Effective methods to elevate political and social discourse above the level of ideological debate would be revolutionary. Empirical testing of proposed legislat

Effective methods to elevate political and social discourse above the level of ideological debate would be revolutionary. Empirical testing of proposed legislation should be implemented as soon as possible. In controversial cases where experimentation doesn't lead to satisfactory outcomes, thanks to ideological intransigence, the method should be supplemented with a proposal that I call Bimodal Politics. Technology could be used to manage controversial political issues, for which the distribution of voters is bimodal and for which there is essentially no middle ground. Such issues include abortion rights, stem cell research and gay marriage. Through the system of bimodal politics, voters would live in parallel legal and political worlds, with different rights and obligations to the state depending on how they voted. Where controversial legal and political matters are concerned, the distribution of opinion involves roughly equal and opposite numbers of equally-informed, impartial rational voters. (Some would contend that for issues such as abortion, a few vociferous opponents give the misleading impression of a much larger opposition, but until this is established, we will proceed as if public discourse reflects a genuine controversy.) Although the voters on each side of a controversy may not see the other side as rational or equally informed, one essential feature of controversies is that they cannot be decided by common morality, and they have to be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution. The legal and political system can attempt to resolve controversial issues one way or the other, but it is understood that the resolution is provisional and does not resolve any underlying moral issues. Deciding controversial issues one way or the other is inherently unstable. What if it were possible to decide issues in parallel, in such a way that each group in a controversial issue imposes rights and obligations only upon itself and no group imposes its vote on the members of the other group? Is there a procedure that would result in less political and social instability than deciding one way or the other for all voters? Bimodal politics attempts to provide a legal and political mechanism for resolving politically controversial issues, with the understanding that it provides a political decision procedure: it does not address the underlying moral issues. In outline, a database is maintained of voter preference on controversial issues that are designated bimodal issues. Your vote is recorded by the bimodal voter database. Your vote determines your rights and obligations to the state on that particular issue in parallel with those voters who voted oppositely, and who may have (and probably have) different rights and obligations under the state. Consider stem cell research. Under the proposed system, stem cell research would be designated a bimodal issue. During an election, your vote on stem cell research would be entered into the database. If you voted in favor of stem cell research, you may be taxed to support it, your embryos may be harvested for stem cells (these may be from embryos slated for destruction in any case) and if you develop a disease that requires stem cell derived therapy for its treatment, you will be eligible for it. If you voted against stem cell research, you will not be taxed to support it, your embryos will not be harvested for stem cells and if you develop a disease you will be prohibited from pursuing treatments derived from stem cell research. Abortion is another issue that would be designated a bimodal issue under the system of bimodal politics. If you vote against abortion, your tax dollars will not be used to support state-sponsored family planning programs or sex education, and you will be legally barred from having an abortion if you are female. If you are male and you impregnate a woman who has an abortion, and you voted against abortion, you will be held legally liable. In either case, if you voted against abortion and your fetus or your partner’s fetus is aborted, you will be prosecuted by the state. However, if you voted in favor of abortion, your fetus can be aborted, and your tax dollars may go to support state-sponsored family planning programs and sex education. These examples illustrate the slogan that under bimodal politics, you live in the world you voted for.