Cenocracy: A Declaration for Greater Independence
Mathematics and Democracy


In as much as the title professes two widely known ideas, they are not widely understood in the same manner by all people. Different people have different interpretations of what both mathematics and democracy mean, as well as being able to construct explanations thereof... even though some readers may presume there is some sort of generic definition everyone would provide. Both ideas can be applied to different situations to yield different "answers". And though the word "democracy" has been selected for an application in a "Cenocracy" (New Government) context, different words such as Communism, socialism, chemistry, anthropology, history, music, etc... could alternatively be used in the present analogy.

Many people in the United States might refer to Democracy with the phrase "Of the people, By the people, For the people", as was spoken of in Lincoln's Gettysburg address. It is the standard by which many would use to describe the kind of government they have. Unfortunately, this is wrong. There is no set-in-place process of a National Referendum where the Will of the people can override any and all Legislative outcomes, including the rulings of the Supreme Court. There is no "Peoples Legislative Branch" which Constitutionally permits the People to directly participate in the "Checks and Balances" formula, which a National Referendum would necessarily guarantee that the government actually represents the "Of, By, For All The People" phrase. A weak version of this idea was proposed by the Icelandic political commentator and historian Guðni Jóhannesson who won Iceland’s presidential election on Saturday, June 25th. During his campaign, Jóhannesson told supporters he would "modernize the political scenario and bring in citizen-initiated referendums". He also vowed to "restore people’s faith in the political system, which has been marred by scandals and financial troubles." Iceland President Elections 2016: Historian Guðni Jóhannesson Elected Amid Football Fever

Unfortunately, the usage of "citizen-initiated" referendums are ill-suited for a modern political process that must incorporate a standard of "referendumization" which is an automatic system that can not be usurped by the conventional political practices that permit a minority to run the lives of the majority. However, such a process requires the people to practice the responsibility of voting, or else be subjected to fines, imprisonment or deportation for a repeated refusal to participate in "their" government. Plain and simple, a participatory government requires participation. If the people refuse to participate because they think the conventional political system is rigged, the system must be forced to change. Simply refusing to vote does not force the system to automatically change to a model better suited to the Will of the People, whose personal philosophies involving numerous issues (environmental, war, disease, poverty, education, personal rights, corporate/political corruption, religious hypocrisy subsidized by the government by way of tax exemptions, job dissatisfaction, technology obstructionism, distrust of traditions, etc...); all of which are thus creating a self-defeating global perspective. Whereas religions and governments (and businesses as well as the media) prefer their target populations to be ignorant in order to better manipulate them with orchestrated information, the people are now bombarded with differing perspectives... some of which are based on hysterics, misinformation, illusions, delusions, superstition and fear. A lack of voting is a means of trying to retreat to some representative certainty a person can believe in.

While some might refer to this as an act of denying the existence of a political system and process that is increasingly becoming insufficient for a social governing task whose mounting issues can not be adequately addressed by using old models of problem solving; others may prefer to think that their refusal to vote is better explained if it is based on one another argument that expresses disenchantment with a political process and overall system which seems to invariably attract those who come to contemplate using a government position to effect an enhanced practice of personal reward, and have a diminished concern for the welfare of others... In any respect, we find that the people are at a loss of how to alter a failing political system. Traditional models of protest and fomenting effective alterations in the governing process are met with an obstructionist governing system that insists in practice a role of established conventions that are invariably a part of the very problem that needs to be altered, yet those in charge of executing the practiced ideas insist problems must be, and can only be addressed in a certain way. The present systems of government are not "user friendly" nor readily adaptable to change... particularly being unreceptive to creative, innovative, and original ideas. Those who are writing the rules, not only insist that the rules be followed, but the process by which the rules are derived and adopted must also proceed along the course maintained by a select few who follow a program outlined in a rule book such as a Constitution or Mathematics primer... and laughably used to provide for its own precedence of accuracy!

