A L I V E S y s

A L i n e I t e m V o t i n g E l e c t i o n S y s t e m

Major Richard Allen Strong, PE (USAF, Retired)

Safety Analysis Systems

7514 Belle Plaine Drive, Huber Heights OH 45424-3229

E-Mail to RichStrong@aol.com or call 937-236-0361

1. ABSTRACT

This is the first in a series of studies on re-engineering government and total quality management in general. The example is the Federal government. The paper describes a participant survey and voting system whereby:

a. A Federal Budget Model, in the form of a flow diagram with dollars, describing line items involving a billion dollar annual budget would be developed to form the basis for the voting system.

b. The Code of Federal Regulations would be condensed in terms of line items. The model and condensed CFR would be communicated to voters for their use.

c. Voters are informed of the average individual tax increases required for certain proposed line item legislation involving over a billion dollars annually and

d. Voters have options of:

      1.) continuing to rely on their Representative's Yea or Nay voting; or
      2.) voting personally using Yea or Nay; or
      3.) electing personally using self-determined pledges of tax dollars; or<
      4.) contributing limited additional tax pledges, where the tax pledges become the appropriation and budget for the line item.

The end effect is to replace raw head counts and binary decision-making with quantified self-determination.

2. PROBLEM STATEMENTS: THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN

a. The present system of taxation and representation does not satisfy the personal goals of many citizens, that is, there is no "government BY and FOR the people". Some even say that a crisis of confidence in government exists. While some Members of Congress do poll some voters for some issues, there is no no defined standard for Representatives to determine how much value or money their voters would be willing to pay in regard to an issue. The problem can be described as a form of leprosy, where the head has no sensing of the body parts and so risks loss of control and death, that is, the system is dead. The archaic binary voting cannot satisfy the voters' requirements in any case other than total consensus. Four of five voters do not actually vote.

b. Until the Great Depression and World War II, the Federal government functioned according to rules that proscribed any redistribution of wealth via service and social programs. It then expanded into areas of utility projects and redistribution of wealth quite beyond the capabilities. Redistribution has led to a huge debt forecast to the point where the next generation will have an 82% tax rate. Some say more than 42% leads to revolt.

c. The area of redistribution has further led to specialized Congressional Committees with large staffs to effectively manage (some say "micro-manage") detailed operations of the Executive Branch. Their output, the Code

of Federal Regulations, CFR, has grown to thousands of pages and a copy costs hundreds of dollars. There is also the United States Code, U.S.C. or USC. The monthly revision has hundreds of pages. The size of the Federal Budget document makes it foreign to most voters. Neither the CFR nor the Federal Budget has accurate input from voters nor are they written for voters to easily find, understand and use in managing their personal living.

+-----------------+                                         +-------------+

¦ Lobbies, SIGs   >>\-------------------------------------/>> Get benefit.¦

+-----------------+ \                                     / +-------------|

                    \                +------------------+ /

+-----------------+ \ +----------+   ¦redistribute money¦ / +-------------+

¦ Government      >>\   Levy tax >>/>>  and administer  >>X>> Create debt.¦

+-----------------+   +----------+ / ¦and re-work errors¦ \ +-------------+

                                   / +------------------+ \

+-----------------+   +----------+ /                      \ +-------------+

¦ Voter/Taxpayers >>>>> Pay Tax. >>/----------------------\>> Get benefit?¦

+-----------------+   +----------+                          +-------------+

3. SYSTEM SAFETY ANALYSIS AS BASIS FOR "ALIVESys" WITH CFR LINE ITEMS

There is a practical way to improve the accuracy of the information. The way is based upon the author's work in system safety engineering analysis over the past quarter century, where the focus was on describing systems in terms of timely sensing and control of signal and power. The corollaries in politics are voter requirements and control of legislation and money. In the system safety analysis model, the flows of action are tied to the overall sensing and control system by defining subsystems and life cycle phases. Corollaries of the subsystems for the political system are the line items that are defined as Titles of The Code of Federal Regulations.

4. MODELLING PART OF "THE SYSTEM" AND INFORMING VOTERS

It is recognized that the current Administration simplified government greatly by eliminating the conflict between economic models created by the White House and by Congress so as to use only the Congressional Budget Office model. Under ALIVESys, a simple model of the Federal government would be developed to inform voters about how their government functions. The Federal Budget Model, or FBM, pronounced "FeBuMod", would show, in the form of a concise flow diagram model, relationships between line items and effects upon citizens. The model would show actions involving a billion dollars annually as an initial threshold amount. The model would show who does what to whom, how much, and what decision algorithms would be used, that is, it would be a System Input/Transform/Output Analysis. People, organizations, and natural environment would be shown in categories as line items. Standard Industrial Codes, SICs, would be included as regards distributions and revenues. FBM would forecast estimates with variance and confidence levels for the future.

