Browsed by
Tag: Nevada

Nevada Senate Bill 292 and the Democratic Party’s Anti-Democratic Hypocrisy on Voter Rights – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II

Nevada Senate Bill 292 and the Democratic Party’s Anti-Democratic Hypocrisy on Voter Rights – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


While the Democratic Party often postures as championing voter rights and opposing voter suppression, it frequently engages in voter-suppression tactics of its own, particularly aimed at restricting voters’ ability to choose minor political parties on the ballot. Senate Bill 292, advanced by prominent Democratic Legislators despite overwhelming public opposition, is a case in point.

SB292 is sponsored by former Nevada Democratic Party Chair, now Senator, Roberta Lange. Many have already identified the flaws with SB292’s attempt to implement “straight-party-ticket” voting – an option that discourages thoughtful consideration of individual candidates on their merits. But the largely overlooked Section 2 of SB292 would be much more insidiously damaging in shutting minor political parties out of realistic ballot access by imposing a requirement that petition signatures gathered by minor parties seeking ballot access be “equally apportioned” among the four Congressional districts in Nevada.

The number of petition signatures required in Nevada is already immensely high; one percent of the voters for U.S. Representative at the last general election must sign a minor party’s petition for the party to qualify for ballot access. No party has been able to meet this onerous threshold since 2011. Yet, even if a party is able to surpass it through herculean efforts, the requirement of equal apportionment would mean that the Democratic Party could challenge the minor party’s petition if just one more signature comes from one district than from another. For example, even if a minor party were spectacularly successful and somehow gathered signatures from all the registered voters in Nevada’s most populous 3rd Congressional District, the Democrats could attempt to disqualify that petition on the technicality that an “equal” number of signatures from the other, less populous districts were not attained. SB292’s Section 2 would empower Democrats to thwart every minor party’s petition forever.

Because of the additional coordination required to even attempt to gather petition signatures “equally” by petition district, rather than simply trying to gather as many signatures as possible, one would expect the petitioning effort to be more time-consuming than previously. However, Section 2 of SB292 reduces the time available to a minor party, moving the compliance deadline from the third Friday in June to June 1, thereby further lowering the probability of meeting all requirements. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada in 1992 already struck down a slightly less burdensome deadline of June 10 in the case of Lenora B. Fulani et al. v. Cheryl A. Lau, Secretary of State. A June 1 deadline could be challenged on the same grounds, but the proponents of SB292 wish to impose it regardless.

In Nevada, prominent Democratic Party Legislators seem determined to limit voters’ options at the ballot box. The Green Party, whose nominee finished fourth in the past three U.S. Presidential elections, failed to qualify for ballot access in Nevada in 2012, 2016, and 2020, because of the unreasonable existing petition threshold and significant Democratic Party efforts to disqualify petition signatures in 2016. Nevada is also one of only five states that lack a write-in option, further reinforcing the imperative to relax ballot-access requirements instead of imposing additional ones. At present, minor political parties without access to vast funds, such as the all-volunteer Transhumanist Party, are shut out by intentional barriers to entry imposed at the behest of the major parties.

Do Democrats in power only wish to improve the ease of voting for Democrats, while excluding other options by establishing insurmountable barriers to ballot access? Or will enough Democrats take a stand for their stated principles, support genuine voter choice, and thwart anti-democratic legislation such as SB292?

Senate Bill 292 will be heard at 4 p.m. Pacific Time on Tuesday, May 25, 2021, at the Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections. This will be our last chance at direct input to the Legislators regarding this bill. Follow the link above and click on the button to “Participate” in order to register for call-in information. You can also e-mail your written comments to . Be civil and respectful but firm in your opposition to this attempt to severely limit voter choice!

Gennady Stolyarov II is the Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party and the Chief Executive of the Nevada Transhumanist Party.

U.S. Transhumanist Party Second Letter in Opposition to Nevada Senate Bill 292 – Sent to the Senate Committee on Finance – May 4, 2021

U.S. Transhumanist Party Second Letter in Opposition to Nevada Senate Bill 292 – Sent to the Senate Committee on Finance – May 4, 2021

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


Note: Senate Bill 292 (SB292), which would make it essentially impossible for minor political parties to compete at the ballot box or even attempt ballot access, continues to be rapidly advanced in Nevada. It was authored by a former Democratic Party Chair who would like to require the number of signatures to be impossibly “equally apportioned” by petitioning district, move the deadline for submitting petitions to an earlier June 1 date, and institute straight-line party-ticket voting that shuts out other options and discourages individualized decision-making.

After SB292 passed on a party-line vote (3 Democrats in favor, 2 Republicans opposed) out of the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections, I drafted a letter to the Senate Committee on Finance, where the bill is headed next, in opposition to SB292. The text of this letter appears below. 

I urge all Nevadans and Transhumanist Party members, as well as those who are sympathetic to other minor political parties, to submit their opinions in opposition to SB292 here: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/81st2021/Be sure to reference the amended, “April 16, 2021” version as the bill you are opposing – so as to signal that even the recently amended bill continues to pose serious problems. If you would like your comments to be published, you can also submit them via e-mail to SenFIN@sen.state.nv.us

The Senate Committee on Finance will meet this Wednesday, May 5, at 6:30 p.m. Pacific Time to hold a public hearing on this bill. Meeting information will be updated on this page: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/81st2021/Bill/7895/Meetings. If you can dial in during the time period for public testimony and lend your voice in opposition, that would be greatly appreciated. Focus your testimony on the adverse fiscal impacts of this bill, as that is what the Committee will be primarily considering. Please feel free to reference any of my arguments below for inspiration. Remember to be civil and respectful but firm in your opposition!