The present structures of government the world over are deteriorating to such a degree that they require elected officials to lie, cheat, steal, bribe, deceive, intimidate, badger, bully, and even kill if necessary... all of which can be carried out in varying types of government activity (government contracts, wars, tarrifs, trade agreements, pardons, laws, regulations, scapegoating, tax deferments, etc...); if they want to acquire elected positions. A truly honest person has little chance to maintain an active role, since the government is run by large sums of money and other resources that are in the possession of those who often engage in cut-throat activities. Altruism and magnanimity are not highly prized virtues in the realm of politics and social governance. Very often we find laws which conflict with the common sense of a majority whose collective Will has little, if any chance of establishing itself as the ruling body of wisdom by which a social practice is governed. No less, one finds that they might even be confronted by a police officer during a routine stop who exhibits a "government position requirement" for exhibiting a given personality characteristic which may be narcissistic, controlling, intimidating, corrosive, belittling, abusive, or otherwise. This is not to say that most police officers or other government workers actually practice this, but is instead meant to illustrate that particular cultures within organizations can give rise to a practice of behavior that is antithetical to the well-being of the public. Some departments or even larger government branches can unwittingly begin to adopt the behavior of leadership who act as a role model that others mirror because narcissistic people like to see their own reflection... such as police officers who adopt a certain convention of dress, speech/vocabulary, and even personal grooming techniques like shaving their heads.

While people generally know they need a New Government and might readily agree when a reference to such is definitively expressed, even though they may not themselves articulate this idea with any specific words; an effort to focus the collective attention of the public towards constructive discussions requires a point on the social landscape that all can point to and strive for in their individualized and collective orientations. Such a point on the horizon of a new day is the word "Cenocracy". It provides a new branch of thinking which people can grasp as their minds swing to and fro amongst the many different ideological trees in their respective social jungle. In other words, "Cenocracy" is the X-spot on a treasure map. While not everyone is yet emotionally and intellectually ready to make the sojourn into a new territory, there are others eager to make such an adventure. Not everyone enters a swimming pool, stream, river, lake, or ocean in the same way. Defining a given body of water with a particular label often defines the mode and manner it is approached.

The present formula of democracy is better described as being a Republic, in which the people do not directly represent themselves, but have a form of vicarious Representation with respect to elected persons (officials) who take it upon themselves to speak and vote on legislation for the larger population. In other words, the laws of the Nation are developed by a few who impose their views on the majority who have no real mechanism to legislate laws by way of the collective public Will. In short, Democracy is the name of a type of mathematics being used to address social problems. It is what some might refer to as an algorithm... a rule or set of rules used to solve a problem or problems. As such, it should be easily understood that the presently practiced form of Democracy provides us with the wrong set of rules because of recurring social problems the people are having to persistently deal with against those who insist on using the standard set of rules laid out by a Constitution that is like an ancient book on mathematics.

Let's use a math problem to look at the issue from a different perspective. And even though there are numerous examples which might be offered, the present one is provided because it is an issue which has prompted a bit of controversy as indicated on the following page: A lot of people are having trouble with this math problem that requires some basic algebra

Nothing like a viral mind boggling math problem to make you feel like you should have paid better attention in high school algebra.

The equation in question? 9 – 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1 = ? The deceptively simple math problem recently blew up in Japan, as people quickly found they were routinely getting the wrong answer. According to PopSugar, only 60 percent of 20-somethings solve it correctly, a study showed.

So what is the remaining 40 percent doing right? YouTube user MindYourDecisions shows you, bringing in mathematician Presh Talwalkar, the man behind the problem, to explain how it’s done.

The trick is to remember PEMDAS, the order of operations formula, which stands for parentheses, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction. As Talwalkar explains, this means first tackling 3 ÷ 1/3. Three divided by 1/3 is nine, and then carrying along with the equation from left to right you end up with the correct answer of — drum role, please: 1!

Unfortunately, it’s been a while for many of us (or it hasn’t but we just didn’t pay that much attention in algebra) and most people who get it wrong actually fall down on entering the fraction into a calculator. Other people who get it wrong forget about PEMDAS, and simply do the equation from left to right. Common incorrect answers end up being 3, 7, or 9.

Of course, it’s just a silly math problem — or is it? According to the video, the 60% rate of correct answers is down from 90% in the 1980s. What could this big drop in accuracy suggest? Is it possible that our dependence on easy internet research and calculators means we’re committing fewer algebra principles, like PEMDAS, to memory? It’s a fascinating question, and we’re going to go look up the quadratic equation real quick, just in case.

