Update on My Life and COP21@ASU Info

A Return to Form

I haven't posted for about a year and a half; absurd credit hours has made it far easier to focus on learning rather than producing. That said, I've been doing a great deal of work in the sustainability community, moving from working with Arizona State University's Sustainability College Council as an Event Planning Officer to the Honors Society of Sustainability,
the countries' first sustainability honors organization, in the same position a little less than a year later.

Said work has led to the societies' biggest event yet, a week-long event from November 30th to December 4th at Arizona State University to coincide with the COP21 Climate Summit occurring in Paris during the same period. We'll have about 10 events over the space of five days, varying from lectures to discussions and ending with a gala and movie night. I mention this because I've received some hits from Arizona; the entire community is invited to these events, regardless of their affiliation to the school. If you're interested in any aspect of sustainability, this is probably for you.

For more information and to rsvp, check out our site. I'm going to try and get back into blogging over Winter break (fingers crossed), so also keep an eye on this site in the coming weeks for new unique content.

Thoughts on sustainability and debate

Debate and Sustainability

      The idea that debate is good for students is not new. Innumerable researchers and news outlets have noted the beneficial effects that speech and debate skills have on youth, citing improvements public speaking abilities, research skills, and confidence. The term "critical thinking" is also thrown around a great deal as a substitute for specifically citing more quantitative improvement, but admittedly that's probably for the better; this is usually interpreted, when explained at all, as improvements in test scores, writing, analytical skills, and college admission rates. While not necessarily bad standards to measure debate by, they all seem very individual-centered; few seem to recognize that the skills gleaned from speech and debate do better things than simply help a student earn admittance to an Ivy League school or a place at a Fortune 500 company. Rather, debate skills will help save the world. 

      Sustainability has three categories for the principles that govern people's behavior. These are beliefs, norms, and values, three concepts closely related but distinctly separated from each other. 

     Values are personal principles that define what is important and what actions a person should take. They cannot really be "wrong" as each person thinks different things matter in varying degrees.

     Norms are shared senses of moral obligation that a group shares that guide their actions. These can be more abstract ideas of right or wrong and govern the behavior of communities, states, and nations.

     Beliefs are a person's accepted ideas about what is true or valid that determine their worldview and
opinions. These can be incorrect and are shaped by one's knowledge. If sustainable advocates are trying to change the behaviors of societies at a large scale, they start by attempting to change skewed and incorrect beliefs rather than anything else. 

      In essence, everyone has an opinion about the world that is shaped by these three characteristics, and each can cause major problems for progress. Sustainability might push for a mass adoption of solar panels, a reduction of United States discretionary spending, an increase in watchdog groups, or a permit system for coastal fishing, but all of those things could seriously conflict with the priorities or ingrained principles tht guide people's decisions. Each person has thoughts and ideals pressed upon them by their surroundings ; even when they reject those, their viewpoint is still skewed, albeit in the opposite direction.

      Efforts to slow climate change have been resisted for a number of reasons; one might say that a value of many people is not looking to the future when making decisions. This is the problem that sustainability fundamentally has; no matter how important an act may be to the future of the human race, some will likely be opposed to doing it. At a communal level, this can tank an entire operation that potentially was the only hope of survival for the area.

      So the real question is how we get people to change their opinions and be more receptive to unconventional thought. Considering that I spoke briefly on the benefits of debate, I think most people will realize that I see it as a solution to the question of solving the problems sustainability activists have. The easy answer that many might consider is that the world needs more people to argue for sustainable activism, one not wrong but also not necessarily ideal. High quality arguers tend to gravitate towards top-tier jobs, having the abilities and confidence to pursue whatever they like. Sustainable activism is not normally something they "like." But those who do join can't necessarily solve the problem either; emotions and feelings can do a great deal to prevent people from changing their mindsets, regardless of how clear the facts are.

      The answer is not located in immediately changing what people think, but rather in how they do so. If each person has a bias that could tank sustainability efforts, it makes sense to not address each individual but rather change the group as a whole. Debate does just that if done en masse. I mentioned critical thinking skills and want to elaborate upon them as debate radically alters how a person approaches thought. One might enter a debate career with certain bias and prejudices ingrained within them, but when forced to defend the contrary view and argue for positions radically opposed to their ideology, they are forced to question the veracity of their beliefs. One aligned with liberty may be forced to argue for the importance of the NSA, while another who identifies more conservatively may give a speech that supports some facets of liberal economic policy. That's not to say that the speeches they give are "correct" or that their original views are "wrong." Rather, they are forced to see that every position has some inherent truth to it, if only a truth motivated by a worldview that may be wrong or irrelevant in the wider picture. What this ideally leads to is a worldview instilled within them that questions every argument that they encounter. This doesn't mean a worldview where they believe nothing, but one in which everything they do believe is supported in their eyes rather than being a mere sentiment. The beliefs they have will be justified and everything else will be questionable, leaving them open to new ideas and approaches to saving the planet. This is why debate is important in relation to sustainability; it instills a worldview that few have that simplifies the entire progress process.

      To truly have choice, one must know what options are available, and debate helps open people's eyes to the unfettered diversity of thought that fills our world. The people more willing to question their surroundings will be the most effective in shaping our world. It certainly is possible that some sustainable efforts may be misguided or ineffective; smart individuals who question will notice this and help refine the decisions that policymakers and advocates examine and promote.

