Talk: Campaigns Wikia/July 2006

This talk page is an archive. To preserve the discussions, please do not edit it.

It begins here

No idea where to comment, so I guess this will have to do for now. We should probably have some categorisation throughout the campaigns. I suppose a "Campaigns by country; State; Province; Region; District; etc" broken down into some sort of Party system would be good. That way, if I want to know what other, say, Green Party candidates are running for the U.S. House of Representatives from Montana, I could easily find them. Or if I wanted to, say, find all the candidates running for MP from Bromsgrove, they would all be in one location. Is there something like this already in mind? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Categories are probably the easiest tool to use for this, but of course categories presuppose the existence of articles... What I have been thinking about is that we will probably have two distinct sorts of things here: first a set of general philosophical and pratical discussions about things like: how to get active in a campaign and convince them that this stuff matters... this kind of discussion applies to everyone. Second, an index to campaigns, including stuff about every candidate we can find, something like NPOV articles about them plus probably NPOV-ish pages which sum up the arguments PRO and CON for each candidate.--Jimbo Wales 20:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We need to focus on elections and campagins not issues

I know a lot of people have been working on issues pages, but I feel that is a distraction. This really needs to be about elections and campaigns. Issues are fine in the context of the candidates and the elections, but general issues pages belong on wikipedia not here! --User:blong 00:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Focussing on elections and campaigns means focussing on parties and figureheads who might disagree on issues only in shades of grey suggested by the polls their maketers made. Discussing the choice between an elephant and a donkey might be of local interest to some US netizens, but it will get us nowhere.

Political issues should become first priority in political discussions - who stands for what issues will be influenced by how important we manage these issues to become. --Gwyndon 00:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the desire to discuss issues outside of campaigns and elections, I just feel it's misdirected here. This is the Campaigns Wikia .. not the debate or issues Wikia. I would wager that Wikipedia has a good summary of all these issues topics already, no need to recreate. If individuals want to discuss abstract issues, there is a much larger critical mass at Wikipedia. Blong 03:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this Wikia NPOV like Wikipedia? --Jeolmeun 20:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with blong that this really isn't the place for simply filling up the space with issues-related articles, but if we do deal with specific issues, we should not simply do a "pro/con" approach in which we shout out the reasons why we're for or against it, and try to out-list each other with a longer set of reasons. Been there, done that on every other blog and chatroom online. We should, instead, seek to list the COMMON GROUND we can find on each issue - the common ground we wish politicians would speak about when they make speeches and write position papers on these topics. That, at least, would be consistent with this site's mission: to seek a new kind of political discourse and a new way to involve citizens in the campaign process. - Nhprman 21:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't beleive one can describe a campaign without providing details on the politcal issues, and coloring the various subtle shades of grey. In the end, its the issues that I care about; the campaign is merely to elect someone, anyone, who is effective and who will act on the issues. Linas 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that issues have a place for discussion as part of a campaign. What my original statement was though was that discussion of issues outside of a campaign does nothing to help us decide who to vote for. Also there are many great forums for discussion of issues already on the internet. We don't need to recreate that here. Yes, discuss issues, but where they make sense as related to an actual election or campaign that someone is running. Blong 18:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not American. But my country is impacted by American Laws. These laws are not debated and developed with our nations people at heart. They come as a compulsory requirement of doing business with the US. These DMCA laws are being pushed by the US all around the world. Artists, consumers, academics, small innovative businesses all around the world lose. It overturns our access to civil rights. I see this wiki as an opportunity to meet people who are interested in making change in the political sphere. People who are prepared to discuss and perhaps even collaboratively draft better policy. The business interests behind the DMCA are a small group of very well financed companies. They find it easy to draft law in their narrow self interests. It is a far more complex task to create intelligent policy which looks after the rights of people around the world who are completely bypassed by the way these laws are implemented. Given this is where I start from, for me the mapping of the current political positions of local election in the US provides no new data. It gives me no dialogue with people who want to make something new, and merely documents an existing binary divergence. The fact that people are arguing that this mapping can occur without issues and is more important than the issues these people are representing for yois for me a sad indication of what democratic politics has become. These people should be servants to the issues which are important to you as a community. Those issues should be things we can all talk about and discuss and adjust our ideas on as we learn more about the implications of our own views and those of other people, to find choices which best fit our communities as a whole.

The opportunity for people in the US to interact with people outside the US who care about issues which impact all of our nations would be a lovely one to make use of. The opportunity to lead some new policies on digital access rights from a community of people who understand the value in peer to peer collaborative communication is also a rare treasure.

The thing which is wrong with the DMCA is that it provides full rights to a very few people at the expense of all rights of everyone else. The thing which is wrong with political debate and taking a Win V Lose position on all issues is that the freedom which the US cites as its birthright, along with other democratic nations, is only made of people sharing rights with each other. Each time there is a court case that sues someone in order to give right of way to someone else, the US and all the nations impacted by its laws lose another fragment of freedom, of the ability to share and have an open community. The DMCA is a very large and comprehensive fragment. It impacts our ability to share information, to discuss ideas, to create from the material around us, to choose what we purchase and how we can use or improve on it, to have open and honest debates about technologies without fear of litigation. Yes you could use this place to map who is running. But I think it would be a far more valuable site for the US decision makers and for all of us around the world if it was a place where we could start to feed the needs of people for rights and freedoms back into a system which can currently only hear their corporate sponsors. Lucychili 11:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Lucychili, It would help if you explained what the acronym DMCA stands for. Currently there are 3 basic schools of international law based on 3 schools of economics. How do the pros and cons of DMCA (whatever it is) fit into those 3 ways of looking at the world.

- Capitalism, Free Marketplace of ideas (such as this website) and Free Marketplace of goods and services. Government does not interfere between a willing buyer and a willing seller.

- Mercantilism, Government HELPS the economy. Government helps business, helps labor, uses laws and regulations. The supporter of any particular law or government action sees it as "leveling the playing field". The opponent of any particular law or action sees it as "favoritism toward a special interest".

- Socialism. This has largely been discredited as a viable alternative but in a democracy it amounts to government overpromising what it can deliver and then borrowing from future generations to buy the support of the current generation. In non-democratic societies it amounts to slavery to the state. The state tells you what your effort is worth and whether you can market it or not, even whether you can get non-monetary recognition for your labor.

Of course EVERY society is a MIXED economy. Some are 1/3-1/3-1/3. Others 60-20-20. Now which way would DMCA take us and which way do you want us to go? Bob Schmidt, Illinois, USA.

Wiki-fying Political Arguments in a Logical Way

I have a vision which probably doesn't mesh completely with Jimbo's, but here it is.

As you are probably all aware, Wikipedia is great, but it's not so great on subjects that are controversial or political. Wikipedia articles on these subjects are prone to "edit wars", or whatever you want to call it.

What Jimbo is suggesting is that we have a wiki ESPECIALLY FOCUSED on the very sorts of subjects on which wikis work THE WORST - controversial or political issues.

What I think we really need is something just a bit beyond a wiki, the next step in web information applications.

Here's where I'll be waving my arms and making hard to understand statements, so bear with me.

Wiki provides a way to quickly record, categorize, and map FACTS. We need a way to record, categorize and map ARGUMENTS.

There are a finite set of TYPES of arguments. These have been recorded in textbooks, and lawyers study them.

We need an application that allows us, in a wiki-like fashion, to record arguments. There would be forms for a given sort of argument ("Argument by Example", etc.) The correctness of an argument could rest on other arguments, and long chains thus be could be made.

Of course, there would be undecidable things, creating "scisms" in the database, or "schools of thought", but at least we could map out where they are.

How many times have you seen the same arguments made over and over on blogs or whatever? Wouldn't you like a way to see all of the arguments at that have been made gathered together all in one place, along with the counterarguments to them?

If we had such a system, eventually, shorthands for arguments would occur, and when a polician or blogger makes an argument, you could say "oh, he's making THIS argument", and link to the argument-wiki. (It probably needs a new name. "Logos"?) Think of how much human energy would be saved from having rational people quickly be able to find what is right or wrong with their arguments?

What I'm asking for would involve much coding, of course, and so while what I'm asking for does not yet exists, we could TRY to make do with this mere wiki.

Still, does anyone see what I mean?

Once you start with the 'coding' word - it's all over for the average joe...

---

An interesting idea. Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I don't see any way around the "editing war" phenomenon. The Seigenthaler "thing." That's not to say that something useful cannot be crated here, but political speech is already prone to propagandizing, spin, revisionist tactics, etc. How does the reader analyze the rhetoric he reads in Wikia if he can't even be sure the text he's reading is correctly attributed, cited, etc?

And whoever controls the creation of categories, subcategories, taxonomy can wield a lot of influence on the debate.

--Artie 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I strongly approve of this course of action. I think each issue should be covered by as many perspectives as possible, starting with the major political parties' stance and going right down to perspectives that synthesize multiple perspectives/arguments. --Ferguson 17:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I second. I wouldn't mind seeing a spanning tree of arguments about an issue. Arguments and points from all points of an issue with responses as a child node. CreationWiki has something like this at their Index to Creationist Claims --Jeolmeun 18:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this although the formality of the suggested approach is non-ideal to maximize participation. The Digg model works well here: for each issue, users submit arguments, strategies, ideas, etc. while others vote for- and against the argument on the basis of quality of argument, writing, evidence presented, etc. (and not upon 'agreement'). Management of submission of refinements or minor alternatives to particular POVs will be an issue. Jdiggans 01:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone started something at http://wikidebate.sourceforge.net/ --Jeolmeun 07:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. If we start with a wiki and map a debate which we are all reasonably new to (Yes I'm suggesting DMCA again, at least I'm consistent) Then we might find that it is a good indication for how to drive things when people are having difficulty with topics which generate polar responses. People will have a fair range of response to Copyright and Digital access rights and finding a good peace which considers those options could be a tricky and interesting journey. Lucychili 11:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A Different way to organize...