The algebraic "order of operations" (or rule-of-thumb)for solving the problem is sometimes taught in the mnemonic form of "Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally". If you don't know the rule or simply forgot it, you most likely will approach the problem with familiar common sense notions related to your interests, be it carpentry, accounting, point tallying for a sports event, etc... You will use the most familiar order of operations to derive an answer. Because there are different answers to be reached using different combinations of ideas, we can not actually say that any one answer is bad or wrong, unless we include such a distinction in the order of operations. In other words, the order of operations is a standard, a convention, an accepted method of perceiving the world... and all those that don't share it, are described as being wrong... even though any singular idea could well be described as the accepted method for doing the problem.

Let's say you are a person like millions of others, that don't use conventional thinking, which is what the order of operations is. It is not a natural law, it is a "law" made up by mathematicians, like so many laws made up by a minority called a Legislature. Such laws develop into social customs that may later be labeled as a "politically correct" world-view. It is a minority point of view that is being described as the "right way" of looking at social problems and how they think the world should be. If you go along with such views, you might well be labeled a Conservative, because like mathematicians, you think that the established order (of operations) is the best one... and thus you want to conserve it.

The present formula of democracy being practiced, is that adhered to by a made-up point of view. Like the above math problem, its definition can provide different answers. If we continue practicing democracy as we now are, social problems will continue unabated, because the type of democracy being practiced is a type of order-of-operations that is not congruent to the larger majority view on their behalf. The present practice of democracy is a philosophy most suitable for the thinking of a minority, and not a growing majority. It is out of sync with the mentality of the majority that are looking at social problems from different perspectives and coming up with different answers.

In the above problem: 9 – 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1 = ?, many people approach the problem in a rather straight forward approach by dividing 3 from 9 to get 6. Then they divide the 6 by one-third (which is 2), to get 3. This 3 is then added to 1 to get 4. There is nothing "wrong" with this "4" answer. It is an alternative result derived from approaching the problem from a different perspective. While it is not the answer "expected" by mathematicians who hold onto the order -of- operations an thus being established as if it were a sacred law— that is time and again printed in mathematics books like rules-of-thumb printed on a document called the Constitution... and everyone is "expected" to follow as the assumed right and appropriate way of doing things; such a view is only true if everyone also thinks in terms of an adopted ruled-by-a-minority practice of democracy. In order to use an answer that is viable to more of the people, the practice of democracy must be altered.

But let us look at the above problem 9 – 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1 = ?, from yet another perspective of solving it. Let's say you prefer to divide the 3 by a third of itself first. One-third of 3 is 1. 3 divided by 1 equals 3. If you then add the 1 to this to get 4 and then subtract this from 9, you will get the result of 5. There is nothing "wrong" with this answer. You are simply approaching the problem from a different perspective. And even though it is not the result expected by those who resort to upholding a traditional order-of-operation approach to the problem, it is the correct answer from the approach under which the conditions were undertaken. You are neither wrong nor bad, you simply do not think in conventional terms. Creative thinkers and geniuses do not think in conventional ways. They often look at problems or divergent information from a variety of approaches or a single approach with a variety of mental tools.

In another instance, someone may look at the above problem: 9 – 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1 = ? in a similar fashion to that above, but with a slightly different organizational methodology. Whereas they divided the 3 by a third of itself (1) to get 3, they choose to subtract the 3 from 9 to get 6. They then end up with 7 by adding the 1 to it. This too is not a wrong or bad answer. It is simply an alternative organizational methodology describing an order of operation that is not the standard convention practiced and expected by mathematicians. If everybody in a given classroom insisted that this is the right answer, and there was no one to back up the teacher, the view of the students would prevail as the accepted answer. Likewise, if the public stuck together and insisted on approaching social problems from a different methodology of democracy, there would be a change in the political and social structure of society. Though politicians, judges and law enforcement personnel would try to force the public to adhere to the convention of viewing democracy from their accepted and expected purview, the people would have to insist even more strongly that the convention be altered to better suit the rationale seen through the eyes of the majority.

