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.

Should the US End Sugar Subsidies?

BOX SCORE: Sugar Subsidies

Puzzle Summary:

Originally from the great depression, did you know that the US still subsidizes sugar production? The US exports $1.3B of sugar each year and imports $185M. Subsidies inhibit the free market, but neither party wants to lose the votes of the sugar industry.

ONE PARROT sweetly adds that the US sugar industry needs subsidies to compete in the world market, it protects sugar producers' & processors' profits and wages. THE OTHER PARROT sours that view with the US promoting sugar gluttony which increases healthcare costs, and ironically raises the price of sugar to consumers and food manufacturers.

Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?                       

 

BOX SCORE for Ending Sugar Subsidies
Weighted-Average Forecast

:75%: ± 3% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Walls of Information 7/8
Cultural Windows 14/16
Columns of Bias 7/8

Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY

 

Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of Ending Sugar Subsidies

Sugar subsidies cost billions
Regenerative farming needs those subsides
US pays more for sugar than the free market
Sugar production is carbon intensive

Top Four Key Reasons Against Ending Sugar Subsidies

Sugar subsides are a bargaining chip in foreign trade
Helps sugar growers and processors
Family farms depend on the subsidies
US Sugar industry employs 370,000

 

Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor

Caregivers & Gun Owners
USA Made & International NGOs
Giver States & Taker States
Underrepresented & Landlords

 

Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against

Federal Payroll & Materials
Social Media & Rank and File Democrats
Free Press & Border and Order Republicans
Core Republicans & Democratic Leadership

 

Four A-hah Moments

(Yes) Regenerative farming needs those subsidies
(Yes) Lost US jobs because of sugar trade policy

(No) Might perversely increase sugar consumption
(No) 11K family farms grow sugar

 

Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion

We predict a 75% vast super-majority of roles in this country to support Ending Sugar Subsidies with a low error margin of  ± 3%.  Thrift (T) types point out that it will lower the cost of sugar and all the products sugar is in. Abundance (A) types see more productivity and growth for other more useful industries. Commerce (C) types see less government interference in free markets. Governance (G) types see sending an important message about national priorities.

:: :: :: ::

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 Healthy Lifestyles Be Taught As School Curriculum?

BOX SCORE: Health as Curriculum

Puzzle Summary:

Health covers nutrition, physical activity, and social-emotional learning, and these three aspects lend themselves perfectly as a vehicle to teach math, science, art, and technology. Each school will then share their results in a national database to find out what works best, why and where.

ONE PARROT pushes promoting healthy lifestyles to limit the inflow of illness into the healthcare system, and wholesome but ugly food can be channeled back into school lunches. THE OTHER PARROT pulls that it's a collectivist dream that will just waste tax dollars and impinge on liberty.

However, education reduces teen birth rates, improves health and nutrition, promotes other behavioral changes that drive economic development, and lower crime rates. Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?                       

 

BOX SCORE for Health as Curriculum?
Weighted-Average Forecast

:69%: ± 6% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Wall of Information 7/8
Cultural Windows 12/16
Columns of Bias 8/8

Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY

 

Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of Health as Curriculum

Youth obesity is an epidemic
Low sugar schools have lower disciplinary problems
Lower lifetime healthcare costs
Healthier workers are more productive

 

Top Four Key Reasons Against Health as Curriculum

Processed foods are a $150B US Industry
Students don’t like to eat their veggies
Hospitals need a steady supply of sick people
May cause complaints about food at home

 

Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor

Activists & Private Equity
Caregivers & Gun Owners
Rural PT & Deep Reader Independents
Planet First Democrats & Hawk Republicans

 

Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against

Rural FT & Corporate Lobby
Local Chains & National Lenders
Liberty Republicans & Democratic Leadership
Entertainment & Landlords

 

Four A-hah Moments

(Yes) STEM fields will be supported
(Yes) Schools are already showing positive results

(No) Gluttony is good for profits and wages
(No) One size doesn’t fit all healthwise

 

Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion

We predict a 69% strong super-majority of roles in this country to support Health as Curriculum, with a an above average error margin of  ± 6%.  Thrift (T) types point out that local food overabundance can be channeled to schools. Abundance (A) types see more productive and happier workers and selection. Commerce (C) types see a more productive workplace with lower healthcare costs.  Governance (G) types see less rowdy school, healthier people, and healthier families.

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 ::

Should Governments Support Low Till Farming?

BOX SCORE: UN-Till Then Farming

Puzzle Summary:

Until the climate emergency is over, a United Nations (UN) pact to speed the adoption of low-tillage farming with industrialized member nations agreeing to assist farmers with any out-of-pocket conversion cost for equipment, crop rotation, crop diversity, and cover crops.