      Debate has a wide number of positive effects that most definitely benefit the individual. Simultaneously though, some of the richest effects it might produce in the coming years will be neatly centered on improvements to the world as a whole.

Citations

Marlow, W. Stage Fright. Flickr.com. 7 Jun, 2012. Photo. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/williammarlow/7350412202

Munroe, R. Wright Brothers. xkcd.com. 24 May, 2006. Photo. Retrieved from http://xkcd.com/106/

Talbot, B. Speech is Silver. Flickr.com. 6 Sep, 2006. Photo. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/b-tal/236503622

UNconventional; Altering the Course of US Tactics

UNconventional

''It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.''  Eleanor Roosevelt

       It isn't hard for the world to recognize a diminishing US global presence, one that no longer controls and has a decreasing role in the economic, military, or cultural future of the world. Foreign Policy wrote a somewhat comprehensive piece on the issue, noting not only the data that supports such a view but also the percentage of people who believe it; nearly 60 percent of America consider US power waning. That may not be a bad thing; the US has dominated all three of the above categories for the past half century or more, meaning that it could certainly be time for replacements in the global order. But I don't think it necessarily needs to be that way, and based upon current political discourse on both sides of the spectrum, neither party thinks that diminishing US presence is a good idea. President Obama himself declared that it is not a question of "whether America will lead, but how we will lead," a positive tone in any otherwise bleak political climate. While accepting the inevitable is often prudent, it does not appear that the US wishes to do so. But with rising debt, decreases in planned military spending, and a great deal of animosity from abroad that is rooted heavily in how they conduct our foreign policy, it might be pragmatic to plan based around the thought that the US will soon lose control. But this is not a defeatist post; it is one that aims to solve the US's problem.

      The business world has a word for radical changes to a company that completely alter the focus, aim, and possibly even products or services offered by them. That word is pivot, a realization that their current model of business is antiquated or no longer commercially viable. If one treats states as corporations that are each trying to gain control in a chaotic world, the analogy serves it's purpose. The United States is losing options for how to continually maintain global power, and thus needs to radically alter how it approaches International Relations. While there may be many ways they can change their approach, my answer is limited to one; it desperately needs to engage the world as an arbiter of peace by dramatically altering it's current dealings with the United Nations.
   
      Susan Rice, the current National Security Advisor, commented in 2011 that

"There is no better alternative to sharing the costs and burdens of UN peace operations and humanitarian missions around the world. There is no doubt that we are more secure when the UN can foster nonproliferation and promote disarmament. It is we, along with others, who gain when the UN spurs sustainable development and democracy, improves global health, upholds women's rights, and broadens access to education."

      As if to agree with her, the United States contributed 22% of the United Nations' budget in 2013. In comparison, Japan, the next highest contributor, gave only 10% (Fifth committee). The United States was one of the founding members, and still is one of the five exclusive members of the Security Council. It's borders hold the official UN headquarters and it's National Security Strategy in 2010 included expansion of UN connections and support (White House). But the UN has always had somewhat of a cold shoulder from the US, a strange thing considering how invested the nation seems in its success. 

       For better or worse, the UN is a tool for uniting the world together (Tharoor). Whether it is the best tool or the most effective is debatable; some even say that it has been counter productive to the security of the world due to an unwillingness among nations to compromise. But that doesn't mean it needs to continue to be ineffective; if it had a strong leader interested in uniting together the diverse interests of nations, it might be able to do some significant good. That leader could be the United States, a country that needs a replacement function for its former militarism and economic prowess. But the United States has been negligent of trying to unify itself with the people of the world; case in point, any of the innumerable international treaties that the country has failed to ratify and sign. By last count, that was at least 37 (Vote.org), with many of them being one of the few holdouts among 193 possible parties who could sign. Some of these, like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, are unsigned by only the United States, South Sudan and Somalia, one of which didn't exist five years ago and the other which hasn't had a national government until about two years ago (Global Policy Forum). In whatever case, both have announced plans to sign the treaty, while the United States has remained silent.

      What does this say about the US? Ultimately, it shows that it loves sticking to the unilateralism that has dominated its foreign policy for the past half century. It shows that America prioritizes nationalism over globalization or that the political process of the country is disorganized and politically ineffective. It shows that attempts at cosmopolitanism are disdained and ridiculed at a national level. Admittedly there are reasons for refusing to sign some of these treaties; many of them relate to concerns over political sovereignty in a world dominated by groups above governments. In the case of the Rights of the Child convention, concerns about the right of the parent being abridged have prevented ratification. But these arguments ignore both that many of these treaties still allow plenty of national sovereignty (which is why so many nations have signed), and that the United States always signs with the intent of prioritizing domestic law over international standards. More importantly, the fact remains that the United States refuses to sign treaties that are completely in line with their current foreign policy standards. The Mine Ban treaty remains unsigned while the United States is one of the largest financial supporters of mine destruction each year, and the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is in compliance with all current United States laws (Human Rights Watch). But the country still ignores that they could very easily win goodwill and greater control of one of the most powerful institutions on the planet because of misplaced priorities and illogical fears. 

