Should We Decriminalize Sex Work?
BOX SCORE: Victimless Sex
Puzzle Summary:
POLI the AI asks, "Where can we agree?" Most people go into sex work out of desperation but except for a few counties in Nevada sex work is illegal in the US. If the WELCOME: Employer Living Wage Tax Credit and/or the P50L Earned Income Tax Credits were passed into law then taking a full-time job that nets a living wage eliminates most of that desperation. Until then, law enforcement activity to curtail prostitution is ineffective, takes police away from pursuing violent criminals, and is a constant temptation trap.
ONE PARROT preaches that sex for money is wrong, and the provider and/or the customer should be imprisoned. THE OTHER PARROT solicits that sex between consenting adults is no one else's business, and that sex workers deserve decent working conditions and benefits. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?
BOX SCORE for Decriminalizing Sex Work
:Weighted-Average: Forecast:
:60%: ± 7% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Wall of Information 6/8
Cultural Windows 10/16
Columns of Bias 6/8
Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY
Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of Decriminalizing Sex Work
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Reduces the illegal market
Reserves criminal justice resources
Penalizing purchased sex doesn’t work
Top Four Key Reasons Against Decriminalizing Sex Work
Against moral values
Increased adultery rates
Sexual overtones are pervasive—NIMBY
No one should have to do that
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor
Activists & Gun Owners
Urban PT & Billionaires
Nonworkers & Entrepreneurs
Liberty Republicans & Suburban Professionals
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against
Federal Payroll & Landlords
Moralist Republicans & Democratic Leadership
Rural Part Time & Urban Investors
Planet First Democrats & Utilities
Four A-hah Moments
(Yes) Gives lonely & disabled folks an option for sex
(Yes) Removes police use of oppressive laws
(No) Competes for other discretionary dollars
(No) Makes the US a sex tourism destination
Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion
We predict an 71% vast super-majority of roles in this country to support Decriminalizing Sex Work with an average error margin of ± 3%. Thrift (T) types will see less public resources spent against an unwinnable cause. Abundance (A) types will see legal options to relieve sexual frustration. Commerce (C) types will see a reduction in the illegal markets. Governance (G) types will see a better reallocation of law and order resources.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out Where We Can Agree? takes Guts ::
National Idea Leaderboard 2023 Week 7
Highlight: Death Penalty Reform
The most significant development on the scoreboard and leaderboard this week were two new puzzles being completed on the Death Penalty. Abolishing the Death Penalty only scored a weighted average of all the roles on the game board of :60%: with an above average error margin of ± 8%, with only 3/4 sides of the table, 5/8 walls of information, 9/16 cultural windows, and 5/8 columns of bias. Therefore, it did not make it onto the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard which requires a majority of each of the four sides of the ideologically balanced political table.
However, the puzzle to Reform the Death Penalty did significantly better. While the burden of proof to find a defendant guilty is—beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden for this death penalty reform would be—only with incontrovertible evidence. It scores :71%: with a below average error margin of ± 3%, with 4/4 side of the table, 7/8 walls of information, 12/16 cultural windows, and 7/8 columns of bias. This reform would all but eliminate the possibility of putting an innocent to death. In other words, the sentencing guidelines are a fail-safe against killing innocents, and perhaps the demonstrably repentant and certain mentally ill individuals, however at some point we’ll analyze each of the latter two in separate puzzles.
