|
Appendix 1
|
|
|
Reference Name |
Demos Issue |
Voting Method |
|
1 |
Standard Workweek |
Should the number of hours in the Standard Workweek be increased, kept at the current number, or decreased? |
Three button |
|
2 |
Minimum wage |
Should the minimum wage be increased, kept at the current amount, or decreased? |
Three button |
|
3 |
Federal tax rate |
As a nation how much money should we tax ourselves to finance the federal government for its next fiscal year? |
Three |
|
4 |
Tax burden division |
Of the total tax burden, what percentage should be borne by corporations and businesses, what percentage by a personal income tax, and what percentage by a personal inheritance tax? |
Pie chart |
|
5 |
Corporate tax scale |
How should the burden of the corporate and business tax be distributed, that is, how should the tax rate be scaled? |
Line graph |
|
6 |
Income tax scale |
How should the burden of the personal income tax be distributed, that is, how should the personal income tax rate be scaled? |
Line graph |
|
7 |
Inheritance tax scale |
How should the burden of the inheritance tax be distributed, that is, how should the inheritance tax rate be scaled? |
Line graph |
|
8 |
Amount of debt or saving |
Should the federal government increase the debt or savings it is carrying, keep the debt or savings at the current amount, or reduce the debt or savings it is carrying? |
Three button |
|
9 |
Tax revenue allocation |
What percentages of federal tax revenue should go to healthcare, to other entitlements, to the military, and to the remainder of the federal government? |
Pie chart |
Figure 1: The nine economic demos issues and their voting methods
There would be three basic demos issue voting page designs and voting methods that require handling: the three-button method, the pie chart method, and the line graph method. (See Figure 1 above.) The following discussion of these three input methods is merely a means of conveying some of the problems involved. The best mathematical and programming methods for handling each situation would need to be created by competent mathematicians and software programmers.
All three input methods—three-button, pie chart, and line graph—are ultimately based on one simple input concept: By the means provided for each input method, the demos member would indicate that he or she wishes one or more values to be increased, kept as is, or decreased. Both on the demos issues’ voting pages and within this discussion the three choices “increase,” “keep it as is,” and “decrease” are symbolized and referred to by the colors green, yellow, and red. “Increase” is symbolized by the color green, “keep as is” by the color yellow, and “decrease” by the color red.
Along with other information, each of the nine demos economic issues’ pages would display two main kinds of information: the current consensus of the demos on the issue and the demos member’s current vote on the issue. For the three-button input method, the current consensus would be shown as a numeric figure, and the member’s current vote would be shown as a highlighted green, yellow, or red button. For the pie chart input method, the current consensus would be indicated by the size of the pie slices, and the member’s vote would be indicated by the green, yellow, or red color of each slice. For the line graph input method, the current consensus would be indicated by the location of the line on the graph, and the member’s current vote would be indicated by green, yellow, and red colored segments of the line.
We first discuss the three-button input method. The page of a demos issue using the three-button input method would have a green up arrow “increase” button and below that a yellow square “keep it as is” button and below that a red down arrow “decrease” button. The very first time that a new member displays an issue’s page the yellow button would be highlighted. After that, whenever the member displays the issue’s page, his or her current selection would be highlighted. The member could optionally mouse-click (or use some other input device as is used with computers today) one of the two other buttons to alter his or her vote. The new selection would then become the currently highlighted button. The member could change the vote again and again as desired. When done, the member would click a button labeled “Done.” The color of the member’s currently highlighted selection would be sent immediately to the demos system as a packet of data or sent later if the voting terminal is not currently “on line,” i.e., connected to the demos system.
When all the demos members’ votes on a three-button issue are gathered and tallied by the demos system, the results would be expressed as three percentage figures which total 100%, for example, 20% “increase” (green), 30% “keep it as is” (yellow) and 50% “decrease” (red). Mathematical calculations would be performed on these three values that convert them into a single resultant value for use in further calculations.
In the pie chart input method, something must be divided into different portions. The total of that something, 100%, would be displayed as a circle which is divided into wedge-shaped slices of various sizes. The sizes of the slices would represent the current demos consensus on the issue. The pie chart input method would be used for two demos issues. In one issue the pie would be divided into three slices. In the other issue there might be, perhaps, six slices or so. Each of the slices of the pie would represent a certain percentage of the whole, and each slice would be proportionate in size to its percentage of the whole.
The first time that a new member displays an issue’s page all of the pie slices would be colored yellow. The member would indicate for a pie slice whether to increase, keep as is, or decrease the size of the slice (and, therefore, the percentage value of the whole represented by the slice) by repeatedly mouse-clicking the slice. Each mouse-click would toggle the color of the slice to the next color: red, green, yellow, red, etc. The member would repeat this toggling process for each slice the color of which he or she wanted to change.