"There is no longer a clear, bright line dividing America's domestic concerns and America's foreign policy concerns...If we want America to stay on the right track, if we want other people to be on that track and have the chance to enjoy peace and prosperity, we have no choice but to try to lead the train." President Bill Clinton

      The next step is thus simple; the United States should move immediately towards signing and ratifying every convention currently in line with their own laws. This can only do good and lower the relative unease surrounding their current foreign policy tactics. Second, the country should seriously reconsider its position on treaties that just barely are incompatible, and remember that international standards are by no means restrictive. Third, since many of the conventions are too far removed from the current political climates beliefs and practices, the United States should shelve them and move forward by proposing norms that fit their practices or intended laws. Treaties that deal with education standards, environmental regulation, or immigration practices would be ideal and appeal to conservatives and liberals alike; the liberals would get their policies passed while the conservatives could make sure that the financial costs of such a decision would be felt by both this country and many others. The United Nations would benefit from having more US involvement; this would actually be ideal because it would force them to comply more heavily with multilateral standards. Finally, the world would benefit if every government started moving towards greater norms on the whole; things like rights to water and life could make way for greater equality pushes and human rights guarantees. 

      Will it happen soon? Probably not, but at least the possibility remains that United States prominence can continue while globalization increases. Yes, this is an unlikely scenario, but at least it's an optimistic one that takes into account the current geopolitical realities of this nation. Maybe I'm wrong and this is too simplified of an overview to actually mean anything. If that's the case, point out my post's flaws in a comment below and join the discussion.

Citations

Colby E., and Lettow, P. Have We Hit Peak America? Foreign Policy. 3 Jul, 2014. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/have_we_hit_peak_america

Fifth Committee. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 24 December 2012. United Nations' General Assembly. 24 Dec, 2012. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/238

Franklin, B. 'Join or Die' cartoon. Pennsylvania Gazette. 9 May, 1754. Photo. Retrieved from http://www.stevenlberg.info/today/tag/cartoons

Global Policy Forum. US Position on International Treaties. Jul, 2003. Digital. Retrieved from https://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/26665-us-position-on-international-treaties.html

Human Rights Watch, United States Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties, 24 Jul, 2009. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/07/24/united-states-ratification-international-human-rights-treaties#_Mine_Ban_Treaty

O'Neill, S. The U.N. Flickr.com. 8 Nov, 2008. Photo. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/sean_oneill/3030297665

San, A. United Nations. Flickr.com. 14 Aug, 2006. Photo. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/mononoke/225965762

Tharoor, S. Why America Still Needs The United Nations. Foreign Affairs. Sep/Oct, 2003. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59184/shashi-tharoor/why-america-still-needs-the-united-nations

United Nations Photo. United Nations Headquarters. Flickr.com. 9 Mar, 1987. Photo. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/un_photo/3311540329

Watterson, B. Calvin and Hobbes War Sunday Strip. Calvin and Hobbes. Photo. Retrieved from http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/calvin-and-hobbes-play-war-and-peace.jpg

White House. National Security Strategy. Executive Branch of the United States Federal Government. May, 2010. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf

8 Solutions to a 2 Party System

Intro

"...Let me now...warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party...The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism...Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind...the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration..."-George Washington

      The American political system has not remained endearing to the public in recent years, with Democratic and Republican hostilities on the federal level jeopardizing previous political alliances, crushing attempts at bipartisanship, and perpetuating ineffectiveness. I'm sure both sides can make the argument that they are not the ones at fault, and frankly that's not the point of my discussion; rather, I want to discuss the current system of choices that allows abuses of power and hinders political efficacy. I'm not saying that the entire system is flawed and will be the first to defend it as a historically viable means of constitutional governance. However, in an era where only 26% of Americans believe Democrats and Republicans are doing an adequate job (Gallup), it perhaps is time to reconsider why we continue to use antiquated models of governance and question if there are any ways to improve upon the current model where essentially only 2 parties vie for power.

      I'm proposing 8 possible solutions to the current system's failings, in an effort to make it both more effective and sustainable. That's not to say that these are the only solutions nor that these could not be combined in some way for greater efficacy; they have been picked for relative diversity of novelty and feasibility. Many might require some form of a constitutional convention to fully implement, but I'm not concerned. I would rather have a solution to a problem that's difficult to implement than no solution at all. 

      This is meant to be a bipartisan discussion, and no blame will be placed on either political party. Shows like The Wire or The West Wing maintain that politics is mostly filled with good people who are forced to make compromises to push their agendas, and while I won't deny that some element of corruption plagues the system, I think this is an important view. If the system itself is broken, I don't think expectations of members' honesty are pragmatic; pushing for system change thus is ultimately the first step to changing the people within it. If that isn't your view, I'd still encourage you to keep reading; education does nothing but better the world. With that in mind, I'd like to get to the topic at hand; 8 ways to change the flaws of the two-party system.

Decentralization

       I've already discussed decentralization at length, so this will be little more than a summary of my conclusions. Decentralization is the idea that governments should push as many functions as possible to the state or district scale, freeing up the national government for larger priorities and letting local communities have more input in the decisions that affect them. By allowing the federal level to focus on only the most important of issues, decentralization could allow effective and layered debate and compromise within Congress and the Senate, relieving gridlock and getting more done. 

      That said, many of the more important issues, like military spending, are incredibly partisan; there are relatively few things that both Republicans and Democrats can agree upon. It isn't even a matter of compromise in certain areas like the system allegedly encourages; it's a matter of each party wanting to undermine the other at really any cost. Differences in belief no longer are an aspect of discourse; they seem to be the only thing that drives it. Decentralization would work if the government could be trusted to solve critical issues, but modern-day precedent does not lead one to assume that would be the case. 

