Showing posts with label Unity08. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unity08. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Unity08's website now live
Looks good so far. I'm already working on building my political capital, particularly through the forums. I may even end up helping run the California group....
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Unity '08 getting its game on with new website
Or hopefully they will soon. If they really pull this off, I'll probably retire this blog in order to build "Political Capital" on a new Centroids group blog on their forums...
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Rank the Candidates & the Issues
The second version of the survey -- well worth taking.
We've invited you to take and publish this study because we've seen that your site actively discusses politics and the state of the nation. It is crucial for us to include as many American citizens as we can so that we can truly start discussing the "crucial" issues facing the country and how to resolve them... before it is too late.
Friday, June 22, 2007
CSM on 'post-partisan' Unity
The Christian Science Monitor follows Time Magazine in focusing on Arnold-Bloomberg centrism, but goes one step further by talking to Unity08:
The New York mayor and the California governor are hammering a note that resonates with the public. Seventy-five percent like leaders who are willing to compromise, and 60 percent like leaders whose positions are a mix of liberal and conservative, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in Washington.
"The analysis [of Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger] is exactly correct," says Doug Bailey, cofounder of Unity08, a group that wants to nominate a bipartisan "unity ticket" for the 2008 presidential election, using a first-ever online convention. "The people know the system is broken at a time when there are more crucial issues in front of the government than at any point in our lifetimes. Yet they know the two parties can't sit down and talk in any effective way."
Labels:
Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Bloomberg,
centrism,
non-partisan,
post-partisan,
time,
Unity08
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
A Product Manager's Proposal for the Unity08 Process
As a Product Manager in Silicon Valley, the three questions I ask about any problem are:
For Unity08's nomination process, I believe the goal is to:
To me, the key word is "engage." If the Unity08 experiment is to succeed, we need to find a scalable way to actively engage a diverse pool of delegates in the hard work of interviewing and analyzing potential candidates; otherwise, it will become a mere popularity contest.
So, how does effectively enfranchise a large (and constantly increasing) community composed of diverse -- even contradictory -- viewpoints?
We do it the way nature does it: through "spontaneous self-organization." In political terms, we enable the easy formation -- and self-policing -- of innumerable "caucuses." The goal is to create little "micro-communities" with their own governance and agenda, so that individuals who share a similar mindset can work to refine that into specific questions, positions, and policies. This gives new joiners an easy way to find a "home" in the vast see of Unity08 delegates, which in turn rewards those communities that are both welcoming and clear in their communication.
Having established these caucuses, we would then leverage them to nominate *questions* for the various candidates. This would need to be an iterative process, as we would want questions to be refined, merged, and split in order to best reflect the mood of the population as a whole. Once we've obtained a mostly-orthogonal set of questions, there would then be an internal poll (perhaps using Approval Voting) to pick a reasonable set that all candidates must address.
Here's where it gets interesting. In addition to written answers, I would encourage candidates to submit video responses of arbitrary length -- and not just to the mandatory questions, but any other questions they felt were important to them (or the caucuses). These would then be available on, e.g., YouTube, or even CSPAN.
And if the candidates were brave enough to grant appropriate rights, I would want to give Unity08 delegates permission to *remix* those videos into condensed position summaries -- though those remixes would need to be clearly labeled as such, follow certain guidelines, and only be available to registered delegates (unless approved by the original speaker). This would give the uber-wonks the opportunity to streamline and customize their candidate's message for those who lack the patience to listen to the whole thing, without necessarily reducing everything to sound bites. Importantly, any such remixes would need to include links back to the original source material, as well as to any rebuttals the original author chose to make.
The goal, ultimately, is to create the tools for a sustained, passionate, yet civil dialogue around all these matters, by using modern technology to involve ordinary Americans in the process.
The final way to engage voters is to adopt a "March Madness" approach to voting, where the field is progressively winnowed down to 16 candidates, then 8, then 4, 2, and finally 1. This allows excitement to build (a la American Idol), and encourages delegates to learn more and more about fewer and fewer top contenders. This should also mesh well with the ongoing influx of new delegates. Each voting period should be multiple days (including a weekend), to maximize opportunities to participate.
The best mechanism for this (IMHO) is what I call Approval Runoff Voting, where at each "tier" voters can select as many candidates are there are "seats" available in the next round. For a given tier, this is the exact same process used for electing County Commissioners in most states, so it shouldn't be that unfamiliar; plus, individuals who don't care about the complexity can simply select their single favorite. However, unlike Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV), we have a better chance of a weaker "consensus" candidate surviving the initial rounds. Plus, the desire to attract multiple votes should discourage unsportsmanlike sniping among the candidates.
I believe that this approach has the best chance of providing a positive user experience for all Unity08 delegates, by maximizing their opportunities to be heard while minimizing the risk of negative interactions. In addition, I believe it would be relatively straightforward to implement this with fairly minor modifications to existing tools.
-- Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D.
- What do we want the customer to experience?
- What technical innovation is necessary to achieve that?
- What are the opposing systemic forces that need to be overcome?
For Unity08's nomination process, I believe the goal is to:
Engage a broad spectrum of American citizens
in selecting an optimal, bipartisan Presidential ticket.
through effective presentation of all relevant data
To me, the key word is "engage." If the Unity08 experiment is to succeed, we need to find a scalable way to actively engage a diverse pool of delegates in the hard work of interviewing and analyzing potential candidates; otherwise, it will become a mere popularity contest.