In addition to organizing Campaigns Wikia by topics (International Affairs, Education, Civil Rights) etc., with attendant sub-topics, we may want to consider a temporal organization approach as well.

By that I mean setting up chronological templates like 2010, 2015, 2020 etc., where Wikia members can contribute their thoughts on the issues that are likely to be most pressing for the country BY THAT time-frame.

The idea behind this is simple.

Most of the imperatives that drive political discussions by politicians and the media, are driven by short-term political time-tables, like the upcoming mid-term elections, or the next Presidential elections.

They're then debated through the filters of the right and the left (or the left and the right, depending on your perspective).

Even when we discuss major issues like immigration, education, etc., we're really talking about them in 2-4 year time frames.

And while politicians and the media talk about issues like Social Security in the longer term, due to the nature of the issue, they're talked about in the context of the issue itself, BUT NOT in conjunction with other issues like immigration, education, trade relations with China/India, etc., that are likely going to influence Social Security in the long term.

When you think about it, we have no political or media institution that really has a stake in nurturing discussion and debates on truly long-term issues, especially ones that are not influenced by near-term politics.

At least in the area of economics and the judiciary, we've created institutions like the Federal Reserve and the Supreme Court that truly deliberate on issues and policies for the truly long-term, independent of near-term political agendas.

We need to have a similar discussion template for discussing today's issues in the context of tomorrow.

Truly representative representatives

Excellant idea, I and a friend of mine have been discussing for some time, at great length whether the internet could help augment the lack of true representation provided by our government officials.

Along with the organizational ideas, we had discussed organizing content according to representative district so it would be easy for someone to follow local/state/national politics on a topic/representative organization relative to their locale.

Organization

Organizing this is going to be interesting. How will people want to find candidates? Obviously there will be the need to drill down by location. Additionally, people might want to drill-down by issue, and they might want to do so within a location (e.g., California-based candidates relating to firearms regulation issues), which will be tricky, but necessary (after all, most people in a particular country may not care what people in other countries are doing on that issue, and looking at death-penalty positions across the globe will be too much noise to filter through).

Chronological organization will also be tough, with regards to people wanting to drill down through historical campaigns on various issues. But I'm not sure how much this wants to become a historical resource--I doubt people will be in favor of retroactively adding campaigns from the past; part of the interest in this project will be in capturing the campaign coverage at the time of the campaign.

Additionally, we'll want some way to organize citations. Perhaps we can have a comprehensive list of citations relating to every candidate on their wiki. E.g., anything anyone was quoted as saying in the NY Times should be filed somewhere. How much effort will we try to put in this central wiki to effect policy on the campaign wikis. Should they all follow similar organizational principles, or are they essentially free-for-alls?

Just throwing out some topics/concerns. Jun-Dai 22:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma politicians always lie to voters and the voters always believe the lies. The politicians know when they say "I will do this or that" the reality is they will do nothing of the sort and sometimes just the oposite. No honor available anymore. S A D Days for Citizens.

Perhaps we could ask the politicians what they think of an issue, document the response accurately and show them where it is here. Perhaps next time they might look here think about what is important to their voters on the next issue. Lucychili 12:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

new and confused

Wow, is the right time for this site. I probably don't fit your profile, I'm much older and a grammar grump but I can't believe the way we, the people, are losing control of our government. The media isn't biased, it's doing just what the people want. Making it short, sweet and untrue. The truth takes so looong!! I don't even know how to blog and this is the first time I've written (and I hope this is a blog) but we all need to start somewhere. What would be a good beginning topic? Let's tak...ummm....better slogans? Not "cut and run", let's do "learn and live"!! Let's find a way to give people the news in a short amount of time. But let's make sure it's the truth. Let's not give both sides, let's just talk true. Could this work?

Check out http://tenurecorrupts.com, or nels[AT]gmail.com

You are aware, I hope, that for news by wikians there already is wikinews? Perhaps, but probably not in the frame this offers, a political wiki campaigns forum could be what Wikipedia does not want (and probably shouldn't) be: a place for controversial and non-mainstream opinions, for arguments, dissent and indeed campaigning. --Gwyndon 00:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Like you I'm new to this forum and a bit older. I found the organization strange to say the least. Who picked the article subjects? How do you add new topics? I don't get it.

Organizing Wiki site by both topics and political/geographic areas

As someone who has done grassroots organizing in California (eg: California for Democacy, San Francisco for Democracy) I recommend that in addition to organizing by topics, pages which are organized first by State and then by Congressional District be created as well. There's an enormous workload of keeping track of who is running in what congressional districts, which districts might be singled out for special attention by opposing parties (eg: in California grassroots groups have an organized campaign "to take back red California" on a district-by-disctrict by district basis) and what the big issues are for that distict.

Although I assume this new Wiki site can't allow itself to become a partisan tool, I envision individual pages for each Congressional district which would accomplish two purposes: inform everybody about the basics (who's the incumbent, who are the challengers, what are the recent voter trends). All that stuff would be NPOV. Then, if Wikipedia will allow this as a matter of policy, individual editors could add postings about the pros and cons of each candidate. Although these posting would not be NPOV, they would have to abide by other Wikipedia rules such as assume good faith, no personal attacks, provide verification for any claimed facts, etc. --Tom Brown 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

-- I do not know much about US campaigning, but from where I sit they seem to be very well funded processes, and while I can see that it would be useful for the parties to have maps with their target candidates and areas and ways to critique them, it does look like a partisan website function to me. There is so much of a pattern to these processes in the wider media that I feel it would be reflected here and therefore unlikely to help any of the candidates think differently about what they need to offer their communities.

If you had not had experience as a campaigner, and were a person outside of that system, and had a concern not addressed or audible to any of the candidates, or perhaps an answer which both candidates might agree on if they saw it from another perspective, then you would need a structure which did not present the existing system to itself, but presented what was missing from the existing system so that new ideas and alternatives could be heard. You might not even be within that politicians electorate, but might have an idea or a perspective which has value for their community.

Thinking again from the perspective of a campaigner, What can you *not* see of your community and your voters, world opinions on issues, opinions and precedents in similar communities, and implications for other communities of choices in your own. What kind of dialogue would your teams need to enable them to be responsive and subtle statesmen and women who did not need to critique each other but did need to engage with their communities effectively.

I guess I think this site http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ is a good example of a site which helps make politicians visible. I think it would be good if campaign teams set up something like this for their candidates to make them visible to their communities. I'm hoping C.wiki can help make the communities local and broader visible to their candidates. Lucychili 12:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Independent subwikis

If we're going to have subwikis for individual candidates, would it make sense to also have subwikis for:

1. Political parties
2. Referendum issues (e.g., prop 187)
3. Nations and/or provinces? languages? (how do we intend to deal with languages, btw?)

Is it really necessary/relevant to have a separate wiki for each candidate? what purpose does that serve?

Just throwing more questions into the air.

Jun-Dai 00:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. As I suggest above, it would be more meaningful to have subwikis by states and congressional districts (for the US). Just having stand alone candidate pages doesn't make sense IMHO. What would really be nice is to have a home-page map of the US (or maybe the world?) which would allow you to click on your own area. --Tom Brown 00:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: Here's an example of a clickable US map done by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. DCCC

I disagree in that parties and referendum issues should just be subsets of subwikis by nation. Thinking out of the box would instead mean dividing by (1) general ubiquitous issues, (2) UN issues and organisations, (3) nations. --Gwyndon 00:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

Let's look at the gay marriage topic here in our new wonderland. There are seven opinions, all of which have very little to do with each other, as though the posters simply wanted to get off their chests some sort of devastating defeat to whichever side they disagree with. If it continues down that line, it will become chaotic, unintelligible, and increasingly more idiotic. These people's opinions are, for the most part, valid, but there absolutely must be a structure to articles like that.

My problem is this: What exactly is the difference between campaigns.wiki, and wikipedia? If I go to wikipedia, I can read a full, incredibly done article on Same-Sex marriage with links and great information abound. It already has the debate issues all lined up. Should we just..say, copy and paste something like that over to this wiki, and contextualize it in terms of party platforms and politicians? Should we then create an area for people to begin an informed debate, one that can be easily researched and factual thanks to the ready information available to them?

If the point of this website is to raise the bar, we need to set the bar somewhere. At the moment, throwing out opinions is no better than any other blog. If I'm missing the point of this website, then what is the gay marriage topic supposed to be filled with, if not information regarding the different viewpoints, which can then be debated?

Slacksimus 07:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Slacksimus's concerns reflect my own. This topic needs to be addressed before this site can really grow.

DavidM 14:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide discussion

I'd like to put a 'Tools' section in here, and widen the discussion to a worldwide one. Here in the UK, we have a great organisation called MySociety http://www.mysociety.org/ that makes some fantastic open democracy tools that maybe others can gain inspiration from. Things like http://www.pledgebank.com/ for gathering support; WriteToThem http://www.writetothem.com/ for writing to your MP, and a special Lords edition for writing to Peers; HearFromYourMP http://www.hearfromyourmp.com/ which encourages MPs to run mailing lists for their constituents. Then there's TheyWorkForYou http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ which allows you to find out what your MP has been saying in Parliament.

I think there's huge value in sharing experiences from country to country. Of course, not all experiences will map accross - you couldn't do WriteToThem in Ireland, for example, because it works off postal codes and the Irish don't all use postal codes. But the ideas are worth sharing nonetheless.

