As far as outlining the evolution of vote sizing, this page is the end of the line.

We've already outlined vote sizing's goals, what we're not, and proactive things to do to get the word out. We're predicting that with this information a small (and probably remotely located) branch of the DEP will lead the pack of fringe parties in that region. The local, national and hopefully international media will then pick up on it as an off-beat story; and go to someone sitting in an office for their opinion. This is the turning point between action and reaction; where our goal moves from simply pushing the idea of vote sizing into empty space, to interaction - defending ourselves against outside assaults.

So we'll need a strategy to continue to show people that no matter how hard the elites attack us, vote sizing turns their objections around, turning the spotlight back on them and their objectives. This way the debate won't be resolved in its infancy and the media will continue to use it to hammer away and elicit over-the-top, knee-jerk reactions from above. Only then will the stage be set for vote sizing to complete its growth cycle and become large enough to influence the political debate.

What we want to do now is prepare you as well as possible so our battle ahead - and it will be a battle - becomes a victory over corruption.

The fast track to triumph is preparation – anticipating how the elite will respond to the vote sizing message and thinking of how to respond in turn.

What to Expect - Direct Engagement

One thing is certain: the ruling elite will feel threatened by anything that would undermine their corrupt hourglass power structure and will try everything within their power to hold onto the status quo and get the rest of us to do their bidding. So even when we try to install vote sizing in a small remote community to improve the lives of the people there, we shouldn't be too surprised to find ourselves facing a cohesive backlash that will be fierce! What form will that backlash take? There are four main kinds of reactions, somewhat matching the way that Mahatma Gandhi once put it: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Now that we understand what we're up against, let's look at some ways which we may in turn react to them.

What's Good for the Goose ... Reactionary Strategies

In order to succeed, the DEP must neutralize every escalation of the ruling elite's accusations and actions. The most efficient and simplest way to do this is by maintaining a consistent stance by asking ourselves at each junction: What method of counteraction best represents the true nature of vote sizing and therefore advances the DEP the farthest? To hash out the best answers, let's take a closer look at the above choices that the elite can use against us:

Ignoring

History is packed with examples of the use of ignoring as a reactionary strategy - primarily because it is effective, easy, and appeals to the sensibilities of the middle class – who resist change. All kinds of conflicts, and causes, and crusades - both good and bad - have been stopped dead in their tracks due to lack of public support. But, the question we need to ask ourselves is: Is it a safe bet for the DEP to outwait our enemy, the corrupt ‘democratic' empire, before trying to advancing the vote sizing message?

Ignoring Pros

Ignoring Cons

The potential benefits of the ignoring strategy are clear: by getting out of harm's way, lying in the background, people may be able to ride out turbulent, dangerous times. And if the despot, army, fanatics, invaders, or whoever – is eventually overthrown then the people can come back into the light, unharmed, and once again carry on their day-to-day lives in peace. Many impoverished, oppressed people living in the midst of civil war or elite power struggle either simply ignore it and continue on their daily lives; or else recede into the background to stay out of harm's way, and as soon as the smoke clears, reemerge into the sunshine, reunite with families and neighbors, free political prisoners, and reopen businesses - as if nothing ever happened.

Since it's so passive, this strategy of just ignoring a problem away depends wholly on a conditional if the enemy falters or implodes – which is a big gamble. Corruption, by nature and definition, falls slowly, and takes everything it can with it. What if the despot is never overthrown, the army never disbanded, the invaders never kicked out - or even worse, replaced by the same kind of evil? By engaging an ignoring strategy we deny ourselves the opportunity to be fully proactive in changing our own situations. Many Jews tried to silently outwait what was the Nazi's ascension – and millions died as a result. Until the situation that we ignore runs out of steam, we remain relegated to a life of secrecy, fear, oppression and collusion.

Laughter / Scorn

Scorn is the next level of engagement we can get into with an enemy; as it acknowledges the enemy - but only as something ‘less-than'. Scorn effectively sparks all kinds of activity; beginning with sarcasm and ridicule and escalating all the way to desperate demonstrations of incredibly ruthless violence. Scorn is often found reciprocated between tyrants who show nothing but contempt for their responsibilities to lead benevolently and the disenfranchised people who are beholden to fight back. Often, in the face of dehumanizing humiliation, marginalization, and disdain that we face everyday from the ruling elite; we turn to desperate acts of violence as a way to regain a sense of control – or simply to demonstrate to the rulers the level of humiliation and brutalization that we experience (see our internalized brutality section). When corruption rules the day, we learn to share humiliation instead of respect.