#1 The Great Penny Meltdown :86%: ± 2% Box Score
Time to stop wasting useful metals on useless coins
with a perfect 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 16/16 Windows, and 8/8 Columns
#2 Over the Counter Birth Control :84%: ± 2% Box Score
The progestin pill should be sold over the counter
with 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 14/16 Windows, 8/8 Columns
#3 SMR Nuclear Reactors :84%: ± 2%
We need to scale new smaller safer nuclear reactors ASAP
with a perfect 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 16/16 Windows, and 8/8 Columns
#4 Voting on Veterans Day :82%: ± 2%
Move Veteran’s Day to Election Day to make it a holiday
with 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 15/16 Windows, 8/8 Columns
#5 A Fraud-Free Counted Vote :82%: ± 3%
Frictionless IDs, guaranteed voting access, all votes counted
with 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 13/16 Windows, 8/8 Columns
#6 Parking Lots of Shade :80%: ± 2% Box Score
Solar canopies over most larger parking lots
with a perfect 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 16/16 Windows, and 8/8 Columns
#7 Social Security Force Buys on Dips :80%: ± 2%
The Social Security Fund should invest up to 25% into US stock index funds
with 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 13/16 Windows, 8/8 Columns
#8 OTC Abortion Pills :79%: ± 2%
Let pharmacists dispense abortion pills in the first 10 weeks
with 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 14/16 Windows, 7/8 Columns
#9 WELCOME Living Wage Employer Tax Credit :78%: ± 3%
Pay a living wage before corporate tax, crime reduction will more than pay for it
with 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 14/16 Windows, 7/8 Columns
#10 Two-Lane Healthcare :77%: ± 4% Box Score
Medicare for All with a fast lane for premium services for premium cost
with 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 15/16 Windows, 8/8 Columns
…
#14 Local TAP Legal Immigration :75%: ± 4% Box Score
Let the States decide their own immigration needs
with 4/4 Sides, 7/8 Walls, 12/16 Windows, 8/8 Columns
…
#21 Death Penalty Reform :71%: ± 3% Box Score
Death Penalty only with incontrovertible evidence to avoid killing innocents
with 4/4 Sides, 7/8 Walls, 12/16 Windows, 7/8 Columns
The rest of the leaderboard can be seen here.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out Where We Can Agree? takes Guts ::
:: :: :: ::
PolicyKeys™ has invented a nonpartisan rating system using the four sides of the political table, eight walls of information, sixteen subcultural windows, and eight columns of bias—change to status quo. It’s all based on this ground truth, There’s a time to save and a time to spend, a time for freedom and a time for laws—where can we agree? We call it our Political DNA, A for Abundance, C for Commerce, G for Governance, and T for Thrift, expressed as ACGT just like human DNA.
We are all way more conflicted in our views on public policy solutions than the powers that be want us to believe because it’s in their best interest not ours. You may identify with a dozen or more roles on the PolicyKeys™ Game Board, and each of them may be for or against a solution for a key reason. You can note your own personal score and see why you may or may not agree. Those key reasons are noted in the Weekly Game and Weekly Key for each puzzle. Keep a close eye on the roles and key reasons you most closely identify.
For more on our Mission, Vision, and Values, and the Four Laws of Public Policy Formation click here.
National Idea Leaderboard Week 6 2023
Highlights
PolicyKeys™ has invented a nonpartisan rating system using the four sides of the political table, eight walls of information, sixteen subcultural windows, and eight columns of bias—change to status quo. It’s all based on this ground truth, There’s a time to save and a time to spend, a time for freedom and a time for laws—where can we agree? We call it our Political DNA, A for Abundance, C for Commerce, G for Governance, and T for Thrift, expressed as ACGT just like human DNA.
We are all way more conflicted in our views on public policy solutions than the powers that be want us to believe because it’s in their best interest not ours. You may identify with a dozen or more roles on the PolicyKeys™ Game Board, and each of them may be for or against a solution for a key reason. You can note your own personal score and see why you may or may not agree. Those key reasons are noted in the Weekly Game and Weekly Key for each puzzle. Keep a close eye on the roles and key reasons you most closely identify.
For more on our Mission, Vision, and Values, and the Four Laws of Public Policy Formation click here.
Here are the top ten ideas on the National Idea Leaderboard for 2023 Week #6.
#1 The Great Penny Meltdown :86%: ± 2% Box Score
Time to stop wasting useful metals on useless coins
with a perfect 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 16/16 Windows, and 8/8 Columns
#2 Over the Counter Birth Control :84%: ± 2% Box Score
The progestin pill should be sold over the counter
with 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 14/16 Windows, 8/8 Columns
#3 SMR Nuclear Reactors :84%: ± 2%
We need to scale new smaller safer nuclear reactors ASAP
with a perfect 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 16/16 Windows, and 8/8 Columns
#4 Voting on Veterans Day :82%: ± 2%
Move Veteran’s Day to Election Day to make it a holiday
with 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 15/16 Windows, 8/8 Columns
#5 A Fraud-Free Counted Vote :82%: ± 3%
Frictionless IDs, guaranteed voting access, all votes counted
with 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 13/16 Windows, 8/8 Columns
#6 Parking Lots of Shade :80%: ± 2% Box Score
Solar canopies over most larger parking lots
with a perfect 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 16/16 Windows, and 8/8 Columns
#7 Social Security Force Buys on Dips :80%: ± 2%
The Social Security Fund should invest up to 25% into US stock index funds
with 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 13/16 Windows, 8/8 Columns
#8 OTC Abortion Pills :79%: ± 2%
Let pharmacists dispense abortion pills in the first 10 weeks
with 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 14/16 Windows, 7/8 Columns
#9 WELCOME Living Wage Employer Tax Credit :78%: ± 3%
Pay a living wage before corporate tax, crime reduction will more than pay for it
with 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 14/16 Windows, 7/8 Columns
#10 Two-Lane Healthcare :77%: ± 4% Box Score
Medicare for All with a fast lane for premium services for premium cost
with 4/4 Sides, 8/8 Walls, 15/16 Windows, 8/8 Columns
The rest of the leaderboard can be seen here.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out Where We Can Agree? takes Guts ::
Should SCOTUS be a larger nonpartisan court?