~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party, May 4, 2021


May 4, 2021

Re: Opposition to Amended Senate Bill 292 (First Reprint)

Dear Chairman Brooks and honorable members of the Senate Committee on Finance:

As Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party and Chief Executive of the Nevada Transhumanist Party, I strongly urge you to oppose Senate Bill 292, which would deprive all minor political parties in Nevada of the opportunity to fairly compete at the ballot box or to even viably attempt such competition.

My comments today will focus on the adverse impacts of Section 2 of the amended (First Reprint) Senate Bill 292, especially the adverse financial impacts to the State of Nevada which are germane to the purview of this Committee.

At a time of great fiscal strain to the State of Nevada, which is just beginning to recover from the devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic, and immense economic hardship for the people of this State, it is highly imprudent to impose additional costs upon the State or any of its agencies for the doubly imprudent and entirely deleterious purpose of raising the barriers to ballot access for minor political parties.

While the amended bill no longer raises the petition-signature threshold from 1% to 2% of the Nevada voters who voted in the last election, it does still, via Section 2, Subsection 2, Paragraph (c), seek to impose an impossible “equal apportionment” requirement for the petition signatures and would also move the deadline for submitting petition signatures from the current third Friday in June to June 1.

The “equal apportionment” requirement renders it essentially impossible for a minor political party to qualify via the petition process and also unnecessarily burdens the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office.

Currently, to verify the validity of a petition signature, the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office simply needs to consider an individual petition signature and whether it belongs to a registered voter in the State of Nevada. With Section 2 of SB292, the Secretary of State’s Office would have the additional burden of verifying that the signatures are “equally apportioned” among the four petition districts in Nevada. This could lead to a significant expenditure of time and resources beyond what can be formally budgeted for – because the added workload would be sporadic, punctuated, and inherently unpredictable given the difficulty in anticipating when (i.e., during what election season) a minor party would seek to qualify for ballot access, as well as how many minor parties would seek to qualify. The potential for significant additional costs to the State of Nevada will be illustrated below via a discussion of how the bill would burden the State by encouraging a multitude of major-party challenges to any minor-party petitions that are submitted.

Nevada has four petition districts, corresponding to the U.S. Congressional Districts. The 3rd Congressional District is the most populous, with a population of 857,197 as of 2019. All three of the other Congressional Districts have populations below 800,000. Suppose that a minor political party were spectacularly successful in gathering petition signatures and managed to collect them from the entire population of registered voters in the 3rd Congressional District. (For this example, I assume that the proportion of registered voters to the general population is the same in each Congressional District.) The very fact that this minor political party could accomplish such a feat would ironically render it impossible for that party to qualify for ballot access, because the other petition districts simply do not have enough registered voters to match the number of signatures gathered from the 3rd Congressional District in that case.

Moreover, the “equal apportionment” requirement renders it almost effortless for a major party to initiate challenges to petitions submitted by minor parties, simply by counting the signatures from each district and noting any difference whatsoever in the numbers of signatures, even if the difference is literally one signature! Even if the total number of signatures is well above 1 percent of the registered voters statewide, if the number of signatures gathered in one petition district were 10,000, and the number of signatures gathered in another petition district were 10,001, that also, by itself, would be sufficient to technically fall out of compliance with the requirement of “equal apportionment”. Note that the text of the amended NRS 293.1715(2)(c) would not allow any room for deviation from a strictly “equal” apportionment. There is no mention of a possibility for the apportionment to be made “approximately equal” or “reasonably equal” or “equal within a tolerance of X%”; the text would mandate strict equality of petition signatures by district, and it appears to enable major parties to seek to disqualify any minor party’s petition on a technicality. Given that different circulators of petitions are likely to operate in different petition districts, it is virtually certain that different numbers of signatures will be gathered by each team of circulators. This is so because the precise coordination at the level that would be needed to achieve exactly equal numbers of signatures among all four districts and to stop gathering signatures in a perfectly choreographed fashion once such equal numbers were attained, would be essentially impossible to achieve.

While it would be easy for major political parties to challenge a minor party’s petition under these circumstances, the experience would be made more difficult for the Secretary of State’s Office and the judicial system of the State of Nevada, because more challenges could be expected to be initiated than otherwise. Responding to a contested matter always involves an added, indeterminate, potentially immense expenditure which, I reiterate, has no compelling public benefit behind it.

Moving the deadline for petitions to June 1 would both unduly burden minor political parties and expose the State of Nevada to additional costs from potential legal challenges.

Because of the additional coordination required to even attempt to gather petition signatures “equally” by petition district, as contrasted with simply trying to gather as many signatures as possible, one would expect that the petitioning effort would be more time-consuming than previously. However, Section 2 of SB292 reduces the available time for a minor party to comply with the added burdens, thereby further lowering the probability of successfully meeting all of the requirements. This disenfranchises the citizens of Nevada who would like to see more options at the ballot box.

Moreover, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada already struck down an even somewhat less burdensome deadline of June 10; this occurred when the Judge in the case of Lenora B. Fulani et al. v. Cheryl A. Lau, Secretary of State (“Fulani v. Lau” – Case CV-N-92-535-ECR) issued a preliminary injunction on October 1, 1992, to require the State of Nevada to include Lenora Fulani and other independent and minor-party candidates on the ballot despite those candidates not having been able to gather the required number of signatures by June 10 of that year. In issuing the preliminary injunction (which effectively decided the case, since the election took place in November of the same year), the Judge wrote “that plaintiffs have shown likely success on the merits, that the balance of hardships tips in their favor and that they will suffer irreparable injury if their names are not put on the 1992 ballot” (Fulani v. Lau, p. 14). The Judge explained that

The character and magnitude of plaintiffs[‘] injury caused by the June 10 filing deadline shows a burden on their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The deadline burdens the rights of nonmajor parties[‘] candidates by excluding late[-]forming parties and forcing candidates to circulate petitions before most of the voting population has thought about the elections. Although this date is not as early as others which have been struck down as unconstitutional, most other states require the petitions be submitted several months later. Also, no evidence suggests that candidates who lack an established national affiliation are easily able to access the ballot. (Fulani v. Lau, p. 11)

If the United States District Court found that a June 10 petition-filing deadline is burdensome to non-major parties’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, then, logically, a June 1 deadline would be even more burdensome. Such a deadline would indeed serve to thwart any but the most amply funded minor political parties, if those parties choose to begin gathering the signatures extremely early in the year, whereas new minor parties, as well as minor parties that rely largely or exclusively on volunteer efforts and grass-roots organizing, would find themselves hobbled by lack of time. SB292 is seeking to institute in Nevada law a deadline more stringent than the one which the District Court has already overturned. SB292 would also entrench the role of money in politics and cost money to the State in doing so.