Since the member cannot change the size of the whole, if any slice is colored green, then at least one slice must be colored red. If any slice is colored red, then at least once slice must be colored green. When done, the member would click a button labeled “Done.” If these conditions are not met when the member mouse-clicks the “Done” button, then a pop-up window must be displayed to help the member. When the “Done” button is clicked, the color data of the slices would be sent to the demos system for use in calculations.
When all the demos members’ votes on a pie chart issue are gathered and tallied by the demos system, the results for each pie slice would be expressed as three percentage figures which total 100%, for example, 20% “increase” (green), 30% “keep it as is” (yellow) and 50% “decrease” (red). Mathematical calculations would be performed on these three values that convert them into a single resultant value. There would be a resultant value for each slice of the pie. Based upon these resultant values, the sizes of the pie slices (and the tax percentage each of them represents) would be adjusted relative to each other. The resultant values would also be used in further calculations.
When the member returned to the issue’s demos page at some later time, the voting terminal would display the pie chart using the same size pie slices that are being sent to all members during its current cycle of computations, but this member’s pie slices would be colored as they were when he or she last displayed the page.
We now turn to the line graph input method. In the line graph input method, the issue would be presented as a line on a graph. A vertical line along the left edge of the graph, the vertical axis, would be labeled at equal intervals from bottom to top with percentage tax rates, i.e., 0%, 1%, 2%, 3%, etc. up to 100%. A horizontal line along the bottom edge of the graph, the horizontal axis, would be labeled from left to right with monetary amounts, i.e., $0, $1,000, $10,000, $100,000, $1,000,000, etc. A single line extending from left to right on the graph would represent the current demos consensus for percentage tax rates for increasing monetary amounts.
The chart would be divided into 100 tall, narrow sections of equal horizontal width by 101 vertical lines extending all the way from the top to the bottom of the chart. The first vertical line at the left edge of the chart would be the chart’s vertical axis which would be very visible, but the remaining 100 vertical lines would be invisible to the member or faintly visible, as the programmer desires. (For this discussion, we will say the vertical lines are faintly visible.) Since the scale of the monetary values along the horizontal axis is not linear, each of the 100 sections would include a wider range of monetary values than the section to its left. This manner of scaling was found necessary due to the huge variation in monetary amounts that would need to be displayed on the chart. As the tax rate line extends across the chart crossing over the faintly visible vertical lines it appears to the eye as one continuous line, but actually it is divided by these lines into 100 segments. Since the tax rate line may curve upward as it extends to the right, the line’s 100 segments may be of unequal lengths.
The demos member would vote on line chart issues by indicating which, if any, portions of the line on the chart he or she wanted increased in height on the chart, which portions kept as is, and which portions decreased, thus indicating which monetary amounts should have their percentage tax rates increased, which should have their rates left as is, and which should have their rates decreased. Using the mouse or some other input device, the member would indicate which portions of the tax rate line should be higher, which portions should be kept at their current height, and which portions should be lower in the following way:
When the mouse is moved left and right, on the voting terminal screen an easily-seen vertical line would move left and right on the chart, jumping from one of the 101 faintly visible vertical lines described earlier to the next as it moves, never resting between them. The mouse-movable vertical line would always intersect the percentage tax rate line somewhere along its length. To select a piece, a segment, of the tax rate line, the member would use the mouse to position the moving vertical line at one end of the desired segment, press and hold the mouse button, and then drag the mouse left or right. Leaving the first mouse-movable vertical line at one end of the desired segment, as the mouse is moved left or right a second easily-seen, moveable vertical line would emerge from the first line on the chart and follow the mouse left or right. When the desired endpoint of the tax rate line segment has been reached, the user would release the mouse button. The two mouse-movable vertical lines would remain on the screen delimiting the desired tax rate line segment. A small three-button input window would pop up containing a green up arrow “increase” button and below that a yellow square “keep it as is” button and below that a red down arrow “decrease” button. The member would mouse-click the desired selection. The three-button input window would disappear, the selected segment of the percentage tax line would be colored green for “increase” or yellow for “keep it as is” or red for “decrease,” and one of the two vertical mouse-movable lines would disappear. The member would again be able to use the mouse-movable vertical line to select and color some other segment of the tax rate line. The member would be able to repeat the process as many times as he or she liked. When done, the member would click a “Done” button, and a data packet would be sent to the demos system.
The line graph’s background color should be dark. The percentage tax rate line would have the following colors: The very first time the demos issue’s page is displayed to a new member, the line would be entirely yellow. Then the member would select and color various segments of the line green for “increase” and red for “decrease” as desired. The member would also be able to select green and red segments of the line and return them back to yellow for “keep it as is.” A selected line segment could also contain multiple colors, some portions red, some portions yellow, and some portions green. It would end up being colored the single color selected by the member. When done, the member would click “Done.”