I think that's a great idea. I'll copy these links to tools to start the page. Please expand it! Angela (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Pete Ashdown -- who is running against US Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah -- has used a wiki as part of his campaign for awhile already to involve normal folk in his campaign. He even got attention from the BBC for his efforts with Wikipolitics. Check out the Pete Ashdown Campaign Wiki.--Anhhung18901 18:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea and more inline with what this particular wiki is trying to achieve.--Ningbojoe 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we going International with this?

This Wiki reached Slashdot this morning (GMT) and a discussion is currently ongoing here.

I posted a comment on the discussion regarding what I thought of the idea and if it could be widened to an International audience. Here's the content of the post:

I think this is a good idea. It looks to have the potential to raise peoples awareness of the practise of politics and a central area where peoples opinions on political issues and agendas can be seen in near real time. Much different than the "write a letter to your congressman" or (in Ireland), "go meet with your local councillor", where you have to account for the time it takes for your opinion/issues to filter up and down the food chain.

There is also the "mob mentality", whereby if enough people have the same views on a certain issue, then it has the potential to sway political thought.

How about developing this further, into a Wiki for other nations and political regimes similar to (or dissimilar to) Republican Democracy. Note: Republican here means the method of democracy practised, not the party.

I agree about going world-wide, but also about transcending the idea of voting, of division of the world's decision-making by national boundaries, and even of geographical boundaries? Not that we can do all that, but if you're going to redefine politics, should you go directly into discussing taxes? why not start by taking a step back into the ethics etc? - Skoria at gmail.

Short answer: Yup. I think the phrase on Wikipedia is be bold. Chadlupkes 20:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Chadlupkes, and would go further with an "of course!" Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As someone active in German (and to a lesser extent EU/US) politics and interested in international politics (UN anyone? They *should* matter more than what the US do), I'd say: The moment this started we already were, so: Yes, we are international in this. Anything else would beside the point and below the scope of what this is or should or could be. --Gwyndon 01:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rhy Thornton's bid for President in 2012.

I'm running for president in 2012. I'm running on the Pirate ticket.

My campaign platforms are as follows:

First and foremost, and above all other issues, we must make absolutely sure that there is no tom-foolery or corruption involved in our election system. This includes election reform, campaign finance reform, and an improved media for all populist candidates that is not part of the commercial media establishment. The days of Fox and Diebold rigging our elections must end now.

Government transparency. Too much is done by a government "for and by the people", that is not even known about by the people. This is an essential breakdown in the original system designed by our founding fathers.

Adhering strictly to the constitution. Many laws and rulings have watered down key parts of the constitution, in particular Freedom of Speech. We must restore our constitution as the most powerful piece of our entire government, and ensure that it's inherent values are not watered down.

Balancing the budget. Putting America back in the black, and ensuring that our financial situation is stable, progressively strong in the world economy, and sustainable.

Improving American Infrastructure. Our highways, both digital and automotive need improvements, technological upgrades, and better management. Our schools need better curriculum. Our towns, states, and country need modernization for the new global village we live in.

Improving our foreign image. In the years since John F. Kennedy, our image abroad has plummeted, and sadly in many cases, rightfully so. We need to ensure that our populous is ultimately in charge of our foreign policy, through better government representation.

Removing corruption in all levels of the government. Too much dirty money is running our broken system. Many politicians now serving should be held accountable, both by their electorates, and by the United States legal system. Any poltician not acting directly in the interest of his electorate, but for lobbyists or financial gain, must be exposed, expelled, and perhaps even imprisoned. Duke Cunningham was not alone.

Improving our patent and copyright systems. Information is inherently valuable to all of society and it's peoples and should not be held privately by corporations that can over-charge for drugs and other necessary items and designs.

These are my campaign platforms. Every decision I make while leading the American people, either military, financial, or otherwise, will be transparent and reported thoroughly in every media channel available to me. My press secretary will look you in the eye, answer every question fully, and tell you as much of the truth as possible. This is what the American people deserve, and it's what our country needs

What our country needs is Congressional Term Limits ! Check out [1]--nels96 16:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

International?

Well well, what we can see in this project?

If we are aiming to create a truly international project, I think we need

• Index by country - Voter Guides
• A page for every country
• Campaigns information on each of the country page

(Eg. Scheduled elections)

• Candidates
• Write about single one candidate
• Post somewhere in a blog or news portal, so the oponents would access, and oponents themselves will start creating the pages for you. You will be able to watch the information about whem.

Well, at least this is what I imagine what we could do from this webspace.

Even though I am not very interested in politics (I am more contributing to a totally different project, related with the physical restrictions of people, rather than political), but I think this kind of information would be useful for the voters, so they could refer before voting. I was thinking about a similar idea, that it would be good to have a place where people could find more information about the candidates not from the mass media, but from the public itself, even anonymuously.

Inyuki 14:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

De-Criminalization of Marijuana

Medical Marijuana/Decriminalization

I don't know how to create a topic, but this is an issue that is very important to many people. I feel that if the American public knew all the facts regarding marijuana and how it was made illegal in the first place, there would be an outcry for change. The FDA recently released a report on cannabis saying it has no medical benefits, but that report directly contradicts much scientific research. What motive does the FDA have for this? In California, Medical Marijuana patients, who are in full compliance with state law (Prop 215), are being arrested by federal agents. Is this the best way to use our law enforcement resources? In a country where both tobacco and alcohol are legal, how can we justify keeping Marijuana illegal? -JM, 7/6/06, 8:33 Pacific

Vote NOTA - None Of The Above

One of the most contentious issues in the history of humankind is politics.

I don't care for it in my life, in the world and especially in Government. Yet, it is unavoidable, unstoppable, uncontrollable and unsavory - it's self-serving, rife with illusion, confusion and dissolution - it breeds intelligent deceit and manipulative relationships - it too often leads to corruption and death.

One of the simplest definitions of politics is - human interaction. That's why it's unavoidable and unstoppable. This doesn't mean all human interactions are political, but there are not many relationships that don't involve any politics. The only relationship I have that has no political agenda is with God.

The strange thing about politics is the dictionary definitions. If you look up "politics" with the 's', you get definitions like, "The art or science of government or governing" or "The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party" or "Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power".

Then look up "politic" without the 's', you get definitions like, "Using or marked by prudence, expedience, and shrewdness; artful" or "Crafty; cunning". It says nothing about governing or Government.

Then look up "Democracy", you'll get definitions like, "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives" or "The common people, considered as the primary source of political power" or "The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community".

I don't see any direct connection between politics and governing in a Democracy. It's only the politicians (and their benefactors) that want you to think Government and politics are the same thing, but they aren't. In a democracy, the people (citizens) are considered to be the primary source of political power. The principles of 'social equality' and 'respect for the individual within a community' are what drives a true democracy - not politics. If you let the politicians run Government it usually leads to corruption and scandal. That's because politicians and political parties are self serving - they have no interest in serving society, unless there's profit in it for them.

Here's a history lesson. In 1931 Canada (and other countries) gained it's independence from British Parliamentary rule with the "Statute of Westminster". The people of Canada were now able to form their own Government within an independent country. Canada's parliament at the time was descended from the British Parliament and in 1931, they usurped power over the Government in Canada without telling the citizens. Very few common citizens had any knowledge of the affair and there was little or no recognition of Canada's new independence.

Too many people have forgotten - when a person works for the Government, either as an elected official, an office worker, employee or laborer, they are all PUBLIC SERVANTS. That's right - President George Bush is a public servant, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a public servant, your mayor is a public servant, the people who work in the motor license office are public servants, the municipal garbage collectors are public servants. They all work for the 'citizens of the land' or "the common people, considered as the primary source of political power".

People in North America only know one way to elect Government officials. We vote for political parties. Whoever gets the most votes wins. In U.S.A., there are dozens of parties running for elections, but it's always considered a two party race. In Canada, there are dozens of parties running for elections, but only two parties dominate the votes. In recent elections, less that 50% of the people even bothered to vote, in both Canada and U.S.A. With a 'first past the post' system of voting (like in British Columbia), a party can win with less than 15% of the population voting for them. This means 85% of the population didn't vote for them and have no say in how the region is governed. Any democratically elected official should have most of the population supporting them.

This system sucks - BIG TIME!

So, what's the answer? We need to have elections. We need Government officials. We don't need scandals in Government. We don't need politics in Government. What can the people do?

Vote "NONE OF THE ABOVE"

Have you ever heard about NOTA? It stands for "None Of The Above". This is how we can eliminate politics from Government. When we go to the polling stations to vote, there should be an option at the bottom of the ballot that reads, "None Of The Above". People check this option if they don't like any of the candidates or parties on the ballot. If the majority of people vote for 'None Of The Above', then we randomly select a qualified citizen to fill the position(s).

This may sound strange at first until you realize - this is how we select our juries, and they make life and death decisions all the time. Any voting citizen is qualified to be Prime Minister, President, Governor, Premiere or Mayor. There are no requirements like legal degrees, or political science training, or even college education to be elected. The randomly selected people will have professional advisers all around them to help them make decisions. That's all there is to the job, making decisions. The decisions should benefit all people in a society, not the parties or politicians.

The best thing you can do at this point is to send letters to the Elections Officials in your area. Tell them you want to have the option to vote "None Of The Above" on all ballots. That's it. With enough pressure we can get the NOTA option on ballots and regain control in Government.

This text is from my Blog about politics @ http://robdubois.blogspot.com

I have another BLOG that talks about the NOTA option in greater detail @ http://mytruthquest.blogspot.com.

QUESTION:

Who decides if a person is "qualified" or not? Will the chosen person even WANT to do the job assigned to them? Who chooses the "professional advisers" (advisors)...? Do you see these holes in your argument? JM, 7/6/06, 9:28 Pacific

NOTA should check out http://tenurecorrupts.com AND http://voidnow.org

Minimum Wage

Anyone else tired of reliving the same-old-same-old every few years? How 'bout if we decide on what's fair and then index that with the cost-of-living, so that we can "set-it-and-forget-it"!