FBM would be sent to voters with their annual tax forms in form of a wall chart instead of the ultra-simple pie chart currently published with tax form instructions. Personal computer database CFR and spreadsheet FBM with formulae would be available online, so voters could access the information. A database and spreadsheet object for the CFR and FBM has been created in popular brands of software, as shown in the example.

  /SW\            Proposed Improvement Feedback       Record Id: AF0001

                            1996/11/11                      RECNO:   1

  To:    ( Taxpayer-Voter )

  We are considering an improvement to the Model Cities Project, so

we would like to know your opinions about it before we implement it.

  The proposed improvement can be briefly described as:

Reality_: Current and forecast housing is inadequate for population.

Problem_: Current methods of city planning and construction are poor.

Solution: Design and build to state-of-the-art optimums.

Risks___: People may not desire new designs or arrangements.

We estimate that the proposed improvement would cost or save $345

If you agree with the improvement, then please enter a "1" here: 1

Please enter how much it would be worth to you here:  $     100

If you disagree with the improvement, then write in your reasons:

( Respondents could write in their reasons here.)

If you disagree, then enter how much the improvement would cost you: $

5. LINE ITEM DOLLAR VOTING ON SOME LINE ITEMS

The essence of ALIVESys is to empower voters to be able to elect to vote directly in dollar amounts on some line items. Exceptions would be line items such as payments on the debt, entitlements, security classified and less-than-a-billion programs and actions based upon "Yea or Nay" voting.

6. THE $100 VOTE AS A TAX CREDIT

a. ALIVESys would be available as a voter option where the budget for the line item is over a billion dollar FBM threshold. This would relate to an "average voter" pledging $100 average for each of 50 line items per year; this equates roughly to an average taxpayer who pays $5,000 a year. Voters would pledge in terms of dollar amounts as tax credits into a Line Item Fund Tax, LIFT, that would become part of the appropriation for the line item. If the bill is passed, the LIFT would be adjusted to meet the budget needs so excess monies would be credited back to voters proportionally. If not, then it may be revised for final voting or filed for future reference.

b. Voters who pay low taxes would not be disenfranchised because they have no tax bill to vote on. To ensure accurate representation, they would be provided a nominal account balance similar to Earned Income Credit.

c. IRS accounting would be used to ensure that taxpayers would honor their pledges. Passwords would be assigned and accounts monitored to ensure that voters' pledges were less than taxes owed.

d. Contributions would be made via credit card, but within limits such as 50% of taxes, to assure that affluent voters would not "buy" legislation.

e. ALIVESys would provide for "negative dollars" where the act would impact voters adversely. They would vote the tax as negative for reimbursement.

The ALIVESys diagram, in contrast to page 1, would appear as:

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

¦ +-----------+                                   +----------+     +-------------+ ¦

¦ ¦ Lawmakers ¦    +------------+                 ¦ Pass, or   >>\>> *Adjust tax ¦ ¦

¦ ¦ Draft Bill>>/>> Revise FBM  >>\-------------/>> Revise,  ¦   \ ¦ down to     ¦ ¦

¦ +-----------+ /  ¦ Apportion  ¦ \             / ¦ or kill. ¦   \ ¦ requirement ¦ ¦

¦ +-----------+ /  ¦ Tax for CFR¦ \             / +----------+   \ +-------------+ ¦

¦ ¦ The FBM   >>/  ¦ Prep.Ballot¦ \             /                \ +----------+    ¦

¦ +-----------+    +------------+ \             /                \ ¦ Benefits,¦    ¦

¦ +-----------+                   \  +--------+ /                \ ¦ Feedback ¦    ¦

¦ ¦ Voters    >-------------------\>>> Vote $ >>/----------------\>> Measures ¦    ¦

¦ +-----------+                      +--------+                    +----------+    ¦

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

7. ALIVESys IMPLEMENTATION PHASES

a. PHASE ZERO: FBM AND CFR LINE ITEM TAX. Congress and White House develop the CFR and FBM, as a matter of total system costs and benefits, with pro rata shares for particular line items. IRS determines the tax required for the line items and disseminates the package and ALIVESys information to voters.

