Voting System - Establishing a Forum General Assembly

Meetings
1

Policies for the People needs better moderation or voting systems. I don’t mean types of censorship, but instead organization.

Like a form of forum ‘General Assembly’ for us to not just add meaningless ‘likes’ (votes) to posts.

For Example:

and

Are supporting the similar policies, but with different wording-which can make all the difference. Merges seem to go unnoticed, and unchanged. Not allowing for any advancment of the forum’s attention/support

Yes, individuals need to be able to post their individual views, but there needs to be way for people to see similar policies and combine support. The proposal with more support should advance.

A system of voting policies up, into a forum ‘General Assembly’ which would then be voted on by all member (trusted/verified) status accounts → ‘For’ or ‘Against’ would allow for citizen involvement of passing/repealing our own policies to appear in a ‘Top’ or ‘Supported Policy’ section for law makers to actually look at.

Policies that have been passed on-site can then be used to sort newer, or original posts from already on-going ideas, discussions and policies. Preventing a stream of continuous repeat policies.

The most popular and voted on version of policies like ‘Term Limits For Sen. and Rep.’ would pass from the regular forum section Liberty and move to the ‘General Assembly’ voting section. This could be based on a quarterly/monthly basis of whichever policy gets to the ‘Top’ section; or a select amount of support.

This would clear up the forum of repeats, what will be long standing/outdated posts, and establish clear and concise support of certain policies.

What’s Potentially Needed:

  • A type of posting category would be called ‘policy repeal’ and ‘policy amendment’ for previously passed posts, with an option/requirement to link said repeal or amendment to a previously passed proposal.

  • An entire section for previously passed and repealed proposals.

  • A system of verifications for users that want to participate in the ‘General Assembly’; ID, photo or biometric verification. If this is too extreme for you, think about how it could potentially prevent bot systems granting votes, and creating a clearer more established voice to the exective and legislative branches. There’s not much from preventing me from making seperate emails and stacking votes for personal prestige, bot system could do it easier.

  • A time/counting based system of advancing proposals that allows for them to gain enough popularity. This could be brought on when a proposal gets to a certain number of votes per users, or after a certain period of time has passed; quarterly, monthly.

  • An entire section for debate under the current proposal up for the vote in the ‘General Assembly’.

  • Optional notifications for announcements

  • A guide to post formating (post roadmap; observation → detailed contribution)

  • Moderation of post tags (observation vs. detailed contribution-without deletion of posts)

  • Categories for State specific proposals/Federal specific proposals

  • Requirements for proposal advancement/approval (endorsement) of detailed observations leading to the proposal being voted on in the ‘General Assembly’

  • AI for post formating/sorting, and ‘user bots’ that function as in-text tools for the mods (much like what Reddit or Discord uses)

  • A petition collection function to help with the advancement of proposals into legislation

Policy Proposal Advancement Path
Proposals are posted to the general forum in their respective categories.
→
The proposals with the highest support (votes) advances based on the quantity of support or the allotted amount of time between each voting session.
→
Proposal receives a set amount of endorsements from moderation, policy contributors, actual constituents or high trust users (GA delegates)
→
Proposal moves to a ‘General Assembly’ section of the forum, were it is displayed and open for debate. After a period of debate, votes should be then be able to be cast during a short period of time. (A time based scheduling organization of voting sessions would allow for larger voter turnout)
→
Proposals then would either need to move back to the open forum, with reset support (reset of votes) and a tag that it had been to the ‘General Assembly’ already; or it would move to a 'Forum Supported Policy’ section of the site. The ‘Forum Supported Policy’ section would allow for a clearer more concise voice of what the People of this forum support and want to see in policy.

When appearing in the ‘Forum Supported Policies’ section, a button to post a ‘repeal’ or ‘amend’ formated proposal should be available.

From here, executives or legislation could see highly refined and supported posts.

  • For a Forum General Assembly
  • Against a Forum General Assembly
0 voters
3 Likes
2
2 Likes
3

I would like to second this.
This would cut down the clutter or ‘cafeteria chatter’ and it would promote people reading what others are posting, as well as adding to the productivity, by having an inherent system for participation at ones own level as it grows.