In yet another model of perspective for addressing the above problem: 9 – 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1 = ?, if we subtract 3 from 9 to get 6 divided by one-third (which is 2) that is then added to 1, we end up with 3.

Here's another way: Make the 3 into a fraction to get 3/1 that is then multiplied to 1/3 which becomes 3/3 which is 1. 9 minus 1 equals 8 added to 1 results in 9.

And if we resort to a calculator without taking into consideration that such a device has limitations (can not handle large numbers well) or can provide false data due to some programming error or functional disability (low battery, faulty/failing circuitry), we can find ourselves trapped by a mechanism that, upon discovering its failure (like the presently practiced formula of democracy), may well attempt to rationalize its usage, defend its usage, or deny there exists any problem at all. Humans are sometimes slow to make adjustments upon identifying errors.

No less, if we rely on a computer program, we may come across a situation as was pointed out by a reader:

There actually has been a big change in orders of precedence with google

See 2x/2x vs 2x/x2
Google will change
The first into 2x/(2*x)
And get 1

Calculators mostly will give x^2

Turns out orders of precedence for implied multiplication changed

The implied * in 2x no longer takes precedence over operators
All * and / are done left to right after ()

And yes, with some thought, alternative approaches can be derived. However, if we are going to be able to communicate... to "be on the same page" so-to-speak, we have to have some rules or laws that we all abide with. An "order of operations" is a means by which we obtain a working rationality, or consensus. It is not that alternative ideas are not possible, it is just that they are not permitted to function as the expected answer when there exists a certain formula for completing the problem. With respect to government, the present formula of democracy and its accompanying Bill of Rights and Constitution, are out of step with the needs of a growing nation. The "order-of-operations" in the world of mathematics is a problem in itself because it denies acknowledging that the brains of different people have the capacity of great flexibility and original thought processing. While the problem, as it is written, constrains us from recognizing the larger extent to which the human mind has the ability to manifest different interpretations, such as presenting an analogy between mathematics and democracy, so does the present practice of democracy prevent us from solving social problems from a larger appreciation of the overall functionality of the species under the constraints of the global, galactic and planetary systems.

Politicians, like mathematicians, are part of the problem for solving problems that are cast into to representative models of conventional interpretation. They can't see nor think outside their adopted boxes of looking at the world. We need a new order of operations that can only be developed if we have not only a new form of mathematics, but a new form of government. Social problems will continue to be unsolvable so long as they are viewed, defined and illustrated in the same manner with the same tools of dissection, analysis and approach for addressing them. The current model of democracy is like an old math problem that is part of the problem in trying to reach a solution because it misidentifies the circumstances by which a conventional model of mathematics is applied... because it thus enables old mathematicians to utilize the tools they are most familiar and comfortable with. They have to cast their observations of a circumstance into the structure of a formula that best suits their abilities, even though the whole of the situation contributes to the problem. The "political correctness" of established politics and those adhering to the conventions of applied protocols are called orders of operation in mathematics. They are made-up rules that constrain the human mind from alternative thinking and try to forcefully impose such made-up rules as the only way to think, by defining alternative ideas as wrong, bad, improper, and failing.

In terms of democracy as a type of "operational order", it is defined by a vague and misleading definition such as Of, By and For the People. Nonetheless, if it is more concretely defined as a "Republic" by way of elected Representation, the lack of an actual public Representation identifies this brand of democracy as the diluted form of an ideal that the people think they have, but are living with an illusion thereof.

In the above problem: 9 – 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1 = ?, if you are given the answer of "1" but do not know the order of operation to be used in obtaining the result, your mind may traverse the terrain of different ideas in trying to come up with the same answer. If instead of asking a person to solve the problem we give them the desired answer and ask them to provide the means by which the problem was solved, we come to realize this is the tactic used by those in accounting who try to manipulate numbers on ledger sheets so as to correspond with the answer they want to show. The same goes for politicians who think they know the answer to a given social problem. They will make any statement and pass any law that is needed to arrive at a given result... even though a given social problem is not resolved, and is merely painted over. Yet, most such paint jobs do not last indefinitely. Time and usage wear them away. We can not solve social issues that are caused by the practice of a dysfunctional democracy. This is compounded for any society having to deal with other societies that practice different formulas. There is no set order of operations with respect to the types of government being practiced.

