Common ground is closely connected to voluntary compliance because, if laws are made based upon defined common ground publicly stated, then the level of voluntary compliance of those laws is most likely to be of the highest order. But, given the above-stated perceptions, common ground is not easily achieved. Diversity gives rise to unique points of view. These diverse, unique points of view are formed from diverse consciousnesses in different stages of development, each struggling with unique sets of growth points pertinent to the unique histories of the humans populating the citizenship. The common ground upon which all of this diversity rests is the quality of being modern homo sapiens. This situation implies that laws should be based upon the needs of every human being. This further implies that laws need to be made or written from a position of consensus within the population of that citizenship.
I came face to face with my naiveté regarding these matters and the governance within my home state when I lobbied for a particular legislative position under discussion in the legislature. The particulars of the debated issue is not of importance to this discussion but the lesson transmitted is.
I went before a legislative committee to glean impact from voters on the issue of Rank Choice Voting (RCV) which is a system of voting where the individual voter ranks his or her choice by priority. The individual indicates his or her first choice and then the second choice and then the third and so on, until all of the choices of the given vote is ranked from first to last. A simple, compacted explanation of RCV is that this ranking of the voter’s choices from first to last, functions as a type of run-off election needed when no majority was acquired in the previous round of voting. As an example, consider that there are four individuals running for an office and all four receive the following percentage of the vote on that first round of counting the RCV votes (give or take a percent or two): 32%, 26%, 29% and 13%. To get to the majority of the votes for one candidate, a run-off election must be held to decide the wishes of the majority. RCV allows for the population to vote one time, but since that one-time-vote ranks all of the possible choices from first to last, a consensus of the population on the candidate gleaning a majority of votes is achieved without the additional expense, time and effort needed to conduct a run off election.
RCV is not new and it works like this: Since none of the four candidates mentioned above received a majority of the votes on the first round of counting the registered first choice of the voters, the candidate with lowest accrued percentage is dropped, however voters who chose that candidate still maintain a significant voice in that election because their second choice candidate voted on their ballot is distributed to the remaining candidates who received more votes on the first round. If, the distribution of their 2nd choice candidate renders a candidate with a majority percentage of the vote (50% plus 1 vote), then the election process ends with the candidate who has a majority of the consensus vote wins the election. This process continues until one candidate has earned 50% plus 1 of the votes casted.
RCV has been used in local elections and some few states are looking into it for general state and federal elections. I am not interested in stating the benefits or shortcomings of RCV. My purpose here is to give context to the lesson I learned that confronted my naiveté regarding governance issues.
After I testified about my understanding and perceptions about RCV, which included its history that nine out of the past eleven governors in my state were elected with less than a majority (many times with only around a high 30% of the vote), I was asked a question by one of the legislators on the committee holding the hearing: “What is wrong with the person having the highest percentage winning the election?” This rationale was demonstrated through references to sports events like the Olympics. His argument appeared to me to question my frailness in coping with competition and that competition is “the American way.”
I did not respond right away. I reflected upon his position and then replied: “I do not mind competition, but when it comes to governance issues of an entire state populated with thousands and thousands of individuals, I believe that finding a consensus of the majority of the population makes for better governance of the people. Having a governor elected with only 39% of the vote means that 61% of the voting population did not favor that elected governor. RCV, I declared, is a system that allows for the entire population to voice its consensus on which candidate should rule by a majority vote. There were a few more exchanges before I took my seat again but this was the crux of the matter.
Later, as I was working the halls of the legislature talking to representatives, my education was augmented by the following insight rendered by a professional lobbyist who was also working the halls. Governance was not the issue I was told. “Politics is about power acquisition,” I was told. Competition and power acquisition (and not consensus and cooperation) were the hallmarks of governance in the United States of America. If competition and power acquisition are the fundamental forces guiding our politics, which in turn determines the writing of our laws of our land, then how does voluntary compliance fit into that reality?
The issue of voluntary compliance is critically important, because if compliance is not voluntary, it is forced. Forced compliance implies that individuals do not want to comply or are more motivated not to comply than to comply. If compliance must be forced, then some individual or individuals must have the power to force compliance. If that power is in the hands of only one individual then governance is either a monarchy, empire, or dictatorship etc. However, one individual cannot do all of the work necessary to run a kingdom, empire, or country. There is too much work for one individual. Kings, emperors, and dictators must delegate some of their authority to selected others who carry out the wishes of the sole ruler. The reality of governance is that a group or collection of individuals are responsible to carry out governance issues. The sole ruler might make the laws, but those laws must be enforced by many other individuals given the authority to do so.
