -Same health insurance as the rest of the American public. Pay for your own, not with taxpayer money. -Salary cap at 50k a year. Current Salary is ...more »
3 comments for Idea: Cap CongressI propose a bill titled the "Congress Citizen ACT" which would give Congress the same benefits as the American citizens.
-Limit to 2 terms
-No lifetime pension or a pension of 50k a year standard across the board. Currently 2-3 times more generous than Corporate pensions.
-Same health insurance as the rest of the American public. Pay for your own, not with taxpayer money.
-Salary cap at 50k a year. Current Salary is 174,000/year
-responsible for filing AND paying their own taxes. Current cost is 100K each year.
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
-3 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.New Strategies and Techniques »Removing Soetono from office & purging Congress
I know we are all waiting for this since Soetono has done quite a remarkable job of luring all the espionage moles out of the woodwork, and given the Enemy the idea that they've succeeded from within, and I have the means whereby that will happen: As the illegitimate son of former East German STAZI "Master Spy" Markus Wolf, I was used to lure he to the West in the mid '70s. Even at that point, they knew that Soetono ...more »
Add your comment for Idea: Removing Soetono from office & purging CongressI know we are all waiting for this since Soetono has done quite a remarkable job of luring all the espionage moles out of the woodwork, and given the Enemy the idea that they've succeeded from within, and I have the means whereby that will happen: As the illegitimate son of former East German STAZI "Master Spy" Markus Wolf, I was used to lure he to the West in the mid '70s. Even at that point, they knew that Soetono was bring groomed... And I met & witnessed the Gary Condits's "Disposal Service" for the high-ranking corrupt. Knowing he was going to infiltrate (and then blackmail - Isn't it obvious?) Congress, they let him do his thing in order to one day counter-run it. (Condit's only supporter in 2001 was Pelosi.) I was sworn to secrecy & sent to ground. The Chandra Levy case is now ...pending... And would be the perfect platform for this Royal Flush of Congress, as SCOTUS pulls the rug out from under Soetono et al. Go to www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com for personal group photos of me & other spies, etc.
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
272 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Making Government Operations More Open »Make Congress READ bills cover to cover before voting on them.
1 comment for Idea: Make Congress READ bills cover to cover before voting on them.Congress most of the time doesn't even know what they are voting on, some nameless aids write it and the tell them what it is about.
2. Show Where in the Constitution they have the authority to do what they are trying to do.
3. Make a mandatory balanced budget.
4. Make them publish their voting record in their home districts.
5. They shouldn't be able to spend money they don't have absolute proven fund for.
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
36 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.New Strategies and Techniques »For every law Congress passes, they remove two.
Add your comment for Idea: For every law Congress passes, they remove two.This may seem like a joke but I am serious. This would bring the current, unmangeable amount of laws that no one can read, let alone obey, to al level that we all could obey and understand. I would love to see these politicians fighting over whose law is more important!!! That would make for great television
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
-37 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Rulemaking »Make congress and senate an even political party member of numbers
It is not fair to the people of the United States to have one house have a majority in democrats or republicans to pass votes on issues that will have an impact on the entire country. Each branch should have the exact same number of members from each party. If one party member wanted to vote on an issue from another party then that would be fine, but at least it would be fair and balanced. As it is now there is nothing ...more »
3 comments for Idea: Make congress and senate an even political party member of numbersIt is not fair to the people of the United States to have one house have a majority in democrats or republicans to pass votes on issues that will have an impact on the entire country. Each branch should have the exact same number of members from each party. If one party member wanted to vote on an issue from another party then that would be fine, but at least it would be fair and balanced. As it is now there is nothing fair about this process of having no checks and balances like our founding fathers wanted. I have watched C-SPAN with actual debates and things that sound like it would save the American people a lot of money are just thrown out because the other party has majority and is more into the issue than the one party. Take global warming or universal health care. The majority of the republican party does not consider this a valid issue to tax people on, while the democratic party doesn't care if people are taxed on it, but since they are in majority they always win, even with some democrats voting on the side of the republicans.