Forced Compromise

   
      Part of the problem with modern politics is that there are really no repercussions for inaction. It's fairly easy for a party to stall voting and encumber the political process because they'll still be paid. The 27th amendment prohibits representatives from altering their pay during their own terms, but the 114th Congress onward could certainly be held accountable if changes were made now. What type of changes? Pay cuts for inaction and failures to compromise would be somewhat beneficial, forcing parties to work past their ideologies to find answers best for the American people. Money lost due to government shutdowns could be taken from the parties themselves, draining resources not from the American people but from the supporters of those that would allow discourse failures. If people found that donations to their parties were used to finance excesses rather than advance their political beliefs, change would come very quickly.

      However, pay cuts could potentially turn Congress into a poorer representation of America, with only the rich running for public office because they could afford losing their pay for long intervals. Democracy would be only de-legitimatized by this move unless there was some way of ensuring proper representation even with restrictions.

Citizen Censure

      
      If the issue with a two party system is an inability to compromise, citizen censure of policies might be a solution. The use of technology to enhance citizen's involvement in democracy is not a new proposal, but certainly one with some merit; connecting the people directly to the law gives a near perfect representation of what the country wants. While the security of such a system might need significant work, it could work something like this; a law is passed that citizens disagree with or one is rejected that they like. 
In the most minimal form, this could be represented in the senate or house chambers by a computer screen that displayed citizen's opinions on the issues being debated. In the potentially most extreme, citizens could actively change policies they disagreed with if the numbers voting were high enough. Think whitehouse.gov's petition system but with actual repercussions. Policy changes could similarly be suggested and actually debated if enough votes for it were collected.  

      Unfortunately there are issues with this. Sensitive issues like military decisions would never be discussed by voters for "national security" reasons, meaning that spending in those areas could never be checked. Voter fraud is essentially non-existent currently, but could be increased significantly by the far more lax security of the internet. The government has not been known for the safest nor necessarily best programmed websites (see Obamacare's launch as an example), leaving the opportunity for hacking and illegitimate vote casting (from non-citizens outside of the US). Assuming however that this could be resolved, there's a further issue. If voting for policy changes becomes easier, more citizens may vote, but do so uninformed and somewhat arbitrarily. If a movie star tweets that voting a certain way on a media bill would be good for the country, thousands might flood the voting system without even having a opinion of their own. I won't claim that politicians are better informed than the average citizen, but they at least have experience dealing with government policy and seeing repercussions for their actions. On the other hand, this could be a good thing; if democracy is the "voice of the people," more contributions are better. The actual repercussions for vote casting could encourage substantive discourse on topics of serious importance, informing citizens better and enhancing the quality of representation significantly. Or it could cause a great deal of poor decisions to be made that undermine the strength of the federal level and bankrupt the nation. There's merit to the idea, but definitely kinks to work out.  

Increased Representation

     
      A fairly novel idea that I've heard was proposed by Elliott, who argued that the change in 1911 to a fixed amount of representatives was a terrible idea. Noting that the Constitution wanted 1 representative for every 30,000 people, he points out that the current ratio is 1 to 700,000, a huge change from the founder's intentions. The bigger problem is that the only way one can reach all of their constituents to win over their votes is by joining with one of the two big parties for financial support. Without that, the likelihood of success is fairly low (evidenced by the complete lack of Independent members in the House of Representatives currently). When this happens, partisanship increases, as each member is now loyal to the ideology of their party and depend upon them for re-election support. 

      Elliott's solution is simple; increase the number of representatives so that every 250,000 people have representation, for a total of 1,244 members in the House of Representatives. At a third of the size of the current populace represented per person, deeper communal relationships could be crafted, while attempts for parties to have a hand in every district election would be made quite difficult. Pork barrel spending would likely disappear; convincing 1200 people to build your state a bridge would be much harder than the status quo currently allows. Actual discourse and compromise would increase because those elected would not be beholden to one side or another. 

      That said, the idea is by no means perfect. Laws that "needed" to be passed for government action like debt ceiling increases could now be delayed permanently as numerous factions fight for political gains. Rather than 2 parties fighting in Congress currently, there would be many more, each working for the benefit of their state rather than an ideology. That isn't a good thing; deep ties with one's people would likely incentivize pushing for bills that benefit them at any cost; said representative doesn't want to fail them and citizens might plan to always elect the candidate who can get them the most benefits from their term. Rather than help democracy, this could severely inhibit it's function; serious thought must go towards the efficacy of such a system, especially considering it's novelty.

Elector Elections

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."-Winston Churchill

      Elliott furthers by suggesting changes to the Senate and Presidential elections, noting that the electoral system discourages candidates of one party from campaigning at all in a state historically aligned against them. Moreover, the current system expects that everyone voting has evenly weighed the options presented to them and come up with a choice that they feel is best for America. This isn't necessarily true; most people never know the complete policies and philosophies of all the candidates who appear on the final ballot, knowing little about even the two main candidates besides the misinformation each side used to smear the other. If that's the case, Elliott proposes that we shift to elections of electors.

