The New Year in the United States brings another Presidential election. Significant because three of the last four Presidents have served the two term limit maximum of eight years. I see two problems that prevent us from selecting the best possible government. I believe the current format of head-to-head debates used in Presidential elections highlights memorized arguments and showmanship instead of service record, voting record, stated positions, and follow through on stated positions. Secondly, I believe many voters suffer from a lack of knowledge about the individual candidate’s resume, history, voting records and stated positions.
I will my contribution to the fray to floating two simple ideas derived from the out of print and little known Marc Steigler book David’s Sling (Baen Books, 1988). I recommend you purchase a used copy and read the book.

My first idea is to use a process similar to the book to find answers to problems the government faces, and to help us find the best possible person to lead the administrative branch of the next government.
The book David’s Sling is about living in the information age. The main social force in the book is a humanitarian institute appropriately named The Zetetic Institute.
From The Free Dictionary - Zetetic
a. 1. Seeking; proceeding by inquiry.
Zetetic method
(Math.) the method used for finding the value of unknown quantities by direct search, in investigation, or in the solution of problems.
- Hutton.
n. 1. A seeker; - a name adopted by some of the Pyrrhonists.
In the book, the fictional Zetetic Institute trains people to make the best possible decisions; and they also teach a successful class but also fictional on quitting smoking.
To see a longer quote from the book, see windsofchange.net
The Institute recognized three broad classes of decisions, and three broad methods of decision-making: engineering decisions, political decisions, and unresolvable decisions….
Zeteticism had recognized an important truth: the choice between politics and engineering is always an engineering decision. The decision duel technique made its most important contributions on issues that looked and tasted political, but were actually engineering decisions at heart.
The information decision duel is a fascinating literary device that I haven’t found in the real world. Basically it is a moderated, open book, high school debate on computers. Each duel seeks to find the best answer to an important question. An appropriate person (duelist) is selected to champion each of the two points of view. The duels are broadcast in real time to the country (I assume on the internet). The viewing public sees their screen divided into three sections. One section for each of the two duelists, and one section for the moderator, in the center. Each duelist lists there arguments on the their side of the screen.
Moderators are trained by the institute to recognize the types of arguments and decision making. The moderator uses a colored light pen to point out the arguments. Each argument is circled with a color. The specific color indicates the specific type of argument.
See Evaluating Arguments: Two Helpful Concepts for more information.
An arrow indicated where the other duelist refutes an argument. Also the duels are open book. Anyone watching can send a message (an email I presume) to either duelist adding information or arguments that may prove useful to finding the best possible answer.
My second idea is the creation of an information era page to sort, hold, summarize and detail the pertinent information about each elected official in our government and each candidate for elected office. A large task, no doubt; perhaps Google could handle it.
So when you sit down at there computer and decide to check on your government or the next election, you can, with a few clicks of the mouse. You go to www.somewherenotyethere.gov and enter your zip code. Up pops a tree that starts with your local city council and mayor and leads all the way up to the President of the United States. During election years, elections are highlighted. All candidates get equal space. There is a bio, resume, voting record and position papers for each candidate, along with an executive summary for people who just want the highlights.
The site is moderated so that it is not just propaganda. Each candidate is allowed a link to their own personal website where they can publish anything they desire.
The cornerstone of the web site is position papers; a sort of Monroe Doctrine for each of preselected set of issues (e.g. immigration, health care, taxation, size of government, the war in Iraq, etc.). Each candidate can submit their position paper on each issue. Over time, Moderators grade each candidate on how closely their actual performance in office matches their stated positions. Candidates are allowed to change their positions but each change is noted and highlighted.