BOX SCORE: A Grand Supreme Court
Puzzle Summary:
POLI the AI, asks, "Where can we agree?" Grand juries frequently have 23 jurors and SCOTUS has just nine jurists. The US population is 130x that of 1776. SCOTUS's approval rating is now 40%. SCOTUS has become a "deck to stack" and not the required impartial check and balance of the legislative and executive branches of government.
What if SCOTUS went up to 18 or 23 jurists with evenly staggered term limits of 18 years ending in off-election years, maintain a justices-in-waiting pool of 8 selected by at least 2/3rds of a large balanced nonpartisan independent council (NIC) in the executive branch assisted by AI, 60 Senate votes to confirm a candidate, 67 votes to override a presidential veto, cycle through candidates, if no one is confirmed by a deadline then the selection will be by lottery of the pool members?
ONE PARROT rules that SCOTUS should be as it always has been. THE OTHER PARROT objects that the court has become a game of capture the flag, and decades on the bench loses touch with the people. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?
BOX SCORE for Enlarging a Nonpartisan SCOTUS
:Weighted-Average: Forecast:
:71%: ± 6% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Wall of Information 7/8
Cultural Windows 11/16
Columns of Bias 6/8
Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY
Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of Enlarging a Nonpartisan Supreme Court
Justice should be blind
Seven ways to interpret the Constitution
Constitution requires pragmatic interpretation
SCOTUS still punishes the poor
Top Four Key Reasons Against Enlarging a Nonpartisan Supreme Court
A “republic” biased SCOTUS is needed
A minority should define life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Lifetime appointments protect against politics
The Constitution is a text cast in stone
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor
Planet First Democrats & Major Builders
Underrepresented & Realty
Unions & Managerial
Shopkeepers & E-Retail
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against
Activists & Gun Owners
Federal Payroll & Entrepreneurs
Digital Republicans & The Free Press
Mayors and County Officials & Governors
Four A-hah Moments
(Yes) Judges’ lifespans doubled since 1776
(Yes) More justices could hear more cases
(No) Capturing SCOTUS is an imperative
(No) A fair AI assisted process is still flawed
Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion
We predict an 71% vast super-majority of roles in this country to support Enlarging a Nonpartisan Supreme Court with an average error margin of ± 6%. Thrift (T) types will see less societal wasted time and effort from odd decisions by a too small court. Abundance (A) types will see a fairer court for more people. Commerce (C) types will see a better balance of business interests represented by a larger pool. Governance (G) types will see less decisions made to benefit the few instead of the many.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out Where We Can Agree? takes Guts ::
Should candidates falsifying their backgrounds be barred from office?
BOX SCORE: Candidate Employment Fraud
Puzzle Summary:
POLI the AI asks, "Where can we agree?" It's one thing for a candidate to be conflicted in their views and play up whatever the audiences wants to hear, it's another thing to bald-face lie about basic qualifications for office.
ONE PARROT boasts all's fair in love, war, and politics. If the party, election officials and the media don't care enough to vet candidates for office then it's up to the voters to decide. THE OTHER PARROT roasts those who think lying to get what they want is acceptable, it sets a bad example for children, and encourages our enemies to distrust the US even more. Almost all job applications are subject to background checks, and the people essentially hire their elected officials. Candidates should have to file a public record background affidavit.
Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?