The next time the member returned to the issue’s page the line would be displayed with its location on the chart dictated by the current cycle of demos computer calculations, but it would be colored green, yellow, and red just as the member had left it during the previous session. The member could again select and color segments of the tax rate line as desired.
Along with the member’s identification, etc. the data packet received by the demos system as a result of the member’s line graph session would contain a color set consisting of a series of 100 green, yellow, and red colors, one for each of the 100 small segments into which the tax rate line is divided by the chart’s 101 faintly visible vertical lines. (The member would likely have selected and colored, say, three or four large segments of the tax rate line, but each of those segments would be subdivided into some number of the 100 smaller segments into which the whole tax rate line is divided by the chart’s faintly visible vertical lines. For example, if the member selected, say, a two inch segment of the tax rate line and colored it red, then that segment might consist of, say, 23 of the 100 smaller segments, all colored red and all appearing to the eye as a single two inch long red segment.)
The demos system would already have the current demos consensus for the tax rate line in the form of a set of 100 pairs of line segment values. The pair of values for each line segment would consist of the monetary amount value and the percentage tax rate value of the midpoint of the line segment. Only the tax rate values of line segments would ever change, moving each line segment up or down on the chart. The monetary value amounts of the tax rate line segments’ midpoints would remain fixed at the values of the locations along the horizontal axis of the mid-points between the 101 vertical lines on the chart.
Within the demos computers, each of the 100 segments from the member’s tax rate line would have a matching segment from every other demos member, some of them colored green, some colored yellow, and some colored red. For each line segment, the number of green colors would be summed, the yellow colors would be summed, and the red colors would be summed. The three sums would total 100%, and each color’s sum would be expressed as some percentage of that 100%. These three values would be mathematically processed as described later, and the value of the percentage tax rate of the segment’s midpoint would be adjusted accordingly. These calculations would be repeated for each of the 100 tax rate line segments.
The resulting data would be used as input for further calculations within the demos. Appropriate data packets would also be sent to members’ voting terminals upon request. During the current cycle of the calculations all demos members would receive data for the same location of the tax rate line on the chart, but each member would receive his or her own current colors for the line. The data would be used to create a new percentage tax rate line for display on the member’s voting terminal screen. Using mathematical curve fitting methods, a line would be drawn through the midpoints of the 100 segments forming a smoothly curved tax rate line.
Over time, a demos member may be glad to see that portions of his or her percentage tax rate line colored green, yellow, or red have, indeed, been gradually moving in the desired direction or have been remaining in the desired position, meaning enough demos members have been in agreement with the member to move the line so or keep it as is. Or, sad to say, the votes of the member and like-minded others are being outweighed by more members voting in a contrary way, and the line does not perform according to the member’s color. Even so, the member’s vote continues to ride on the issue and to affect the calculations made for the percentage tax rate line.
Businesses and corporations with larger annual gross revenues and individuals with larger annual incomes or larger inheritances could not have a lower tax rate than those with smaller amounts. Therefore, the following rule would apply to the percentage tax rate line: No point on the line may be lower than any point on the line which is to its left. To put that another way, no point on the line may have a lower percentage tax rate value than any point on the line to its left. Depending on demos members’ input, the current percentage tax rate line could be relatively horizontal or flat resulting in something near a “flat tax”—it is very unlikely that the consensus of the demos would produce an absolutely flat tax rate—or it could curve significantly upward toward the right resulting in a progressive tax rate.
The three-button input method would send one color datum from a voter’s voting terminal to the demos system. (A datum is a single item of data. For clarity in the following discussion, the word datums is used as the plural of datum rather than data.) There would be four demos issues that use this method for a total of four color datums. The pie chart input method used for one issue would send three color datums. The other issue using the pie chart method would likely send around six color datums. Each of the three issues using the line chart method would send 100 datums for a total of 300 color datums. Altogether, the demos system would store and use for calculations about 313 color datums for each voter.
Although the voters would not be conscious of it, in a sense, each voter would be casting 313 votes, most of them involving tiny line segments in line graphs. In the following discussion, in addition to the term consensus referring to the demos consensus as a whole or the demos consensus on one of the twelve demos issues, it will often refer to the consensus on one of the individual votes within the set of the 313 votes.
The complete voting data set residing in the demos computers for the nine economic issues would consist of 313 elements or members, and each member of the set would consist of a green, yellow, or red color datum from each of the millions of demos voters. (Given the importance of the nine economic issues, such as the entire electorate jointly setting the size and distribution of the tax burden, this is a fantastically small amount of data. And, using an algorithm, it could be compressed to a surprisingly tiny amount of storage space.)
