<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-model href="http://www.tei-c.org/release/xml/tei/custom/schema/relaxng/tei_all.rng" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="teibp.xsl"?>
<TEI xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" 
     xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" >
  <teiHeader> 
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title><!-- Infomocracy--></title>
        <author>
          <persName><!-- Liya Yan --></persName>
        </author>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt>
          <ab><!-- 2016 by Malka Older --></ab>
      </publicationStmt>
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <!-- -->
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <text>
    <front>
      <!--  -->
    </front>
    <body>
      <!-- main document goes here, possibly divided into <div>s -->
  <p>
      ANNOUNCER: Welcome to the first debate for <ref target="#h1">the third global election</ref>! 
      We welcome representatives of the thirty-three governments that meet the 
      official cutoff to be candidates for the Supermajority position, 
      according to the latest round of official Information polling. 
      Each of the candidates will now present a brief opening statement, 
      followed by questions from the moderators.
  </p><p>
      HERITAGE: Thank you, and we are very pleased to participate for 
      a third time in this inspiring and historic process of global 
      democracy! We are also thrilled to celebrate with you, with our
      constituents all over the world, and with everyone who is 
      participating in this wonderful exercise of citizenship and 
      empowerment! You are the ones who make <ref target="h2">micro-democracy</ref> great—we
      couldn't do it without you! And so, before we even begin, I want to
      thank you for giving us the opportunity not only to govern our
      centenals but also to guide this amazing effort toward peace and 
      prosperity as the Supermajority for the past twenty years! Ken shakes 
      his head and takes another swig of his beer. William Pressman is so 
      smug and obnoxious. If he were on the Heritage team—not that he ever 
      would be!—he'd advise them to cool it with that. He doesn't think their
      attitude helps them with undecideds. Although considering their record,
      he could be wrong about that.
  </p><p>   
      Despite the unpleasant ambience at the Policylst office, he stayed
      in Jakarta to watch the debate. He's managed to find a centenal
      where alcohol and marijuana are legal but tobacco and pop-out 
      advertisements are not. As Ken waited for the debate to start,
      he checked out  this government's broader policies. They're called Free2B, 
      which sounds like they might promulgate that kind of individualism 
      that gets annoying quickly once your neighbor starts playing gronkytonk
      at top volume at five a.m. or refuses to donate to the volunteer 
      fire department until their house is burning down, but when he scans 
      their policies, he sees they're reasonably socially conscious. If they've 
      got anything in a more temperate climate, he's seriously considering 
      moving there once the election is over.
  </p><p>   
      The bar is unfinished blond wood with light fixtures made of 
      old-fashioned glass beer bottles and lots of ceiling fans powered, 
      according to a sign in the bathroom, by an anaerobic reactor. 
      They have a wide range of drink and drug offerings and some good 
      early '20s music playing through the ambience. It's too bad he has
      to get on a plane tomorrow; there's a World Cup elimination match he 
      wants to see, Hokkaido versus Greater Bolivia, and this would be a 
      great place to watch it.
  </p><p>   
      The Heritage spokesperson is complaining about why there 
      are thirty-three governments included in the debate. Since
      Policylst is currently thirteenth in Information's ranking 
      of Supermajority candidates, Ken would very much like for there
      to be exactly thirteen parties up there. Or maybe fourteen or 
      fifteen, so his isn't dead last. Thirty-three does seem like a 
      lot—even with simulquestions, this is going to take forever. 
      But Heritage wants to cut it down to five. Naturally, the 
      fewer governments people take seriously, the better chance
      Heritage has to hold on to what they've got. Having looked at 
      the numbers recently, Ken knows that the text and animations 
      that the moderator is superimposing over Heritage's long-winded 
      statement are accurate: there's a huge gulf between number 
      thirty-three and number thirty-four on the list, so it's the most
      sensible place to make the cut.
