Predicting most people will be unhappy is simple math. Polls show a very tight race between Romney and Obama. If the country were perfectly divided then half the people would be unhappy with the decision. Since there is a substantial amount of people who want someone other than those two that means the majority of people will be unhappy with the result of the election.
What is the cure? More alternatives! No, not more candidates. Electing any one person causes a win lose situation. That will always result in someone being upset and quite often the majority will be unhappy with the result. The cure is more alternatives than electing a president.
Amazingly there are 1,296 alternatives related to any choice. I suspect you never realized those 1,296 alternatives even existed.
The 1,296 alternatives aren’t political parties or even candidates. No matter who is selected for president it’s the same type of choice. It’s a choice for someone else to make your decisions.
To make matters worse, you don’t even get to choose who chooses for you.
Let that sink in a bit. Every decision at the federal level and most decisions at the state and even local level are made by someone other than you. Not only are those choices made by someone other than you, it’s someone who doesn’t even personally know you. How in the world do you think they’ll choose what you want?
The cure is simple, choose a different set of the 1,296 alternatives. So, what are these 1,296 alternatives?
For any decision there is who makes the decision and the actual decision itself. Each of those can be further broken down into categories of 6 Directions and 6 Scales. The 6 Directions and 6 Scales form a grid of 36 Alternatives. The combination of 36 Who Decides and 36 Decisions forms a total of 1,296 Alternatives.
Lets examine Who decides to get a better understanding of the Alternatives.
6 Scales for Who Decides:
- Single 1: One person or type of person decides. Example: individual decision.
- Partial %: Some people decide. Example: Voting where a % makes the decision.
- Multiple M: More than one person required to make a decision. Example: Having a baby requires two people.
- Any ∞: Anyone can decide. Example: Freedom, choices over your own property.
- All ∑: Everyone required to decide. Example: Criminal jury trial, all 12 members must agree to convict.
- None 0: No one decides. Example: Left to chance. Decision is prohibited.
6 Directions for Who Decides
- Direct +: The person or people directly involved in doing or benefiting from the action make the decision. Examples: personal choice, buying something for cash.
- Opposite -: Decided by a person or persons who oppose the action or who will be harmed by the action. Example: veto.
- Other ≠: Someone other than the person it affects. Example: government official.
- Same =: Person stays the same or person is neutral. Examples: Life time appointment. Judge.
- Stabilize →: Starts as a different alternative before stabilizing: Example: tie breaker.
- Changing ~: Person who decides changes. Example: taking turns deciding.
President is a Single Other Alternative. Other examples of Single Other are: parent, boss, or criminal such as a mugger or rapist.
Nearly all elections in the USA are Partial Other. Either through the party system, or ballot access rules someone else has filtered your available choices.
Supposedly everyone is allowed to vote but people under 18 are not allowed and in many states prisoners are banned from voting. Also people without a fixed address or who split their time between places are only allowed to vote in elections in one place. That means they are prohibited from voting on issues or officials who affect their lives.
So all elections in the USA are Partial Other. That means only 2 of the 36 Alternatives for Who Decides are even offered as choices. That is less than 6% of the Alternatives for Who Decides.
Who Decides isn’t even the most important choice. What you really care about is the actual decision. Again there are 36 Alternatives for the Decision.
6 Scales for Decision
- Single 1: Single decision. Decide once.
- Partial %: Partial decision. Sometimes decide.
- Multiple M: Decide on many things. Decide many times. Multiple alternatives to arrive at decision.
- Any ∞: Any option is possible. Decide anytime.
- All ∑: All options without compromise. Everything you want. Always decide, not left to chance. Continuously. Continuously decide, moment to moment.
- None 0: Never decide, leave up to chance. Decide to never do it.
6 Directions for Decision
- Direct +: Decide for action. Decision directly connected to the action.
- Opposite -: Decide against action. Decide for opposing action. Decision causes opposite action.
- Other ≠: Decide another choice. Action caused by a different decision.
- Same =: Don’t change existing. Neutral choice. Same choice.