I do believe that this could assist with development & fleshing out more complex arguments/issues, as well as being more inclusive while forcing people to actually make their point so as to curry the favor of the people.

Effectively this is coding law, it should function as open source project pull requests on GitHub…

Whoa, imagine drafting a proposal with integrated AI aimed at legal/historical reference
With proper guidance it could be great, or at least the epic hallucinations would be amusing. :smile:

in addition:
I would recommend listed types of response.
Example:

  • Reply holding favor
  • Reply holding favor with caveat for posterity
  • Reply holding favor with proposed amendment
  • Reply holding opposition
  • Reply holding opposition with proposed amendment/alternative
  • Reply holding no bias with request to define and/or elaborate

Functional implementation:
Reply {select holding} {select canned action descriptor, or ‘other’ for a custom descriptor of 30 character or less}

This could improve organization for more productive/effective discourse.

1 Like
5

I think incorporating open source AI, as you allude to Timothy, would be an incredibly useful tool:

And, I agree with Ethan that it would, “need to be done in the right way…”.

With so many proposals and individuals on the platform, open sourced AI could eventually be employed to help manage the chaos that the moderators currently seem ill-equipped to handle on their own. I don’t mean to be critical as I am very grateful for what they’ve put together…and am cautiously optimistic that this could evolve into something that would significantly empower our democracy.

3 Likes
6

Taking this idea in another direction, I also see a problem with traditional social media behavior of arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than being proactive about how to build upon an observation to make a cogent detailed contribution from an initial observation. With regard to ideating the best mechanisms to bring more complete proposals to vote by a general consensus, we also need to help shift the collective user base culture to be solution oriented and proactive on proposals rather than behaving like “crabs in a bucket”, thereby holding observations down and amplifying the popularity and vote numbers, thereby burying proposals that should be advanced to higher levels, rather than relegated to the background of the “chatter” that’s not as fruitful in open sourcing proposal building for legislative consideration.

As it stands now, the use of the observation vs. detailed contribution tags is widely misunderstood and incorrectly used. There should be a major cleanup to clearly delineate between the two, but also perhaps, a few tags to apply between these two phases, such as phase 1: observation, phase 2: basic outline, phase 3: outline with resources, phase 4: detailed contribution, or something along those lines, with more clear instruction by the bot on not only how to use this interface for interaction, but on how to actually be a part of policies for the people that establishes cohesion around observations and the process by which we can collectively work out solution proposals. This would increase the efficiency and output. I get that there are many who are sideline, armchair peanut gallery types, but the spirit and purpose of this forum ought not be overrun by that, as fostering an environment where the norm is focused on policy production and promotion is preferable to achieving that end.

1 Like
7

Maybe replies should be able to be voted on also. It would help the argue aspect, move the best move relevant replies to the top of a thread.

Or simply organized by reactions/likes.

This site will die soon without some type of organization.

Maybe it was intended for a single to-do list for the current administration, instead of something with longevity.

1 Like
8

I have suggested to the moderator previously that rather than struggling to rationalize the cumbersome flood of like policies which dissipate the focus on highly important, yet oft repeated issues, some effort might be given to better orient all users toward searching for existing policies which align with their inspiration, so that existing policies where present, could be amplified, and supported rather than buried in an avalanche of doppelgängers.

You seem in this thread to have gone the other way with excellent suggestions on how to clean up the mess. I pray that several solutions, both proactive and post active might be employed to advantage! Thank you!

3 Likes
9

Any sort of communication from the mods would be nice. But, alas.

1 Like
10

You’d probably need to @ mention their names so that they receive a ping, @EthanHowardMfrr

1 Like
11

True that, silly me, Aaron here also sent this in a dm to some of them. I thanked him.