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
45 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.New Strategies and Techniques »Term limits of congress, senate and supreme court
As it stands now, a policitian/judge in either department of government can comfortably rely on a lifetime of being elected if they are in a district who support what they do. Let's say I am a republican/conservative/libertarian/independant and unfortunately I have a very liberal democrat representative in congress. I may not agree with any of the issues he is voting yes to, but there is nothing I can do. If I happen ...more »
4 comments for Idea: Term limits of congress, senate and supreme courtAs it stands now, a policitian/judge in either department of government can comfortably rely on a lifetime of being elected if they are in a district who support what they do. Let's say I am a republican/conservative/libertarian/independant and unfortunately I have a very liberal democrat representative in congress. I may not agree with any of the issues he is voting yes to, but there is nothing I can do. If I happen to be a minority in this district (politically) I might have to live with this same representative being voted in over and over because perhaps the really radical liberals love the fact that he is bringing in pork/ear marks by the billions for them to pursue agendas I find to be corrupt? If there is a term limit of two years for each member, including justices of the supreme court, then I and others might have a chance of getting someone elected who will value my ideas, it would be a cycle of radicals or conservatives, but at least it would be fair. Example is of Murtha (D) who gets more pork/ear marks for his distract than any other in office. He gets billions for his "airport to nowhere," but keeps getting elected because he gets billions to certain contractors or organizations who will keep him elected. This is criminal and should be stopped.
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
32 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Strategic Planning and Budgeting »Appoint a bipartisan panel to start limiting government programs and government departments
This administration is getting "too big for their britches." The founding fathers created our government to have very little impact on the people and to remain small and out of the private sector. Over time it has become more expanded and is invading our private lives more and more. The ONLY sector that is prospering job-wise is the government. Our president is making more and more departments and then is hiring "czars" ...more »
17 comments for Idea: Appoint a bipartisan panel to start limiting government programs and government departmentsThis administration is getting "too big for their britches." The founding fathers created our government to have very little impact on the people and to remain small and out of the private sector. Over time it has become more expanded and is invading our private lives more and more. The ONLY sector that is prospering job-wise is the government. Our president is making more and more departments and then is hiring "czars" to over see the private sectors and different departments. This is not something the American people want or need. The government needs to STOP with all the excess spending and hiring of Russian "czars" (this reeks of communism) and start giving that "stimulus" money that was so important to steal from us to the people and NOT to congress and the senate to do with what they please. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. I do NOT want my taxes paying for special interest programs that I don't agree with and these need to be banned. I DO NOT want my taxes going to funding excess, non-issue projects that can go through regular appropriatoins. I honestly feel what this president has done so far is to actually steal from the American people to pay off political organizations who have supported them and this is a criminal act. I do NOT support what is happening in this administration.
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
32 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Legal & Policy Challenges »Statute of Limitations on Federal Laws
Laws are written and considered and passed by a relatively small group of people (only 51%+) in Congress. Those lawmakers are only put in power by a majority vote (and remember, not all people vote) and they, and the issues / people they represent, only stay in the Congress for a limited period of time. I think we can all agree that they are not perfect and their ideas are often based on the politics of the moment. ...more »
3 comments for Idea: Statute of Limitations on Federal LawsLaws are written and considered and passed by a relatively small group of people (only 51%+) in Congress. Those lawmakers are only put in power by a majority vote (and remember, not all people vote) and they, and the issues / people they represent, only stay in the Congress for a limited period of time.
I think we can all agree that they are not perfect and their ideas are often based on the politics of the moment.
Then why do Federal Laws last indefinitely?
Every law should have an expiration date. An important law, of course, could be brought to the floor, unchanged, re-voted upon and reinstated. But there are really ridiculous laws that persist on the books making all of us subject to a narrowing window of liberties and unnecessarily complicating the legal code.
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
43 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.New Strategies and Techniques »Money Creation Reform: Money Creation is a Sovereign Right and Responsibility
Duly elected governments should create all coin and currency, and other forms of money, electronic or otherwise. This power does not belong in private for-profit hands. Money creation is not a legitimate banking enterprise or activity. All money creation authority should be transferred to public agencies that would be accountable to the citizens and voters. This would include all forms of "fractional reserve banking", ...more »
8 comments for Idea: Money Creation Reform: Money Creation is a Sovereign Right and ResponsibilityDuly elected governments should create all coin and currency, and other forms of money, electronic or otherwise. This power does not belong in private for-profit hands. Money creation is not a legitimate banking enterprise or activity.
All money creation authority should be transferred to public agencies that would be accountable to the citizens and voters. This would include all forms of "fractional reserve banking", which is a form of creating money out of nothing but an accounting entry. It is immoral and unethical, by any reasonable standard. Private money creation defrauds citizens of their wealth and labor.