Scorn Pros

Scorn Cons

Scorn is a useful tool in exposing the enemies every flaw. As circumstances deteriorate, scorn's conclusion - desperate action -becomes more and more appealing - as it is a great way to get the media's attention, shake the middle ground, and demonize the enemy. Scorn works well at the symbolic level and the spectacle of overt humiliation fascinates us as it harkens up real feelings of powerlessness and injustice. Satire, parody, innuendo and archetypes can be a lot more entertaining and easier to digest than dialectic debate; and it's a lot more fun to dance, draw, paint and sing around a hot topic than to try to really dissect and understand it.

Scorn can itself deteriorate into self-serving pointlessness. At its core vote sizing is a nonviolent, institutionalized revolution, caught in the crossfire of scorn's deadly kind of opportunism. The tactic favored by terrorists, gangs, militias, and rogue police officers - is not a productive strategy to counter either the corrupt elite or rebellious masses. In fact, eventually all it seems to do is further the cause of injustice and warlordism on both sides. And scorn and desperate action are certainly not in the spirit of vote sizing or the DEP - we're trying to combat brutality, not create more of it! Scorn is at its core a call to arms and a forced picking of sides. It rivets our focus on battle lines and extremes (black/white, us/them), forcing moderates to choose and rupturing the middle ground.

Fight / Overreacting

In a strategy eloquently described by Carl von Clausewitz (a Prussian officer who suffered defeat at the hands of Napoleon's army) in 1832‘s ON WAR: Overreacting is the fighting strategy that not only recognizes the opponent; but does so much so that it comes to the conclusion that only one side can survive (no surprise which that chosen side is). Thus, this strategy involves the assemblage of massive war machines in an attempt to direct an overwhelming amount of ‘shock and awe' energy onto the enemy's shoulders until they break.

Overreacting Pros Overreacting Cons While it may sound counterintuitive that the DEP could overwhelm the ruling elite (after all, we're as puny as they are well entrenched), we could try this overreaction strategy by painting our corrupt leaders not as damaged people like us who are also victims of a corrupt system, but as our eternal enemies who simply need to go "at any cost" so that we can rule. This strategy has proven effective in successful coups in such places as the Philippines, Romania, Iran and various African countries. By focusing all our strength on how horrible the enemy is, we can easily lose sight of who we are. This dynamic is not lost on the pivotal middle class, who try to look farther into the future than the ransacking of buildings and tearing down of effigies. Moderates who choose thoughtful action over brute force will reject this overreacting strategy that declares "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means." And how will we dismantle our war machine once we've beaten one opponent? This strategy only attracts more subjugation and compromises a movement's integrity and support base - until all that's left is this empirical strategy and its army.

Our Biggest Danger ... GRIDLOCK!

Whenever a conflict arises where both sides make use of the strategies listed above, the outcome often serves only a few select warlords, and the rest of us end up caught in a viscous caste system based not on wealth or lineage or occupation but on stubbornness and an unwillingness to solve our problems intelligently. This is truly the domain of misery and stagnation - called gridlock - and it can exist just as easily in stalemate as in chaos.

Punching Holes in Gridlock - Careful Planning

By acknowledging both the good and bad to each of the first three - incomplete – strategies, the DEP can fend off attacks and spot weaknesses in the opponents' fight. We can make use of the ignoring strategy insofar as not trying to fix the problems of corruption's domination one issue at a time. Rather we seek to empower the democratic process and thereby encourage as many people as possible to solve our problems together. Instead of asking people to turn their backs on (or the other cheek to) and ignore our enemies, vote sizing seeks to engage all of society – both oppressed and oppressors – in non-violent discussion.

The DEP utilizes scorn to a limited degree in its struggle against corrupt elites by attacking not any specific belief or trait but their overall need to dominate and dictate the discussion. Just because they have lots of money and have found a way to control government (or visa versa) does not justify an attitude of always being right. We all need to listen, if we think we deserve to be heard. Instead of just continuing to just hammer away at this point; the DEP offers a viable solution in the form of vote sizing - which invites them ‘into the fold' as equals in this collective choice.

The DEP embraces the conquer / overreacting strategy only as far as we seek to strengthen (unite) society so we can then deal with any opponents or challenges together. But with vote sizing the emphasis is always on our improvement - and not on finding, creating or annihilating a scapegoat. This principle resonates with the middle class who, by nature, are in touch with both political and class variations. By sticking to the vote sizing mandate, we never forget who we are and what we're fighting for - our own empowerment and personal growth, and shows to way to lead the elite by example - rather than try to decimate them.