ONE PARROT plows that to feed the world we can't risk changing current practices for yield or monetary reasons. THE OTHER PARROT sows that caring for the soil increases carbon sequestration, yields richer soil, healthier foods, requires less water, less chemicals, less weeds, less pesticides, less labor, and produces higher yields.

The overall benefits of low-till are well known but farming is a grueling profession with thin profit margins, and all change is difficult. Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?                       

 

BOX SCORE for Nuclear Waste?
Weighted-Average Forecast

:61%: ± 9% 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 Supporting Low-Till Farming

An easy quick win for the planet
May mitigate climate related losses
Regenerative food means lower healthcare costs
Less nitrogen runoff into rivers and streams

 

Top Four Key Reasons Against Supporting Low-Till Farming

Vertical Hydroponics is a better solution
Food’s already abundant
Food prices could go up even more
Loss of equipment manufacturing jobs & profits

 

Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor

Gun Owners & Caregivers
Unions & Founders
Seniors & Students
Civil Servants & Big Tech

 

Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against

Under-Represented & Big Ag
Democratic Leadership & Republican Leadership
Urban PT & Billionaires
Utilities & Renewables

 

Four A-hah Moments

(Yes) Agriculture is a quarter of greenhouse gases
(Yes) Climate change will damage infrastructure

(No) CAFO livestock may be easier to protect from heat
(No) Big money to be made from rebuilding infrastructure

 

Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion

We predict a 60% super-majority of roles in this country to support governments supporting the conversion to Low Till Farming, however this has a fairly large margin for error of  ± 9%.  Thrift (T) types point out that food prices might initially go up. Abundance (A) types see a relatively fast payback from any government investments or loans. Commerce (C) types see less interruptions from climate catastrophes. Governance (G) types want to cooperate with other governments world-wide to prevent catastrophic climate change.

:: :: :: :: 

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 ::

Should We Refreeze Santa's North Pole?

BOX SCORE: Refreeze the Polar Ice Caps

Puzzle Summary:

 

The icecaps on the North and South Poles are melting at an alarming rate, and like a tall glass of iced tea we're just a hot planet without the ice. Refreezing the poles will help offset the warming of at least the regions near the caps.

There are four ways that might work; pump mist into the poles, atmospheric Sulphur dioxide (SO2) particulates to reflect light back to space, drop water into clouds for snow, and silver iodide to make it snow.

ONE PARROT gifts that geoengineering with chemicals like sulfur dioxide is dangerous for nearby populations. THE OTHER PARROT ho, ho, hos that it would be planetary malpractice to not speed up efforts to slowdown climate change while other decarbonization efforts catch up. Both PARROTS have good points. Both Parrots make their good points over and over and over again. What did our nonpartisan scoring system say?                   

 

BOX SCORE for HOPE Drug Harm Reduction?
Weighted-Average Forecast

:74%: ± 5% Nonpartisan Score
Sides of the Table 4/4
Wall of Information 7/8
Cultural Windows 12/16
Columns of Bias 8/8

Conclusion: LEADERBOARD WORTHY

 

Top Four Key Reasons in Favor of Refreezing the Poles

It may help prevent a billion climate refugees by 2050
Methane is 80x more damaging than CO2
The icecaps sequester methane
We’d be naughty not to run tests, now

 

Top Four Key Reasons Against Refreezing the Poles

Who will pay for the $11B?
Too much SO2 is noxious to humans and animals
SO2 can cause acid rain
Nice profits today beat promises of green profits tomorrow

 

Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples In-Favor

Caregivers & Gun Owners
Activists & Energy States
Federal Payroll & Hawk Republicans
Students & Billionaires

 

Where Can We Agree?®: Four Odd Couples Against

Underrepresented & National Lenders
Social Media & Republican Leadership
Planet First Democrats & Liberty Republicans
Underrepresented & Core Republicans

 

Four A-hah Moments

(Yes) Hydrogen planes and drones emit water vapor
(Yes) Increasingly unbearable heat waves

(No) Mrs. Claus and many others like warmer weather
(No) Melted caps promote development

 

Politics 4.0 DNA (ACGT) Conclusion

We predict a 74% vast super-majority of roles in this country to support Refreezing the Polar Icecaps, with a slightly above average error margin of  ± 5%.  Thrift (T) types point out that it’s a relatively affordable solution compared to others. Abundance (A) types would rank this as a highly doable solution. Commerce (C) types see profits from public/private partnerships.  Governance (G) types see it as a responsible way to manage the commons.

:: :: :: :: 

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 ::