Taxes must be increased dramatically in order to pay interest on privately created money. If the money-creation authority were transferred back to the public, where the US Constitution originally placed it (and still does; Article 1, Section 8) INCOME TAXES could be immediately and dramatically reduced, and our national debt (and all the interest payments that come with it) could be soon eliminated entirely.
This could be done either by "federalizing" the Federal Reserve System or by abolishing it and creating something else to replace it. By "federalizing" it we would only be making it the public federal system its deceptive name was intended to falsely imply that it already was. Another name for "federalizing" the money-creation process would be "nationalizing" it. But that is what our Founding Father expressly intended in the first place. We would only be doing what is constitutionally mandated.
Another option would be to simply use the existing Treasury Department to issue currency and electronic money, but that would essentially waste the existing Fed system and infrastructure that we could utilize (buy or hire).
There are numerous proposals for money reforms that would all work, some better than others. The key ingredient is to return the sovereign authority to create money to the people, or their elected representatives in government, either at the national, state, or local levels.
The two I would most recommend are those by Ellen H Brown in her must-read book, "Web of Debt", and by Stephen Zarlenga in his scholarly treatise, "The Lost Science of Money".
Internet discussions and information are available at these sites:
http://webofdebt.wordpress.com
http://wealthmoney.wordpress.com
http://www.forum.webofdebt.com
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
256 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Legal & Policy Challenges »Congress Can't Give Themselves Raises; Must Pay Taxes
One of the most frustrating events in government is when the legislature tells the people to be prepared to sacrifice then have that same legislature give itself a raise. Who wouldn't give themselves a raise if given the choice. While I don't have what I consider to be the one way of determining legislators pay, I'm sure plenty of people would have some suggestions. Here is one possible idea: Legislators receive the ...more »
11 comments for Idea: Congress Can't Give Themselves Raises; Must Pay TaxesOne of the most frustrating events in government is when the legislature tells the people to be prepared to sacrifice then have that same legislature give itself a raise. Who wouldn't give themselves a raise if given the choice.
While I don't have what I consider to be the one way of determining legislators pay, I'm sure plenty of people would have some suggestions. Here is one possible idea: Legislators receive the same pay as the "average" citizen in the United States. Average should be determined by the median income, not the mean, so that extremely large income earners do not skew what the "average" citizen truly earns.
Legislators must also pay taxes like everyone else and must not be allowed to give themselves tax exemptions.
Legislators cannot accept positions or any other kind of income from a company who has contributed to their campaigns.
Legislators should not receive retirement compensation in any form (other than whatever retirement they've contributed to--not a special package for politicians). Politics should not be a career.
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
27 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.New Strategies and Techniques »Congress relocation: reduce special interest power
Reduce the power of special interest lobbies and increase accountability to citizens by shifting the physical location of elected representatives back to their local geographic areas. With current technology, it is possible for elected officials in the Congress to remain in their election districts and not relocate to Washington DC. This makes it much more difficult for special interest groups to focus their resources ...more »
1 comment for Idea: Congress relocation: reduce special interest powerReduce the power of special interest lobbies and increase accountability to citizens by shifting the physical location of elected representatives back to their local geographic areas. With current technology, it is possible for elected officials in the Congress to remain in their election districts and not relocate to Washington DC. This makes it much more difficult for special interest groups to focus their resources in a single location, and it greatly increases local citizens ability to directly influence their representatives. Physical relocation is based on a time when transportation was by horse and communication by pigeon.
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
-7 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.New Strategies and Techniques »Internet Voting to Replace Congress for Representation
The strategy of having elected Congress members to represent constituencies was applicable when we had such a spread out citizen population and no technology to get every voice heard. We now have the technology available to truly have a government by the people. We will of course need congress-people, but their and their staff's role will be merely to sort through people-generated ideas (like this website)and to formulate, ...more »
6 comments for Idea: Internet Voting to Replace Congress for RepresentationThe strategy of having elected Congress members to represent constituencies was applicable when we had such a spread out citizen population and no technology to get every voice heard.
We now have the technology available to truly have a government by the people. We will of course need congress-people, but their and their staff's role will be merely to sort through people-generated ideas (like this website)and to formulate, propose, and manage laws based on what the people vote.
Monies will be needed to create the infrastructure so that ALL people of the Union can vote, such as voting centers in every neighborhood (like an internet cafe but for voting on a regular basis).