So each member of the set of 313 color datums received from one voter would have a matching member from every other voter. Matching members are processed together as a group. For example, the datum in position number 273 might represent the same pie slice from the same demos issue for every member of the demos. All color datums occupying position number 273 would be processed together in the following way: The number of green datums would be summed, the yellow datums would be summed, and the red datums would be summed. The three color sums would total 100% of the datums, and each sum would be expressed as some percentage of that 100%, for example, 20% green, 50% yellow, and 30% red. These three percentage values for the member would be mathematically processed together to produce a single resultant value.
This resultant value would not itself be the new current consensus for the member but a variable that is used for further calculations that effect over time appropriate change in the value of the current consensus for the member. Altogether, the many millions of color datums in the complete voting data set residing in the demos computers would be mathematically reduced to 313 resultant values. These initial and many further calculations would be repeated for each cycle of the demos calculations, each cycle taking perhaps a few seconds.
The conversion of the three color values to a single resultant value is shown graphically in Figure 2(a) below. (There is much discussion involving Figure 2. Before proceeding, you would do well to use your web page browser program’s Print function to print a color image of Figure 2 to keep in hand while reading.)
The graphic image is only used to aid you in understanding the conversion process. The demos computers would use a mathematical equation to effect the conversion. Using the graphic in Figure 2(a), the three color values are converted into a value that represents the current annual rate of change in the demos consensus expressed as a percentage. In the figure, the initial color values are 50% green (“increase”), 30% red (“decrease”), and 20% yellow (“keep as is”), which equals 100% of the vote. The resultant value, the current rate of change in the consensus, is +2% per year. This conversion of three color values to a single annual rate of change value would be repeated for each of the 313 elements or members of the complete voting data set.
Figure 2: Conversion of the three color values to a single resultant value.
50% green (increase) + 30% red (decrease) + 20% yellow (keep as is) = 100% of the vote.
 |
Figure 2: Conversion of the three color values to a single resultant value.
Since its three-color data set consists only of one member of the 313-member voting data set, for the three-button input method, that is the end of the conversion process. The resulting current annual rate of change value may be used as is in further calculations. But the pie chart input method has three or more members in a data set—a green, yellow, and red color value for each pie slice in the pie chart. Either the annual rate of change resultant values in the data set must be mathematically adjusted in relation to each other or the adjustment must be made at some later stage of calculations on the data set to insure that the sum of the pie slice size values always equal 100% of the pie, no more and no less. And each of the three issues using the line chart input method has 100 members in its data set. The 100 annual rates of change values resulting from the conversion process as well as further calculations based upon them must retain a sensible relationship with each other over time. It would not do for the 100 tax rate values to migrate over time to wildly differing vertical locations as the tax rate line progressed across the line chart. A mathematical curve fitting process must be applied to the data set at some point during each cycle of demos calculations to insure a smooth tax rate line.
The mathematical formula that the demos computers would use to calculate the current annual percentage rate of change in the demos consensus is as follows:
| C = (G - R) ÷ (100 ÷ M) |
| Where | C = | the current annual percentage rate of change in the demos consensus (If the value of C is positive, the consensus is currently increasing. If negative, the consensus is decreasing.) |
| G = | the green vote expressed as a percentage of the total vote | |
| R = | the red vote expressed as a percentage of the total vote | |
| M = | the maximum annual percentage rate of change of the demos consensus (This may be the default value of 10% or some other value set by the senate ranging anywhere from 5% to 20%. See the discussion below.) |
Future demos mathematicians may develop what proves to be a better formula for the conversion process. But this one will suffice for the current discussion. The following discussion implicitly uses the above formula as we intuitively examine the graphic images in Figure 2 above to reach the same result.
Now let us examine in Figure 2(a) an example of the conversion process that would be applied to each of the 313 members of the complete voting data set. The figure actually consists of four scales extending from a common fixed zero point (“0”). Notice that the long horizontal line is actually divided into a black upper line and a gray lower line. A gray scale extending rightward from 0 to 100% is used to plot the value of the green (“increase”) color. A gray scale extending leftward from 0 to -100% is used to plot the value of the red (“decrease”) color. (The red color actually has a positive value, but for convenience in calculation it is treated as a negative number.) The 0 to 100% scale for the yellow color value extends downward, but for simplicity only a yellow line is shown in the figure. The fourth scale, used to plot the current annual rate of change in the demos consensus, extends along the upper half, the black half, of the horizontal line. From the zero point it extends rightward through positive percentage values and leftward through negative percentage values.
