You Can Influence Policy
People think they can’t do it but they can!
You think they have to write legal language but you don’t. Voters want to influence laws and policy but they don’t.
Voters think they can influence politicians by choosing the right candidate but it doesn’t always work out that way. So how do you get involved? How do you exert your intellectual influence so that policymakers get the message?
By overcoming the impediments to success. Which are? All the little frustrating steps that keep you from getting into the game. See where you fit in? The second little black box from the bottom on the left, The People. And look what you have to go through. Are you prepared?
This award winning info-graph by Mike Wirth and Dr. Suzanne Cooper-Guasco (2010) describes the legislative process. But there is a new paradigm, crowdsourced, crowdfunded lobbying aka issue advocacy.
And as a well known former President said in Milan in April 2017 and I’m paraphrasing, “the American people need the tools, training, network, relationships and funding to get something done.” Sounds like a platform for change.
What you can do at iLobby…
- Test out new ideas
- Find people who will influence you
- Make better suggestions
- Solve complex problems
- Get more constituent input
- Allow people to add comment or criticize suggestions for laws.
- Discover the impact or unintended consequences before a bill becomes law
- Unearth real stories from real voters in real districts
- Build ad hoc coalitions
- Get input from anytime, from anyone anywhere in the world
- Use the power of the crowd to solve complex technical and legal issues
- Help update and revise old laws
- Get old and broken the law’s off the books
- Reveal disparities where laws favor one group over another and yet have no current benefit
- Find like-minded people who share your concerns
- Become a master or expert in one particular policy area
- Share best practices with one another from anywhere in the world
What is the new model?
- Give users a voice
- Give users and any voter the ability to participate in democracy and laws
- Provide metadata and good feedback to guide politicians in policymaking
- Help enlighten the general public
- Provide a platform for refining legislation
- Getting input from the public before it becomes locked in stone set in stone
So what’s different? News vs. Old
In the old model you have few inputs and one output.
In our model you have infinite inputs and one output.
In the old model the process is very slow.
In our model the process is accelerated.
In the old model you have just one point of view.
In our model you have multiple points of opposing views.
The old model makes it difficult for average people to comment.
In our model contribution is easy for anyone.
The old model requires a set time, process and procedure for comment.
In our model those barriers are broken down. Anyone can come in at any time from anywhere.
Under the current model no one knows who has more power or influence.
In our model every one gets ranked and the comments are rated and voted on. Influence is transparent.
So, two heads are better than one.
Finally, this is an actionable solution but the current (old) situation is not.
This process is transparent and motivations are aligned.
The old process is opaque and self-centered for a few special interests.
This model authenticates users and aligns them with the correct Congressional committee members.
In the old process most of the input is not identified by district and not aligned with the correct committee members… No matter how hard you try.
The old method is inefficient. The new method is very efficient.
The old method is frustrating. The new method is streamlined.
The old method does not always protect privacy but the new method can protect PII (personally identifiable information), puts privacy in the hands of the user and yet can provide aggregated meta-data to create business intelligence and insight.
The old process is not dynamic and not subject to rapid revision.
The new process is iterative, dynamic ongoing and can easily adapt to changes in a community or in the law.
The old process does not allow efficient coalition building i.e. newspapers, radio, think tanks, party efforts, meetings, Town halls, surveys. Etc. whereas the new method does.
The old method is partisan. The new method is nonpartisan.
The old method focuses on candidates. The new method focuses on issues.
The old method dictates one side of an issue.
The new method is “issue agnostic.”
The old method favors big donors and moneyed interests while the new method can incorporate anyone with an idea whether they contribute money or not.
The old method is disempowering to voters whereas the new method encourages personal empowerment.
The old method relies on few sources whereas the new method is open source.
The old method relies on experts but the new method relies on the community and the crowd.
The old method trusts only its own closed network.
The new method draws power from the crowd knowing that great ideas can arise from anywhere.
The old method encourages conformity and is exclusive whereas the new method encourages diversity and inclusion.
The old method advocates a centralized power structure whereas the new method has a decentralized power network of influence. Fascinating!
The old method relies on limited sharing of information from the top down, of course. Sound familiar?
The new method advocates massive sharing from the bottom up.
The benefits we’re talking about are transparency, inclusion, contribution, open source, affordable access, money, idea generation, ubiquity, and universality all through the use of technology.
It’s a completely new paradigm.
The old method quickly moves voters into one camp or the other, Republican or Democrat. The new method focuses on issues and discards partisanship.
The old method rewards dependent relationships, the dependence of one person on the next but the new method focuses on self-reliance and individual knowledge.
The old method focuses on groupthink and conformity but the new method stresses individual contribution.
This new method gets past bumper stickers and slogans and into the actual policy decisions. (Isn’t that what everyone has been asking for?)
The old model makes you fly into Washington and protest on the mall.
The new model allows you to comment from anywhere and identify those who agree with you from anywhere.
The new process is DIY, do it yourself. The old process states, “Get others to help you.” because you’re not smart enough to do it on your own.
The new process is multi-tenant self-service for all parties.
The old process has individual competing tenants and special interests.
The new process can integrate at the federal, state and local level. The old process does not.
The new process quickly reveals the key lawmakers at every level of government. The old process requires hours of research, if you’re fast and lucky.
The old process does not connect you with lobbyists or active agents to help you solve the problems unless you have sufficient capital. The new process connects you with lobbyists whose practice area of focus is on your specific issue.
The current method acts from a 20th century broadcasting model. The new model acts as a multi cast 21st-century networking paradigm.
10 Things We Don’t Do
- We are not funneling money to political parties.
- We are not telling you who to vote for.
- We are not telling you to contribute to specific candidates.
- We are not funneling money to elections or candidates.
- We are pooling financial resources to increase access for individuals on issues… but on issues only, and it is voluntary and participatory.
- We are not a superPAC taking a one sided point of view.
- We are not buying television commercial time.
- We are not telling you what to do.
- We are not telling you what to think.
- We are not excluding information that would prevent you from thinking.
We believe you know the right thing to do.
We encourage political discourse from multiple points of you to solve complex “wicked” problems that are facing all of us and may have now escaped the ability of our lawmakers to solve.
We think we need more voices at the table and we now have the technology to support this.
We welcome your input because two heads are better than one.
2 > 1 and 2 * 10X > 100
Originally published at writealaw.com on August 28, 2017.