If we are serious about a government BY THE PEOPLE, let's do it. Let's stop bottlenecking the power-load through Capitol Hill and open wide the gates of Democracy.
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
8 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Legal & Policy Challenges »Mandatory Exit Strategy
My idea is to require any major or minor initiative or bill in congress to outline a minimum of two exit strategies. As any bill exits committee and enters open debate, it must articulate how its effects are intended to work and what mitigation strategies will be used to ensure it maintains its rightful purpose. Each bill will delineate a time frame for objective completion and address optimum as well as adverse scenarios. ...more »
3 comments for Idea: Mandatory Exit StrategyMy idea is to require any major or minor initiative or bill in congress to outline a minimum of two exit strategies. As any bill exits committee and enters open debate, it must articulate how its effects are intended to work and what mitigation strategies will be used to ensure it maintains its rightful purpose. Each bill will delineate a time frame for objective completion and address optimum as well as adverse scenarios. This initiative will also minimize deception and abuse of the system by outlining appropriate steps to take in these cases.
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
13 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Making Government Operations More Open »Invite Congress to partner with the Administration on this as a government-wide, bi-partisan initiative
In reading President Obama’s January 21st “Memorandum For The Heads Of Executive Departments And Agencies” that launched this Transparency and Open Government initiative, you will notice that the whole focus is on the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. This makes sense since the Constitution only gives the President formal management authority over this branch of the government. He can only influence the other ...more »
1 comment for Idea: Invite Congress to partner with the Administration on this as a government-wide, bi-partisan initiativeIn reading President Obama’s January 21st “Memorandum For The Heads Of Executive Departments And Agencies” that launched this Transparency and Open Government initiative, you will notice that the whole focus is on the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. This makes sense since the Constitution only gives the President formal management authority over this branch of the government. He can only influence the other branches through such means as court nominations, proposed legislative agendas and legislation, advocacy, and more informal interactions and relationships.
Obviously, it’s far easier to move ahead with an initiative over which the President has ultimate authority and can therefore assume the leadership role, which is a critical factor in the success of any large scale change. But to reach the goal of creating a transparent, open Federal Government, the Executive Branch can’t do it alone. The role of the Legislative Branch – Congress, in enacting the legislation that the Executive Branch implements and manages, gives it an equally important stake in creating transparency, collaboration, and participation across the Federal Government.
Recognizing this, a number of the ideas posted to this forum are aimed at Congress. A prime example is the idea with by far the most votes at this time, “Support a 72-Hour Mandatory Public Review Period on Major Spending Bills.” You can’t realistically plan to implement this idea without the full participation and backing of Congress, since they are the ones most impacted by it. Why would Congress support this idea if they weren’t active participants in the design, implementation, and management of this new process?
Besides this, Congress is the only branch of the Federal Government that provides ongoing, bi-partisan participation and representation in the government’s activities. The Administration is naturally dominated by the party elected into the White House. Regardless of how impartial any President or Administration may try to be, they are human and subject to bias, just like the rest of us. So, in addition to inviting the participation of all Americans in this initiative through means such as this Open Government Dialogue, inviting Congress to participate would aid in designing and implementing a bi-partisan system that could be sustained across all the political changes the government undergoes every election. Otherwise, everything this initiative implements could be thrown out with the next change of Administration.
Therefore, Congress should be invited to partner with the Administration in moving forward with all phases of this initiative!
Note: The Supreme Court and the rest of the Federal Judicial System are, by definition and design, supposed to be removed from the partisan political process of governance and therefore tend to be less transparent and open than the other branches of government. There may be some opportunities for more transparency and openness in the judicial system. But these should probably be left for a later time, since the benefits of including them at this time would probably be outweighed by the increased complexity and scale involved in including them now.
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
58 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Uncategorized »Use a Whole Systems Approach to Transparency and Open Government
One of the major challenges with large initiatives (such as this Transparency and Open Government initiative) and large organizations/institutions (such as the Federal Government) is the lack of integration, collaboration, and synergy that usually result from trying to design, implement, and manage anything this large and complex. They are typically designed and implemented in separate pieces based on the concept that ...more »
3 comments for Idea: Use a Whole Systems Approach to Transparency and Open GovernmentOne of the major challenges with large initiatives (such as this Transparency and Open Government initiative) and large organizations/institutions (such as the Federal Government) is the lack of integration, collaboration, and synergy that usually result from trying to design, implement, and manage anything this large and complex. They are typically designed and implemented in separate pieces based on the concept that if you break something large, and therefore difficult or impossible to design, implement, and manage, down into its component parts and work on each part separately, that when you put them all back together they will somehow work well together as a complete system. This is a mechanistic approach, or what is known in science as a “Newtonian” approach, to systems that are neither machines nor the static, predictable environments that these traditional approaches treat them as.