The conversion process itself is very simple. The green value (+50%) is added to the red value (which is expressed as -30%) resulting in a sum value of +20%. (If the red value had been larger than the green value, then their sum would have been a negative number.) Moving vertically from the +20% value on the gray scale, we see the associated +2% value on the black scale. Thus, the current rate of change for this member of the 313-member voting data set is +2% per year. The demos consensus for this member of the data set is currently slowly increasing over time.
Notice that the value of the current consensus on the member of the data set is not involved in the conversion calculations. The demos electorate does not vote directly on a desired value for the current consensus but only on the direction—increase, keep as is, or decrease—that the current consensus should move. Using the vote tallies, the conversion process determines both the direction that the consensus will move and the rate that it will move expressed as an annual percentage. Using further mathematics, during each cycle of calculations the demos computers will increase or decrease the value of the data set member’s consensus by the appropriate very tiny fraction of the current annual rate of change, in this case of +2%.
But the annual rate of change is itself an ever changing value. The demos computers would use whatever is the current annual rate of change value during each cycle of calculations to determine the movement of the consensus value during the cycle.
Notice in Figure 2(a) and in the mathematical formula that the demos computers would use to calculate the current annual percentage rate of change in the demos consensus that the yellow (“keep as is”) value (20%) is not used in the calculations. Even so, the yellow value does have its effect and a “keep as is” vote is not wasted. This 20% of the vote is denied the green and red values, keeping them smaller than they would otherwise have been and keeping the current annual rate of change value smaller then it would have been.
Looking at the figure we can intuitively see that as the values of green and red become more equal and/or the value of yellow becomes larger, the resulting current annual rate of change value, whether positive or negative, becomes smaller in magnitude. The rate of change value and, over time, the change in the demos consensus only become significant as green and red become increasingly unequal and/or yellow becomes smaller.
Notice in Figure 2(a) the small green and red double-headed arrows near the -10% and the 10% marks on the black upper scale. What do they signify? Recall from the chapter entitled The Extremes and the Rate of Change in the Demos Consensus on Issues that, for the safety of the nation, the senate would be charged with the responsibility of altering only when absolutely necessary the rate at which the demos consensus may change. (The senate could not set the rate to zero. In due time, the full change would occur.) It is by altering the size of the percentage units on the upper black scale with respect to the percentage units on the lower gray scales that the rate of change of the demos consensus is altered by the senate.
The lower gray scales along which the green and red values are plotted remain fixed in their length and in their markings from -100% to +100%. But the upper black scale may be expanded or contracted horizontally.
Imagine that the upper black scale is printed on an elastic band. When the ends of the band are pulled away from each other horizontally, the black scale expands and its percentage marks become further apart. When the band is allowed to contract, the scale contracts and the percentage marks become closer together.
In the normal or default position of the black scale shown in Figure 2(a) when the senate has neither expanded nor contracted the scale, the -10% mark on the black scale corresponds to the -100% mark on the red color’s scale, and the +10% mark on the black scale corresponds to the +100% mark on the green color’s scale.
Figure 2(b) shows the black scale when the senate has contracted the scale. Notice that the black scale now has a -20% mark corresponding to the -100% mark on the gray scale and a +20% mark corresponding to the gray scale’s +100% mark. And the 20% mark on the lower gray scale is now aligned with the 4% mark on the upper black scale. Contracting the black scale increases the annual rate of change in the consensus for a given set of green, yellow, and red values. Thus, Figure 2(b) shows green arrows at the ends of the black scale pointing toward the center zero point of the scale.
In Figure 2(c) the black scale has been expanded by the senate. It now has a -5% mark corresponding to the -100% mark on the gray scale and a +5% mark corresponding to the gray scale’s +100% mark. And the 20% mark on the lower gray scale is now aligned with the 1% mark on the upper black scale. Expanding the black scale decreases the annual rate of change in the consensus for a given set of green, yellow, and red values. Thus, Figure 2(c) shows red arrows at the ends of the black scale pointing away from the center zero point of the scale.
Senators would not vote on the annual rate of change of the consensus of each individual member of the 313-member vote data set, but only on the rate of change of the demos consensus of each of the nine economic issues. When a senator voted, say, on the rate of change in the consensus of an issue that uses a line graph, he or she would be actually voting on the rates of change of the consensus on all 100 members of the line graph’s data set. Voting in the senate on demos issues’ annual rates of change would be similar in style to the demos members’ voting on the issues themselves. Each member of the senate would have a green (“increase”), yellow (“keep as is”), or red (“decrease”) vote riding on each economic demos issue’s annual rate of change which he or she may change at any time. The senate’s ever current consensus on each issue’s rate of change is mathematically tied to the expansion and contraction of the black annual rate of change scale of the issue, thus controlling the issue’s annual rate of change. (In the mathematical formula that the demos computers would use to calculate the rate of change, the senate’s consensus is tied to the variable “M”.)