So, how does effectively enfranchise a large (and constantly increasing) community composed of diverse -- even contradictory -- viewpoints?
A. Self-Organizing Caucuses
We do it the way nature does it: through "spontaneous self-organization." In political terms, we enable the easy formation -- and self-policing -- of innumerable "caucuses." The goal is to create little "micro-communities" with their own governance and agenda, so that individuals who share a similar mindset can work to refine that into specific questions, positions, and policies. This gives new joiners an easy way to find a "home" in the vast see of Unity08 delegates, which in turn rewards those communities that are both welcoming and clear in their communication.
B. Nominated Questions
Having established these caucuses, we would then leverage them to nominate *questions* for the various candidates. This would need to be an iterative process, as we would want questions to be refined, merged, and split in order to best reflect the mood of the population as a whole. Once we've obtained a mostly-orthogonal set of questions, there would then be an internal poll (perhaps using Approval Voting) to pick a reasonable set that all candidates must address.
C. Remixable Answers
Here's where it gets interesting. In addition to written answers, I would encourage candidates to submit video responses of arbitrary length -- and not just to the mandatory questions, but any other questions they felt were important to them (or the caucuses). These would then be available on, e.g., YouTube, or even CSPAN.
And if the candidates were brave enough to grant appropriate rights, I would want to give Unity08 delegates permission to *remix* those videos into condensed position summaries -- though those remixes would need to be clearly labeled as such, follow certain guidelines, and only be available to registered delegates (unless approved by the original speaker). This would give the uber-wonks the opportunity to streamline and customize their candidate's message for those who lack the patience to listen to the whole thing, without necessarily reducing everything to sound bites. Importantly, any such remixes would need to include links back to the original source material, as well as to any rebuttals the original author chose to make.
The goal, ultimately, is to create the tools for a sustained, passionate, yet civil dialogue around all these matters, by using modern technology to involve ordinary Americans in the process.
D. Approval Runoff Voting
The final way to engage voters is to adopt a "March Madness" approach to voting, where the field is progressively winnowed down to 16 candidates, then 8, then 4, 2, and finally 1. This allows excitement to build (a la American Idol), and encourages delegates to learn more and more about fewer and fewer top contenders. This should also mesh well with the ongoing influx of new delegates. Each voting period should be multiple days (including a weekend), to maximize opportunities to participate.
The best mechanism for this (IMHO) is what I call Approval Runoff Voting, where at each "tier" voters can select as many candidates are there are "seats" available in the next round. For a given tier, this is the exact same process used for electing County Commissioners in most states, so it shouldn't be that unfamiliar; plus, individuals who don't care about the complexity can simply select their single favorite. However, unlike Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV), we have a better chance of a weaker "consensus" candidate surviving the initial rounds. Plus, the desire to attract multiple votes should discourage unsportsmanlike sniping among the candidates.
I believe that this approach has the best chance of providing a positive user experience for all Unity08 delegates, by maximizing their opportunities to be heard while minimizing the risk of negative interactions. In addition, I believe it would be relatively straightforward to implement this with fairly minor modifications to existing tools.
-- Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D.
Labels:
approval runoff voting,
caucuses,
communities,
Unity08
Friday, March 30, 2007
Support Preferential Voting!
If you're a Unity08 delegate, I urge you to add your support to the request for Preferential Voting in both Nominations and the Virtual Convention. This is our best chance to reverse the centuries-old discrimination against moderate candidates imposed by winner-take-all voting (as practiced today). We need your vote now, to avoid wasting it later.
Unity08 Rules!
It is great to see Unity08 has finally posted their draft rules, and opened them up for public comment. Key items of note:
All pretty reasonable. However, I was very disappointed by:
Why? With potentially dozens of Potential Candidates, the gamesmanship for voting (do I vote for my favorite, or my second-favorite if they've got a better chance?) is going to be insane. We need some form of ranked-choice voting, or at least Approval Voting, to make sense of it all.
Unity08 encourages the “drafting” of candidates
Prospective Candidates may qualify as Candidates for the Unity08 Presidential Nomination by having, in each of ten different states, 2,500 registered voters in each of those states (a total of 25,000 registered voters) electronically sign up on the Unity08 website to support the Prospective Candidate AND by having, in each of five different states, 500 registered voters in each of those states (a total of 2,500 registered voters) sign a “hard copy” petition to support the Prospective Candidate.
All pretty reasonable. However, I was very disappointed by:
Each Delegate will have one vote to cast electronically for the Candidate of his or her choice.
Why? With potentially dozens of Potential Candidates, the gamesmanship for voting (do I vote for my favorite, or my second-favorite if they've got a better chance?) is going to be insane. We need some form of ranked-choice voting, or at least Approval Voting, to make sense of it all.
Friday, February 02, 2007
CNN covers Unity08, but who cares?
Congratulations to Unity08 for being included in CNN's coverage of the 2008 Presidential Race. It is great to see them raising the bipartisan option, but the sampling of responses highlight both the promise and perils of being middle-of-the-road. Obviously, pure partisans aren't interested, but neither are those who have lost faith in both parties, as well as the process. The challenge is to attract people who are, as the saying goes, "disillusioned but not disenchanted" -- frustrated, but not yet cynical. Not easy, but Unity08 is run by some pretty media-savvy folks, so they may well be able to pull it off...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