"I would have the people of each congressional district choose an elector just as they choose a Congressman (though the elector will be necessarily a different person than their currently serving Congressman). Each state legislature would then appoint two more electors. This would reflect the longstanding tradition that the number of electors should equal the total number of senators and representatives combined. Thus, we would have 1344 electors. These electors would then hold their own election for the President of the United States some time later without any interference from the population." -Elliott

      These people would be all able to interact with every candidate running, hearing their beliefs, experience, and plans for the future. A focus on worldviews could occur here that doesn't occur normally; candidates could compare things like economic data and historical precedent to make the point that their beliefs would be best for America. A ballot that ranks each candidate in order would be ideal here, and the candidate with the most votes from electors would be elected to office. Best of all, this wouldn't infringe upon the right to vote; rather than elect officials, citizens elect electors.

      I'm not sure that bribery will necessarily occur, but with a limited number of people to manipulate compared to an entire population (if you're currently trying to commit voter fraud), it would be far more likely in this system. If one had a preferential ballot, it would be very easy to mark someone higher than the rank you might normally give them. But just like the Supreme Court, electors could be required to disclose the reasoning behind their decisions, allowing concerned citizens to keep track of each candidates' strengths. While certainly a novel idea though, I think it ultimately would be kept back by the populace; it's too unique and distinct from the current system for people to take seriously.
     

Direct Vote

      
      The electoral college is a strange compromise, one that makes some degree of sense but perpetuates the two party system. The "winner takes all" method forces voters to vote not for the candidate who best represents them but the one who shares some of their views who can actually win. In practice, this is a choice between Republicans and Democrats, not all available candidates. Replacing our current method of elections with a direct vote would encourage citizens to vote for their genuine beliefs rather than someone they knew had a chance at winning the election. Independent candidates would have a better chance of being represented on a national scale, and greater, more well-rounded discussions could be had about national problems, not just the two viewpoints the dominant parties possessed. 

      The direct vote system isn't necessarily ideal though; rather than concentrate on states historically aligned with their values, both parties would just concentrate efforts on big cities, reasoning that winning over people there would be superior to more rural areas. Rather than solve the problem of state preference, it would create the problem of living arrangement preference, where entire communities would be segregated merely because their population did not justify presidential candidates wasting their time on so few votes. Since most large cities are composed of fairly affluent people by American standards, it would be the poor who live in rural areas who would be most poorly represented. 

Proportional Vote

      
      Some European countries have proportional voting systems that maintain current party lines while encouraging third party involvement. In essence, each parties' percentage of the votes cast in an elections determine how many members they can send to the parliament, allowing them to have representation from all across their country rather than the districts that voted for them. This gives smaller parties a good reason to campaign and encourages citizens to vote; every contribution in an election means something. The American system could greatly benefit from this; each vote would be for a party, which then could decide which of its best representatives would be placed in power. Talent would be valued in this system over mere politicking ability, and all of the normal rights to vote would be maintained.

      Unfortunately, corruption would again play an important role in this system and it would again be quite hard to keep track of political influences. What would be interesting is potential inner-party corruption, with wealthy candidates attempting to leverage influence by pushing donations in exchange for seats. Considering that the European governments have not collapsed inwards on themselves as of the time of writing, I'll assume the systems work to some degree, but more research on safeguards should be done before any changes are seriously considered. 

Third Party Push

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us.Man 1: He's right, this is a two-party system.Man 2: Well I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

     

     Strangely enough, it might benefit the supporters of each parties' ideology to push for the enhancement of a third party. Currently, that would likely be the Libertarian party, one that bridges the gap between the economic sensibilities of conservatism with the social liberties of liberalism. Considering that it also is the biggest party after the two major ones, it only makes sense. Ideological compromises have to be made on the national scale when the only choices are democratic or republican in nature; the Log Cabin Republicans like the economic sensibilities of the GOP and prioritize it over extensions of gay rights that Democratic candidates might provide. That's solved by introducing a socially liberal and economically conservative party like Libertarians, and could be supplemented by a economically and socially conservative party like the Constitution group. It only hurts voters to not vote for candidates that they genuinely want in office; ultimately though, changing their mindsets from voting for someone who can win to someone they feel is best for the country will be quite difficult. Combinations of the other 7 ideas to varying degrees might help alleviate that, but for now the possibility seems fairly low of actual implementation as both parties like the idea of control.

Conclusion

  
      It is easy to criticize parties, which is why many people do it. Whether they deserve it or not, actual solutions to the current problems of the system might be more beneficial, which is why I supplied 8. Decentralization, force compromise, citizen censure, increased representation, elector elections, third party pushes, and both direct and proportional voting systems may seem somewhat utopian, but all have a degree of solvency current unmet in the status quo.
      
      Maybe they'll never be implemented, but they at least can inspire people to work out the individual kinks of self-government, and hopefully inspire them to learn more in order to build the best possible model for the coming future. If you disagree with any of that, feel free to leave a comment; discourse, no matter the medium, is the first step towards change in any government.