If it is indexed to the cost of living, then it would be necessary to attach it to regional and local cost of living indices.

Bush in Germany! How he paralysed Frankfurt area in Feb. 23.rd 2005.

Is it needed to spend millions of euros on security for just one man?
Why the germans have to pay for that visit?
I say that he's welcome, but he sould pay his bills!

The Facts:
George W. Bush met Germany several times and every time he demands a very high level of security including the cut of personal freedom. In February 2005 he met his friend G. Schröder, at that time the german chancelor, and while visiting the whole Frankfurt/Main area was a paralysed security area. One of the biggest highways in Germany was closed, areas in Frankfurt/Main where closed, companies in Frankfurt, Mainz and Wiesbaden had to stop production, because the workers where not able to go to work.
Police forces from all over Germany too part to secure him. Police and GSG-9 had to work for more that 30.000 hours.

Baden-Württemberg, Berlin, Brandenburg, Hamburg and Thüringen are demanding 868.000 Euros. Additional 510.000 Euros where needed for equipment and more than 300.000 Euros for federal police forces.

So the whole cost was at least more than TWO million Euros!

Not included the loss of productivity for several companies!

And that for just ONE day!

--Dorfmueller 16:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Highlighting hot issues

I think it'd be very beneficial to create wikis for specific races (e.g., the upcoming 2006 elections). They should highlight the hot national issues, national candidates (links to their websites, arguments for/against), and link to states for further coverage. So California would have a 2006 election wiki, then break it down into congressional districts.

How's that? Do we have that already? --Ferguson 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Which side(s) are they on?

Is there anything on the Internet that shows where every politician is on every issue? Is there anything on the Internet that shows where every citizen is on every issue? Is there anything on the Internet that lets everyone vote for everything? --Jeolmeun 18:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC) If you're talking about on a scale from international to local -- not yet. :-) (Not that I know of!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Political Reform Campaign Financing

Too much money spent on campaigns means inferior candidates. This homogeneous group of millionaires eliminates the opportunity for the average person to conduct a viable campaign. We need to reform this system now. Wikia, appears to be a good start.

Want REAL reform ? checkout http://tenurecorrupts.com AND http://voidnow.org

Wikia forums for the newbie

Is there a help page for those new to using forums in the Mediawiki format? I don't think I'm in Typepad anymore, Toto.

If you mean the forum pages, see Wikia:Help:Forums. For general editing help, see Wikia:Tutorial. Angela (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories/Subcategories

I know it's a risk due to how likely vandalism will occur but it would be great if we could setup Categories and Sub-Categories. Right now there are only 6 main issue Categories that have only a limited number of sub-categories. Personally I'd like to see the Environment as a main-issue Category instead of it being placed in Public Interest as Environmental Protection.

I think we need to organize pages based on issue categories (for folk who like philosophical postings) as well as by State and Congressional District (to function as a resource of information for specific campaigns.). Right now there's a whole different discussion going on via the e-mail list serve. Because of the magnitude of this task, I recommend that us posters try to focus on disucssions of structure, because until we reach agreement on that this site won't offer very much except a stream-of-consciousness postings. --Tom Brown 22:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing wars

Someone mentioned "editing wars." This is a highly charged political arena. How do avoid a sort of permanent 'Seigenthaler'type atmosphere given the perenially partisan nature of this beast? --Artie 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think at some point, someone's going to have to decide on what this beast we're working on is and what we expect out of it. I have my views, of course, but there's no sense of direction right now. Currently, it seems most people view this as just another message board to debate in their usual asanine manner. Myself, I see more potential here. I've discussed dynamic essays a lot. Right now the most function part seems to be just getting all the election information in order. --Ferguson 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Have multiple versions of the same page or multiple sections of the same page with multiple subversions of the sections. Or, have some way to filter articles by a characteristic of an editor. "Hide edits by: [ ] lefty, [ ] righty, [ ] up, [ ] down, [ ] side, [ ] to side." --Jeolmeun 20:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Related project

I've been working on a related MediaWiki-based project called Issuepedia for over a year now, and I'm wondering a couple of things...

1. How can the two projects best work together? (See Issuepedia's mission statement etc.) Issuepedia's content is also GNU FDL licensed, so of course any useful bits can simply be copied over... but perhaps folks from this wiki might have thoughts on the directions in which I've taken Issuepedia, such as discussing logical fallacies and other rhetorical deceptions
2. Are there any ideas on how to deal with radically differing points of view, when they arise? I've been trying to sketch out ideas which would allow "communities-of-thought" (for lack of a better term) to coagulate in an ad-lib kind of way, but most of what I've written so far is kind of muddy.

Kinky Friedman for Governor of Texas

Kinky Friedman has earned the right to be placed on the ballot for the state elections coming up November 6, 2006. Kinky is running as an independent candidate for Governor, the first since Sam Houston in 1859.

I have been a volunteer campaign worker out of the Fort Worth, Texas office since October, 2005. Our team has held numerous petition signing events and is now soliciting contributions to support the campaign.

Kinky Friedman will not talk to lobbyists or take any PAC money. This is the cornerstone of the campaign. Kinky is a little rough around the edges, but he is a kind and honest man. Ethics are foremost in Mr. Friedman's practiced values.

The Texas Ethics Commission website shows the "money trail" of all candidates and elected officials. By following the money, you can see how your elected officials will most likely vote. When these facts are used in committee hearings to pass, table or reject legislation, it is more likely that testifying citizens can hold sway over the monied lobbyists representing the varied special interests.

A small amount of time can be invested by citizens to push the lobbyists out of the capitol. The Texas Legislature has an excellent online presence that can be used for two-way communication between members of the House and Senate, and their constituents at home. The lobbyists could be put aside if citizens would simply spend as much time making the news as they do watching the news.

The campaign is fast-paced, and an excellent place for young people to get involved in politics. Us Baby Boomers had our causes when we were young, and worked hard to to see the results we desired. It's the "Me" generation's turn to become the "We" generation. Get involved.

At this writing, there are 122 days until the election. Truth and ethics have an opportunity to return to our political system. Please participate where you have the passion to make a difference.

Real I.D. act of 2005

The Real I.D. act of 2005 was passed with a military spending bill and signed into law by president bush in 2005. Since the mainstream media seem to have ignored this topic I hope a place can be found on this site and in the American dialouge to have a serious discussion about this bill. It has the potential to be one of the worst blows to our civil rights in american history (unless you trust the federal government and D.H.S. to manage your privacy concerns properly). I think if enough people start discussing the bill and it's ramifacations we can stop this kind of big brother mentality before it gets to much futher. (see Germany 1930's). For more info, see the wikipedia page [2] thankyou for your time and thankyou for this site. It is definitely something this country needs- Dialouge!

I started a page called threats to democracy. Perhaps this would be apprpriate for mentioning there. Linas 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: WEBSITE VALUES

The point of this website is to "ramp up the intelligence of politics." If you look at popular blogs like DailyKOS, or Little Green Footballs, you will find that they are far from intelligent. They value idiotic partisanry. Ideological disagreements are stamped out on each website, and both sides believe the other to be insane, dangerous, and treasonous. This is not intelligent politics. It is moronic, and it is something that this website should fight against devolving into. The commentary on this website should not be gut based, emotional, and angry, but instead rational, intelligent, and kind.

Just as Wikipedia put value into a neutral point of view for their articles, we must put value into keeping this site clean of partisan furor designed to keep us divided. We must talk about the issues; not scream. So far I see evidence that this is already happening. But I suggest that we set it in stone as a guiding principle to help us police ourselves. It is difficult to remain calm in the face of disagreement, but if we cannot ask questions, talk, and learn from each other, this website will go down like any other on the Internet, and will be no better than any mainstream cable network.

Slacksimus 04:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree completely. While originally I was disappointed in what was being posted, now I'm beginning to see some real potential. Check out the gay marriage article, something I've been working on today that has become an exemplary piece of work, I think, little to no credit to me. People are really starting to move in a direction I like, for better or worse. --Ferguson 06:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

DNC 50 state strategy

I was a part of this, hmmm... a lot to say about the company, Grassroots Inc hired to do this and the message itself. People canvasses want to know: Why give more money to the DNC? Are they going to impeach Bush? Well, the answer, probably not. Again, what is the DNC doing? Well, not much. Talking, talking and more talking. I'm over it.

Open source government?

Hi. My name is Glenn and I'm from Ireland.

If someone said to you that a computer operating system, that competes against one of the richest corporations in the world, was completely free to users because all the work taken to develop and compile said system was donated free, you'd probably say if would never happen. But it has and is very successful.

Why don't we try the same with govenment? Open source - developed by the people for the people. We don't need politicians. They have proved to be ineffective the world over. We now have the internet, who needs voting booths. Why vote every four/five years when we can vote every day?

I had this idea a couple of years ago and it won't go away. Every day we hear stories about corrupt politics and I think about open source government.

If thousands of people are interested enough to put together a computer programme for nothing there must be ten times that number who would want to put this kind of thing together.

What do you think?

---

Hey, Glen from Ireland. The problem with an open-source government is you're just shifting the elite instead of eliminating them. We'd be going from being ruled by those who took the time to understand the complexities and idiosyncracies of government beauracracies to those who took the time to understand the complexities and idiosyncracies of open-source technology.

Certainly many people would appreciate a more transparent government, one that resembled the friendliness and accessibility of some of our favorite websites and blogs, but a high-tech solution is probably not your best bet right now, considering that very few people in the world really trust and understand this web 2.0 stuff. A lot of them don't even understand web 1.0. Added to this is the vast population who do not own computers or have access to the Internet. While this population is gradually shrinking, there are too many people out there without Internet access to make an Internet-based government feasible.