As shown in Figure 2(a), the black annual rate of change scale has a built-in default value of 10%. Its -10% mark aligns with the gray scale’s -100% mark and its +10% mark aligns with the gray scale’s +100% mark. All 313 members of the vote data set would have this default setting. Keeping in mind that the senate votes on the annual rates of change of demos issues, not individual members of the data set, the senate would have the power to as much as double or half this 10% amount. That is, the senate may set the alignment of the black scale to as much as 20% per year as in Figure 2(b) or as low as 5% per year as in Figure 2(c).
Whether it is at the default rate of change or is set to some other rate by the senate, the current rate of change setting must be understood as the current maximum possible rate of change of the consensus, not as its actual rate of change. Using the default rate of change for this discussion, when the rate is at its default of 10%, to achieve the full plus or minus 10% rate of change in a demos issue’s consensus, the entire demos electorate would have to vote green (“increase”) or red (“decrease”), both highly unlikely events. Rates of change in the realm of plus or minus 1% to 4% per year would be more likely.
At the default rate, an ongoing consensus movement should be moderate, not too sluggish or excessive; it should usually require little or no ongoing alteration by the senate. It is possible that the 10% default maximum rate of change suggested here may be too low or too high for this or that demos issue and senators would too frequently or even continuously have to slow down or speed up the rate of change to achieve a more reasonable rate. In such a case, the issue’s default value itself should be changed until the senate has little need or reason to alter the rate.
A note of caution here: While establishing the correct default settings for the annual rates of change of demos issues should be a scientific or technical issue, it could also be made into a political football. Setting the demos issues’ annual rates of change defaults to 10% (or whatever is deemed initially most appropriate by demos scientists, technicians, and mathematicians)—10% is strongly recommended—should be included as part of the constitutional amendment(s) that create the demos. A constitutional amendment would then be required to alter an issue’s built-in default at some later date. This would secure the defaults against alteration for the purpose of mere momentary political intrigue. The senate’s being able to alter the rates away from their defaults in limited measure would allow intrigue enough for ongoing politics.
At first one might think that taking a whole year to change a demos consensus value between 1% and 4%, which is likely when the default maximum is set to 10%, is really sluggish. But the demos issues are very fundamental to our society. The demos consensus should change slowly. To prevent the fabric of society from tearing asunder, the change in consensus values should be evolutionary, not revolutionary. Also, once the demos has been in place and functioning for a few years, each demos issue’s consensus will have settled into a value with which the electorate as a whole is comfortable. It will then homeostatically hover about its “golden mean” and not venture too far or too wildly. Even if it did shift to a new homeostatic center, it would likely do so slowly over time.
When necessitated by national or international events and the demos and the senate are of like mind and act in concert, the demos consensus can rise to the occasion and change quite quickly. Let us say that at a needful time 90% of the demos members have voted green (“increase”) on a given demos issue and 10% have voted red (“decrease”). Also wanting a rapid increase in the issue’s consensus, the senate has significantly contracted the upper black scale in Figure 2 placing its +20% mark in line with the gray scale’s +100% mark as in Figure 2(b). Adding the -10% red and the +90% green vote tallies, we have a sum of +80% which is aligned with the +16% mark on the upper black scale. That is a very high annual rate of change.
Thus, very high rates of change could be generated by the system when needed. And yet, most of the time for most demos issues there would likely be a significant yellow (“keep as is”) vote; the green (“increase”) and red (“decrease”) vote counts would be nearly equal; the senate would be comfortable and not alter any demos issues’ annual rates of change; and the consensus values would change very slowly.
If and when the members of the demos were moving a consensus too rapidly for the safety of the nation in the eyes of the senate, the senate could simply expand the black scale slowing the rate of change.
We turn now to what would be the relationship among the nine numeric or economic demos issues and the relationship of these issues to the rest of government and society. These issues are not merely an unrelated collection but form a logical, interrelated system and a functional whole.
As discussed earlier, each economic issue would function like a homeostatic system, the demos consensus on the issue tending away from all extremes and hovering around a more central norm. Taken together, these issues would function in a manner analogous to the several homeostatic systems functioning within a living organism. In a living organism, homeostatic systems produce the stable conditions and supply of substances required to keep the organism alive. In a similar manner, the electorate’s consensus on the economic demos issues would produce the stable conditions and supply of decisions required to maintain internal political and economic stability and to keep our society functioning smoothly and evolving peacefully as conditions change.