b. PHASE ONE: REPRESENTATIVE WITH LINE ITEM TAXES. Representatives would vote proxies as they do now. They would present changes and new line items to voters in terms of dollar taxes for pro rata budget share and how much the proposed legislation would benefit voters. Voters would be sample surveyed in Preliminary and

Final ballots and billed as if they had pledged the amount. Line Item Funding Tax is used for appropriations.

c. PHASE TWO: VOTER ALIVESys YEA OR NAY ELECTION. In Phase Two, voters would have an option to vote individually Yea or Nay on line items. Voters may still elect to assign proxy to their representatives.

d. PHASE THREE: VOTER SELF-DETERMINATION OF LINE ITEM TAX. In Phase Three, voters would be empowered to refine the Yea or Nay to a particular amount by determining their individual amount. Instead of a "take it or leave it" option, voters would be empowered to exercise self-determination in a practical manner.

8. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL STAGES OF BALLOTING

Most balloting would be done in two stages, preliminary and final, to allow legislators and voters to see the initial reaction and so modify and refine their line item bill and votes accordingly.

9. REVALIDATION OF EXISTING LINE ITEMS

Reviews of existing line items would be conducted periodically, say every twelve years, so they would be revalidated by the current voter population.

10. RISKS SHOULD BE SHARED AND INCLUDE ADMINISTRATION COSTS.

The risks of any particular line item should be accountable to that line item, rather than being lumped into any general fund. A compromise would be to share on a 50/50 basis. Anyone would reasonably wish to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of any given directive or rule in terms of what it costs to enforce, litigate, and correct violators. Cost estimates may be included in the "Risks" field of ALIVESys to ensure adequate reserves.

11. VOTING MECHANISMS

Voting would be done either: a.) at voting booths, or b.) via personal computers, or c.) via telephone with television connection, or d.) by touch-tone telephone. Voting stations would be established in a manner similar to Automatic Teller Machines, ATMs that might be modified to provide voting. Voters could vote on a Federal Line Item weekly. State and local governments might schedule voting to coincide with Federal voting.

12. VOTER RECORDS AND PLANNING AGENDA

A database for recording any individual voter's record has also been created. Voters could use it for planning their personal agenda concerning existing laws that are not being voted upon as a basis for petitioning. They might provide this information to Representatives for planning and actions.

13. EXAMPLE PETITION / BALLOT FORM

You can edit a sample for an issue that interests you and then send it to Rich Strong. He will then post it for a month on a Current Issues webpage for others to comment about.* Sample

The ballot form would also serve as a petition. Voters would petition by: (1) identifying the line item in Line 5;

(2) describing the negative impact in Line 13; specifying the value of the change in Line 15.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