BOX SCORE for the Candidate (Employment) Fraud
:Weighted-Average: Forecast
:68%: ± 7% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Wall of Information 7/8
Cultural Windows 11/16
Columns of Bias 7/8
Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY
Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of Ending Candidate Employment Fraud
The people have lost trust in government
Bearing false witness is a sin
Quality lying is a sign of a sociopath
Discourages inauthentic primary challenges
Top Four Key Reasons Against Ending Candidate Employment Fraud
Invasion of the candidate’s privacy
Enables yellow journalism
Win at all costs
Great leaders have serious quirks
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor
Activists & Gun Owners
Urban Part Time & Ag States
Moralist Republicans & Ethicist Democrats
Planet First Democrats & Core Republicans
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against
Digital Republicans & Rank & File Democrats
Underrepresented & Landlords
Pro-Immigration & Borders and Orders Republicans
Party Favor Democrats & Party Favor Republicans
Four A-hah Moments
(Yes) Leadership and Honesty go together
(Yes) Discourage civil unrest
(No) Lying is a job pre-requisite
(No) Governor’s replacement discretion may conflict with voter’s will
Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion
We predict an 68% vast super-majority of roles in this country to support Ending Candidate Employment Fraud with a slightly higher error margin of ± 7%. Thrift (T) types will that we won’t waste money on failed candidacies. Abundance (A) types will like quality candidates forcing out pretenders. Commerce (C) types will see business people with better resumes running. Governance (G) types will see less disruption from useful idiots.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out Where We Can Agree? takes Guts ::
Who Shares the Blame for Prices Rising Faster than Wages?
BOX SCORE: The Inflation Blame Game
Puzzle Summary:
For 20 to 50 years, until the COVID "shutdown" only the costs of higher education, childcare, healthcare, and housing in some markets outgrew wages in the US. Well-paying jobs are great but that doesn't keep the price of goods and services low. Abundant cheap goods and services are great but that doesn't create high paying jobs.
ONE PARROT blames the government for low interest rates and spending too much money causing prices to rise faster than wages. THE OTHER PARROT blames greedy companies for not increasing production and increasing profits causing prices to rise faster than wages. Many industries are either disadvantaged because of foreign competition or because of impending product obsolescence.
Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?
BOX SCORE for the Inflation Blame Game
Weighted-Average Forecast
:62%: ± 5% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Wall of Information 4/8
Cultural Windows 10/16
Columns of Bias 5/8
Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY
Top Four Key Reasons that Roles Share the Blame for Unwanted Inflation
Climate Change and Greening cause price spikes
Tariffs make goods more expensive
US companies aren’t investing in capacity
Small margin industries can’t raise wages
Top Four Key Reasons that Roles Don’t Share Blame for Unwanted Inflation
Offering a living wage with COLA
Importing goods lowers prices
Innovation creates jobs and lowers prices
40% of FT workers are under a living wage
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Sharing Blame
Planet First Democrats & Materials
Entertainment & Gun Owners
Multi/Nationals & International NGOs
Unions & Entrepreneurs
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Not to Blame for Inflation
Activists & Original Equipment Manufacturers
Urban Part Time & Billionaires
Government Unions & Rural Professionals
Students & Seniors
Four A-hah Moments
(Yes) Government payments making work unattractive
(Yes) Sick Care costs and damages are out of control
(No) Robots take low paying jobs so workers can move up the ladder
(No) Planned obsolescence increases wages
Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion
We predict an 62% super-majority of roles in this country are partially to blame for unwanted inflation with a slightly higher error margin of ± 5%. Thrift (T) types are resistant to expanding their capacity. Abundance (A) types want everything to be a commodity. Commerce (C) types search for ways to charge more for the products and services to increase profits. Governance (G) types avoid the most elegant answers because of politcs.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out where we can agree takes guts ::
Should Congress have the same retirement investments as Social Security recipients?
BOX SCORE: Shared FATE STOCK Act
Puzzle Summary:
POLI the AI asks, "Where can we agree?" Federal Actors Trading Equities with Social Security Tied to Opportunistic Congressional Knowledge: Members of Congress (MoC) and Federal Employees (FE) have access to legislation that affects industries that the general public does not. Insider trading is illegal in the private sector but not for MoC and FE.
ONE PARROT calls that government employees are paid less than the private sector and trading stocks is the only way to maintain a lifestyle becoming their positions. THE OTHER PARROT puts that getting rich on stocks eclipses elected officials’ duties in a representative government. These stock trades would be limited to their retirement accounts and serve as an index for a 25% share of the Social Security (SS) Funds' stock investments—so all retirees benefit.
Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?
BOX SCORE for the Shared FATE STOCK Act
Weighted-Average Forecast
:69%: ± 5% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Wall of Information 7/8
Cultural Windows 10/16
Columns of Bias 7/8
Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY
Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of the Shared FATE STOCK Act
Congress needs a longer-term mindset
Flush seniors will increase GDP
Commerce just needs to know the rules
A mix of stocks and bonds is prudent
Top Four Key Reasons Against the Shared FATE STOCK Act
MoC/FE shouldn’t be trading stocks, period
Will cause even more bubbles to pop
May speed obsolescence
Congress picking winners and losers is magnified
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor
Urban Part-time & Reality
Deep Reader Independents & Core Republicans
Rural Full-Time & Entrepreneurs
Underrepresented & CPAs and FP
Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against
Activists & Private Equity
Moralist Republicans & Free Press
Multi/Nationals & International NGOs
Social Media & Justice Independents
Four A-hah Moments
(Yes) Will put a floor under the stock market
(Yes) Gerrymandered incumbents are lazy and arrogant
(No) Industries could be extorted for favors
(No) Congresses may back the wrong horses
Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion
We predict a 69% strong super-majority of roles in this country to support the Shared FATE STOCK Act with a slightly higher error margin of ± 5%. Thrift (T) types will like that the Social Security Fund will be less volatile. Abundance (A) types will see seniors not have to skimp so much in their dotage. Commerce (C) types will see more stable long-term trends of which to manage. Governance (G) types will see less animosity about their privileged behaviors.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’s approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out where we can agree takes guts ::
What's up with the Parrots?
And why is there a key in its beak?
by the Editors
Parrots can talk but they don't really understand what they're saying.
Political parrots are similar, they get rewarded for squaking the same thing over and over and over again, and they're not necessarily your friend (and they can bite).
PolicyKeys™ is a role-playing game—we hope Key Players (like you), will like scanning, sorting, and searching through the positive and negative keys. It’s way better to be a wonk than a parrot.
PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree®, Birds of a Feather artificial intelligence is based on the following ground truth, “There’s a time to save and a time to spend, there’s a time for freedom and a time for laws, where can we agree?”
Until really learning about a particular topic and making up their own minds, most people have a knee-jerk bias for one of the Political DNA Base pairs, Abundance/Governance AG (National Government and NGOs), Abundance/Commerce AC (Big Tech and New Businesses), Thrift/Governance TG (Local Governments and Consumers), and Thrift/Commerce TC (Established Supply Chains and Jobs). Most people also have a general preference for either change or status quo. Every political parrot has a key they don’t want you find—because it ruins their argument. It’s up to us wonks to snatch away those ACGT keys
Our full gameboard is a double-tall chessboard, you can see it in the POL-ICYMI Last Week’s Answers, 128 roles painstakingly sorted evenly across all four-sides of the table and a spectrum of bias for change to status quo. Every role’s Yes or No vote counts the same. Each set of eight roles are their opposites on the gameboard, a set of rivals. The differences get less easy to spot and the sets a bit more difficult—the deeper you get into each week’s puzzle.
The game’s been designed to be a smoothie of crosswords (short clues), trivia (overall knowledge), role playing (empathy), mystery (solve the role’s motivation), poker (find each role’s tell), chess puzzles (best answers are so cool), jigsaw puzzles (how the roles fit together), and word games (sometimes there's no choice remaining but to guess).
Perhaps PolicyKeys™ will help depolarize your friends, family, town, county, country, and planet. And, maybe, just maybe, you and your crazy relative will find something to agree on. PolicyKeys™ can depolarize politics—with your help.
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’ approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out where we can agree takes guts ::
PolicyKeys™ Mission, Vision, Values & Four Laws of Public Policy Formation
based on the theory & methodology of Politics 4.0
Mission:
To forecast and measure nonpartisanship
Vision:
To narrate, rate, create, and curate public policy solutions on leaderboards
Values (#1*)
To be neutral to public and/or private sector solutions
::
Purpose
To score and rank public policy solutions with a nonpartisan rating
Goal
To have an AI that can pre-rate all public policy solutions
Strategy
To first find the best solutions that solve 80% of the problem in the shortest time
:: ::
*Our Values
#1 We are neutral to public and/or private sector solutions
Passing a new law or trashing an old one is all the same to us.