  </p><p>   
      Whether the ranking criteria are valid is a whole separate set
      of questions, though, and one that no one but the big muckamucks 
      at Information is likely to get a chance to ask.
  </p><p>   
      HERITAGE: You will see many advids from our opponents, and 
      particularly from Information, claiming that we have not 
      kept every single one of our campaign promises. But we would 
      like to remind you that, as the only Supermajority holder in 
      history, we are the only ones who have been tested in is way. 
      It is easy for the others to claim they will keep all their
      promises if elected.
  </p><p>   
      This argument makes Ken grind his teeth. Dodgy as it is for
      Heritage to admit they haven't kept all their campaign promises
      —in fact, he thinks, they've barely kept any—this is a very 
      clever way for them to do it. All of the governments on that 
      platform have several thousand centenals and there¬fore plenty
      of data about how well they've held to campaign promises, even 
      if not as the Supermajority. By accusing the reliable scapegoat
      Information of bias, Heritage can defend itself and point out 
      the failings of its competitors at the same time. Indeed, as Ken 
      watches, some jerk at Information takes the bait and starts 
      scrolling down the screen a table with all the data they've 
      accumulated on broken promises by other governments. Ken waits,
      trying not to cringe, until Policylst's turn and internally 
      refutes every accusation:
      
   </p><p>
      Noticing that absinthe is also legal here, Ken decides to move
      on from beer.
   </p><p>    
      LIBERTY: .. . and we welcome the chance to set forth our ideas
      for world government as we celebrate another decade of freedom
      and economic growth in our centenals!
   </p><p>   
      Yoriko finds herself nodding along with the people around her. 
      She is watching the debate at a Liberty campaign event: a huge 
      projection set up on the beach, with cows turning on spits and, 
      of course, lots of free Coke and Dasani, Gauloises cigarettes,
      Degree antiperspirant and Unilever soap, and Nestle breast-milk 
      substitute. There's a play area set up for small children, which
      Yoriko appreciates (she couldn't get a sitter) almost as much as 
      she is surprised by it. She thinks of Liberty as being uncaring
      and not exactly family oriented.
   </p><p>   
      STARLIGHT: We'd also like to protest the refusal of Information 
      to broadcast vid as well as sound. We feel that the public has the 
      right to see as well as hear their candidates. Studies have shown
      that nonverbal language is a key element of trust and decision-making.
   </p><p>   
      Mishima doesn't move, but inside she's somewhere between rolling her
      eyes and cursing. She can't believe StarLight is among the contenders,
      if toward the bottom of the pack, and she really can't believe they're 
      dragging this argument out again. They better be out by the next debate.
      As she watches, whoever's working the debate starts scrolling text down
      the screen about why debates are sound only. It's a stupid, process-oriented
      point to even be having a discussion about, but Mishima knows that all 
      over the nonelection world —in Saudi Arabia, in Switzerland, in holdouts 
      of the former USA and PRC and USSR, people are watching the debate for its 
      entertainment value and loving every dig at Information.
   </p><p>   
      She can't show her indignation, because having stayed an additional 
      night at the Merita hotel, she's watching the debate in the bar.
      She would prefer to be alone or with like-minded colleagues, but she 
      considers it a professional responsibility to check reactions. The 
      Merita has thrown an actual party for the debate, with reduced-price
      drinks and free snacks, and a lot of people have shown up. Unfortunately 
      for Mishima's purposes, more of them seem more interested in the drinks 
      and snacks (and each other) than in the massive and multilinked 
      projection of the debate. Mishima can barely hear through all the 
      meaningless chatter, and she has unobtrusively turned on her earpiece 
      and linked it in to her own feed.
   </p><p>   
      POLICY1ST: . . . we welcome the audio-only format of the 
      debates, as well as the simulquestions and the comparison 
      sheets. These elections should be about policy, not presentation, 
      and not even people. Our governirient Offi-cials are all 
      chosen for their qualifications and capacity, not for their looks.