¦ // StrongWare \\ (s) DATE: 11/11/94 RECNO: 3 ¦

¦ ALIVESys PETITION / BALLOT ¦

¦ To: Richard A Strong Petition: ¦

¦ 7514 Belleplain Dr Apt: 1 Preliminary: N ¦

¦ Huber Heights OH 45424-3229 Final: Y ¦

¦ Please read and fill in your Ballot/Petition and return it within one week. ¦

¦ If you are petitioning, then please skip Lines 1-12; go to Lines 13 and 15. ¦

¦ 1. The following legislation is being proposed for enactment into law. ¦

¦ HR#: 123 CFR: 999,Model Cities Project Chapter: 999 Part: Sec.: ¦

¦ 2. The Preliminary balloting resulted in the following changes: Amounts: ¦

¦ Negative Impacts on other private development SIGs. , change: -4,000,000¦

¦ 3. Estimated Change to Federal Budget Model over the life cycle: 9,000,000¦

¦ 4. Estimated Life Cycle 9 years. Estimated Average Annual Budget:-3,000,000¦

¦ 5. The proposed legislation consists of the following: ¦

¦ a. Authorizes contracting for design and construction. for: - 500,000¦

¦ b. Establishes Model Cities Offices in undeveloped sites. for: -1,000,000¦

¦ c. Authorizes appropriations for Housing & Urban Development. : -1,000,000¦

¦ 6. Risk: Compromises natural environment re: water, air, soil. : - 500,000¦

¦ 7. Benefits to special Groups: Occupants for site industries. : 678,900¦

¦ 8. Revenue other than income tax from: Property, bus. income tax : 3,210,987¦

¦ 9. The Estimated Annual Tax required for 15% tax bracket taxpayer: 345¦

¦10. Representative: Strong Favors Yea?: Y ; 15% bracket tax : 250¦

¦11. Do you assign Proxy for favored tax times your factor? (Yes =1, No =0)> _ ¦

¦ ( Multiply the 15% amount by your bracket % and then divide by 15.) ¦

¦12. Do you favor passing the line item legislation? ( Yea = 1, No = 0 )> _ ¦

¦13. Please enter the amount you pledge as tax for proposed legislation.> ____ ¦

¦14. If the legislation will have a negative impact, enter amount. > _______ ¦

¦15. Please enter: a. the reasons for negative impact; or b. your petition: ¦

¦ ________________________________________________________________________ ¦

¦Please Sign and Date -> ____________________________ Date: __/ ___ / 19__ ¦

¦Please enter your PASSWORD: __________ and Credit Card #: __________________ ¦

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

14. PC SUMMARY TALLY REPORTS BY DISTRICT

A SUMMARY REPORT illustrates how ALIVESys would work with a PC database. It shows: a. (CA) elect the conventional system and grants proxy to the Representative; b. (OH) vote YEA and elect to pledge $10 in taxes;

c. (NY) vote NAY, citing a $300 negative impact; and TX) pledge $234.

The existing database provides for state and district group band summaries.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

¦ // StrongWare \\ (s) A L I V E S Y S S U M M A R Y R E P O R T ¦

¦ HOUSE BILL/RULE: 99999 CFR TITLE: 999, Model Cities Project CHAPTER: 999 ¦

¦ PRELIMINARY AMOUNT: 34,567,890 PRELIMINARY: N FINAL: Y ¦

¦---------------------------------------------------------------------------¦

¦ ST DIST PROX AMT VOTER PLEDGE NEGATIVE IMPACT AMOUNT AND REASON: RECNO ¦

¦ --------------------------------------------------------------------------¦

¦ CA 33 1 250 Y 0 0 3 ¦

¦ OH 11 0 300 Y 10 0 1 ¦

¦ NY 2 0 500 N 0 -300 I own land to be taken under ¦.

eminent domain for less than ¦

MARKET value. 2 ¦

¦ TX 26 0 400 Y 234 0 4 ¦

¦ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¦

¦ TOTAL VOTER YEAS: 2 TOTAL PROXIES: 1 => : 250 ¦

¦ TOTAL PROXY YEAS: 1 TOTAL OF MAXIMUM PLEDGES________: 244 ¦

¦ TOTAL # BALLOTS : 4 TOTAL OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS_______: -300 ¦

¦ --------------------------------------------------------------------------¦

¦ PERCENTAGE OF YEAS/BALLOTS: 75.00 GRAND TOTAL: 194 ¦

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

15. LIFE CYCLE GAINS AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS AS MEASURES.

Recalling the discussion in paragraph 3 above, one may conceive the organization as a mechanism and the directives as system control laws. One may manage both the original hazards in terms of solution directives and the directives in terms of hazard management. The linkage between the two must be such that one can assess the value of the directive as regards solving the hazard, or negative impact. The life cycle gain derived from application of the line item/CFR/directive would be related to how much voters would be willing to pay to support the line item CFR, relative to the original hazard. When hazards and CFRs are described in terms of relative cost-effectiveness, then they may be prioritized, budgeted, programmed, and scheduled.

16. FEEDBACK IN THE SYSTEM KEEPS IT ON TARGET AND ALIVE.

The notion arises that the control system requires a feedback loop to ensure that the planned results were actually being achieved, particularly as regards the preliminary piloting and monitoring. An analogy may be seen in "smart weapons" versus "dumb bombs", where feedback control ensures hitting the target rather than simply "going ballistic" as laws do now. Databases have also been designed to capture feedback from voters. These may be used by anyone to inform others, such as their representatives of how the line item affected them. This might also be implemented on an E-Mail network similar to the newsgroups that are currently operating. The software is available from the author. The feedback database records and summarizes: a. proxies: b. elected amounts; and c. negative impact amounts under "VOTER TAXES". The risk ("RISKS") and revenue ("REVENUES") should be managed by the responsible agencies and appropriate CFR Committee, to be aggregated with the feedback from the affected groups under "GAIN" and from disbursements to special interest groups under "SIGs". With the feedback and monitoring, the legislation authors, committees and affected voters would be much better informed. A "score card" with trends might be provided to voters in their tax forms.