Although the issues are not all directly coupled mathematically, the nine economic issues form a functional whole with a logical flow of influence. The arrows in Figure 3 below show the connections among the issues and the direction of their influence. (As was the case with Figure 2, there is much discussion involving Figure 3. Before proceeding, you would do well to use your web page browser program’s Print function to print a color image of Figure 3 to keep in hand while reading.)
Figure 3: The relationship of the demos issues
|
Figure 3: The relationship of the demos issues
Starting with issue 9 in Figure 3 above and moving against the arrows, we see a series of dependencies. Issue 9 is dependent on issue 8. Issue 8 is dependent on issues 5, 6, and 7. Issues 5, 6, and 7 are dependent on issue 4. Issue 4 is dependent on issue 3. Issue 3 is dependent on issues 1 and 2. While the issues are not all directly coupled mathematically into some kind of giant mathematical formula, some issues require an input value that results from calculations made within a preceding issue. Other issues are dependent on values received as a result of economic conditions and data which lie entirely outside of the demos.
Starting at the top of Figure 3 and moving with the arrows in the direction of the influence of the issues, in setting the length of the Standard Workweek, issue 1, the demos would have a profound effect on the actions of government and society. Along with other factors, it would directly or indirectly influence how long we worked, how much we got paid, how productive we were, the cost of goods and services, and the sum of personal income and corporate and business revenue in the private sector. The case would be the same for the demos’ setting of the minimum wage, issue 2. Raising and lowering the minimum wage would raise and lower all boats at or near the bottom of the wage scale and would raise and lower the cost of the goods and services most directly or indirectly connected with this labor. Thus, it would also affect the sum of income and revenue in the private sector.
Therefore, while demos issues 1 and 2 would not have a direct mathematical connection to issue 3, the federal tax rate, they would have a major influence via the general economy. If the demos set the tax rate at 22%, then, as the sum of income and revenue increased and decreased, the tax revenue available to the federal government would increase and decrease as well. This and other considerations would directly affect what the members of the demos electorate considered to be a prudent federal tax rate, thus causing them to raise or lower the rate.
As a result of the current state of the economy producing some current sum of income and revenue and of the federal tax rate set by the demos in issue 3, some given amount of tax revenue would be available to the federal government. In issue 4, tax burden division, the demos would determine how much of that burden would be borne by corporations and businesses, how much by a personal income tax, and how much by an inheritance tax. The total tax burden, 100%, would be distributed among the three sources of taxes by setting a certain percentage for each of them.
The demos’ having divided the federal tax burden among three sources of taxes by its consensus in issue 4, those burdens would then be passed on to issues 5, the corporate tax scale, 6, the personal income tax scale, and 7, the inheritance tax scale. These three issues would all function in the same manner. Using the line chart input method provided in issues 5, 6, and 7, the demos members would distribute each of the three tax burdens among the taxpayers.
An important point must be noted here. The following is true for issues 5, 6, and 7: Recall that the line graph input method would have percentage tax rates (1%, 2%, 3%, etc.) marked along the vertical axis, monetary amounts ($0, $1,000, $10,000, etc.) marked along the horizontal axis, and a single tax rate line on the graph. By its coloring various segments of the tax rate line green (increase), yellow (keep as is), and red (decrease), the demos members would determine the relative distribution of the tax burden over the various monetary amounts, what monetary amounts would have lower tax rates relative to other monetary amounts and what amounts would have higher rates. But it would be the demos computers which set the absolute value of the tax rates by adjusting the overall height of the tax rate line in relation to the linear (equally spaced) tax rate percentage markings along the vertical axis.
The total amount of the tax burden placed on a given tax source is known from issue 4. The relative distribution of the tax burden placed on the source is set by the demos members. By adjusting the overall height of the tax rate line relative to the tax rate scale on the vertical axis, the computer sets the absolute tax rates required to meet the source’s tax burden. To make this vertical adjustment of the tax rate line, the demos computers need yet another set of data: A reasonably accurate estimate of how many taxpayers there are at each monetary amount. This data is estimated by using the relevant data from the previous tax year and adjusting it using best guesstimates of this year’s economic conditions, revenues, and incomes.
The demos cycle of calculations would happen very rapidly, in seconds, while the tax rate line would change only very slowly and infinitesimally over weeks, months, or years. This vast difference in time scales would be used to advantage. The demos members would always see a tax rate line on the graph that is actually history by a few seconds, having been calculated during the previous cycle of calculations. But, given its very slow changes, this tax rate line would serve perfectly well in the present moment.
As a result of the tax rates set in issues 5, 6, and 7, the government would then have the information it needed to create the tax tables for the next tax collection season. When that season has come and gone the federal government’s coffers would be full with our cheerfully contributed money.