   </p><p>  
      Ken catches himself wincing, or maybe it's the alcohol.
      Not that he disagrees; of course not. He just wishes Vera Kubugli 
      hadn't let herself get pulled into such a silly issue, and without
      excuse of a direct question. Something about it sounds smug and 
      self-righteous, which is a bigger risk for Policylst than for Heritage.
   </p><p>  
      Still, he is guiltily glad that it's Vera representing them in 
      this debate, rather than Suzuki, who has an even greater tendency
      to let his tones get sententious. Vera is warmer, or at least comes
      across that way—Ken's only met her briefly. Also, she's female and 
      not remotely white. Ken has gotten the sense that she's one part of
      the government that Suzuki can't micromanage.
   </p><p>   
      Wow, absinthe really works fast. And well. Ken admires the empty cup,
      then punches in the order for another.
   </p><p>  
      MODERATOR: Thank you all for your opening statements.
      We will now move on to the questions. As you all know, 
      due to the high number of participants, we will be 
      taking answers in groups simultaneously. The audience 
      can select which voice to hear while the other answers 
      are transcribed on the screen; we do encourage you, however,
      to (listen to the recorded answers of all the respondents 
      later, to get the full effect of all of their statements.
   </p><p>  
      Mishima orders a bourbon, pleased that she is no longer
      in the Information trenches. When her drink comes, she 
      raises a silent toast to all the grunts who are poised 
      at their interfaces right now, fingertips and neurons 
      twitching. There are two groups of Information workers 
      on a debate: the A team, which does the simultaneous 
      fact-checkin and contextse that viewers see on their 
      screens, and a second set of less-senior but also well-regarded staffers 
      who collect data from the listeners and integrate it into analysis and 
      projections. One of the first Information datasets to come 
      out of a debate is which government got the most listeners.
      Some argue that it's not a great determinant of the way the 
      polls will move next, on the theory that people listen for
      entertainment value and vote out of self-interest, but Mishima
      has been with Information long enough to be cynical: most people's
      interest is entertainment. From the icon in the corner of the
      big projection, she can see that this Merita hotel is tuning 
      into Heritage, which now that she thinks about it, is not 
      particularly surprising even if they are sitting in an 888 
      centenal. She brushes her hair back, casually adjusting the feed 
      in her earpiece to listen to Liberty.
   </p><p>   
      MODERATOR: Let's move right into something that some of you have mentioned 
      in your opening statements: law and order. Suppose that an individual commits
      a violent crime in the jurisdiction of some other government and then flees
      into one of your centenals. Will you extradite that individual, subject him 
      or her to a judicial process under your government, or ignore this circumstance 
      unless the crime affects your citizens?
   </p><p>   
      In Addis Ababa, in the same bar where he met Domaine (what a nutter!), 
      Shamus rolls his eyes. They always haul out this question, or something 
      like it, for the debates. For all of Information's bullshit about 
      transparency and clarity and highlighting differences, they live off 
      of people using their communications and reference systems, and they 
      love questions that get people talking. Extradition policies are all
      clearly posted in the comparison sheets, but people still get excited
      about crime, even if there's nothing new in the answers. He keeps an 
      eye on the debate projection in the bar but switches his personal 
      feed back to football replays, and curses Information again for not 
      allowing any live matches during the debates.
   </p><p>    
      HERITAGE: . . . in addition, we would like to take the 
      oppor tunity to decry the incidents of violence that have 
      been occurring in far too many centenals in the run-up to 
      the election. It is deeply unfortunate that the micro-democratic
      process causes so much strife, and we earnestly hope that
      someday we will always be able to govern the way we do between 
      elections: peacefully and prosperously.
   </p><p>    
      Subtext: skip the elections and let us rule forever, Mishima thinks, 
      slugging back the rest of her bourbon. It's enough to make her wish 
      she hadn't shut down that WP=DICTADOR fire-writing in Buenos Aires
      quite so quickly. She orders another, willfully oblivious to the 
      solicitous expressions on the faces of various high-paying guests
      hovering in her vicinity.