If SB292 is enacted with the June 1 deadline, then any number of parties adversely affected by that deadline could file a legal challenge with Fulani v. Lau as a precedent. The State of Nevada could be exposed to the costs of a legal proceeding, along with associated attorneys’ fees. The costs of responding to such a legal challenge are again indeterminate but potentially immense. Comments submitted separately to this Committee by Mr. Richard Winger discuss situations in other States where such early petition deadlines were struck down and those States were left with the expenses of the associated proceedings. To emphasize, this is not an outcome that I would wish for the State to experience in any manner; as a citizen of this State, I, too, would be adversely affected by continued needless expenditures on legal contests at a time when the State needs to devote all available resources to the economic recovery and to the genuine well-being of its residents.  This is why I urge this Committee and the Legislature more generally to refrain from proceeding with SB292 and to avert such an outcome.

Senate Bill 292 is bad policy, counterproductive in all respects, and the fiscal burdens and risks it imposes upon the State have no offsetting benefits. Indeed, Senate Bill 292 exacerbates a highly polarized political situation to the detriment even of major-party officeholders.

Senate Bill 292 would achieve the opposite of establishing a fair, level playing field for political candidates and parties.  Unfortunately, Senate Bill 292, if enacted, will only serve to exacerbate today’s political trench warfare by solidifying the bifurcation of the contemporary American body politic into two blocs that have each become increasingly monolithic and radicalized internally, and increasingly hostile toward the other, with no room between them to pursue unconventional and innovative solutions that can bridge partisan divides. This anticipated effect of SB292 is likely not anyone’s intention; however, the two-party system in the United States has a built-in downward spiral of incivility, hostility, and division which has, over the past year, crossed the line from mere acrimony into deadly riots and insurrections from extreme exponents of both sides of the partisan gulf. Any Legislator interested in stable and sensible governance should seek to avert an intensification of this scenario, and there is a vital role for a vibrant minor-party ecosystem in helping to prevent it.

How does Senate Bill 292 exacerbate political polarization? It does so by making it effectively impossible for minor political parties to even attain ballot access – in the ways described above. This bill would make it clear to voters that minor parties are not just long-shot participants but are effectively shut out of the process altogether. Thus, many people who would have otherwise given a minor party a chance would be shunted into one of the major political parties that is barely more aligned with their views than the other major political party. This would reinforce the bifurcation of America into two distinct blocs which are engaged in an ever-intensifying struggle with one another, to the detriment of any actual progress on policy and any actual solutions to the many pressing problems (including fiscal problems) facing our State, country, and world. Bifurcation of the American body politic creates an “us-versus-them” dynamic, where anyone who is not part of one’s own bloc is automatically considered to be “the enemy” and whose ideas are automatically disregarded. The record increase in independent and nonpartisan voters already shows many Americans to be disillusioned by the toxicity and acrimony that characterize the electoral tactics of the major parties and their most vocal adherents. Without minor parties for them to seek alternatives in, these Americans will either be reluctantly dragged into the deleterious fray they have always wished to avoid, or try to refrain from political participation altogether – in which case the fray will still find them, as extremists from the major parties have increasingly been demonizing conscientiously apolitical Americans as well.

The antidote to polarization is hyper-pluralism, which is precisely what a vibrant minor-party scene would facilitate. In a hyper-pluralistic body politic, there is no clear “enemy” for any constituent, because different smaller parties will align with one another on different issues; one’s adversary on one issue could be an ally on another, and so it is worthwhile to remain on at least respectful terms with everyone. It is for this reason that parliamentary democracies, which allow for proportional representation and numerous political parties competing on each ballot, are generally far less roiled by partisan strife than America’s uniquely contentious two-party system. But Nevada does not even need to adopt a parliamentary system to achieve a similar outcome; it just needs to allow minor political parties to compete on the ballots. Note that we are not even asking for the minor parties to win (which would still be difficult enough on its own), but merely to be allowed to compete!

Allowing quick, easy ballot access for minor political parties is the low-cost ­option to the State of Nevada as well. The less time and effort need to be spent validating petition signatures or enforcing restrictions, the more savings result for the State of Nevada.

Even the possibility of competition motivates both incumbent officeholders and major-party candidates to be more responsive to the needs of their constituents. Furthermore, minor parties can be fruitful repositories of ideas for major-party politicians to draw upon; the Transhumanist Party would be delighted to have any of its platform reflected in legislation advanced by major-party lawmakers. Ideas from minor parties tend to sufficiently depart from the prevailing major-party packages that they avoid triggering contentious and mutually intransigent debates about “wedge” issues and so may actually lead to solutions that most major-party policymakers are willing to entertain. Incumbents and major-party candidates can even derive much valuable campaign intelligence from election results involving minor political parties. A strong showing for a minor party indicates a set of issues that voters are interested in and that the incumbent or major-party candidate would do well to address while in office or on the campaign trail. Having a wealth of ideas from minor parties to draw upon will also improve the State of Nevada’s fiscal situation, since minor parties – which, out of necessity, have significant experience running low-budget or no-budget operations – will often develop creative ways to reduce expenditures without compromising the quality of service and benefits that the State provides to its residents.