@moderators

1 Like
12

Hello @stevecoffman

For more involved changes with the interface, I think that would be more a task of the third-party providers, Discourse, as that is what is being used for Policies for the People. I could be wrong, but I doubt the developers/moderators here would be able to implement back-end structural changes to the degree we are proposing be upgraded. If you’re talking GitHub repository tweaks for the UI/UX development work, that would need to be raised with the folks at Discourse itself @Leftcatcher, That interface is here ~ https://meta.discourse.org/,

3 Likes
13

Thanks for your response @Nicole_C_Scott. It looks like there are some developers on GitHub working on agentic AI. Here’s a project that may be worth looking into:

agentgpt: AgentGPT is an AI agent powered by GPT models, capable of assisting with various tasks.

It seems that incorporating open-sourced AI agents to help organize the platform could be beneficial - that is, if the mandate of Policies for the People is to actually develop viable proposals for our Congressional representatives to legislate.

Signal to noise on the platform is currently a bit overwhelming.

An update from the moderators of the platform re: what they have in mind for its further development would be useful.

@ShaneVeldhuizen
@JayMudholkar

3 Likes
14

This is about a month old. It was posted by one of the moderators. I’m thinking of contacting him to see where they are with this…and to maybe proffer some structure/process recommendations for the platform. Suggestions?

Image 11-23-24 at 7.54 PM
Image 11-23-24 at 7.54 PM1067×866 189 KB

2 Likes
15

Go for it! If you think you’d be a good fit for the position, then any help I’m sure they’d appreciate.

I bet the volunteer moderation just includes sorting through new posts to add tags, help with suggestions, add tags, links, etc.

Personally I have no programming experience, so as with the literal development of the future of the forum, I can only brainstorm and envision.

I appreciate you tagging mods, and posting this on my thread though :wink:

1 Like
16

Hi Nathan,
Good to hear from you!

As far as envisioning changes for the further development of the platform, I’m curious what you (and others) would like to see?

Here’s my list: (Do any of these ideas resonate with you…in terms of suggestions for the management?)

  • Connect with the users on a regular basis with updates. Build in a collective focus. Crowdsource a mandate - then facilitate the development of the platform into something empowering and effective.

  • Keep the energy moving towards improving the platform by gathering input and suggestions from the user base. Build in support. Improvise. Delegate.

  • Create a ranked-stack list of Policy Priorities collated from individual users priorities. Top Ten. This would help to concentrate attention without limiting users to pursue other policy objectives that are near and dear to them. (The stack could include priorities for improving the platform as well.)

These would begin to coalesce focus at a collective level and begin developing the synergistic nucleus we’ll need if we’re going to be persuasive as a movement for significant legislative change.

  • Clean up and organize the platform. It’s currently overrun with base level (me/mine) thinking instead of spirit level (we/ours) creativity. It’s not really working as is…imo.

  • Crowdsource a step by step road map for actualizing meaningful contributions to the legislative process. Again - prioritize!

Maybe the platform could eventually develop into a viable hybrid of Representative and Direct Democracy; perhaps beginning as an adjunct to the existing system before morphing into something more central?

Please feel free to suggest, comment, recommend…!

As together we choose….

1 Like
17

Yes, spot on. You hit the important points I was making with the priority policies, and the entirety of the forum being ‘me/I’ based instead of as a collective concise representation of our supported policies for legislature.

My suggestion for a ‘general assembly’ was directly in the mindset of using crowdsourcing as a way to gather our ‘top policies’ while also keeping it flowing, allowing new ideas to come forward, and better collaboration instead of click-based-support.

The moderators could use a ‘news’ category, I didn’t see that request for help by the mods until your screenshot. A list of moderators under the users tab would be nice too.

1 Like
18

@GuruMu @Leftcatcher @Nicole_C_Scott @stevecoffman @JayMudholkar

I had a conversation with moderation about this thread, the future of P4P and where they are as of right now. I thought I might communicate some of this in a public space, to inform and further the development of this idea. Because y’all are helpful :slight_smile:

I was approached with the question of how this system of additional voting could prevent new/relevant posts from disappearing into the abyss. Taken aback, I had to look rethink the question in a manner I had not intended, but soon realized it was a different thought process trying to solve the same problem.