In order to avoid gridlock while engaging in battle with the ruling elite; the DEP must not fall into the trap of depending too heavily on any combination of the above three reaction strategies – lest we end up creating a gridlock monster of our own. Although those strategies may get us attention and help the DEP rise amongst the ranks, their final result would be the stoppage of any real forward movement for the vote sizing cause.

Gridlock's Kryptonite - REDIRECTION!

If you've ever become frustrated trying to make a dent in our collective direction, you know that gridlock already abounds. And even if the DEP can punch a few holes carefully using the above strategies, we still don't have an effective strategy to react to the ruling elite.

Or do we?

In the age of instant conquest and complete autonomy, redirection is a commonly overlooked strategy – but in the spirit of Sun Tzu (6th century BC Chinese general, and author of THE ART OF WAR) – it is the one strategy that will allow us to successfully smash gridlock and truly engage the ruling elite. The strength of Sun Tzu's philosophy lies in the distinction between force and power.

Force happens when energy is simply released into the environment; but in a gridlocked situation, it often can just make a bad situation worse. Power, on the other hand, is created when energy is absorbed, controlled, understood, and then focused as redirected action back at the opponent. It demonstrates a calm, calculated effectiveness that does have the ability to bring down the Goliath of corruption. It's akin to many eastern martial arts, such as Aikido; in which a vastly larger opponent can be overcome with graceful movements that are not forceful... but full of power. Like Aikido, the art of redirection ‘forces' the opponents' own power to unbalance and overcome them.

We must always remember that in order to win, we must hold the "higher ground" - and in our case, this higher ground is middle class support. The only way to gain - and maintain – that support is by effectively utilizing the redirection strategy. This redirection strategy will lead to our victory in three stages: first empowering the oppressed, which then draws out the oppressors, which then (and only then) draws in the middle class and finishes the fight.

Drawing Up the Bottom

Instead of attempting to fill the oppressed with rage and trying to forcefully take down the ruling elite; vote sizing gives the oppressed a fair choice between economic wealth and political power - and thereby finds a way for the oppressed to empower themselves without looking for external assistance or blame. It represents to them much more than just another angry voice in the darkness; for you can only be angry - you can't do angry... and vote sizing does something fantastic by offering them a workable guiding light out. This fair choice works to allow oppressed people to take on more and more personal responsibility and provides a real way to rebuild a system in which individual choice - and not merely thoughtless force - is central. (The exact steps of this progression, in real time, are described in detail in our action page.)

Like Sun Tzu's approach to conflict, vote sizing welcomes energy, receives it, and then reflects it back where necessary in a focused way. It replaces insidious, rampant humiliation and anger with conscious and restorative respect.

Drawing Out the Top

(Now we enter the point in our story where action ends, and interaction begins - when the media takes the story of the DEP to the ruling politicians and think tanks for their opinion and the fight begins.) We've already covered what kinds of engagement to expect (ignoring, scorn, and overreacting); but in order to break the gridlock we'll have to fix our strategy around redirecting the elite's argument back at them in a way that they cannot deal with. This won't be as difficult as it may seem, for no matter what strategy they choose to cast doubt in our direction (and we've already covered a lot of our own flaws throughout this website) - all we need to do is pose the following questions back to them:

Questions to ask of an elitist: If given a chance, could you sacrifice even a teeny-weeny bit of either your political power or wealth; so others could live better? If not, then why not?

However the elite choose to respond to these incredibly simple questions – whether they ignore them, mock them, or try to spin them - we will have already successfully overcome a large component of our struggle: pulling them out into the open and forcing them to acknowledge us and defend their position. In fact, these questions cut straight to the core of their position: their need to dominate and their unwillingness to make any kind of sacrifices. Their rule consists of a fragile overextended bubble; completely devoid of principles; a squishy weak core hidden inside a tough, inflexible shell. No matter what they say from this point on, everyone will see that the ruling elite wish to maintain the status quo (with them forever at the top of the corruption hourglass) to the detriment of the rest of us.

Drawing Out the Middle

Unlike the oppressed poor, middle class people are not that charged up on sudden change. They don't judge their own condition or status as all that bad, they don't think it's productive to rock the boat if it doesn't provide a change in direction, and they're suspicious of radical ideas propagated from below. Essentially, their priorities are to try and hold on to what they have fought so hard to come by. They find security by taking their cues from those above; as the alternatives terrify them.