By shutting minor parties out of viable political participation, Senate Bill 292 would only accomplish the illusion of stability for leading figures of a major political party. In reality, one cannot have a stable or tranquil political experience in a general environment marred by ideological polarization and all of its attendant ills. Depriving people of legitimate alternatives will only alienate them further and feed into the undercurrents of frustration and perceived disenfranchisement that permeate American politics today. Minor political parties are a major safety valve of American politics and can act to effectively channel dissent and discontentment into constructive avenues of mutual improvement and enhanced justice.  In the Federalist No. 10, James Madison, at the onset of the American Republic, noted that the advantage of a large representative republic is precisely in “the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest”. The American Founders, who feared precisely the scenario of two dominant factions vying for power at the citizens’ and the Republic’s expense, saw the “greater variety of parties” as an important safeguard against such an outcome. The Transhumanist Party echoes the Founders’ wisdom and would urge the Legislature to consider reforms in the opposite direction from those proposed in SB292 – namely, the elimination of all ballot-access requirements and the ability of any candidate or political party to compete fairly for office on the same terms as any other. After all, if a minor-party candidate is unpersuasive to the voters and the major-party candidates remain more popular, what is there truly for a major party to fear from allowing participation for all? But in the absence of such truly progressive reforms, we urge that the Legislature at least refrain from taking steps that would further limit electoral competition.

Removing ballot-access restrictions, rather than maximizing them, is the fiscally prudent, the consequentially best, and the morally just option. Please reject Senate Bill 292.

Sincerely,

Mr. Gennady Stolyarov II

Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party

Chief Executive, Nevada Transhumanist Party

https://transhumanist-party.org

Amended Nevada Senate Bill 292 Continues to Place Impossible Burdens on Minor Political Parties – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II

Amended Nevada Senate Bill 292 Continues to Place Impossible Burdens on Minor Political Parties – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


The anti-minor-party Nevada Senate Bill 292 has advanced out of the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections on a party-line vote (3 Democrats in favor, 2 Republicans opposed). An amendment from the bill sponsor was included in the bill; Amendment No. 230 is an incremental improvement but maintains essentially insurmountable barriers for minor political parties. While the amended bill no longer raises the petition-signature threshold from 1% to 2% of the Nevada voters who voted in the last election, it does still seek to impose an impossible “equal distribution” requirement for the petition signatures and also moves the deadline for submitting petition signatures from the current third Friday in June to June 1.

Section 2 of SB292 is the most onerous for minor political parties. The provisions further limiting ballot access, relative to the already significant requirements, are found in the new language that the bill sponsor, Nevada Senator and former Nevada Democratic Party Chair Roberta Lange, wishes to insert in NRS 293.1715(2)(c), stating that to qualify for ballot access, a minor political party must:

(New proposed wording above is in bold blue italics, wording proposed to be deleted is in red strikethrough.)

While various other problems exist with SB292, particularly with the concept of straight-ticket, party-line voting – which aims to absolve voters of the essential responsibility to study individual candidates and their stances on the issues – the present commentary will focus on the most egregious flaws with Section 2 of the bill: requiring that the petition signatures be “apportioned equally among the petition districts” and moving the deadline for submitting petition signatures to June 1 preceding the general election.

The bill sponsor appears to be of the impression that removing the previously proposed doubling of the number of petition signatures required would alleviate the most visible added burden on minor political parties. Yet the remaining requirement of equal apportionment is actually far more burdensome and more insidiously so. It requires several more steps in one’s thought process to discern the burden – hence, the bill proponents may believe it to be a viable option to insert such a provision without significant portions of the public noticing or voicing their objections. Therefore, it is important to elucidate the immense problems with the “equal apportionment” criterion.

Nevada has four petition districts, corresponding to the U.S. Congressional Districts. The 3rd Congressional District is the most populous, with a population of 857,197 as of 2019. All three of the other Congressional Districts have populations below 800,000. Suppose that a minor political party were spectacularly successful in gathering petition signatures and managed to collect them from the entire population of registered voters in the 3rd Congressional District. (For this example, we will assume that the proportion of registered voters to the general population is the same in each Congressional District.) The very fact that this minor political party could accomplish such a feat would render it impossible for that party to qualify for ballot access, because the other petition districts simply do not have enough registered voters to match the number of signatures gathered from the 3rd Congressional District in that case.

Moreover, the “equal apportionment” requirement renders it almost effortless for a major party to challenge petitions submitted by minor parties, simply by counting the signatures from each district and noting any difference whatsoever in the numbers of signatures, even if the difference is literally one signature! Even if the total number of signatures is well above 1 percent of the registered voters statewide, if the number of signatures gathered in one petition district were 10,000, and the number of signatures gathered in another petition district were 10,001, that also, by itself, would be sufficient to technically fall out of compliance with the requirement of “equal apportionment”. Note that the text of the amended NRS 293.1715(2)(c) would not allow any room for deviation from a strictly “equal” apportionment. There is no mention of a possibility for the apportionment to be made “approximately equal” or “reasonably equal” or “equal within a tolerance of X%”; the text would mandate strict equality of petition signatures by district, and it appears to me that the Democratic Party proponents of the bill did this intentionally to be able to disqualify any minor party’s petition on a technicality. Given that different circulators of petitions are likely to operate in different petition districts, it is virtually certain that different numbers of signatures will be gathered by each team of circulators. This is so because precise coordination at the level that would be needed to achieve exactly equal numbers of signatures among all four districts and to stop gathering signatures in a perfectly choreographed fashion once such equal numbers were attained, would be essentially impossible to achieve.