A large, complex system like the Federal Government is neither a machine nor a static, predictable environment, so traditional approaches just don’t work well. For example, each new piece of legislation and each new regulation can’t just be “plugged in” to the existing “machinery” of the current government without impacting other aspects of the government.
A graphic example of this, that we all have to deal with at least once a year, are the Federal Tax Code and the IRS regulations that try to “Provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all” (IRS Mission Statement).
How can the IRS effectively and efficiently carry out its mission when the Tax Code is a massive patchwork of laws that have been enacted as separate measures, often driven by political aims rather than the common good?
How can a Senator or Representative gain sufficient understanding of this jumble to pass legislation that will optimize the entire system of taxes, including their impact on and interaction with all of the different factors and stakeholders, rather than just the small piece they are working on (even if we assume the best intentions on their part of working for the common good)?
How can taxpayers possibly understand and comply with this mess, especially when it keeps changing all the time and makes little real sense to them even when they can figure out what actions they’re supposed to take?
So the government is not a machine; it is a complex, living, evolving system. In fact, any system involving people is by nature complex and constantly changing, since we are so driven by our personal beliefs, needs, feelings, relationships, and reactions to our environment. Trying to design, implement, and manage a transparent, open government for 300 million of us diverse, unpredictable humans is almost unimaginably complex. What we need for this is a proven way to work with complex living systems, what is often called a “Whole Systems Approach.”
A Whole Systems Approach considers all the factors and elements involved, including how they relate to each other, how they work together as a whole, what the system needs to develop, thrive, and evolve in its environment, and how the system impacts and interacts with its surrounding environment, including how the system will be able to respond and evolve as needs and the surrounding environment change.
For the Transparency and Open Government Initiative this would involve using a whole systems approach throughout this initiative – brainstorming, designing, implementing, and managing the system. This whole systems approach should include:
Look at how the best ideas that emerge out of this effort can come together within the existing government system to collectively produce the desired outcomes of a transparent and open government, as well as the most beneficial impact on the other aspects of the government and the environment in which it operates – this country and the world. The goal is to create synergies that result in a system that is greater than the sum of its parts (these ideas and the elements of the government they involve) -- rather than the other way around, which is the usual result of a mechanistic approach to a complex system. This includes not just synergistic relationships within the Federal Government, but with key aspects of the environment in which it operates such as State and Local Governments, as well as with other current government initiatives such as Economic Recovery.
To address the complexity and uncertainty inherent in this system, a whole systems approach is first and foremost based on a set of principles. These principles guide and shape the whole systems process rather than prescribing a fixed recipe or methodology that details out each step of the process like mechanistic approaches do. What these whole systems principles are varies somewhat among whole systems practitioners and should be crafted collaboratively anyway as part of the initiative’s participative process. But I can provide a couple of examples here to help you envision how they are different from other, more linear, mechanistic approaches.
-- Design for Emergence – This is a concept from complexity science that addresses how to deal with the uncertainty involved with complex, rapidly changing systems. It basically means that you can’t predict in advance everything that will happen within the system, so don’t overdesign everything in the system up front. Instead, design just enough of the system to be able to simulate, prototype or pilot it, observe what happens, and then adjust the design based on your observations of what emerged from the system (thus the term, “design for emergence”). To deal with the complexity of the system, it can also involve implementing the system in stages with each stage adding additional complexity to the previous stages that are already operational and observing and changing the system based on what emerges when you add additional complexity.
-- Design for Sustainability - This means you should expect to go through iterations of this process pretty much indefinitely. This is because not only will you need to make changes to the design based on your observations of the initial implementation, you will also need to keep making changes indefinitely to adapt to ongoing changes in the environment. Another consideration in designing for sustainability is to place a strong emphasis on transforming the underlying culture by embedding the new mindset and practices so deeply into the culture that the system will be sustainable through major changes such as a change of parties, personalities, or priorities in the White House.
Ideally, the whole system view should include the following major elements, how they relate to each other, how they relate to the existing government system, and how the whole thing works together as a whole system. Ideas already posted here are shown in (parens) as examples of each element. This big picture view will also enable us to identify gaps, overlaps, and conflicts between the ideas/elements.