The results of issues 5, 6, and 7 are passed on to issue 8. In issue 8, amount of debt or saving, the demos would set for our government how much it must increase or decrease the amount of debt that it is carrying or savings that it holds. If saving was increased, this amount would have to be subtracted from the collected tax revenue and saved before the remainder of the tax revenue was divided and allocated. If saving was decreased, the sum of the tax revenue would have to be increased by the amount withdrawn from the saving. If debt was increased, the government would have to sell more financial instruments and add the amount to the collected tax revenue. If debt was decreased, the government would have to subtract the designated amount from the collected tax revenue and use the funds to retire some of its current debt.
With the result of issue 8, the total amount of tax revenue on hand for allocation would be known. The whole of the funds equals 100%. Various percentage portions of this whole would be allocated to various areas of the government. The process of allocation would begin with the demos consensus on issue 9, tax revenue allocation. As discussed earlier in this work, issue 9 would allow the demos to divide the tax revenue into four broad areas of government: What percentage of federal tax revenue should go to healthcare, what percentage to other entitlements, what percentage to the military, and what percentage to the remainder of the federal government? The budget that the rest of government created would have to fit within these broad strokes set by the demos. The details of the budget process would likely already have been in progress in other areas of government and would only have to undergo some final adjustments when the exact demos consensus on issue 9 is finally known.
Regarding the timing of events, voting within the demos would be a continuous process that never ends. At every moment the demos would have a current consensus for every issue. Therefore, the specific numeric values constituting the consensus would always be available whenever the information was needed by anyone within the government and the larger society for whatever purpose. As the other branches of government went about their business setting tax tables, adding to or subtracting from savings or debt, selling or retiring financial instruments, and working out budgets, whatever information that was required from the demos consensus would simply be noted at the proper times. To minimize political manipulation, the exact moments when the various demos consensuses are noted and used by government agencies should be formalized.
The demos would also require data from sources outside the demos. The big ticket item required by the demos for calculations beginning with issue 3 would be the sum of income and revenue for the most recent year. Determining this sum would likely be a difficult task requiring as much art as science. Perhaps extrapolation from previous years would be required and educated (scientifically, not politically, motivated) adjustments from those years given the current state of the economy. At any rate, the sum of income and revenue for the most current year should be determined as objectively, accurately, and promptly as possible. The demos would require a lot of other input data as well to support its hierarchy of pages beneath the demos issues’ pages where further information concerning the issues would be available and where the demos electorate deliberated and debated the issues.
Described elsewhere within this work is a somewhat whimsical comparison between our political-economic system today and a system which has a demos operating within it: If the form of America’s old political-economic system could be likened to a comet racing through space (or through time) with the wealthy, powerful plutocrats at the head and the bottom half of the population trailing off in distress and despair in the long, vacuous tail, the new system can and has been likened to an ellipse moving forward through time, the slowly varying length of the ellipse representing the slow variation in the distribution of wealth over time and the elliptical shape itself, as opposed to the thin tail of the comet, indicating that everyone is basically economically included in the society. No one is left to claw their way too far over the top or left to fall too far off the bottom of the economic radar screen. The ellipse slowly changes as it moves through time in response to economic expansion and contraction and the demos electorate’s economic mood. Since the new political-economic system has a demos, with its logically interconnected system of homeostatically functioning issues tending toward central stability and setting the system’s largest economic parameters, the ellipse avoids the extremes, remains intact, and does not burst into some other broken shape or form.
The notion of an ellipse, or, perhaps even better, an ellipsoid, moving through space and time and slowly changing shape in response to the changing demos consensus and to economic conditions is simply a metaphor. There would be no such mathematical entity within the demos mathematical calculations. It would presumably be possible to mathematically interrelate certain numeric values of the demos consensus creating a mathematical ellipse or ellipsoid that was responsive over time to the overall demos consensus. Although serving no purpose within the demos calculations themselves, such a mathematical entity could be used for animated video explanations of the function and performance of the demos and its overall effect on society.
It would not be the demos mathematics as such that maintained this homeostatic behavior and stability but all of our views and demos votes on the issues pulling in their opposing directions. Long before any extreme would be reached in the theoretical full range of a demos issue’s consensus, opposing views and votes in the electorate would move the consensus in a more moderate direction. The demos calculations, formulas, software programs, and hardware would in no way create or make our decisions for us. They would simply be obedient servants dutifully collecting, processing, and outputting data that assisted us in achieving our democratic consensus. The demos’ never-ending, cyclic recalculations using the numeric values representing our ever-current consensus would have no will of their own. They would be merely passive, abstract reflections or representations of the consensus of our wills.
Home
Table of Contents Previous Chapter
Next Appendix Top of Page
Beyond Plutocracy - Direct Democracy for America
www.BeyondPlutocracy.com
© Copyright 2001-2017 Roger D Rothenberger