Moreover, suppose a minor political party represented a set of positions that resonated to a greater extent with a particular segment of the Nevada population – for instance, young urban professionals, ranchers, miners, university students, residents of rural areas. Each petition district has considerably different proportions of these demographics than the other. For instance, the 1st Congressional District is 99.90% urban, so a hypothetical party that focused on representing the interests of ranchers or rural residents would find quite limited support there.  Some city dwellers might, of course, sign a petition for such a party’s ballot access on principle, because they support inclusion of all political parties on the ballot; however, from a sheer probabilistic standpoint, the number of such people would be fewer than the number of people in rural areas who would be willing to sign that party’s petition. Even if the hypothetical party representing rural interests only intended to run candidates in rural areas, it would still need to receive an equal number of signatures from each urban-heavy petition district in order to qualify for the ballot. Therefore, regional parties or parties representing specific constituencies would essentially be permanently barred from ballot access by the “equal apportionment” requirement.

Because of the additional coordination required to even attempt to gather petition signatures “equally” by petition district, as contrasted with simply trying to gather as many signatures as possible, one would expect that the petitioning effort would be more time-consuming than previously. However, Section 2 of SB292 reduces the available time for a minor party to comply with the added burdens, thereby further lowering the probability of successfully meeting all of the requirements.

Moreover, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada already struck down an even less burdensome deadline of June 10; this occurred when the Judge in the case of Lenora B. Fulani et al. v. Cheryl A. Lau, Secretary of State (“Fulani v. Lau” – Case CV-N-92-535-ECR) issued a preliminary injunction on October 1, 1992, to require the State of Nevada to include Lenora Fulani and other independent and minor-party candidates on the ballot despite those candidates not having been able to gather the required number of signatures by June 10 of that year. In issuing the preliminary injunction (which effectively decided the case, since  the election took place in November of the same year), the Judge wrote “that plaintiffs have shown likely success on the merits, that the balance of hardships tips in their favor and that they will suffer irreparable injury if their names are not put on the 1992 ballot” (Fulani v. Lau, p. 14). The Judge explained that

The character and magnitude of plaintiffs[‘] injury caused by the June 10 filing deadline shows a burden on their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The deadline burdens the rights of nonmajor parties[‘] candidates by excluding late[-]forming parties and forcing candidates to circulate petitions before most of the voting population has thought about the elections. Although this date is not as early as others which have been struck down as unconstitutional, most other states require the petitions be submitted several months later. Also, no evidence suggests that candidates who lack an established national affiliation are easily able to access the ballot. (Fulani v. Lau, p. 11)

If the United States District Court found that a June 10 petition-filing deadline is burdensome to non-major parties’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, then, logically, a June 1 deadline would be even more burdensome. Such a deadline would indeed serve to thwart any but the most amply funded minor political parties, if those parties choose to begin gathering the signatures extremely early in the year, whereas new minor parties, as well as minor parties that rely largely or exclusively on volunteer efforts and grass-roots organizing, would find themselves hobbled by lack of time. SB292 is seeking to institute in Nevada law a deadline more stringent than the one which the District Court has already overturned.

There is still time to express opposition to Senate Bill 292, particularly to the requirement that petition signatures be equally apportioned and the earlier June 1 deadline for submitting such signatures. SB292 is already one of the most actively commented on and least popular bills of the 2021 Legislative Session, with 209 public opinions expressed in opposition and only 4 in favor.  You can submit your opinion in opposition to SB292 here and also e-mail the Senate Committee on Finance, where SB292 will be headed next, at SenFIN@sen.state.nv.us, as well as e-mail the Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections at AsmLOE@asm.state.nv.us. The Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections would be the committee where SB292 would be heard if it were to pass in the Senate. Please express your concerns civilly and politely but make it clear that you do not agree with any attempts to further limit minor-party ballot access. Also, please spread this article to as many constituencies as possible! People of nearly all political persuasions should be able to agree on the importance of voter choice and to abhor the injustice of intentionally restricting candidates and parties from even being available for voters to consider.

Even the current ballot-access thresholds in Nevada are unduly stringent; the last time a minor political party qualified for the ballot through petitioning in Nevada was in 2011, when the Americans Elect organization was able to submit the required number of signatures. It is time to pursue reforms in the opposite direction from Section 2 of SB292; it is time to repeal all petitioning requirements for ballot access and allow voters the choice of any candidate or party whom they wish to support. At minimum, it is essential to oppose the placement of any further obstacles along the path to ballot access. All provisions of SB292 related to minor political parties should be amended out of the bill upon further revision. Please add your voice to this important effort to preserve electoral choice and to oppose one major party’s efforts to monopolize Nevada elections.

Gennady Stolyarov II is the Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party. 

U.S. Transhumanist Party Letter in Opposition to Nevada Senate Bill 292

U.S. Transhumanist Party Letter in Opposition to Nevada Senate Bill 292

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


Note: Senate Bill 292, which would make it essentially impossible for minor political parties to compete at the ballot box or even attempt ballot access, is being rapidly advanced in Nevada. It was authored by a former Democratic Party Chair who would like to double the petition-signature requirement for ballot access, require the number of signatures to be impossibly “equally apportioned” by petitioning district, and institute straight-line party-ticket voting that shuts out other options and discourages individualized decision-making.

In an urgent, almost last-minute action, I drafted a letter to the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections in opposition to that bill. The letter, as submitted to the Committee, can be found here

I urge all Nevadans and Transhumanist Party members, as well as those who are sympathetic to other minor political parties, to submit their opinions in opposition to SB292 here: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/81st2021/

The Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections will meet this Thursday, April 1, at 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time to hold a public hearing on this bill. Meeting information will be updated on this page: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/81st2021/Bill/7895/Meetings. If you can dial in during the time period for public testimony and lend your voice in opposition, that would be greatly appreciated.

~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party, March 31, 2021


March 31, 2021

Re: Opposition to Senate Bill 292

Dear Chairman Ohrenschall and honorable members of the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections:

As Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party and Chief Executive of the Nevada Transhumanist Party, I strongly urge you to oppose Senate Bill 292, which would deprive all minor political parties in Nevada of the opportunity to fairly compete at the ballot box or to even viably attempt such competition.