-- Strategy – What are the most important questions we need to address with this initiative such as, “What does ‘open and transparent government’ really mean? Why are we doing this? What are we trying to accomplish? What does success look like? What are the most important factors involved in achieving this success?
(examples: “Develop an overall adaptive, participative strategy for Transparency and Open Government”; “Require all agencies to submit a plan for open government”)
-- Culture (examples: “Ask Federal Agencies to Adopt the Core Principles for Public Engagement”; “Create a Government-wide Transparency, Collaboration, and Participation Culture”)
-- Leadership (examples: President Obama’s ongoing leadership of this initiative, starting with his “Memorandum For The Heads Of Executive Departments And Agencies”; “Hold Agencies Accountable for Implementing the Open Government Directive”)
-- Communication (examples: “Promise USA - National Network of Citizen Conversation”; “Convene the American Public in National Discussions ...”, “Use visual recording and mini animations to convey complex ideas”)
-- Processes – (examples: “72-Hour Mandatory Public Review Period on Major Spending Bills”; “Centralize petitions to Congress and the President”)
-- Organization – (example: “Integrate Participation and Collaboration into All Major Systems of Federal Agencies”, “Invite Congress to work with the Administration on this as a government-wide, bi-partisan initiative”)
-- Technology (examples: “Online, visually interactive, one-stop-shop, federal budget website”, “Digitize everything”)
-- Resources/Funding (example: “Fully fund participation and collaboration activities”)
-- External Relationships – (examples: “Encourage State and Local Governments to Become More Open and Inclusive”, “Use 501c3 non-profit member and volunteer-based organizations and community-based initiatives as models/benchmarks for the Federal government”)
-- System Measurement & Improvement – (example: “Process for measuring, widely communicating the measurement results, and continuously improving the transparency and openness of the government”)
Employ proven systems tools to do this. Some of the ideas already presented in this forum are examples of systems tools: widespread, diverse, coordinated participation; ongoing dialogue; weaving the ideas together into graphic maps or models; social networking, collaboration, and information gathering and dissemination technologies, and others. But there are other tools that would also be useful.
To begin this Whole Systems process and to illustrate how it works, I took a cursory look at the top ideas posted here so far and visualized the system that would possibly result from integrating them. In doing so, I identified some areas where I felt the composite of these ideas needed strengthening in order to create a Whole System that could meet President Obama’s objectives. As a result, I have added several new ideas as separate postings in this forum. They are meant to come together with the existing ideas to create a more effective Whole System. These have been posted already or will be soon.
Develop an overall adaptive, participative strategy for Transparency and Open Government
Create a government-wide culture of transparency, collaboration, and participation
Invite Congress to partner with the Administration on this as a government-wide, bi-partisan initiative
Use 501c3 non-profit member and volunteer-based organizations and community-based initiatives as models/benchmarks for the Federal government
Process for measuring, widely communicating the measurement results, and continuously improving the transparency and openness of the government
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
1 vote
I disagreeThis idea is active.Strategic Planning and Budgeting »Free Obama (No Kidding)
I spent the morning reading every single posted idea, many of the comments, and then posted my own five ideas and thought to leave it at that. However, during the mowing of the lawn it came to me. Idea first, then the short explanation Free Obama. Simple, straight-forward, and the ONE THING that we can all focus on to achieve ALL of the ideas posted so far. Right now, President Barack Obama is president in name ...more »
46 comments for Idea: Free Obama (No Kidding)I spent the morning reading every single posted idea, many of the comments, and then posted my own five ideas and thought to leave it at that. However, during the mowing of the lawn it came to me. Idea first, then the short explanation
Free Obama. Simple, straight-forward, and the ONE THING that we can all focus on to achieve ALL of the ideas posted so far.
Right now, President Barack Obama is president in name only. He is being guided, controlled, constrained, influenced, lied to--by whatever attribute one might wish, he is anything but free. He is also, according to one of my sources, mindful of being assassinated if he attempts too radical a departure from the agenda that has been set for him by Wall Street and the four big complexes that own the US federal government: Wall Street fronted by the Fed and Treasury, military-intelligence, prison-slavery, and hospital-pharamaceutical.
There can be no more telling proof of the validity of my concern for his well-being that the fact thatupon entering office he immediately abandoned what little status he had given to non-partisan, post-partisan, trans-partisan, and immediately became the puppet of the winner-take-all Democratic mafia who--this is the important bit--place higher importance on keeping the two-party monopoly of power alive, than they do on serving the public.