The present type of democracy is the wrong kind of mathematics to be used to solve present and (surmised) future social problems. It does not have the correct order of operations consistent with the thinking of the majority who are forced to abide by a system of logic that is incongruent to a widespread formula of thinking that the majority has... or otherwise have been taught to think alternatively with an acceptable level of confidence. Simply imposing the Will of a minority on the majority will not work anymore. The "official", "authoritative", "legal", "Constitutional" etc., standards for manipulating the public to see the world through the eyes of a governing minority... does not hold sway. Analogously, the students in more and more classrooms are beginning to question the validity of the order-of-operations as the best, right, and only way of seeing things... or else be subjected to various social condemnations suggesting they are demented and unable to think in "higher" thoughts simply because they disagree with the operational (legalized) orders established as traditions and conventions.

The way in which the problem 9 – 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1 = ? is being solved by the standard of logic used by an established system of algebraic reasoning is like someone adding an electrical switch to the sparkplug of a lawnmower. It is an embellishment which requires the adoption of creating mathematical problems to be solved in the way in which all problems are to be solved. This is the same tactic being used by the present conventions of political elections and governing processes. While many people admire Constitutions and Bills of Rights, they present us with the situation in which social issues are to be organized into a given perspective so that they can be answered according to the standards in which problems are to be addressed according to the written rules. All other approaches are thus viewed as being incongruent to the adopted and accepted methodology. The way in which a Constitution and Bill of Rights or other governing processes are written, act as a type of mathematical-like "order of operations". Any other approach to a given problem that does not conform to the standardization in an observed text, is deemed improper, wrong, bad, or otherwise inconsistent with practiced traditions. Thus, people are not permitted to address social problems outside the box, outside the parameters of a governing process which is part of the problem because it is inflexible... due to the calcified mentality of those whose employment in leadership positions have adopted a cult-like mantra.

This "cult-like mantra" of thinking can be analogically viewed in the illustration of the mindset one might well encounter in the habituated thinking of a given teacher, professor or craftsperson who has been at the same or similarity of tasks most of their adult life. Every perception might well be organized into a fashion by which their familiar tools of analysis and interpretation can be applied. In the face of complex social problems, the whole of which becomes dissected and arranged according to the familiarity of a person's respective craft whose ego may want to claim "ownership" of a task, thus initiating divisive territorial claims, like jurisdictional disputes amongst law enforcement agencies. Cooperation doesn't always take place, like that which is needed between the governed and those who govern. In most cases, it is those in the position of governing who insist that they have primary jurisdiction to address social problems... though one of the main problems is the conflict of jurisdiction for resolving social issues that needs the public's hands-on cooperation. Simply agreeing to the dictates of a minority, such as a legislature, is wholly inadequate to the task... because legislatures and overall government personnel do not have enough experience, knowledge or wisdom to effectively resolve issues involving a growing public. We need a new formula of government, which will involve an alteration of any observed Constitution, body of laws and Bills of Rights.

We can not resolve social problems created by the structure of a government that insists all social activities occur within the parameters dictated by laws forced on an evolving populace which needs a functional government that can evolve with it. Present government structures, though they may sport processes for amending Constitutions, are inflexible because they are designed of, by and for an Executive, Legislative, Judicial (minority's) predominant advantage... It is clear that having a system which utilizes the problem solving methodology of allowing a governing minority to alter laws according to their motivations, has not provided us with a social structure that alleviates the production of yet other issues. Simply put, the present governing system does not work well enough and we need to fix it. However, we can not use traditional methods of correction because they are part of the problem as well. It's not that "answers" to problems don't exist, it's just that their are multiple answers available but we can't agree on which is best, and those who are appointed to do the selection become yet another variable of the overall problem. We need a new approach which can incorporate... can meld the different perspectives into a coherent whole so that the best of each may flourish with an incorporated intent not to permit dilution.