The Transhumanist Party is an alliance of over 3300 members who advocate for transcending the flaws and limitations of the human condition through technology and for putting science, health, and technology at the forefront of American politics. We advocate initiatives and reforms that will improve the human condition for as many people as possible, with as much beneficial impact as possible – and without regard for scoring political points or defeating “the other side”. In the realm of electoral policy, we advocate for such measures as ranked-preference voting, electronic voting, proportional representation, all-inclusive debates, elimination of ballot-access requirements, and limitation of lobbying by politically connected special interests, while increasing the influence of advocacy by intelligent laypersons. We hold that all contemporary societal, political, and material problems can be solved if we look away from the political trench warfare of today and up toward a far brighter future.

The Transhumanist Party is resolutely opposed to Section 2 of SB292, which would double the number of required petition signatures from 1 percent to 2 percent of the voters who voted in Nevada in the last preceding general election. The 1-percent threshold would already be exorbitantly costly to parties with small or non-existent budgets, at a typical cost of $4 or more per petition signature. A 2-percent threshold would be essentially unattainable. Even more onerous is the requirement in Section 2 that the petition signatures “must be apportioned equally among the petition districts” – which is essentially impossible to fulfill. If a minor party gathers one more signature, or perhaps two fewer signatures, from one petition district than from another, does that make the apportionment of signatures unequal and thus disqualify the entire petition? Moreover, if a minor political party represents constituents who are predominantly located in one part of the State, is this party to be permanently barred from ballot access just because its constituents are not evenly spread throughout the petition districts? All residents of Nevada have legitimate political interests and a need for representation, no matter whether those interests are geographically localized or dispersed. Clearly, the requirement for equal apportionment is an artificial hurdle that is designed to be essentially impossible for minor parties to surmount. With such a requirement in place, it would become easy for a major political party to challenge and disqualify any number of petition signatures gathered by a minor political party after great expenditures of time, effort, and resources. Major parties could therefore suppress minor-party participation through tactics of attrition. To add to the burdens, Section 2 would reduce by about three weeks the time available to gather the doubly high, equally apportioned petition signatures. How impossible is it possible to make ballot access? And is that the question that good public policy should really be striving to answer? There is no compelling benefit to the people of the State of Nevada from being deprived of options to consider at the ballot box; indeed, limiting their choices only makes an illusion out of claims that our electoral system is democratic or representative.

The Nevada Transhumanist Party has been registered with the Secretary of State since August 31, 2015, and has maintained compliance with all requirements for a minor political party without ballot access. In early 2020 the Nevada Transhumanist Party was engaged in significant internal deliberations about attempting a petitioning effort to achieve ballot access; while the current threshold pursuant to NRS 293.1715 (1 percent of the total number of votes cast at the preceding general election for the offices of Representative in Congress) appeared to be quite daunting to a small, all-volunteer organization which refuses all special-interest funding on principle, we were nonetheless willing to give it an earnest attempt. Then COVID-19 arrived, and the resulting lockdown measures essentially prohibited petitioning for ballot access, even as the petitioning requirement itself was not lifted. This effectively prevented any minor political party from safely attempting to qualify for ballot access, and thus entrenched the ability of incumbent major political parties to operate without available alternatives. We thought the 1-percent signature requirement was onerous, but potentially attainable with immense effort. A 2-percent signature requirement, on the other hand, would be impossible for any political party except those with immense budgets funded by large donors. Whatever happened to limiting the influence of money in politics?

The Transhumanist Party also opposes the provisions of Sections 1 and 4 of SB292, which would establish straight-ticket party voting in Nevada. While the straight-ticket voting would technically apply to both major and minor political parties, the overwhelming benefit would accrue to major political parties, who are more likely to have candidates in the vast majority of races. Moreover, straight-ticket voting would discourage voters who are normally inclined toward one political party from even considering minor-party, independent, or nonpartisan candidates in individual races where those candidates might more strongly align with those voters’ views. Every voter is an individual and does not always adhere to the entire package of ideas in a major-party platform. This individuality and diversity of opinions should be respected, and each voter should accordingly be motivated and encouraged to research all of the individual candidates and issues and make an informed decision, rather than just delegating his or her nuanced preferences to a monolithic party line.

Straight-ticket voting is even disadvantageous for many candidates of major political parties, and I urge members of the Legislature to oppose it even if solely on the grounds of their personal self-interest. Consider this: if you are a Legislator from either major political party who nonetheless wishes to reach out to constituents from the other major political party – to build bridges and find common ground – straight-ticket voting will act to your detriment, because it will encourage voters who typically align with the other major political party to vote for that party’s candidate no matter what – even if you are a bridge-builder and the other candidate is an extremist who alienates much of his or her own constituency.

The Transhumanist Party also opposes Section 3 of SB292, because it would limit by more than three weeks the time available for a minor party to respond to a challenge of its qualification to place the names of candidates on the ballot. If, by some fantastical confluence of effort and luck, the minor party does manage to gather the newly required number of signatures, the amount of time available to defend them from the inevitable major-party challenge would be further narrowed to often render such a defense untenable.

Senate Bill 292 would achieve the opposite of establishing a fair, level playing field for political candidates and parties.  Unfortunately, Senate Bill 292, if enacted, will only serve to exacerbate today’s political trench warfare by solidifying the bifurcation of the contemporary American body politic into two blocs that have each become increasingly monolithic and radicalized internally, and increasingly hostile toward the other, with no room between them to pursue unconventional and innovative solutions that can bridge partisan divides. This anticipated effect of SB292 is likely not anyone’s intention; however, the two-party system in the United States has a built-in downward spiral of incivility, hostility, and division which has, over the past year, crossed the line from mere acrimony into deadly riots and insurrections from extreme exponents of both sides of the partisan gulf. Any Legislator interested in stable and sensible governance should seek to avert an intensification of this scenario, and there is a vital role for a vibrant minor-party ecosystem in helping to prevent it.