I think it's a fun thought, though, and maybe one day in the distant future we'll have something that resembles an open-source government. At the present, we should probably just accept the fact that we've allowed nearly every government in modernized countries to become very shielded from any sort of reform, and must figure out ways to start breaking down those safe-guards the governments have built for themselves. Then maybe we can get a cooler form of democracy in order. --Ferguson 19:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not the politicians because they are people as well. The problem is getting the politicians to devise policy that reflects what the greater majority of people want in their city, province, country and worldwide. What we should be developing are methods where we can achieve this.--Ningbojoe 03:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Congressional Website

This is an invitation to any users of Wikia to visit and comment on my efforts to become a Member of Congress. I am a professional writer, so you'll find much of substance, here: www.ArmorforCongress.com

I answer all e-mail that is not written in crayon, and I look forward to hearing from you.

John Armor -- known on the Net as The (More er Less) Honorable Congressman Billybob, from Western Carolina

Hi, Are you the John C Armor who wrote 'Why Term Limits?". If so, I have your book linked on my site tenurecorrupts.com And if you wrote that book, will you try to stir up Congressional Term Limits if you get elected? BTW, Senator Tom Coburn of OK also wrote a Term Limits book while he was in the House. He term limitted himself out of the House. I wrote him recently telling him NOT to limit himself out of the Senate until he gets the Senate to vote FOR term limits! I ask you to do the same!

Update Main page, change 'Gay marriage' to 'Same-sex Marriage'

Since you guys have locked the main page, even for registered users, can you please do what the title of this section asks? The Same-sex page itself has been updated, and the link from the main page redirects appropriately, but it would be nice to update the text as well.

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Angela (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

HelloWorld

I have been thinking no longer than two minutes before signing up....

Then I REALLY began to wonder: what's all this about ?

I've no answer for this. We will see.

Take industrial lobbyists out of the calculation and you (we) will win

Industrial lobbyism is always against the people, throughout the whole wide world.

Although they only provide minimalistic jobs for a minority of the people, the provide bigger grants for a few management assigned employees, and furthermore, they provide, when being listed on the stock market, high revenues to a minority of a majority of share holders.

This does not work, as it was shown in the past. We must take the so-called free economies out of the calculation of the government and by that also out of the calculation of leading a people or the people in general.

This also means that people participating in the free economy must never rule the people.

If we adhere to that simple law, everything will, actually, become more easier and provably also better, as we will always adhere to the will of the people and by that enforce laws that actually govern the people's needs and wants.

We must not enforce laws that govern the people to become more functional for an industrialized culture that we now and always have called society.

-- Carsten Klein (carsten.klein@abstraxion.org.)

I started an article called Threats to Democracy. This migt be an appropriate topic to be reviewed in that aricle. Linas 17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Pointer back to Wikipedia?

You might want to add a Template:Also on Wikipedia to wikipedia:Political campaign or something like that -- 75.26.2.243 23:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly defined article relevance by location

I think that we need to be able to rate pages on their relevenace to particular areas. For example, I live in Australia and most of the state elections and federal elections in America are of no relevance to me. I believe that we should be able to organise the site so that there are Global issues (such as debate of concepts and ideals) and then there are articles relevant to a particular nation, like America and it's state elections.

Secondly, we need a way of organising opinions and ideals within the articles, otherwise this site will end up a sprawl of poorly organised, delocalised opinions. What we want to do here is to create an environment for people to express their opinions in organised ways, to collaborate ideas and to bring groups of like minded political enthusiasm together.

Thanks. --MUnky 05:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the silence on Congressional Term Limits ?

It is a mystery to me that, in all the new ‘good government’ websites (like wikia) that I come across, I never find any that stress the fact that, in order to effect REAL reform, it is necessary to have a legislature made up of ‘citizen’ legislators, rather than the current crop of careerist professional politicians. [3]

And to eliminate professional politicians, it is necessary to change politics from being a livelihood or career, to merely a civic duty, where one will try to change government for the better during a short stay, then return to private practice. That’s the way it was for the first 150 years of our history, before the enticements of politics became too good to give up. [4]

Politics as a livelihood, or a career, is a fundamental conflict of interest. When you are supposed to be a representative of the people, putting their interest, or the country’s interest before your own, then you cannot honestly be in a position to be concerned about your job (or your reelection). [5]

I come to wikia in an attempt to correct this void in our ongoing dialog. I strongly believe that to improve our government, we must change the character of our Congress, and the most direct way to do that is to enact Congressional Term Limits.

Toward this end, I have for the past 2 years been building a website [6], dedicated to educating the voting public on the need for such limits. The site contains arguments (pro and con), amendment wording options, links to other sites, suggested actions you can take to help, etc. The site blog list has accumulated over two dozen aricles on this one subject. ( Boring ?) Recently, it has begun offering free term limits bumperstickers to all comers.

I would very much like to have the wikia crowd join me in discussions to exercise this idea, and to help spread the word !

This probably does deserve a page to discuss and investigate. While I think you may be on the right track, I have some very strong concerns that were not addressed on your website. The biggest is how to prevent a revolving door between politics and industry? If people are only serving for a term, there needs to be a way for them to be employed afterwards. However, it seems like this would compell them towards enacting laws that will help their future (and perhaps former) employer. Handling this is nontrivial. I'm also concerned about whether this approach would help or hurt the short-term thinking that dominates political thought today. I encourage you to set up a page here that can be a foundation for a somewhat less biased discussion than the one I see on tenurecorrupts.com. - Kbal11 21:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I started a page called threats to democracy, for which this is an appropriate topic to review. Linas 18:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

State pages

It seems like there are two styles going right now, one based on campaigns organized by year, another based on all elected offices. Is there a way to do both? To have the advantages of the nice ballot-like view where you see all the races going on right now, but also a complete picture of all of your elected officials and when their next election cycles are?

Structure, functions.

Form follows function. This is what many of you are saying with many specific examples, with many ideas of what functions CampaignWikia should have. So, about function... I was attracted by the ideas of the function of CampaignWikia that Jimbo Wales set forth in his July 4th, "Open Letter." I don't know the right protocol for using the text of Jimbo's letter in the following manner. This is his writing from the "Mission Statement" and "Open Letter," broken up into my "scratch pad" form.

I looked in his message for major functions of CampaignWikia, its creators, and users, adding connectors for a "Q & A" format:

---

The hallmark of blog and wiki world: We do it, make things happen.

Make what happen?

1. Making campaigns take notice of the Internet,

bloggers, wikis, and engage with us in a constructive way.

For what goal?

2. We work to educate and engage campaigns about

how to stop being broadcast politicians,

start being community and participatory politicians.

Be participatory in what way?

3. Force campaigns to use wikis and blogs

to organize, discuss, manage, lead and be led by

their volunteers

So that?

4. Have campaigns engaging ordinary people

in understanding and caring how political

issues really affect their lives

"This can be the start of the era

of net-driven participatory politics."

---

Now take my scratch pad of Jimbo's text and break it up with more questions. I think these we need to think about and answer before settling on a structure. Form both enables and follows function. I hope it's a useful perspective, anyway. :)

How do we make campaigns sit up and take notice of blogs and wikis? How do we educate and engage campaigns/politicians? What would community and participatory politicians and people do using wikis and blogs? How do we force campaigns to use wikis and blogs to....?

bbbOK

eHarmony for voting...

Is there anything like eHarmony for voting? Some way to match voters with representatives? Voters fill out a form. Congress/judges/candidates fill out forms. --Jeolmeun 20:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Lessons to learn to avoid failure

I've shared seven lessons on my blog. Many projects like this fail based on an expectations gap. Here is the first "1. The vast majority of candidates (political parties outside U.S. context) will only do online what is politically imperative or viewed as required by political competition." - Steven Clift

Evolution of Politics

I will start by freely admitting I am not someone who has studied politics in any great depth. Perhaps that fact is a bonus as some ancient scholars would say.

Over the last 2 thousand years politics and governments have evolved. We started with simple anarchy and despotism and have evolved through the years with monarchies, federations, communism and what "appears" to be all ultimately leading to democracy. What I find incredibly strange however is the fact that since these developments, despite most other areas of the world advancing exponentially (science, medicine, psychology, etc), politics seems to have completely stagnated.

Is democracy the ultimate evolution of gonvernment? Why are we not thinking of better ways to moderate our society? Where are the new philosophies and methods by which we can better perform the task of running society?

While our major countries all use a form of government which is based on short terms in office, who is going to put in the hard effort and start projects spanning 100 years (ie fuel replacement, environmental reform, space exploration, etc) when they all know they could be out of office in the next term? When the form of government is structured so that those who are not in power are called the "opposition" and whose purpose is specifically to oppose the current government at every turn, how is that actually helping the people? (What is worse is when they support something when they are presenting it but say its bad when its the opposition who present it)

I do not profess to know the answer, but I do know that this topic is no different to anything else. There are improvements that can be made to the mechanics of politics and democracy is not the ultimate form... at least not the way it is now.

So perhaps as part of this project, it would be prudent for those with the necessary skills to put their heads together to come up with a method of politics which eliminates all of the current detriments and is designed specifically for the encouragement and growth of our society as a whole... and not just a popularity contest or one in which the person with the least mud stuck to them wins. 203.26.206.129 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Civil Discourse or Civil War?

Should the quest for good government in the public interest breed intense hatred among the citizenry? Should politicians seek to inflame that hatred? At what point does political discussion lead to such polarization that the populace becomes violent? The answer depends in part on the country, but in all countries politics has at least caused some hatred.

The proper goal of politics is to find the best government to act in the public interest. When politics seeks to have one segment of the population enforce its will -- by force, if necessary -- on another, that goal has been perverted.

