Frame Effect

Two characteristics of neural-networks– time frame and outcome– operate very differently from a classic democracy. Historically, voting had always happened at a set time with a definitive outcome. Neural-networks, like a human brain, are in constant operation, and understand that solutions may never be concrete, yet, at some point, a decision must be made or nothing gets done. Instead of a discrete vote that locks in-place the moment it’s cast, the Novel Universe Cult’s neural-democracy initiates action based on assessing a high-noise popular intent, as it surpasses a “tipping point.” Each member may register their position on an issue as they form an opinion, but also, may, until the voting window closes, repeatedly change their vote– the source of that noise. As this process has a majority intent taking effect over a time frame, we call this characteristic the “Frame Effect”– the idea that the electorate’s intent fluctuates over time, but with optimal parameters, a functional majority can be sufficiently assessed in order to take reasonable action.

Let’s say in order for the house to actually be built, 70% of the Body’s total electorate must first have weighed in on a hypothetical “Issue 1,” and, from those participating ballots, a majority of 67% or more in favor of construction must be sustained for a predetermined 3 months. In short, when enough people agree for enough time, the voting ends, and Issue 1 is adopted, becoming Law 1. The point at which an issue becomes law is the issue’s tipping point, which consists of three flexible factors whose values are determined by the voters: 1) a total participation rate of the electorate; 2) a majority percentage of participating votes in favor; and 3), a time frame of sustained participation from the majority. Once made public, the house’s status is open for debate until the tipping point is reached, the outcome takes effect, and the voting window closes, in this case, with the start of construction in month four.

An issue cannot be voted “down,” or in other words, 100% removed from consideration, because there’s no functional difference between voting against an issue as there is for that issue’s tipping point to have never been reached. However, once a law exists, it can be reversed, should the public recast their votes against the law. The ability to decisively address certain things– not immediately relevant or apparent as decisions are made– is a major benefit of leaving a voting window eternally open.

Imagine, a decade after the house is built, new info about problematic building materials comes to light. There had been other issues created to address the housing situation. Initially, Issue 2 had seemed like a great idea, but its “natural” materials and design had been deemed too expensive by many, so most ended up supporting Issue 1– now Law 1. Instead of having to create a wholly new issue with all its details, a motivated group implores the electorate to reverse their position and recast their votes against Law 1 (formerly Issue 1), while simultaneously lobbying for Issue 2, something most had already considered. In a single month, the total participation rate for both skyrockets past that 70% to 90%, and that old 67% majority in favor of initially building the house flips to 98% in favor of razing (reversing Law 1) and rebuilding it (supporting Issue 2). Once this profoundly more intense response is sustained for, say, 2 weeks, Law 1 is reversed, and Issue 2 becomes Law 2– the old, toxic dwelling is quickly demolished, and again, construction begins.

Why would the time frame now be 2 weeks instead of that initial 3 months? Because the Frame Effect isn’t some set point on a scale, but a dynamic parameter derived from the relationship between its 3 variables– participation, majority, and time frame. The “low” point of a Frame (Low Frame) is the longest amount of consecutive time needed to lapse once the minimum participation rate and minimum majority required to pass an issue is reached. The “high” point of an issue’s Frame (High Frame) is the shortest window of time when the maximum number of votes reaches a consensus to pass the issue. As the vote exceeds the Low Frame, the clock begins to tick, ticking faster as more people add their vote in favor. Should the vote drop below the Low Frame, the voting clock stops, while the vote tally continues whatever journey it’s on, until, once again, it rises to meet the Low Frame, and the clock restarts its count from zero.

Just as neurons strengthen or weaken connections between each other, the specific weights of these variables and their combinations are updated by the electorate to better reflect the People’s intent. After the debacle of that toxic house, maybe the adjusted Low Frame for future houses will drastically change, now requiring 80% of the People’s voice to first weigh in, with a majority of 75% in favor over 6 months, thus allowing better research to be done in the future.

Neural-democracy is advanced governance, and requires an engaged, informed electorate with at least a passing sense of how the math of neural-networks operate to be effective. Because of the adjustable nature of input bias, this form of democracy is capable of responding to the People’s intent in a timely manner, while simultaneously resisting frivolous or corrupt attempts to make profound changes that are not valuable to the People and will not last. Just as a child stumbles before learning to walk, wiring their brain through the arduous process of myelination, so must a neural-democracy work through those initial conditions to find its own variables of success. The more Communities deal with more issues, and with more participation, the more effective each outcome becomes. Eventually, recognizing which variables need tweaking, and by how much, becomes more intuitive.

First, read our philosophy to better understand our Creed.