If we look at historical approaches for attempting to deal effectively with social issues, Western civilizations have variously employed the technique of changing laws, developing new departments, as well as mixing and matching these political tools for different occasions. Unfortunately, they are inflexible and need to be administratively altered... but commonly are more for show than for producing any long term positive effect that will not need to be changed at some not too distant future. If we contrast this with the traditional Chinese approach of holding examinations to identify the best and the brightest potential government administrators, we nonetheless find a system incorporating a standardized approach like a mathematics order-of-operations. However, both models of governance do not adequately fend off those problems which arise due to self-generation created by the very type of methodology employed, because the problem-solving mechanisms embrace an isolationist perspective due to an unrecognized ego and ethno-centricism. Defining such situations as natural and normal traits of the human species does little to permit and encourage the need for developing better problem-solving thinking skills.

As an analogical example of what we are up against, a shortened version of the history of the tomato is of value to reference, because it not only shows foolish authoritative imposition, but how traditional perceptions can interfere with an alternative appreciation of reality:

Fruit or Vegetable?

Ever wonder why we consider a tomato a vegetable even though it is a fruit? You can lay part of the blame on the U.S. Supreme Court and maybe some on government greed. In 1887, U.S. tariff laws imposed a 10 percent duty on vegetables, but none on fruit. A tomato importer named John Nix sued the tax collector for the port of New York, Edward L. Hedden, arguing that tomatoes, since they were “really” fruits, should be exempt from the tax. Read Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893) here.

The botanical claim was not in dispute; tomatoes, as the seed-bearing ripened ovary of a flower, are fruits. Yet in a triumph of ordinary language over scholarly, the highest court of the land ruled in 1893 that the tomato was a vegetable and therefore subject to the tariff. In his decision, Justice Gray wrote: “Botanically speaking, tomatoes are fruits of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But in the common language of the people ... all these are vegetables ... which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are ... usually served at dinner in, with or after the soup, fish or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.” If you’re not too distracted by the vision of a Supreme Court justice pontificating on the distinction between dinner and dessert, you can contemplate two further botanical curiosities: First, most of us have heard that the tomato is “really” a fruit, but did you know that it is even more really a berry? Yes, really. Furthermore, this plant that most Americans grow exclusively as an annual is actually a perennial and will grow as such in its native and wild state. In fact, if inclined, you can nurse a tomato through the winter indoors and set it out again the next year.

Source: Tomato History

The above example illustrates how authority can impose its views though those views can be diametrically opposed not only to what an unasked majority may actually think, but the "reality" of a situation as defined by the dictates of yet another authoritative (scientific) body. Whereas on culture can interpret a situation as bad, wrong, or poisonous, another can view the same instance as good, right and edible. In other words, misinterpretation or misunderstanding that produces superstition or even fear, has got to addressed as an incorporated intent of a new government approach. We can not always rely on a public education system oriented towards the usage of antiquated ideas, familial traditions, or other similar practices to provide the public with the information to make informed choices from which can be derived useful laws. Utilizing the same sorts of information as we have done in the past to outline the parameters of governance and overall social accountability of cultural intent leads us to a continuance of the same formula of governance from which problems arise. Far too many of our approaches to governance leave us with little more than a bandaid application to open wounds... as is identified with the many issues which confront us and are not being adequately dealt with.

We need another type of approach than the current government structure. Too many minorities in and out of government are utilizing self-centered arguments to solve individualized interests, but such a methodology does not quell the situation of yet more issues developing because the variability of overlap is not being addressed. For example, one minority's interest... if solved, may clash with the interest of another one. Since the practice of the present government is one in which the branches of government function as minorities claiming to Represent the majority but do not in fact know what the majority opinion is because there is no regularly practiced means of making such an assessment; we have the exercise of governing by way of the dictates of minority opinion in and out of government. The Majority opinion, if it were honestly tabulated, might be quite different. If a government claiming itself to be a democracy defined as the Will of the people, then that Will needs to customarily be accessed on a definitively regular basis and not just guessed at or determined by assumption, guesstimation or ludicrous polling standards whose results may be an expressed opinion generated through a process prejudicially designed... yet unrecognized, because the methodology employed is an over-valued bought and paid for tool used by those whose effort-expenditure is used as the defining means of evaluating importance.