Citations

ClintJCL. politics - Clint's Nolan Chart - 20020718 - slightly inaccurate but good. Flickr.com. 31 Mar, 2006. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1pbUZlp

Elliott. The Two-Party System Part 1: Why It Sucks, and Why We're Stuck With It ... For Now. Here's the Deal, Blogspot.com. 5 Jul, 2011. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/V4gGYH and http://bit.ly/1pGpmPV

Fletcher, P. Democracy Pixels Poster. Flickr.com. 29 Aug, 2009. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1kIVrI3

Jones, J. In U.S., Perceived Need for Third Party Reaches New High. Gallup.com. 11 Oct, 2013. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1pD0Nn6

Munroe, R. Two-party system. xkcd.com. Photo. Retrieved from http://xkcd.com/661/

Television Tropes. West Wing Cast Photo. tvtropes.com. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1pbT6Fo

Tracey, R. Selective Democracy. Flickr.com. 7 May, 2011. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1tYr9Ur

Wikipedia. Two-party system diagram. Wikipedia.com. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1kISZRZ

The Case for a Comic Book Netflix

Intro

      The following is an idea that has been sitting with me awhile. Believe it or not, I think it is heavily related to sustainability; I'm answering the question of how the medium of comic books can survive the coming years, as currently publishing practices are fairly unsustainable. My answer? I think that there needs to be a Netflix for comic books. 'But wait,' the more astute of you counter. 'There already is one, so we don't need another.' I'll certainly agree that a site already exists for perusal of certain independent titles, but the whole form needs to go much farther, with both Marvel and DC bringing a majority if not the entirety of their past titles to an accessible digital form. The market that they've created is neither sustainable nor necessarily profitable, and the interests of all parties would be greatly benefited by the implementation of this market. 


Why?

      No one can easily deny that Marvel and DC are still incredibly profitable companies with extremely fervent fan-bases dedicated to consuming their work. 

      I think however that it might be fair to say that comic books are no longer the most important monetary focus for the two major publishers. Marvel and DC dropped 2% of their market share from 2012 to 2013, with a drop of over 7% since 2008 (Armitage). That isn't total profit (which would be expected given the financial crisis of 2008 onward), but rather their percentage of the total industry. For Marvel this is fairly bad; they dropped from a 40.9% share in 2008 to a 33.5% share in 2013. For DC, even though the trend is positive, it isn't good news either; they increased from 29.94% of the market in 2008 to 30.33% in 2013. Rather than stealing Marvel's market share, they were able to grab only a small fraction of what was presumably stolen by smaller publishing houses. Pairing this with stats from Comichron, a better profit trend can be seen; with increased estimated sales in 2013 to $780 million in the North American market, Marvel's profits dropped about as much as DC's rose (23 million to 28 million). That doesn't seem that bad for DC, but this isn't including inflation and increased comic prices; factoring in only the former, $57 million of the $85 million increase over those 5 years was purely due to inflation ($695 million in 2008 to $780 million in 2013 (inflation calculator)). Add in the new norm of 3.99 comics, and most of that price difference is just inflation in action. 

      Why is that? If other profit centers using the same characters are only increasing in value, why would comics not be increasing in popularity? After all, to quote Lang, 

"Marvel’s adaptations of its comic-books have been profitable for years, but following the $1.5 billion success of 2012’s “The Avengers,” their films have reached new heights. “Iron Man 3″ hit $1.2 billion, nearly doubling the previous film in the series; “Thor: The Dark World” reached $644.8 million, a 44% improvement on the first God of Thunder film; and “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is finishing off with $713.2 million globally, a 92% hike from the patriotic warrior’s big screen debut."

      
       I think the answer has three main aspects, spelled out fairly neatly by one example. Final Crisis was one of DC comics' most ambitious events as of the past decade, combining nearly every single aspect of their mythology in a breathtaking story-line that redefined the very means of storytelling itself, simultaneously providing creator Grant Morrison the chance to metaphorically outline the failings of the industry. Not only was the story creative and nuanced, it had, in my opinion, the scope, breadth, and storytelling importance of classical mythology. 

      Unfortunately, to get to experience all of this, one would need to buy around 60 separate comic books (and according to Wikipedia, those were only the ones collected in trade paperback). Assuming each were priced at the now-moderate price of $2.99, one would need to pay $180 to experience the entire story-line, which is the first problem with modern comics. Compared to the past, they're far too expensive. Since most story-lines of the past were both cheaper and shorter, people would pay less to keep in touch with their favorite heroes. They were less of a specialized purchase and more of an impulse buy; there's a reason drug stores once kept them near the register. At the now routine price of $3.99 apiece, two comics which might take you an hour to read are now the same price as a month of Netflix which allows unlimited streaming; if a person wants a good entertainment value, they'll probably vie for the digital media over the physical. Even if comics can offer nuance and intrigue, they pale in comparison to film, which can do the same, is cheaper, and available in larger amounts.

      Second, as a side effect of the complexity of the medium, consumers need to read innumerable back issues to understand the story-line or even character of a given book. This isn't always true; certain story-lines simply say 'here's a superhero that you know nothing about, here are their powers, and now they're doing something cool,' (which I'm going to start calling the Guardians of the Galaxy storytelling method), but as a general rule you need to buy more comics once you've purchased one. Whether that's to complete a story line, figure out what was going on in your story, or understand more about the character, it serves to make comics more confusing and unapproachable to anyone but a die-hard fan. While it certainly can make each publishing house a great amount of money from these people, it excludes entire segments of the population who might be interested in starting to read about their favorite character.

      A side problem of this is the "relaunch issue," the thing that sunk the market in 1993 and potentially might do it again (Last). To counter consumer confusion and encourage new readers, publishers try to make their books more accessible by rewriting continuity every few years, erasing past stories and relaunching old tittles while maintaining the same familiar characters as before. This works about as well as people might think; empirically it leads to temporarily higher sales and then readership plummets (Johnston).