An example is illustrated:

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

¦ // StrongWare \\ (s) A L I V E S Y S F E E D B A C K ¦

¦---------------------------------------------------------------------------¦

¦ CFR REVENUES SIGs RISKS VOTER TAXES GAIN ¦

¦---------------------------------------------------------------------------¦

¦ 999 30,000 -45,000 -5,000 22,000 => 2,000 ¦

¦---------------------------------------------------------------------------¦

¦ TOTALS: 30,000 -45,000 -5,000 22,000 => 2,000 ¦

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

17. PRELIMINARY FEDERAL BUDGET MODEL IS BEING DEVELOPED.

The author is currently developing a preliminary Federal Budget Model, using off-the-shelf PC software for spreadsheets. A line item CFR is used here to include any directive in any level of government or organization, from simple shop rules in a small business to international rules. The 100 line items are rows of the spreadsheet; they are based upon broad categories of activities that were derived from a combination of: Standard Industrial Codes; Library of Congress and Dewey categories; the CFRs as line items; and a hierarchy of control. It now has only broad coverage of the line items as regards the Federal budget, although the Fiscal Year 1994 budget figures are incorporated. The model does not yet show any processes nor relationships of the flow of monies. The intent is to develop the model to show these and other features such as the food chain and environmental effects, as well as unplanned losses. Partial models might be developed and then added to the main model by interested persons and organizations as discussed below in paragraph 18.

18. GROUPS WOULD SAMPLE SURVEY AND MONITOR.

a. National consensus standard-setting groups for the line items might be interested in assisting in the management of their standards as CFR line items.

b. Lobbyists, special interest groups, associations and societies might participate in piloting new line item programs and monitoring of existing programs by sampling those parties who are affected by the programs.

c. Local government and public and private organizations would likely take advantage of ALIVESys as a simple matter of improving ways of doing business.

d. The many "watchdog" public interest groups might also participate in implementing the ALIVESys for themselves and observing and advising others. In particular, since the main thrust of government is the concern for safety, a myriad of public and occupational safety, health, environmental protection, security, insurance, risk management, and defense organizations would be keenly interested. One advantage of this interest to the citizenry is that there is the potential for standardizing legislation along the lines of cost-effective probabilistic risk analysis so that laws could be more harmonized and optimized. This would provide a basis for a better participation by voters with ALIVESys and reduce the current confusion and malaise that appears to permeate the culture and bring in a higher degree of intelligent self-determination.

19. QUESTIONS:

Some questions to be resolved with comments and piloting are:

a. "Can Congress write CFRs and ballots that are brief and understandable?";

( The condensed CFRs would likely be adapted from reference books available on the open market to begin with. The ballot forms illustrated above might be used 'as is' or with adaptation and tailoring.);

b. "Can the CBO develop the Federal Budget Model as described?"

( CBO Director Dr. Reischauer wrote us that CBO does not publish at all and that he does not favor the ALIVESys because it replaces the principle of "one person, one vote" with "one tax dollar, one vote". In this nation of consumers, "Shop 'til you drop!" may be added to with "Vote 'til you gloat!");

c. "What percentage of voters would elect to use which ALIVESys options?"

( The Taxpayers Union wrote that ALIVESys was "the wave of the future". One might estimate a rough order of magnitude of a million ALIVESys voters, at the ten-year point of operations, plus other organizational 'voters'.);

d. "What would be the costs and benefits of ALIVESys?". ( Obviously, the ALIVESys would itself be considered as a line item. The author would presume that users would pay for any costs of using the system, estimated at around $10 per vote; benefits would be partly subjective.);

e. "When Representatives vote their constituents elections in terms of dollars, what reactions will be aroused in those constituents?" ( The tired excuse for not voting because "one vote won't make a difference" may pass away.)

20. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

a. ALIVESys appears to offer a viable improvement over the existing system.

b. Readers should give serious consideration to using ALIVESys in their organizations and suggesting to others that they also use it.

All comments will be welcome; please send them to the author at:

7514 Belle Plaine Drive, Huber Heights OH 45424-3229;

or use E-Mail to RichStrong@aol.com or call 937-236-0361.

END

If you would like to use a similar system for managing your local school levy voting, then go to * Invest

You can use a simple survey form and log to record TQ data:
To view an example of a screen, click on *Feedback