- Stabilize →: Decision stabilizes. Becomes decision. Starts undecided or as a different decision then becomes the final decision.
- Changes ~: Decision changes. Effect of the decision changes.
Decisions made by government almost always are Single Direct decisions causing You to Pay More Taxes or Single Opposite denying your right to do something. The decisions are single because most laws are never repealed.. So again only 2 of the 36 Alternatives. Combined with Who decides only 0.3% of the Alternatives are ever offered. No wonder so many people complain about government.
Out of 1,296 possible Alternatives 99.7% are ignored.
The 1,296 Alternatives don’t only apply to politics, these are the Alternatives for any decision. This forms the basis of business strategy. The goal of innovation is to satisfy unmet desires. Understanding all of the decisions potential customers can make gives you a significant advantage.
I’ve prepared a report describing all 36 Alternatives of Who Decides and all 36 Alternatives for Decisions. Get a copy of the report.
Two years ago in “Why We Don’t Have Flying Cars, Yet” I explained why automation is the next big innovation for vehicles, not alternative energy.
Standford is offering a 7 week undergraduate class teaching how to program a self-driving car. Automation improves the under-satisfied outcome of cars but it is also technologically easier to make than low-cost long range batteries for an electric car.
The Predictive Innovation report the video was based on was first offered to GM but they turned it down. European and Asian car companies used the information and are now selling cars with automated driving features.
Volvo’s XC60 has a City Safety feature that automatically brakes to prevent crashes. It’s a pure gasoline car with lots of room and power. It is priced about the same as the Chevy Volt, although doesn’t receive any of the government incentives.
|2011 US Car Sales|
The Volvo XC60 with City Safe automatic braking sold 68% more cars in the USA than Chevy Volt. So not only was it easier to build, and thus more profitable, it sold more units. The automated car is more desirable to customers. One of the key points of the report was to offer incremental improvements with meaningful value to customers. That made sure the new features were high quality and low cost.
In addition to satisfying safety, automated cars are better for the environment than an electric car. Electric cars just shift the source of pollution from burning gasoline in the car to burning coal at a power plant. Automated cars use less energy.
First, replacing or repairing a car damaged in an accident uses more energy than the car ever will from driving it. And how can you count the cost of injuries and deaths?
Secondly, by reducing traffic congestion automated cars can save energy for all the cars on the road while reducing drive times and frustration.
Automation in vehicles is still a big innovation opportunity.
If there were anyone out there to whom you would not want to send a random takedown notice for an online video, it would probably be Larry Lessig. Given that Lessig has become the public face for those who feel that copyright has been stretched too far, as well as being a founder of Stanford’s Fair Use Project, and who’s written multiple books on these issues, you would think (just maybe) that any copyright holder would at least think twice before sending a DMCA takedown on a Larry Lessig presentation.
If you watch the video it is clearly within the legal limits of Fair Use. Each clip is less than 10 seconds and is used as a quote. Aside from stupidity of Warner Brother activating the The Streisand Effect causing this to go viral, by trying to ban the video they are proving the point the video makes. DMCA is insane!
Lessig makes it clear that the concept of copyrights needs to change. Copyrights are a government granted monopoly. They do not protect artists, and never really have. The big businesses use this government granted monopoly to secure their failing business models while the government wages war on individuals. The same problems that occur in other wars such as innocent victims, wasted money, and corruption occur with the war on sharing. Even though Obama claimed he would protect peoples freedom he lied and appointed an RIAA lawyer to the 2nd most powerful post in the Justice Department.
The problem faced with copyrights stems from the idea of scarcity. Rather than innovate and better serve customers, big business gets the government to use force to protect their monopoly. This is happening with Big Banks, Big Pharma, and Government schools. Any place there is a government granted and enforced monopoly the quality goes down, the cost goes up and innocent people get hurt while a war is waged to protect the profits of the entrenched power group.
There are at least 4 types of business models with countless varieties of each. Two of the types actually benefit from sharing. So this war on sharing is only holding back the bright future that is possible. It won’t stop sharing, it will only drive it underground. Look at how well that approached worked on everything else.