      Third, there's no real way to expand the market. I don't mean getting consumers to buy more issues about their favorite character, I mean getting them to either attract their friends or pick up new, experimental titles of less popular or wholly new characters. People recommend films, not comics, so expanding the sales figures to friends of customers is mostly out for various publishers. Besides attracting people to a new book by advertising well regarded artists and writers, publishers have barely any options. At the high price to commit to a new issue, people are less likely to buy, forcing publishers to rely on industry icons like Batman and Spiderman to support publishing more obscure characters like the Martian Manhunter. 

      Last argues that this is perfectly fine, noting that 

"...in 2009, Disney paid $4 billion to acquire Marvel (DC was already owned by Time-Warner). The reason for this gaudy valuation is that the comic books themselves are no longer important to the comic-book industry. They’re loss leaders. The real money is in the comic book properties, which power toy and merchandise sales, theme parks, and above all else movie franchises. Since 1997, 26 comic book adaptations have gone on to gross more than $100 million at the box office. Twelve of these grossed more than $200 million. More—many more—are coming soon to a theater near you."

      But while his logic makes sense and does a great job of explaining why comics still exist in a physical form, I think he misses the point. There may be an explanation for why the publishers operate in this manner, but this doesn't need to be the manner in which they operate.     
  

The Solution

      
      Now that I've explained the need for change and the problems that plague the industry, I can return to my original proposal; Marvel and DC need to start an online comic book Netflix for their older titles. 

      Both companies currently offer digital distribution of their works via their respective sites, and offer some dealers like Comixology. The problem is that this operate exactly like a normal comic book shop but with no physical copy and access across any mobile device a user owns. While sometimes slightly cheaper than physical editions, the same problem of price remains; these comics are took expensive to encourage routine buying.

      But what if each company set up their own distributor that offered the majority of their archive for a small monthly fee? $10 a month from even just their current fans would likely be a huge jump in revenue, and that guess of users is extremely low. It's not like they're losing money; dedicated fans would still pay full price to read monthlies on time, while everyone else might wait a year for it to be transferred to the site. Each comic would be from the past; after the first month they never expect to see any more money from it anyway so they would only be increasing revenue by rehashing old content they've already made. And most of them are already scanned and digitized on their online marketplace; slowly adding more would keep users paying month after month while the current offerings would more than justify the price. Since users aren't even paying for the comic any more, but rather access to it, DC and Marvel can completely cut out the resale market and keep profits within their publishing houses. Comic book stores might lose as well, but this could easily turn comics into a collectible again since they now will become a far rarer commodity.


      Why not smaller publishers? I mentioned earlier that DC and Marvel were losing market share and this is the biggest reason; smaller publishers are increasingly selling more of their books. Since there are more readers than there were a decade ago, diversity in interest has greatly risen, meaning more obscure titles might sell more copies to a specialized audience. Smaller publishers would only undermine themselves by putting their works out in the open for a small fee; they've been experiencing the best physical growth of the industry. 

       This neatly solves the problems I outlined earlier; comics would be cheaper, they would become a revenue stream again, consumers could be exposed to more story-lines, and would be more likely to read more obscure titles. I'm not saying it solves all of the current problems with the industry nor will I claim that the solution is perfect, but it definitely resolves some of the more immediate and pressing concerns of the industry. If you want to further the discussion, please feel free to post a comment; otherwise, thanks for reading.

Citations

Armitage, H. Marvel, DC Comics see declining market share. Digital Spy. 9 Jan, 2014. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1uYKPcl

Byrne et al. Best Shot Panel. Uncanny Xmen #132. Apr, 1980. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1xUxLkz

Comichron. Comic Book Sales by Year. Comichron.com. 2014. Chart. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1opaHcb

Ditko et al. Peter Parker Finances panel. Amazing Spiderman #24. May, 1965. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1o3i09Z

Gibbons et al. Rorschach 'Do It' panel. Watchmen #12. 1 Oct, 1987. Photo. Retrieved from http://on.mtv.com/1kgejgZ

Johnston, R. The War of Attrition in Comic Book Relaunches. Bleeding Cool. 15 Apr, 2014. Print. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1uZ4CIJ

Lang, B. Box Office: ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ Astounds With $160.4 Mil Global Debut. Variety Magazine. 3 Aug, 2014. Print. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1xTYTzT
Last, J. The Crash of 1993. The Weekly Standard. 13 Jun, 2011. Print. Retrieved from http://tws.io/1tLdnVd
MacEntee, S. ideas. Flickr.com. 7 Mar, 2010. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1p30naB

Netflix. Netflix Logo. Netflix.com. Photo. Retrieved from http://onforb.es/1j3k3aR

Sharing Machine. great ideas. Toothpaste For Dinner. 26 Aug, 2010. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1pyqcyc

Wikipedia. Final Crisis Promo. Wikipedia.com. 17 Jul, 2007. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/UVmEuL

Popping the Filter Bubble

What is a Filter Bubble? 