The purpose of this suggestion was to help ‘advance’ the best versions of policy that the forum supports near-unilaterally (or at least through majority representation). I personally didn’t see a way Congress could weed through the mass of duplicate posts and broad suggestions. The answer being: using an additional form of voting to sort through, advance, and ‘pass’ the best versions of policy to keep the forum moving.

Looking at my personal feed, I am unable to see new/fresh ideas unless I seek them out under the new tab. Most people sort by ‘Top’ ‘All Time’; that’s where all the attention is. In order for the forum to develop per what is currently in the public eye, policies need to move out of this section of the forum, but continue to be displayed, at high priority, to new users/all authors (thus my suggestion of ‘passing’ supported proposals and displaying them seperately, with the option of repeal or reform. Once ‘Single Issue Bills’ becomes a widely supported issue, and it develops from an observation to a detailed contribution, other more relevant policy will need that type of 20k support. If this forum lasts 20 years, we don’t want a policy that was passed decades ago listed in the most popular section).

We agreed on a couple (potential) things, mainly points made by moderation →

  • Easier access to/Better location for the Announcements category
  • A guide to post formating (post roadmap; observation → detailed contribution)
  • Moderation of post tags (without deletion of posts)
  • Categories for State specific proposals/Federal specific proposals
  • Requirements for proposal advancement/approval (endorsement) of detailed observations leading to the proposal being voted on in the ‘General Assembly’
  • AI for post formating/sorting, and maybe also ‘user bots’ that function as in-text tools for the mods (much like what Reddit or Discord uses)

(Let me know if I forgot anything)

Education seems to be the game plan. If we can gear the construction of policy proposals towards an advancement mentality through proper formating, debate, collaboration between individuals, moderation endorsements, and further category organization we could make this a real tool for the government.

Moderation seems like they wanted to take a decentralized approach with the communication of the forum to legislature/executives. My personal belief is that the forum could subvert the actual function government and the natural order of citizen to representative communication, they seemed to agree. We need to find a proper comprimise of ‘private collaboration’ that can/will reach the eyes and ears of office holders, without changing the foundational system of communication (sending a letter, holding a meeting, emailing, or calling your representatives).

To my surprise, this forum wasn’t necessarily created for the exact purpose we have been invisioning, but nontheless I think the P4P team loves it. We definately could create one of the greatest mechanisms of communication between the People and their governement to exist, to date.

I hope I did justice to highlighting the roadblocks that were communicated to me, which need worked out, in order for this to work.

2 Likes
19

Thanks for the update, @EthanHowardMfrr,

…and for taking the initiative to reach out to the developers to explore how we can elevate this platform.

It’s encouraging that I was able to have direct conversations with grassroots organizers like the founder of the Convention of States, even if his perspective on tackling corporate capture was somewhat cynical. It’s a reminder of the uphill battle we face when trying to address the deep-seated issues within our governance system.

I’m hopeful that P4P can at least raise awareness and inspire action toward solutions, even if the current user base seems more inclined towards observations rather than diving deep into detailed contributions. The discussion about how to prevent good ideas from getting lost in the crowd is spot-on. We need a way to spotlight the best policy proposals, perhaps through an enhanced voting system that not only highlights popular ideas but also moves them forward into actionable stages. This could ensure that valuable proposals don’t just linger in the ‘Top’ or ‘All Time’ sections but actually evolve and influence policy. Maybe there is a different voting system for observations than detailed contributions? Such as vote yes to move this to a detailed contribution, and vote yes to have this detailed contribution brought before Legislators for sponsorship, or something like that.

The talk about education and better post formatting is crucial. If we can guide users on how to turn their observations into comprehensive policy proposals, it would streamline the process and make this platform more impactful.

Moderation also needs to be more intuitive, with AI assistance for sorting posts and user bots to help with formatting and organization - especially since so many observations are incorrectly labeled as detailed contributions.