   </p><p>   
      POLICYIST: Our extradition agreements vary from government 
      to government. We would never extradite someone to a government
      with cruel or unusual forms of punishment; however, we would
      likewise never let a violent criminal wander our centenals 
      unpunished and unrestrained. So, while the precise answer 
      will vary according to the case, you can be sure that such an
      individual would be subject to a process of justice, either under
      our laws or under those of the centenal where the crime was
      committed.
   </p><p>  
      Ken nods, satisfied. He hopes that a lot of people were listening 
      to Policylst, because Vera nailed it: not only the words, but also
      the firm yet compassionate tone. As much as he agrees in principle 
      with Information's embargo on video during the campaign, he wishes
      people could see her open, earnest face as she's speaking.
   </p><p>   
      He listens to her on his earpiece, but with the volume low enough 
      so that he can hear the soundtrack playing in the bar, too. They
      are taking votes among the patrons to decide which feed to listen
      to for each question (seriously, Ken loves this government—maybe 
      it's just the bar, but surely an enabling environment has something
      to do with their easy participatory approach) and so he hears a bit
      of PhilipMorris's answer, which everyone wanted to listen to because
      they are famous for their continued defense of the death penalty. At the
      same time, he scans the transcribed answers crawling up the projection, 
      with some extra attention to Liberty's. Nothing surprising leaps out at him. 
      Everyone knows the extradition policies anyway; this is a pure crowd¬pleaser.
   </p><p>    
      MODERATOR: Thank you. The next question is on foreign olicy. Now, we are all
      aware of the legal issues concerning cetenal sovereignty, but there are
      grey areas staked out by treaties and intercentenal coordination, 
      and cross-border concerns have raised new models of how centenals may interact.
      The question is: are there any circumstances under which you would attempt to
      influence a centenal belonging to another government?
   </p><p>   
      In the bar in Jakarta, in the hotel in Singapore, and on the beach outside
      of Naha, Ken, Mishima, and Yoriko lean forwar simultaneously. Ken switches 
      his earpiece, then registers that he is hearing the same thing from both
      ears; the bar has voted to listen to Liberty. He wonders whether the rumors
      are out while loyally switching his own feed back to Policylst; every listener 
      helps build their buzz.
   </p><p>   
      LIBERTY: Of course, we respect the integrity and political independence of
      all governments. We also respect the rights of our own citizens, their needs, 
      economic fulfillment, and pursuit of happiness. And especially, of course, 
      their freedoms. And we will defend that.
   </p><p>   
      Mishima stands up, drains her third glass, and heads for her room, 
      ignoring the gestures of the well-dressed man sitting next to her, 
      who's been trying to buy her a drink for half an hour. Ken slumps
      back in his chair and wishes he were more (or less) sober. Yoriko, 
      sitting on the warm sand and listening to the warm voice of Johnny 
      Fabre boom through excellent acoustics into the night around her, 
      wishes suddenly and urgently to be somewhere else.
   </p><p>    
      Domaine, still in Saudi, misses the debate entirely.   
      <!--sample notes by Liya Yan--> 
      
      <note><ref xml:id="h1">The third global election</ref> which is about
       the third election cycle in the world's first global government; it is 
       through citizens' vote and the number of supermajories to decide the president.</note>
     
      <note><ref xml:id="h2">micro-democracy:</ref> It is a "system" that give people 
         right/power to vote; get people to make their voices heard. It is happens on each 
         population of 100,000 people (can be centenal). People vote every ten years for their
         government; who wins the most centenals will gain the supermajority. It is almost 
         throughout every element of governement. Micro-democracy is widely known as direct
         democracy. It is similar to <ref target="http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-democracy-definition-lesson-quiz.html">the ancient Greek model</ref>.</note>
      
      
      </p>
    </body>
    
  </text>
</TEI> 

    