"We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality, and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you! You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you even *think* like the tube! This is mass madness, you maniacs! In God's name, you people are the real thing! *WE* are the illusion!"-Network

   
     Sustainability relies a great deal upon understanding world-views; to deal with the innumerable opinions and needs of people and affect actual change, one must understand why they do what they do. In the age of the internet there's no reason to think that this would be difficult; the networks that connect us all should do nothing but facilitate interactivity and discourse about all manner of things. But unfortunately that is slowly evolving into a distant fantasy, a byproduct of the fact that each person's internet experience is slowly being tailored to them. Political and internet activist Eli Pariser calls this phenomenon the "filter bubble," noting that all major browsers and websites are slowly shifting to adapt their information flow to the interests of each user, rather than let the user naturally receive information as it comes. By examining what links a user selects or what information they "upvote," websites are becoming increasingly good at identifying exactly what each person wants from them. 

      But while convenient and somewhat opportune, this phenomenon bodes poorly. Pariser's argument is that this will make our society increasingly divisive, drawing together groups of close-knit individuals that will reject alternative ways of thinking, preventing cooperation and understanding across the globe. A NRA proponent, for instance, might never encounter arguments against gun ownership if this continues, and never bother to approach the issue from both sides. It doesn't matter the issue; all sides need to be well informed to find middle grounds or they will constantly demonize the opposition unjustly.

      Funnily enough, this phenomenon closely resembles that which the 1976 movie Network explored, one in which the world outside of the news channel was becoming increasingly irrelevant. Much of the film was devoted to arguing against this phenomenon and for all people to spend more time ignoring the opinions of the "box," but the movie never truly arrives at a solution to the issue that still allows interaction with television. Since it is unlikely people will shun the internet, for sustainability to survive in the coming years it is imperative that a solution is found; thankfully unlike Network however, there are a myriad of possibilities on how to fix the issue. 

Solutions   

      Pariser's solution is for Google to both consider the public good when customizing searches and open their search algorithms so everyone can understand how their results are individually filtered. The first sounds reasonable from merely a business aspect, but the second is perhaps a little too farfetched; Google has declined to reveal such information because it is an integral part of the uniqueness of their product. Certainly Google could give some vague idea of how they rank, but the nonspecificity of such a revelation would likely make such information useless. Since everyone's results are customized distinctly, relevance would likely be factor constantly changing.
      
      The first is still not a perfect solution though; there are significant issues with allowing certain people to determine what is relevant or important to each person. Pariser thinks that there can be a good blend between important information and "fun" results that we may be more interested in, but there seems to be a fine line between delivering information and politicizing a news feed. Saying certain things need to appear may be just as bad as saying that they shouldn't. 
     
      As Levy notes, Google responded to Pariser by introducing Search plus Your World, a separate search engine that could tailor results based upon friends' searches and interests or just based off the available data. But while the first is better than nothing and the second is democratizing, both still fail. By having only friends' interests dictate data, you can still easily be stuck in filter bubbles of social life. After all, we're more likely to be friends with those who share our beliefs. The second is good, but relevant and crucial information could easily escape if people aren't careful. Plus, tailoring the internet has certain advantages; it would be good if they could be retained. Thaler and Sunstein argue that while it may be somewhat immoral trying to shape someone's worldview, offering them the option of other choices as long as the original options they wanted are present, is perfectly fine and arguably justified as a public good.
     
      Stray has several suggestions to fix these issues, and I think correctly identifies that this problem needs to be solved from several angles. From arguing that the web needs curation of high quality or socially relevant media to claiming that mapping web activity would identify biases, he touches upon the multi-dimensional aspect of the issue. His thoughts are that there should be settings available on websites to tailor information by categories like importance, relevance, popularity, and diversity from your one's viewpoint. While a nice idea and assuming that bias in selection in kept to a minimum, I think this works great in theory, but considering that most people operate in "straight-lines," rarely changing ho they do something unless it's an emergency, I think proactive change is for the best. I think his argument is strongest when he says:

"Another possibility is to analyze social networks to look for alternate perspectives on whatever you're reading. If people in our personal social network all hold similar opinions, our filters could trawl for what people are reading outside of our home cluster, retrieving items which match our interests but aren’t on our social horizon.\

      The benefits of search customization could be easily paired with the diversity of other opinions; 1 of every 5 results could be from differing opinions. Alternatively, they could be from the pages of people who vary mostly with your opinions but have a common interest in that one. Graells-Garrido et al seem to believe that option is acceptable; their research indicates that there is a statistically significant portion of people who are open to seeing diversity in their online access. 

      That's not to say that filter bubbling can be solved in one fell swoop, but I think that change can be slowly integrated into how we use the internet. For both our sake and the future of sustainability, it will remain important in the coming years to see how other sides view various arguments and meaningfully interact with them in the digital world. 

Citations

Ali T. Bubble 2. Flickr.com. 23 Aug, 2008. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1xBG2tt

Az, d-221 books. Flickr.com. 16 Oct, 2010. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1oNMpcr

Graells-Garrido et al. Data Portraits: Connecting People of Opposing Views. Cornell University Library. 19 Nov, 2013. Digital.

Internet Movie Database. Network. Photo. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/

Jairoagua. Networking. 5 July, 2005. Flickr.com. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1o5Rz2R

Levy, S. Has Google Popped the Filter Bubble? Wired.com. 10 Jan, 2012. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2012/01/google-filter-bubble/

Pariser, E. "Beware online filter bubbles." Ted.com. Mar, 2011. Video. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles

Stray, J. Are we stuck in filter bubbles? Here are five paths out? Nieman Journalism Laboratory, Harvard University. 11 Jul, 2012. Digital. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1zxswdc

Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, 8 Apr, 2008.