I appreciate the push towards a decentralized approach in how we communicate with legislators. It’s about finding that sweet spot where we can influence policy. The conversation with moderation about the forum’s original intent versus (y)/our vision is enlightening. It seems there’s a genuine interest in making P4P a powerful tool for democracy, which is heartening.

But, there’s a real concern about whether our efforts here will lead to tangible change, especially when proposals like the Separation of the Corporatocracy and the State don’t gain the traction they deserve. If these significant ideas don’t see the light of day, it can feel disheartening.

Yet, I believe our commitment to this platform might just be the long game we need to play. Each contribution, even if it doesn’t immediately catch fire, helps in building a community that can eventually push for substantial reform. So even though my exchange with the Convention of the States founder was cynical about a solid grassroots movement to address one of the BIGGEST problems there is in my mind, perhaps the solution-oriented forum here can change that whole paradigm of cynicism negating any drive in the visionaries to accomplish anything because their ideas are non-starters.

Here’s to hoping that our inspiration doesn’t fade; that through education, better formatting, and strategic visibility, we can make a real difference. Let’s keep the conversation going and keep refining the platform so it truly becomes what we envision - a direct line from the people to the policy-makers.

2 Likes
20

It sounded like the AI, and bot systems were on the way. Some things just take time. Their mindset also seemed to be, that more human invlovement from moderation would be more beneficial than a purely tech approach.

I was astounded that I was actually connected with the P4P team about our concern with the delevopment, longevity, and use of the forum for the betterment of society.

From what I understood, the moderation wants to see proposals go through discussion and collaboration to develop from an observation to a detailed contribution.

They’d like to orchestrate a roadmap for proposals in order for them to properly be presented to legislature in a less-than-broad manner. They see the use of a secondary level of voting, initiated by the first, as a way for us to refine the most supported proposals into something tangible-or to strike down vague proposals that will will do more harm than good as vague policy when gaining such traction. This will allow for a living forum rather than a stagnant message board.

I also mentioned that our limitation of votes forces us to prioritize the policies we support the most, and that encourages us to only vote on our own posts or things we as individuals value most. A secondary level of voting would allow the forum to put the system of priority voting to proper use. Once issues that are deemed massively important by the majority (Single Issue Bills, Term Limits, Tax Changes, etc.) pass though the advancement system, it will allow other proposals, like your own, a chance at the lime light.

Again, I hope I’ve done justice to the content of this discussion.

1 Like
21

Kudos to you @EthanHowardMfrr for making contact. Did you get a sense of how many mods there are on the leadership team, and whether they’re looking for any help? And, can I ask who it was that you contacted?

Well said @Nicole_C_Scott. This is the line that describes the question foremost in my mind, “But, there’s a real concern about whether our efforts here will lead to tangible change…”.

Perhaps I’m just being impatient, or unimaginative, but I’m not yet seeing the connection between P4P and our legislators in Congress. I think it’s unrealistic, or idealistic, to count on them coming to this platform for policy ideas. My guess is that very few, if any, representatives even know about P4P. Short of that…are we going to collectively hire a lobbyist to take our best proposals to them? Hmm…

I think we need to build a movement that has some depth with a more united and exacting focus. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s awesome that so many people have come together here to express their priorities and concern, but our system of governance is currently so incredibly misaligned and disfunctional, I don’t think it’s even remotely possible for a disparate group like P4P to have any influence whatsoever, particularly in its present state of disorganization.

I think we need a leadership team that can guide this effort into an empowered organism of creative evolution. We need to reimagine, and then to rebuild our Civil Society.

In my mind, we can no longer rely on our current representatives. They (pretty much all of them) have sold their souls to the MIC, Big Pharma, the Lobby, the WEF…or worse. Somehow we need to self-organize something outside the box.

Whether that’s at all possible, on this platform, is the preponderant question for me right now. There’s a huge base of energized citizenry here (which is pretty fucking amazing, in and of itself)…but I’m afraid the current enthusiasm will languish and eventually fade away if something doesn’t pull it together into a successful formula for real empowerment and significant, meaningful change. Thoughts?

2 Likes