FACT: Obama was elected by 30% of the eligible voters. 56.4 or so of those eligible voted, with a bare majority within that number. 70% of us did not vote for him.
FACT: 39% of eligible voters are now Independent, with the Democratic party falling to 33% and the Republican Party to the mid 20% range.
FACT: The two party criminal system controls every aspect of the election process and has betrayed the public trust in gerrymandering and manipulating all aspects so as to keep incumbents in power and deny Independents access to debates at any level.
FACT: Secrecy in Washington is used to keep power in the hands of those who have betrayed the public trust, from Senators and Representatives to intelligence officials doing warrantless wiretapping and torture, to contractors cheating the military.
FACT: I put a memorandum under Obama's door in Des Moines, with the gentle support of the hotel staff which gave me a room next to his despite the hotel being sold out, and the Secret Service detail, to whom I introduced myself. That memorandum told him two things:
A) You have to embrace all the parties, not just the two criminal parties. The Libertarians, Greens, Reforms, Independents, and even the Socialists. Diversity matters, inclusiveness matters. Re-establish democracy in America.
B) You cannot allow Congress, lobbyists, or Wall Street to set the agenda. You need to have a strategic analytic model that mandates a coherent strategy for addressing all ten high-level threats to humanity across all twelve core policy areas, while doing outreach to the eight demographic challengers that will set the future. Without the model, you will be bounced off the walls.
And so it came to pass. In his first 100 days Obama turned into a look-alike of George Bush, "going along" with the idiocy of bailing out Wall Street, surging in Afghanistan, keeping Guantanamo open, and so on. He is not well-informed, he is not in charge, and at this rate he will be the stake in the heart of the Democratic Party that Dick Cheney was to the Republican Party. Who would have thought...
So I say, FREE OBAMA. Make it a bumper sticker. Make it a meme. He needs to know that 100% is a lot better than 30%, and that 100% is achievable if he will BE President to We the People, not to those who lied, cheated, and bought (still waiting for the accounting on that last $300 million) the election for him.
Captive to others? Right now, yes. BE the President, pass Electoral Reform in time for 2010, and lead America back to its Constitutional greatness as a Republic Of, By, and For We the People.
WHO IS Robert David STEELE Vivas to say something so utterly outrageous?
Recovering spy, #1 Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, CEO of OSS.Net and Earth Intelligence Network.
Learn more at www.oss.net and www.earth-intelligence.net which was created to give Obama the model.
All of my books are free online as well as on sale at Amazon, the three I recommend for citizens are:
NEW CRAFT OF INTELLIGENCE: Personal, Public, & Political at www.oss.net/BOOKS
COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace at www.oss.net/CIB
ELECTION 2008: Lipstick on the Pig at www.oss.net/PIG with an annotated bibliography of 500+ books on reality
I pray for this country every day. We need to reach Obama in a way that no one close to him is capable of comprehending because with the exception of his wife, everyone around him is in love with power, not the USA.
« less full details »
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
4 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Legal & Policy Challenges »Grassroots Lobbyists
4 comments for Idea: Grassroots LobbyistsCreate legal guidelines for allowable spending for lobbying directly to congress (including political contributions) to be tied directly to the certifiable size of the public membership the lobby has.
-
I agree
Voting is Disabled
-11 votes
I disagreeThis idea is active.Legal & Policy Challenges »Equal Representation Through the Elimination of Congressional Districts
To grant each state its specified number of representatives in Congress, we have devised a system not founded in the Constitution – Congressional districts. Each state is split up into geographical regions approved by the state legislatures and signed by the state governor. Under this system, each geographical district elects one representative who is then supposed to represent those people by voting, debating, and speaking ...more »
3 comments for Idea: Equal Representation Through the Elimination of Congressional DistrictsTo grant each state its specified number of representatives in Congress, we have devised a system not founded in the Constitution – Congressional districts. Each state is split up into geographical regions approved by the state legislatures and signed by the state governor. Under this system, each geographical district elects one representative who is then supposed to represent those people by voting, debating, and speaking with the will of their district in mind. Members of that district have no say about the state's other Congressional districts – just theirs.