How does Senate Bill 292 exacerbate political polarization? It does so by making it effectively impossible for minor political parties to even attain ballot access – in the numerous ways described above. This bill would make it clear to voters that minor parties are not just long-shot participants but are effectively shut out of the process altogether. Thus, many people who would have otherwise given a minor party a chance would be shunted into one of the major political parties that is barely more aligned with their views than the other major political party. This would reinforce the bifurcation of America into two distinct blocs which are engaged in an ever-intensifying struggle with one another, to the detriment of any actual progress on policy and any actual solutions to the many pressing problems facing our State, country, and world. Bifurcation of the American body politic creates an “us-versus-them” dynamic, where anyone who is not part of one’s own bloc is automatically considered to be “the enemy” and whose ideas are automatically disregarded. The record increase in independent and nonpartisan voters already shows many Americans to be disillusioned by the toxicity and acrimony that characterize the electoral tactics of the major parties and their most vocal adherents. Without minor parties for them to seek alternatives in, these Americans will either be reluctantly dragged into the deleterious fray they have always wished to avoid, or try to refrain from political participation altogether – in which case the fray will still find them, as extremists from the major parties have increasingly been demonizing conscientiously apolitical Americans as well.

The antidote to polarization is hyper-pluralism, which is precisely what a vibrant minor-party scene would facilitate. In a hyper-pluralistic body politic, there is no clear “enemy” for any constituent, because different smaller parties will align with one another on different issues; one’s adversary on one issue could be an ally on another, and so it is worthwhile to remain on at least respectful terms with everyone. It is for this reason that parliamentary democracies, which allow for proportional representation and numerous political parties competing on each ballot, are generally far less roiled by partisan strife than America’s uniquely contentious two-party system. But Nevada does not even need to adopt a parliamentary system to achieve a similar outcome; it just needs to allow minor political parties to compete on the ballots. Note that we are not even asking for the minor parties to win (which would still be difficult enough on its own), but merely to be allowed to compete! Even the possibility of competition motivates both incumbent officeholders and major-party candidates to be more responsive to the needs of their constituents. Furthermore, minor parties can be fruitful repositories of ideas for major-party politicians to draw upon; the Transhumanist Party would be delighted to have any of its platform reflected in legislation advanced by major-party lawmakers. Ideas from minor parties tend to sufficiently depart from the prevailing major-party packages that they avoid triggering contentious and mutually intransigent debates about “wedge” issues and so may actually lead to solutions that most major-party policymakers are willing to entertain. Incumbents and major-party candidates can even derive much valuable campaign intelligence from election results involving minor political parties. A strong showing for a minor party indicates a set of issues that voters are interested in and that the incumbent or major-party candidate would do well to address while in office or on the campaign trail.

By shutting minor parties out of viable political participation, Senate Bill 292 would only accomplish the illusion of stability for leading figures of a major political party. In reality, one cannot have a stable or tranquil political experience in a general environment marred by ideological polarization and all of its attendant ills. Depriving people of legitimate alternatives will only alienate them further and feed into the undercurrents of frustration and perceived disenfranchisement that permeate American politics today. Minor political parties are a major safety valve of American politics and can act to effectively channel dissent and discontentment into constructive avenues of mutual improvement and enhanced justice.  In the Federalist No. 10, James Madison, at the onset of the American Republic, noted that the advantage of a large representative republic is precisely in “the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest”. The American Founders, who feared precisely the scenario of two dominant factions vying for power at the citizens’ and the Republic’s expense, saw the “greater variety of parties” as an important safeguard against such an outcome. The Transhumanist Party echoes the Founders’ wisdom and would urge the Legislature to consider reforms in the opposite direction from those proposed in SB292 – namely, the elimination of all ballot-access requirements and the ability of any candidate or political party to compete fairly for office on the same terms as any other. After all, if a minor-party candidate is unpersuasive to the voters and the major-party candidates remain more popular, what is there truly for a major party to fear from allowing participation for all? But in the absence of such truly progressive reforms, we urge that the Legislature at least refrain from taking steps that would further limit electoral competition. Please reject Senate Bill 292.

Sincerely,

Mr. Gennady Stolyarov II, FSA, ACAS, MAAA, CPCU, ARe, ARC, API, AIS, AIE, AIAF

Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party

Chief Executive, Nevada Transhumanist Party

U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman’s Fourth Anniversary Message

U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman’s Fourth Anniversary Message

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party
Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party

The fourth year of my Chairmanship of the U.S. Transhumanist Party has been a test of leadership unlike any I expected to face. Working to advance a small but determined transpartisan organization during a deadly global pandemic and a time of unprecedented (for the modern era) political division and toxicity is not an undertaking for the faint of heart. Indeed, the worst is still not behind us, despite science and technology again coming to the rescue with the rapid development of safe, effective vaccines for COVID-19 in a timeframe unmatched in all of human history by its rapidity. This is clearly an achievement for contemporary biomedical research, and it illustrates again the aspects of human endeavor that will hopefully extricate ourselves from humankind’s dire crisis within a few months’ time. Other aspects of this crisis – the immense and utterly counterproductive societal rifts that it has created, the economic and psychological strain it has imposed upon people, the material disruptions to our civilization that will take heroic efforts to mend – may be longer-lasting. The tension of these influences has made crafting this Chairman’s Message my most difficult effort by far compared to prior years – as it was necessary to both acknowledge the dire predicament that humankind is currently mired in, and to outline possible ways out through our direct actions. However, I hope that this message, which I began to write on November 17, 2020, the actual four-year anniversary of my selection as USTP Chairman, will clearly outline the various dimensions of my thinking regarding the present situation and future prospects.