A new politics must begin with the conviction that the purpose of the government is to serve all of the populace, not just part. Whenever the actions of the majority injure the minority, then at the very least the minority should be compensated by the majority for their loss. Businesses speak glowingly of "win-win" situations. A new breed of politicians must conceive of government so that everyone wins, or at least, nobody loses.

For more on the power of human ideas to shape government and the world, see my blog at http://www.thepowerofhumanideas.org

same-sex marriage

Can someone remove "same-sex marriage" from this page? This is a non-issue which has been used by the right-wing propaganda machine to generate false controversy: its a so-called "wedge issue". Its should not be near the center of poliical discourse; however its been placed there, since it will reliably attract the conservative vote. We should deal with political issues that are important, rather than made-up, false, irrelavent issues. Linas 17:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This is one of the most hotly contested issues of our times. If issues are going to be hashed out here - and I hope they are hashed out in a way that finds common ground - then THIS is one of the major issues. Also, I'm confused. Elsewhere here, you say you believe in talking about issues. Here, you say that since others have opinions on the issue, you want it censored. That's confusing and inconsistent. ONe more thing. Just because this is an issue that you don't like disussed doesn't make it a "wedge" issue. The Right could say that the relentless class war rhetoric or the race-baiting name calling of the Left are "wedge issues" too. Try to see the other side of these issues. That's why we're here, not to push our own narrow positions. - Nhprman 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Except its not actually an important issue, by almost any measure. Domestic same-sex marriage does not affect the domestic budget deficit (three trillion dollars??). The resolution of same sex-marriage has no dent on poverty in Africa, human rights in the Ukraine, air pollution in China. Or taxes, roads and highways, energy efficiency, global warming, social responsibility, sovereignty and multi-national corporations, tort law, the death sentance, religion in politics, education, redistricting, domesitic spying, unauthorized wiretapping by AT&T, net neutrality, gasoline prices, outsourcing, or titties during half-time, or whether O.J. did it. Explain to me in what way gay marriage is an important issue for America? Seems to me that gay marriage is the modern version of negro vs. whites, where gay people get to play the role of negroes. Its a polarizing issue introduced by the Republicans, with the sole, singular and only intent of diverting attention from the things in life that are truly important.Linas 23:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality involves Dawrin's theory of natural selection, science of reproduction and survival, science of genetics and foundation of the philosophy of morality. It's much more real than phony issues like gasoline price, outsourcing or O.J. Simpson. While you may only care about new, more tangible stuff; foundational and philosophical issues are often more important. 70.48.250.45 23:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it was recently used as a wedge issue by the Republicans, but that shouldn't disqualify it from the front page. While it is a wedge issue, it is certainly not a non-issue. It's relevent, so I think it should stay on the main page. One it ceases to be revelent, it should not be on the main page. Wedge issue or not, doesn't matter. Ferguson 00:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an important issue to a lot of people, but we also have to balance that with the limited amount of space that we have on the front page. We haven't set criteria for when an issue "qualifies" for the front page, and we also haven't set anything for when it is disqualified. We'll need to do that eventually. Chadlupkes 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be put under the general category of marriage. I think it should be considered along with divorce, polygamy, state sanction of marriage, etc. Besides, these issues being a matter of law, they have an impact of tax policy, education policy, the role of welfare, etc. I would add a marriage page, but what category should this go under in the main page. ---~

Elizabeth Doran

Is running for US Representative, Florida District 8, against Republican incumbent Ric Keller. I encourage anyone dissatisfied with their current rep to give her a chance (http://elizabethdoranforcongress.com/). If we take the chance to put as many of the 'party todeys' back on the streets maybe the ones left will get the message that we expect them to actually clean up some of the messes that they have created.

Reply to "What is Politics" by Slije

Dear Slije:

First, thank you very much for taking the time to step back, look at, and express the big picture of what we're dealing with here. As a fellow engineer (civil engineer, class of '76, UMass - Amherst) who has attempted to continue to apply that view of the world on the community and international development careers I've taken up since 1991 (when I had an early mid-life reevaluation of what I was doing), I think you are really onto something here. And I would encourage everyone on this list to give your work the reflective attention it deserves.

I would also encourage you to tell us who you are, since I see no signature line at the end of your message nor any personal data at the wikia site. (And perhaps I just didn't look in the right place.)

Second, here is my take on what is missing from you "where are we now" analysis. In essence, you have not completely answered the question "why?" as in "Why are we stuck with the broken system we are stuck with?"

I really appreciate the need to understand where we are. You cannot build something new without knowing the existing conditions (physical, financial, and socio-political) of the "place" where you want to build that new "something". And by "place" I include contextural place in history. What you have done, I believe, is define the existing system in which we find ourselves and which needs to be redesigned because - plain and simple - it just doesn't work. It's a mess! (And "mess" is a technical term from the field of Systems Thinking, as developed by my friend and mentor, Dr. Russell L. Ackoff, starting in the early 1950's.) You have answered the question "What?", as in "What is the nature of - the design of - the system in which we find ourselves?" This is a critical question to answer. If you can't step back and look at what the problem consists of, there's no way you can get objective about it. However, in addition to stepping back, you also need to understand the larger system which gave birth to the system that doesn't work. Because it is the larger system which constructed the system for a specific purpose...to solve a specific problem.

You say the existing system is all about resource distribution and allocation. I agree with you.

But what needs to be added...the answer to the "Why do we have this control-based distribution system?" question...is a description of the larger reality (the larger system) that determined the design of this system because of certain fundamental assumptions it (the larger system) made about how that smaller distribution system needed to function. What is this larger system I am referring to? It is the world in which human civilization existed thousands of years ago at the time when the earliest versions of politics developed. And what was that world like? It was a pretty scary place. You were lucky if you lived to be older than 25. Survival was your primary objective in life. As the educator James Burke said in his landmark PBS series "The Day the Universe Changed" (at least I think that's where I heard this), life back then was "nasty, brutish, and short". No wonder people gravitated toward religion, which promised a very pleasant after life in Heaven if you were a good person. Life here on Earth was nothing short of awful!

And so, out of this "survival of the fittest" world came a control system for all of humanity based on one fundamental principle: There Isn't Enough For Everyone. Therefore, My First Priority Is To Take Care Of Myself And Those Who I'm Closest To.

That was it. In a world where there isn't enough for everyone, what we wind up with - and what we still have today - is a (now global) system which has as its absolute, most fundamental (yet completely unchallenged because it has become like the water in which fish swim. Most of us can't even see it.) design assumption that There Ain't Enough For Everyone; So The Game Is Let's Make Sure Those We Like Survive.

The primary reference on this topic I would recommend to everyone on this list is the seminal book "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth" by R. Buckminster Fuller. This book can be read for free on the site of the Buckminster Fuller Institute here - http://bfi.org/node/422

Fuller describes our world as still functioning on the obsolete belief in Malthusian Economics, the product of Thomas Malthus who (in the early 1820's) predicted that population would forever be greater than the available supply of essential resources. Malthus thus codified the concept that "Scarcity of Resources" is the true fundamental nature of reality, a "truth" which actually remained true until the early 1960's, when the publisher of Scientific American - Gerard Piel - in his equally critically important book "Science in the Cause of Man" (1961, Alfred A. Knopf publishers) wrote that humanity had finally advanced scientifically to the point where we now had the ability to feed, clothe and house every man woman and child on Earth. (I'm paraphrasing here. To read the actual Preface to Mr. Piel's book, go here - http://www.bloglines.com/blog/SteveBrant ) Gerard Piel and Bucky Fuller were friends.

So, what was once true at a physical level - that it's a scary world out there and we can't all make it and which was formalized by human culture at various levels over thousands of years of history including most expansively by Thomas Malthus - hasn't been true since the 1960's. But we live in a global society that still operates as if it is true.

Amazing stuff to think about, wouldn't you say? Well, it's been something I've been thinking about since I first read Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth in 1979. I mean, even the United Nations - which has as its mission to create world peace - was designed at a time (1945) before which humanity had the technical capability to live in peace. The UN was designed in a world where Thomas Malthus was still correct. If only Gerard Piel and Bucky Fuller had been able to make their case to the UN, perhaps the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development that was launched last year would be charged with teaching people all over the world that Malthusian Economics is obsolete and would be holding annual conferences designed to address the questions "What would be the design of a socio-economic political system based on "abundance" rather than "scarcity" of resources? And how could such a redesigned system actually be implemented; by what process would such a new system replace the existing system?"

Maybe that expanded agenda for the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development is something "We, the people" of wikia could get behind. (Just thinking out loud here.)

By the way, as an engineer my "abundance of resources" equation includes the energy Earth receives every day from the Sun, which is many times greater than humanity's daily energy requirements. As an engineer, I know we have the technical capability to capture that energy. In fact, a report was released by the UN last month that spoke of doing that. It was a report on the future of the world's deserts, and it included the fact that a properly designed solar energy generating system in the Sahara desert could supply all the world's energy needs. For more info, go here...

http://tinyurl.com/zuyvh (Link to article from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development)

Lastly, I had the pleasure of raising this "Malthus is obsolete" issue with Tom Friedman, Ted Koppel, and Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz at a NY Times sponsored event this past April. Fortunately, the event was broadcast later on C-Span, and I was able to capture my question to Friedman, et al and their responses. I posted the video on YouTube.com here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MebIll2VDEA

Thanks for writing such a thought-provoking essay, Slije. Now I need to figure out how to add my essay to where yours is posted on the wikia site.  :)

Hmm....maybe my post should be entitled "Why Is Politics?"