That, of course, works well to the elite's advantage - especially when they simply ignore and scorn away threats to their superior position. However, the middle class's unbalanced focus can also become a serious disadvantage to the elite's cause; since now so much sensitivity is focused on the elite's confidence and assurances, any chink in their armor can be exploited. If the elite can't successfully ignore, scorn or redirect their unable-to-choose position in a debate; they will be left with no choice but to lash out and overreact - and overreaction is one thing that the middle class is sensitive to. Their whole campaign then hinges around aligning the middle class to believe that rather than sacrificing a tiny part of their power (vote), this massive overreaction is necessary. But vote sizing, and the fair choice behind it, allows us to 1) recognize that the threat of collective self destruction comes from within; and 2) to do something relatively easily about it ...so now all the DEP needs to do is ask them back if vote sizing is the real threat, or the domination and corruption fighting it. Instead of trying to push the middle class into the debate, we can pull them – appealing to the idea that vote sizing offers a more stable platform for long-term growth than the status quo. The middle class always respond better to self-maintained stability than imposed control.

Then...?

Once the oppressed, the elite, and middle class are fully engaged through the DEP / vote sizing / the fair choice's artful redirection, what might happen? Here's what our crystal ball has to say...

Vote Sizing is Forever Silenced

Of course, vote sizing being silenced is the worst possible outcome for the DEP and we hate to think about the movement dying a cold death; but we ought to consider every potential outcome, and their implications. We don't think it's likely, but if vote sizing were to be silenced, it would be either through propaganda or force.

By Propaganda

By Force

As we all know, the ruling elite will pull out every trick in their playbook to stop vote sizing dead in its tracks. One of the most effective is simply bombarding the middle class with the message that vote sizing is absurd, impossible, anti-democratic, and not in their interests. If the middle class doesn't see this as unwarranted desperation; then vote sizing will never achieve the mainstream support it needs to succeed. To imagine it another way: vote sizing is implemented, but over time - even with vote sizing in place - it gets voted out as people come to the conclusion that the old system was better.

Besides its firm grip on the media, the elite also control the institutions of force (armies, militias, police, courts, prisons). So another option that the ruling elite could employ to silence a vote sizing movement is to decree vote sizing, the DEP, and all associated activities – including media publication and broadcast – illegal and punishable by fines, imprisonment, execution, or torture. As we explain in our brutality pages; without strong and independent institutions and moral compasses of their own, the very bastions of justice can themselves be turned around, converted into loyal enforcers of the elite's rule, and called to ‘duty' to crush the vote sizing movement by force. Violence would probably be a powerful enough motivator to cause people to give up the cause.

If either of these defeat scenarios should happen, then it merely reflects the lack of confidence that human nature has in changing its own institutions, and changing itself with them. Perhaps there's some logic here - perhaps it is not our destiny to change; but instead to play out our own greedy feeding on the planet to its final conclusion. In an odd way, we may not be able to seek out our own salvation; but at least we'd get to determine our own destruction.

Vote Sizing Sees Its Day

Oh happy day! In this scenario, one way or the other vote sizing triumphs and is ushered in to replace the way we currently elect our leaders. Now the part of the DEP has been played out and it's time for it to step aside and let the people, through a weighted vote, decide their futures. Hopefully, it what we've outlined in our vision page the new democratic reforms will be enough to allow people to take back control over government, and to keep corruption from rearing its ugly head; but still vote sizing is not a magical cure-all-pill - and we the voters, politicians, business people, judges, police, etc. will have to work plenty hard to make sure that peace and harmony reign. But if we can make it work; then this is surely the stuff that dreams are of.

Vote Sizing Is Preempted by Reforms

This middle-ground resolution is the one that's by far the most interesting to us because it neither scares the crap out of us (vote sizing if forever silenced), nor does it lull us into a trance-like dream (vote sizing sees its day). This preemptive reform resolution, as we imagine it, comes after the ruling elite realize that the DEP and vote sizing are 1) for real; 2) really powerful; and 3) not about to go away, even with all the coercion and force the elite can muster. So instead of fighting until they are themselves toppled and disgraced and have no more control whatsoever; the ruling elite choose to reform their ways so that drastic measures like vote sizing are not even needed. Exactly how they would accomplish this without the assistance of a weighted vote feedback loop is beyond us. Doubtless there are loads of great ideas floating around; but this outcome suggests that these politicians somehow find a way to tap into the fair choice philosophy without using votes as their tool. Or perhaps they find anther way to improve democracy without necessarily personally balancing the hold that money has on us, and the system in general. However it works; this preemptive reform resolution embodies the true essence of vote sizing – personal and social growth through ever-flexible negotiation.

No matter what the outcome; the most important part of the vote sizing exercise is that at the end we we'll have learnt a lot more about ourselves than when we began. Whether we learn that we weren't ready, will never be ready, or are capable of changing for the better and to meet life's challenges; to grow on this level is the essence of what it means to be alive, no? So the real question becomes - just how alive are you?