#2 Talk public policy not public figures
No President Tyler this or President Buchanan that, you can find that on social media.
#3 We’re all on the same team
Good Key “Yes” reasons and good Key “No” reasons help make the puzzles believable and the scoring trustworthy. No ever-so-clever cherry-picking.
#4 Participate in policy huddles
Introverts should strive to share, and Extroverts should strive for restraint.
#5 EMIT helps find the signal in the noise
Consider the Four Key Reason Types: Emotions, Momentum, Interest, and Timespan, by referring to the Four Laws of Public Policy Formation.
#6 We’ll eventually score all solutions
But for now, score the solutions with the highest probable rank. When the AI is fully functional it will help by auto pre-scoring solutions. Each puzzle deserves respect.
#7 When in doubt about calling a role for or against—research the role
E.g. Part-time workers are 2/3rds under 25 and over 50, and 2/3 female. Does that help clarify the call? Is there existing polling data?
#8 Noisy Guests are interesting
When a role is difficult to call, we call those noisy guests, and working carefully through the EMIT model will usually yield a clear call. And the AI is a good second reliability filter.
#9 Each country's gameboard is a working model
While we seek continuous improvement, our gameboards need to be standardized like electrical sockets to be useful. We’ll review suggested improvements once a year, but only modify significant and substantive changes in roles. Keeping level playing fields is paramount.
#10 Compare forecasts to realities
Through polling, commentary, competing forecasts, mean reversion, wisdom of the crowds, candidates’ platforms we can measure how well the models are functioning.
:: :: ::
THE FOUR LAWS OF PUBLIC POLICY FORMATION
The First Law of Public Policy Formation is that people with short-term focus will naturally protect their wages, jobs, status, profits, and wealth. (Hopefully not with violence: Politics 1.0)
The Second Law of Public Policy Formation is that people with longer-term focus will naturally place bets to make life better, longer, easier, or different. (Politics 2.0 is usually the two -party system)
The Third Law of Public Policy Formation is that the conflict between short-term focus and long-term-focus naturally causes noise, angst, conflict, and harm. (Politics 3.0 is noise)
The Fourth Law of Public Policy Formation is that policy solutions can now be ranked with a standardized nonpartisan score derived from a level playing field. (Politics 4.0 finds the signal in the noise).
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’ approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Finding out where we can agree takes guts ::
Immigration Facts
Four by Four
by Immigration Editor Samantha “Sami” Corkern.
You can view the Local TAP Legal Immigration Box Score here.
Abundance:
The United States admits nearly 1 million immigrants into the country each year under a variety of programs, however, the number of new immigrants each year is decreasing.
Commerce:
For every H1-B visa holder admitted into the country, 1.8 new jobs are created.
Governance:
An additional 370,000 immigrants are needed each year to sustain social security by 2060.
Thrift :
Industries such as Agriculture, Logistics, and Hospitality rely heavily on an immigrant workforce. The Logistics industry alone is predicted to have a need for more than 1 million new employees from 2016 to 2026.
:: Conclusion ::
The United States depends on immigration for economic growth and security.
X
Abundance:
Individuals living in the United States under Temporary Protected Status alone contribute more than $4.5 billion to the economy pretax in addition to $6.9 billion to medicare and social security over 10 year period.
Commerce:
International students permitted in the United States, who do not have a direct path to citizenship, support more than 458,000 jobs.
Governance:
Immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens, this is the case for property and violent crimes.
Thrift:
Individuals with Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) contributed $23.6 billion in 2015 without the benefit of receiving Federally funded programs, such as the CAREs Act stimulus checks in 2020.
:: Conclusion ::
Immigrants regularly contribute more to the United States economy than they receive, and commit crimes at lower rates than native born citizens.
[::]
:: :: :: ::
You can play this week’s game at PolicyKeys.com
Congress’ approval rating is 21%, the Supreme Court’s is 40%, the media 27%, the average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ National Idea Leaderboard is 73%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 3x better model of US political sentiment and direction than Politics (as usual) 3.0.
A new PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? Puzzle every Monday at 6am Eastern at PolicyKeys.com. You can read more about PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? in Politics 4.0 How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for its innovative approach to consensus building.
Seeing things from all four sides of the political table takes Guts ::