Steve

---

Steven G Brant, Business Futurist Founder & Principal, Trimtab Management Systems sbrant@trimtab.com http://www.trimtab.com http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-brant/

"It is because we have at the present moment everybody claiming the right of conscience without going through any discipline whatsoever that there is so much untruth being delivered to a bewildered world." - Gandhi

"Men do not live only by fighting evils. They live by positive goals." - Isaiah Berlin

---

On Jul 11, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Slije wrote:

Dear Reader:

I believe there comes a time to stop what you are doing and ask yourself if it's working. If you're trying to walk across the room but keep banging into walls and falling down, do you keep beating yourself up, or do you stop to assess the situation calmly? Which is more likely to help you reach your goal? There is a time for thick-headed persistence. There is also a time for surrender to what is (truth).

(BIG SNIP)

Next...

What Is Politics? - Part 2

   What kind of world do you want to live in?

   The difference between a problem and an issue

   The difference between positive and negative control

   Analysis of the current political (control) system

Thanks for reading. I welcome your questions and comments.

This text is also available at http://www.wikia.com/wiki/User:Slije _______________________________________________ Campaigns-l mailing list Campaigns-l@wikia.com http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l

"What is Politics?" post by Slije

Since I don't see this post on this list (and I'm the guy who answered it), I figured I should make sure the entire original post is here too. - Steve Brant

His entire series of articles are available on the main site. Incredible work. Chadlupkes 00:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

From: slije@comcast.net Subject: [Campaigns-l] What Is "Politics"? - Part 1 Date: July 11, 2006 2:23:38 PM EDT To: campaigns-l@wikia.com Reply-To: campaigns-l@wikia.com

Dear Reader:

I believe there comes a time to stop what you are doing and ask yourself if it's working. If you're trying to walk across the room but keep banging into walls and falling down, do you keep beating yourself up, or do you stop to assess the situation calmly? Which is more likely to help you reach your goal? There is a time for thick-headed persistence. There is also a time for surrender to what is (truth).

It is time for pithy observations.

I think one of the reasons we are assembled here is that politics is not working. We are not heading where any of us (including all of humanity) wants to go. I believe it is time to step back and assess our situation, and examine some of the principles by which we are operating. A lot is being done and redone out of habit, and these habits are leading us again and again into the same results.

With this in mind, I have attempted to take a step back and look at the bigger picture, microscopic and macroscopic. First, I sat down and defined some of my terms so I could get an idea of what the fundamental issues are. I am an engineer by education, and I view politics largely as an engineering challenge. I am sharing with you some of what I have found in these explorations, as clearly as I know how. I have attempted to be deeply honest. Try not to be too easily offended – I believe we all ultimately want the same basic things. We just have different ideas on how to get there. The system is not working, so some of these ideas are no doubt flawed. If so, are you willing to exchange them for something more functional?

This is an important question, because for many humans, being right is far more important than anything else, including being happy, healthy, or even alive. It is time to put ourselves aside and have look at ourselves.

Let's take a walk.

What Is "Politics"? - Part 1

Humanity shares a global political system. There is only one system. It has many branches, but they are all connected by a common world and a common purpose. The (geo)political system is humanity's attempt at control. Politics is a control system.

In engineering, a control system is a 'brain' which controls the other 'organs' of a body to produce specific results. The control system is the 'decider' – that which regulates, signals, and manipulates various aspects of the larger system.

In its most basic form, a control system is not necessarily intelligent. It need not involve thinking or conscious intention. It can simply be basic forces of nature achieving a balance, and thereby regulating an outcome. For example, if a river has too much water, it overflows its banks, thus maintaining a sustainable level. The level of water in the river is regulated by this natural control system.

A more complex control system, yet equally unconscious: pupil dilation. Depending on the amount of light coming into the eye, the pupil will dilate more or less, thus regulating (controlling) the amount of light coming into the eye. This is a control system which uses feedback. The eye senses light, the level of which is adjusted by the dilation, which is in turn sensed by the eye, leading to further adjustment. Feedback control systems can be highly effective at regulation.

As we move into intelligent and even conscious control systems, the opportunity for an exquisite level of control arises. Computers are a good example of control systems with basic intelligence programmed in, and they accomplish significant feats in some areas – far beyond the abilities of their creators alone. Computers are powerful.

Another way of looking at control is as power. The more one is able to control one's self and environment, the more powerful one is. That is why politicians are often thought of as powerful (as are flooding rivers). Control and power go hand in hand.

There may be some baggage here around the word “control”. We've got control freaks, control issues, and governments seeking more and greater control of their citizens and other governments. There seems to be a competition for control, and there are many who say “I don't want to be controlled! I want to be free!”

However, what we are suffering from is not control in general, but crude attempts at control - a dysfunctional control system. It is a question of what forms the control takes and how functional it is.

Nothing happens without control. Get up and walk across the room. Are you aware of the phenomenal feedback control system that enabled you to do that? Your eyes and ears were telling the system where you were, your inner ear was providing balance information, and your sense of feeling was providing feedback on the movement of your limbs. If you made an error and ran into the wall, the pain was giving the system error feedback. As the control system was receiving this continuous feedback, it was sending complementary signals to your muscles, controlling the movement of your limbs, and adjusting that movement based on the feedback. Depending on the functionality of your control system, as well as other systems in your body, you may have arrived at your destination.

Control is not the enemy of freedom. In fact, freedom is a product of control. When a child first masters the art of walking, it gains a new degree of freedom. The greater level of control enables it to move at will and get into all kinds of mischief (as parents quickly find out). Finer control produces greater power and freedom.

You will note that some branches of the geopolitical (control) system, for example the United States' political system, place a high value on freedom, and this is no mere coincidence. The principle of liberty is viewed as power. Freedom is also seen as a necessary ingredient in the political process, yet this is in error. Greater freedom is not a prerequisite to greater control, it is a product of greater control. Just as the child with the effective control system was able to walk, an effective political system produces power and freedom. These then become ingredients in an even greater control system, yet it is an error to believe they are prerequisites. If freedom is a prerequisite to control, yet control produces freedom, how do you begin? You must begin where you are, with the freedom and power you have, and produce more through effective control.

So control is no enemy, though crude, dysfunctional forms of control can certainly be experienced that way.

One reason computers are powerful tools, powerful control systems, is that they can take in a lot of information. They get a lot of input and can process it (control it) quickly. You might say they are “aware” of a lot of input. Awareness is part of a very capable control system, as the simple feedback loop of pupil dilation demonstrates. From here it is a quick jump to the human being, who is aware of a great deal compared to a computer or an iris. Humans are conscious information processors.

So what is politics controlling? What are humans attempting to collectively control through their system of politics? This is a surprisingly deep question. Yet it is basic. How can you effectively and functionally control something if you don't know what you are attempting to control, or what result you're attempting to achieve?

Functionality is important in the consideration of control systems. Does it work? And how do you define working? Where are you trying to go? What are you trying to accomplish? Then you can decide whether your control system is functional – whether it is working.

Politics addresses a fundamental dilemma of humanity: there are more than one of us.

For practical purposes, at our current stage of development as a species, politics is a control system for the distribution of resources. There are more than one of us, and there are resources to be distributed. How do we control this?

By resources, I do not simply mean goods. Resources include natural resources (land, air, water, raw materials) and products (which includes services). Anything which you want, which you consider valuable, in some tangible way involves a natural resource, a made product, or a service, and there are others who also want it. How is the distribution of these resources going to be controlled and regulated? Who is going to decide? Who gets what, where, when, and how?

In case you aren't convinced that this definition covers the whole of the political system, let's consider a less tangible example that politics addresses.

Consider morality. Is this a resource? First, we need to consider that our current control system (political system) may be dysfunctional. As such, it may not make much sense. For example, some would say that morality should not be part of the political process. Yet it is, and there should be a way to see how morality connects to humanity's attempt to control the distribution of resources. Why are people introducing it into politics?

Morality amounts to behavior – how people are expected to behave. Morality is intended to regulate or control behavior. Yet how does this involve distribution of a resource? Well, why do you want to regulate their behavior? Ultimately, because it affects you. Perhaps their behavior disturbs you or your family. It affects you. You want it stopped, controlled. Who ya gonna call? Maybe you'll dial your congressperson and make sure there is a law enacted to outlaw their behavior. The system of laws and law enforcement is a service provided to citizens. It is a resource. Or maybe you will attempt to change the form of education, such that it includes morality. The educational system is a service. Maybe you will call the newspaper so they will publish an exposé on this immoral behavior and thus affect it. The media is a service. Maybe you'll notify your pastor, and entreat him or her to visit these people and help them through their difficulties. Pastors provide a service. Maybe you'll sue them and take their property away so they are less able to promote immorality. Property is a resource. No matter what tangible way you try to affect the intangible, you are making use of resources. How those resources are distributed to you and others determines your control and influence of their behavior, including morality. Hence, it is political.

I think if you examine other political issues, you will see that one way or another they all revolve around control of the distribution of resources. This is politics.

Is this overly broad? It seems to include everything. Yet can you name one thing which one way or another does not get pulled into politics?

The political system, like any good control system, takes lots of inputs. The more it is aware of, the more effectively it can control results. In theory.

An unfair challenge for you: turn on your TV or go on the internet and find a political topic that does not involve the control of the distribution of resources. (What you will mostly find in political discussions is an attempt to control politics, which is itself a service, so it still fits our definition. And there is good reason for why the control system is vainly attempting to control the control system, which we will examine in more depth further on. In brief, the control system is out of control.)

An effective political system, that is to say an effective control system for the distribution of resources, would produce power and freedom for all of humanity: utopia. Utopia is the goal of the control system, the goal of politics. Based on this, we can evaluate the functionality of our current political system. The obvious observation: it's not working well. In our walking analogy, we're leaning way off balance, banging into the wall again and again, and are about to tumble out the window. A correction to the system is required.