As is always with people, manipulation of the system is bound to occur. Districts are, as I said above, drawn by the state legislature, which is a very partisan institution (as are most political institutions, sadly), so they tend to reflect what's best for the majority party at the time the districts were created. Not only do parties get disenfranchised, all sorts of communities – minorities in particular – get the shaft in this system. All the person in power wants to do is continue holding that power for as long as possible; therefore, they try to stack the odds in their favour by drawing districts in such a way that they are almost always assured a win next election. If they can win in a majority of the districts in the state, they win the entire state, regardless of what the other districts say. Power-hungry politicians, then, sometimes try to draw district lines in a way that negates the effect of the opposing vote in a process called "gerrymandering." If there are a lot of Republicans in a certain area, and Democrats control the state legislature, they may elect to split up those Republicans into several districts, so they can't ban together and have power. Another method is to cede a district or several districts to their opponents, and put all Republicans into those districts, making sure that Democrats will still control all the others and thus control the state.
While these techniques are technically illegal (due to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and several laws in the 1980s), the U.S. Congress will sometimes look over gerrymandering as long as it's not blatantly obvious that a party or group is trying to discriminate against another party or group. In other words, if you're clever enough to make it look like you had no idea you were putting your opponents at too much of a disadvantage. With enough political whit and manipulation, stacking the odds in your favour are still possible.
This, in my opinion, does not signify equality; it signifies the opposite – oppression. If I live in a gerrymandered district and have views differing from the group for which that district was gerrymandered, I may as well not vote; it won't count, or it will count so little that it won't matter anyway. I'm effectively stripped of the ability to vote for someone sharing my beliefs. What are my options? Well, I could move to another district that supports my opinions, but why should I have to uproot my job, my family, and my entire life just because some power-hungry politician doesn't care about me? I should be able to live in any location I please and have just as much say as my neighbour, who may be my exact opposite.
In order to accomplish this, I have a proposal: Eliminate Congressional districts. Instead of forcing me to vote for only one of my state's representatives, who probably won't get elected if I live in a gerrymandered district, let me vote for all of them. The chances of me getting at least one representative that truly represents my values is much greater. If I'm a Republican in a highly Democratic area, I can vote for a Republican, and that guy may still get into office. In the current system, there are representatives which hold "safe seats" in Congress. Their districts contain a large majority of their party, and no one from the other party even has a chance, so their opponents may as well stay home and not run – or move elsewhere; they have no say. Eliminating Congressional districts would effectively eliminate safe seats as well. Just because people in your area agree with you doesn't mean everyone in your state does. Now the representative not only has to worry about keeping his biased district happy (an easy feat), but he has to worry about the entire state. I envision the ballots of each state to contain a pool of people, more than likely twice the number of positions.. but not confined to that. In Mississippi (my state), for 4 positions there could possibly be 50 people from which you choose. Naturally, a person will choose the 4 people closest to their beliefs. After voting, the 4 candidates with the most votes would be the representatives because they had the most supporters. This would apply to all states, so in California the top 53 would be representatives, and so on. This would be a popular vote based system, so every person's vote would be equal to that of another person, and not just "roughly equal" as laid out by the Equal Protection Clause. There would be true equality instead of the perversion we have now.
Doing this would allow you to have a say for every person representing you – not just one. If you choose not to vote for all 53, you don't have to. Trying to distinguish between 2 candidates is already hard enough; I wouldn't want to even attempt to think about 53. My reply to this is: That's why we have the power of abstaining. Even though there are 53 spots to fill, you don't have to vote for 53 people. You can choose to vote for only 5 or 6 – or even only 1 if you'd like. Any sensible person would find their top choices and check their names, not really caring about the others. If they have 5 or 6 representatives, they're happy. In fact, they'd be happier under my system than the current one! Instead of only having one representative, they could potentially have 20-30 (even all 53!) representing their ideals. They would have more people agreeing with them, and thus would be better represented in Congress as a whole. In essence, while you have the ability to vote for all 53, you aren't forced to. Vote for whomever you want, and the top 53 will get in.
This system would not only empower the average American and give him/her a more active role in their government; it would make the House of Representatives reflect the ideals of the American people much more closely than currently. The "People's Branch" would actually become the People's Branch.
So in conclusion, my proposal is to eliminate Congressional districts and replace them with candidate pools. People will have the ability (but not the obligation) to vote for all of the representatives in their state and not be confined to just one. A person in an area of conflicting beliefs will still have a voice and be more encouraged to vote. And Congress would reflect the will of the American people more closely... What's not to like about that?
« less full details »
Social Web