If a law is written, and every individual citizen living under that law accepts that law as benefiting all citizens and therefore willingly and voluntarily complies with that law, then policing that law requires minimal effort. However, as voluntary compliance diminishes, the force needed to demand compliance increases. It is not a random occurrence nor is it by mistake that kings and emperors had huge armies and a cadre of aristocracy to carry out the king’s or emperor’s wishes. It is not a mistake that dictators control the military and the courts. Voluntary compliance is about cooperation. Citizens cooperate with each other and with the government for the well-being of everyone.
As the well-being of every citizen begins to diminish into a situation in which the well-being of a select few takes precedence over the vast majority, voluntary compliance begins to weaken; demonstrations may start to happen and these demonstrations may be seen as instigating a rebellion, and rebellions must be squashed. Kings, emperors, and dictators must put down rebellions. Force, often extreme force, may be required. Look to the Syrian tragedy as an example of the application of extreme force.
As competition and power acquisition become more and more the aspiration of politics, then cooperation and voluntary compliance become less and less of an issue because seeking common ground on issues is not the point. Forcing the will of the few or the will of just one individual is the mark of distinction. Perpetual warfare is not a chance occurrence. Perpetual warfare is an outcome of failed cooperation.
I have chosen to keep my naiveté. I am a believer that cooperation, consensus, voluntary compliance, and other such philía realities are what brought modern humans to this current crossroads in the evolutionary path into the future. Earth cannot sustain our ignorance and incorrect behavior much longer. If Earth cannot be sustained, we humans cannot be sustained. Finding common ground is critical.
Exploring one issue hopefully will demonstrate what is needed to move forward. I chose an issue that is infused with high levels of emotions and very diverse perceptions from very diverse consciousnesses revealing an array of diverse character development. This pursuit hopefully will render a better understanding of how to find and stand upon common ground with which the great majority can voluntarily comply.
No one can open the closed mind of another. It is not easy to open such a closed mind. I know because I have had a closed mind a number of times in my life. One very recent experience is still fresh in my consciousness because it was very difficult to tolerate the effects of having to open my mind to perspectives that were not mine. These perspectives came from my thirty-seven-year-old son whom I love very much. Being the father of this fine, young, accomplished man places me metaphorically in the position of ruler listening to the perceptions of the citizens (my son). This experience happened a few weeks ago and I had to force myself to listen with an open mind because his critique was about my prejudicial responses toward his life. He eloquently stated with clarity my biases unwittingly implied and directed toward him in a hurtful way without my conscious understanding of my own behavior. It was a role reversal. (Teacher became Student; Student became Teacher).
My incorrect naiveté was challenged by my son’s clearly stated position on how my actions affected his soul. I needed to recognize his perceptions; apologize for my behavior and the harm inflicted; understand what changes I needed to effect and grow from the difficult position of admitting my errors. This all needed to be done if I was to live harmoniously with my son. I experienced emotional discomfort during this process and for some days afterward. Whatever wounds were endured are now healed but the freshness of the experience remains as a lingering regret that I was and am less than I hope to become. Mistakes are made. Each of us can grow from our mistakes. Each of us has his or her own growth points that must be navigated well if each of us wishes to advance to meet our next challenge. Consciously living life is awesome! Sometimes it is naturally painful.
I had to accept that my thirty-seven-year-old-son’s perceptions were more accurate than mine. I had to accept that in this matter, my son was acting with more grace and kindness than I. I also had to know that his perceptions and his words were not designed to injure but to fix a problem that could very easily fester into a more debilitating condition of our relationship. I am grateful that my son is his own person and that person is kind and good. He is also perceptive and courageous to stand his ground in the face of his father to offer insight that would benefit the father-son relationship that grew into a relationship between equals.
This experience, and a few others similar to this, are the events that expand my consciousness to reflect that a closed mind takes great effort to open and to keep open and therefore allow the learning to occur. I continue to write these words as though all those reading these words have their minds open to receiving my perceptions and reflections. This is not to say that all individuals will agree with my understanding or interpretation of what has been perceived.
The issue between myself and my son was my professed attitude and perception of questionable conduct of policing issues highlighted in the press. The feelings of many police officers is that the public in general dislikes the police because of bad press, and therefore my constant questioning of police officers’ behavior demonstrated that I was one of the individuals who see the police as brutes motivated by bias. Such a perception is critical because several police officers have been killed while sitting in their cruisers or were ambushed by unknown perpetrators for no apparent reason other than they were police officers. As this lengthy discussion continued, during which my wife verified my son’s perception as an accurate accounting of my behavior, we all, including myself, could see what damage, emotional pain, and disharmony grows from miscommunications and naiveté. We worked it out, which is to say that I gained better understanding about my son, his profession, his hidden feelings, and how my opinions affect those feelings unbeknownst to me.
Apart from issues regarding the life and feelings of police in these times of intense, emotive, public rhetoric and the promoting of hatred, there is another group of humans who struggle for loving acceptance from the general public.