We also see in this definition that politics goes far beyond just government. Government is a public service. It is a resource. It is a product of politics, a means of distribution. Yet government is not the only organ so created and controlled. The media, educational system, economy, businesses, police/security/military forces, entertainment industry, political parties (okay, same thing), families, neighborhoods, communities, states, nations... these organizations are all outgrowths of the political system – a means for control of resources in some form.

To many, even those in “politics”, it may appear that the purpose of politics is to maintain these organizations... to run them and protect them. It is a battle for survival. This may be one of the causes of the dysfunctionality of the control system. People become obsessed with maintaining a particular organization, ensuring its survival and prosperity, because they believe this is the purpose of politics. Yet these organizations are not the purpose of politics, they are the means of politics – one of the means of control of the distribution of resources. There are more than one of us. Who gets what, where, when, and how? These organizations may or may not be functional means – they may have grown dysfunctional, in which case people trying to ensure their survival in their current form at all costs are also generating dysfunction. Nevertheless, their existence owes itself to an attempt to control distribution.

As the final discussion in this part, I would like to examine the basis of organizations. At the outset I said that humanity shares a global political system, and that there is only one system. Believe it or not, this system is fully self-consistent (it cannot exist otherwise). Like a fractal, its signature can be found at every level of organization, from the sub-individual to the entire globe, including its functional as well as its dysfunctional properties. Since organizations are such a pivotal means of the control system in question, they deserve some examination.

You're in a group of people and you've got to accomplish a task. What do you do? If you are to be an effective group, you will organize in some fashion. It may be a loose organization, a strict one, or even an unconcious one, but organization in some form will grow.

Organization is found everywhere. Not all organization is intentional, even in the human variety. In fact, even inanimate objects - rocks, dirt, space dust – are organized. Even in chaotic systems, such as the weather, order is found (this is the basis of Chaos Theory). Everywhere we look: organization. What's that about?

When it comes to intelligent and conscious beings, their attempts at organization becomes intelligent and conscious. Deliberate. Intentional. Humans respond to a natural, primal tendency to organize, but they do so with conscious intention and direction. Effort. They have a will and a purpose.

In the political system, in humanity's attempt to control the distribution of resources, we see organization used at every level. These are the organs of distribution, and the organs are controlled by the control system, the brain (itself an organ).

First, let's take the sub-individual. There's more than one of you. If you've ever tried to lose weight by following a rigid diet, you already know this. One part of you wants to eat. Another part wants to lose weight. They don't always agree. Who gets what, where, when, and how? By some means, you have to make decisions. Will you eat this or not eat this?

Each individual human mind contains a collection of sub-personalities, thought streams, and they are often in conflict. Some of these thought streams develop into identities. Multiple Personality Disorder is a demonstration of this, yet it exists to some extent in everyone. We are complex beings.

How is all of this regulated? Which voice wins? Which controls what you say? What you eat? What you do? You may not decide this consciously, but there is a control system in place which decides. It is your internal political system. These are often learned at a young age.

Some people have rigid control systems, with one 'voice' having the final say. It is a dictatorship. Dissent is barely heard, and not tolerated. Like any rigid system, however, these same people are often prone to erratic behavior – outbursts, violence. The ignored voices build up and eventually explode. They are out of control.

Other people have more flexible control systems. They entertain different points of view, take polls of the populace, and eventually arrive at a consensus. These people tend to be more mild, more agreeable.

Then there are the people who waiver. First they look at it one way. Then another. They try to determine which is right. They may become paralyzed by indecision and fear. These people tend to be nervous and timid.

In fact, there are countless varieties of control systems. Without getting deep into psychology, you can notice that the dilemma is fundamentally the same: there are more than one of us. How do we decide? Personal politics.

Next up we have groups of individuals. The most basic group is the family. There are many types of families. Some are dictatorships. Father knows best, father decides. The mother and the children are expected to live by the decree of the head of the house. Then there are more flexible families, in countless varieties. All have different ways of deciding. What are they deciding? Who gets what, where, when, and how? Family politics.

From there, it is easy to go on... Families organize into neighborhoods, then communities, towns, counties, states, nations. In parallel, people also organize into various social groups, religions, sports teams, political parties, etc. They are all addressing the fundamental dilemma: there are more than one of us. How do we negotiate this? How do we exist together? Practically, how do we distribute 'stuff'? Some groups are based on competition, some on blood lines, some on beliefs, etc.

Yet through all human organizations, from the sub-individual to the global, one can discern the same system being employed. The system is multi-faceted. It has many branches, and it is continually evolving. Like a fractal, it grows at every level it is employed. This is the political control system.

For example: the monarchy. There was a time when many people lived under the rule of a king, who lorded over the land. His say was final. He was the decider. It was a facet of the political control system. At the same time, on the family level of organization, most families were headed by the man of the house. The father was the decider. He had a wife/queen with some power, though not as much as the king, and the children were mere subjects – expected to obey without question or recourse.

Likewise, in religion of the time, the priest was the authority. No discussion. Death to dissent.

In the individual, people tended to be more rigid-minded. They controlled their behavior, like their children, strictly. The sub-individuals were not humored much.

On the global level, the monarch controlled (ruled) other weaker nations. There were empires, with no denials or apologies.

Oversimplifying, a bit down the road the idea of democracy was born. People had a say in their laws and behavior. Far from perfect, it was different than the monarch model. Likewise, at home, the stern head of household gave way to a less rigid organization, and members of the family and children became more than mere indentured servants. Women still could not vote in the democracy, and in the household they were still subservient to men.

In some cultures, women then got the vote. On an individual level, women began to take themselves more seriously. During the same period, and related, women asserted themselves more in the home. Today, most American women consider themselves an equal in the decisions of the home, at least in theory. Often that is not the case in practice. Likewise, in American culture, there has never been a female president, but there have been representatives. Women in theory are equal, but not fully in practice. Likewise, in religious organizations, women are becoming leaders, but are still not as well represented as men. On the global level, there is variation, but the general trend is the same.

If you observe carefully, you will see parallels at every level of organization, and as the political system at one level evolves, it evolves at all levels. That is not to say that every organization is the same – there is variety. But every trend at one level is represented in some form in trends at all levels, from the sub-individual to the global.

This could be examined in far greater detail, but suffice it to say that the political (control) system goes all the way through humanity, and across all cultures and times. As it evolves, it evolves everywhere. The forms and expressions differ, yet they are all connected by a common world and a common purpose.

This is politics, and it is far larger than we have imagined. It is not just on the TV, it is in your mind, in your home, in your church and grocery store. It is humanity's control system for the distribution of resources. Like all control systems, it employs systems of organization, and these systems change and evolve in form. Different organizations have different operating principles, agendas, and beliefs, yet they share a common purpose.

Take a look at the organizations around you, both ones you are a member of and ones you are not. Notice how they distribute resources. One such organization is the internet itself. It is all about distribution, and it is increasingly surfacing in and affecting politics. In fact, it was created by the political system as an organ. Al Gore was right afterall – he did indeed create the internet.

Next...

What Is Politics? - Part 2

   What kind of world do you want to live in?

   The difference between a problem and an issue

   The difference between positive and negative control

   Analysis of the current political (control) system

Thanks for reading. I welcome your questions and comments.

This text is also available at http://www.wikia.com/wiki/User:Slije _______________________________________________ Campaigns-l mailing list Campaigns-l@wikia.com http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l

Categorizing the main page

Hello! I've just categorized the main page, and it's been brought to my attention that it is unnecessary. I can't find a unified precedent (en.wp doesn't, uncyclopedia does), so I'll leave it up to all of you to decide whether to revert it or not. It's fairly inconsequential to have it listed on Special:Uncategorized pages, but that's why I added a category. Anyhow, do as the community likes. :] --Keitei 04:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried it before and had it reversed. I think it should, as some other wikia sites work that way. I've been trying to keep Special:Uncategorized pages clear as well. Chadlupkes 05:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The good thing about putting the front page Campaigns Wikia into the root category Category:Campaigns Wikia, as it is now, is that those interested in the MediaWiki category system have a quick link into the system. (This is why I categorised w:c:NetHack:Main Page.) --Kernigh 19:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

I noticed that among the red links that were removed by User:Angela, the link to the MAAs article was removed, with no reason given. While I understand that this is a controversial issue, I do not see a reason why an article discussing a right to exist should be censored in such a way. It seems that the link was removed because of the person's POV. BLueRibbon 07:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a page created by users banned from Wikipedia. We don't have to put up with trolling here. Angela (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't created by banned users; I created the article and none of the other contributors have been blocked either, according to the block log. Please inform me if I'm wrong, but I can't see any blocked users in the article's history. :/ BLueRibbon 07:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by the term censorship. Was the article deleted? It looked like the home page was just organized alphabetically and nothing was censored... --Gil 21:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was not deleted, just a reference to it. Chadlupkes 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, even if the article was created by users who were banned, that does not imply that the topic is not worth discussing. New users can take over and hopefully make a useful article. -- Waldsen 16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Public Benefit and Social Welfare

I would like to point out that the categories Public Benefit and Social Welfare seem very similar. Would anyone care to explain the difference? If not, maybe we could merge them... -- Waldsen 19:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that "welfare" refers to issues about helping out the disadvantaged (e.g., unemployment, Medicare, food stamps), whereas "public benefit" is about constructing communal resources for the benefit of the whole public, sometimes because they wouldn't otherwise be constructed (monuments, memorials), and sometimes because we don't want them developed at the whims and mercies of private corporations (e.g., road repairs, National Endowment for the Arts, science grants, etc.). Some grey areas include those items that provide for the whole population, or most of it, in a way much like welfare, e.g., nationalized health care. Obviously as much of government is (supposed to be) about "public benefit" many of the other issue categories grow out of this one (e.g., military spending, environmental protection). Jun-Dai 06:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)