The present Dick and Jane or McGuffey Reader type of democracy that is being used is wholly inadequate. The needed alterations in social governance are being dysfunctionally substituted by human-imposed and practiced formulas of complexity that are mistakenly interpreted as an expression of a complex system of government. Whereas the governing system is actually simplistic, it is not being appropriately altered because the system is set up to accept the current structure as a model cast from a mold that was broken, and must therefore be left intact. Yet, like the U.S. Liberty Bell which was cast... then cracked, then cast again, yet cracked again, only to be recast a third time followed by yet a third crack... the process of the practice government also goes through renditions of itself only to find that it creates cracks as well. The methodology used to set up the initial formula of governance was faulty in the first place, just like other government practices throughout the world. Traditions, sentiment and patriotism get in the way for a desperately needed transformation of governance. The umbilical cords of the past have got to be severed to make way for a new process of government that will assist us in making the necessary transformation into a new era of social self-governance.

DickandJane (52K) McGuffey1stReader (24K) USConstitution (14K)

While many view the U.S. Constitution as a document exhibiting the practice of cooperative statesmanship, it does not also illustrate the usage of applied prejudice by those whose egocentricity and selfishness chose to exclude the majority from directly participating in "their" government by adopting highly restrictive voting laws. And even though those laws have been removed from practice, alternative forms of exclusion exist such as persisting in the usage of a election system that continually produces the situation in which the public is left with choosing between the lesser of two or more undesirable candidates and does not explicitly enforce the provision that the public is to be provided with the best and the brightest to hold a public office... because the process of government makes such jobs particularly undesirable to the best and the brightest, as practices of mediocrity... like maintenance mechanics or office management.

With respect to the Dick and Jane as well as the McGuffey Reader series of books, attitudes in the education system have changed over the years; formulating philosophies of education which promote personalized ideologies of what is the best instruction methodology and materials... and yet the public is not permitted to have a say so in how their children should be taught. Instead, parents are permitted to "Home School" their children or seek out alternative school systems which best reflect their values... though some parents are so fearful that their children will readily see through their ignorance they will do anything that will restrict their children from acquiring too much education. However, many parents are sufficiently ill-equipped to home-school their children and there is no set-in-place testing of parental teaching ability, which will guarantee the children of the Nation will be able to at least teach themselves how to learn and acquire new skills, or refine those they have. Instead, the nation is permitting the development of some citizens who may well lack the attributes needed for acquiring gainful employment in a society stressing workplace competition, if not a dog-eat-dog combativeness... because this is how the system is being run according to the dictates of a governing system whose processes are practicing in a runaway inclination dictated by a government whose leaders use time-dependent clauses of execution and other forms of obfuscation and obstructionism against the public because businesses are emphasizing such actions for their self-interests.

The mathematics of democracy has different dimensions utilizing a simplistic, as opposed to a simplified operational methodology that is particularly constrictive and contractive to the best interests of the public as a whole. The public is particularly ostracized from developing laws based on the collective Will which has little if any opportunity to regulate governing standards according to the Will of the People. Without such, government's will continue to deteriorate because the lack of respect for the collective view of the public can only be reciprocated by distrust, virulent disagreement, and reverse disenfranchisement. In as much as this article was entitled "Mathematics and Democracy", it could well be entitled "The Mathematics Of, By and For Democracy"... since the present formula being used is a story problem whose content is mixed, matched and manipulated according to the dictates of a given story-teller's motivations. In so doing, the public is confronted with one fantasy after another... and kept from being its own story creator on behalf of everyone. Social problems can be solved if the right kind of problem solving tool is utilized. The present pretend democracy formula is a joke that is no longer funny because its absurdity is not the occasional foot stumbling comedy, but the persistent debilitating accident caused by a dysfunctional governing architecture built and sustained by those who rely on an antiquated mathematics for laying a purposeful foundation.

For those interested in another model of mathematics applied to a particular instance of our present day formulas of democracy: BBC: The Mathematics of Elections

Date of Creation: Monday, 27-Jun-2016... 06:27 AM
Initial Posting: Friday, 01-Jul-2016... 03:19 AM