This pandemic fortified my confidence in science and technology while greatly diminishing it with regard to contemporary human societies and American society especially. As I explained in my presentation at the Vanguard Scientific Instruments in Management (VSIM) 2020 virtual conference on July 29, 2020 (video recording forthcoming), the great crisis of 2020 is essentially manmade. While COVID-19 results from a naturally occurring virus and is highly dangerous, systemic human failures transformed the pandemic into a major worldwide crisis. These human failures exposed the severe vulnerabilities in contemporary societies against relatively simple threats. Societies have turned inward, degenerating into tribal, factional conflict, instead of fighting the common enemies of death and disease. Science has become politicized in a deleterious, tribal way, and the politicized versions have anything but the hallmarks of true science – traits such as openness to empirical evidence, systematic testing of hypotheses, willingness to acknowledge evidence that challenges a prior hypothesis and to refine one’s hypotheses accordingly. Neither the “red tribe” nor the “blue tribe” are logically consistent or open to evidence, instead choosing to cherry-pick tidbits from science that happen to support their preconceived agendas. Because of American influence throughout the globe, the entire world suffers from American political toxicity. Worse, the material and psychological stresses of the pandemic are pushing some people over the brink into destructive madness. Mainstream propaganda with ulterior motives amplifies this tendency, prompting unstable personalities toward violence. Although the scientific means to overcome this pandemic are already here with us, persistent cultural, attitudinal, and institutional failures may lead to delayed application of the remedies and thus the needless deaths of tens of thousands more Americans – and certainly the needless suffering of millions.

It is no surprise that, given the pervasiveness of American societal failure in 2020, aspects of the toxic tendencies involved attempted to seep even into the organization which has sought to be a small but bold and high-minded bastion of resistance to these ills. Much time and energy has unfortunately been expended to fend off the destructive behaviors of a small number of detractors who sought, despite my staunch resistance, to import the rancorousness of mainstream politics into the USTP. And yet, in spite of this, while the USTP has needed to pivot and adjust in multiple respects, the creative output of this organization has been phenomenal despite an environment of ubiquitous world crisis. My initial – rather unrealized – strategic inclination in the midst of this pandemic had been to chart a course of careful maintenance of what was and a more relaxed and deliberative pace of activity to enable us all to focus on immediate needs in adjusting to the pandemic. Similarly to how I personally resolved to avoid major life changes while the pandemic raged, my aim for the USTP had been primarily one of preservation – and yet these times require one to keep adjusting. The ultimate result has, notwithstanding my initial inclination, been major acceleration of activity in many areas – often too rapid to even systematically publish updates about. While we have recently exceeded 3,000 members and are still working to integrate all of the members from our merger with the Longevity Party United States in February 2020, we have consistently produced output on a scale worthy of an organization with several orders of magnitude more resources at its disposal. This could not have been done successfully without the dedicated core of Officers, Advisors, and members who have maintained a steadfast commitment to the USTP during these troubled times. These individuals have always greatly outnumbered the troublemakers, and it is for them primarily that the USTP exists and persists no matter what obstacles it faces.

The Virtual Enlightenment Salons, of which we have already held 30 every Sunday since May 2020, have been an immense feat of the U.S. Transhumanist Party, brought about by our Officers’ rapid adaptation to the circumstances of the pandemic and the opportunities created by the consequent higher level of utilization of videoconferencing and streaming technologies. Whereas the logistics for our USTP Primary debates in 2019 were complex and cumbersome, the Virtual Enlightenment Salons are able to be carried out far more reliably and with superior production quality. The audience of these gatherings is dedicated, vibrant, and insightful, as the comments accompanying the Virtual Enlightenment Salon videos illustrate. Special thanks are due to David Shumaker, the USTP Director of Applied Innovation, for hosting the Zoom sessions for the panelists, and to Pavel Ilin, USTP Secretary, and Art Ramon Garcia, Jr., USTP Director of Visual Art, for their work on streaming the salons to YouTube – and also to Art Ramon Garcia for his polished graphics that convey both the dignity and the mindsets of exploration, expansion, and discovery that characterize the Virtual Enlightenment Salons. If anyone had told me a year ago that I would be involved in not a mere handful, but thirty Enlightenment Salons in 2020, I would have been hard-pressed to believe this – and yet this is an illustration of how technological progress and, more importantly, technological utilization, can enable exponential and not just linear growth in valuable output.

In addition, the U.S. Transhumanist Party has been at the forefront of developing constructive policy options for addressing the ongoing pandemic. Shortly after the disruption from the pandemic set in, the members of the USTP got to work, developing 21 Platform sections, outlining a comprehensive, multifaceted approach toward defeating COVID-19, preventing future pandemics, and prioritizing medical innovation – particularly in anti-aging research – to greatly lower the toll of infectious diseases even in those who contract them. If only these ideas had been taken into account by mainstream politicians and implemented in early April 2020, likely tens of thousands of American lives would have been saved – through rapid construction of hospitals, training of a rapid-response corps of medical personnel, removal of barriers to vaccine deployment, improved general education on pandemics, and the rapid, decentralized production of supplies of every sort needed to assist people in their protective efforts. Many of these 21 proposals can still be implemented today to great effect and could help accelerate the arrival of our victory against COVID-19. The USTP encourages all of its members and others among the general public to advocate for these measures.

Out of all of the priorities I had set forth in my Third Anniversary Message one year ago, the goal of building alliances with like-minded organization has been the most successfully realized. This has been a year of forging ties with other future-oriented organizations throughout the world, including the Transdisciplinary Agora for Future Discussions (TAFFD’s), whose Future Africa Conference in April 2020 was highly attended by USTP members and Officers; the World Talent Economy Forum (WTEF), which has hosted numerous interviews with USTP representatives and candidates; the Human Achievement Alliance, which espouses the same essential broadly techno-optimistic vision that the USTP seeks to advance; the Ogba Educational Clinic, which aims to bring knowledge of programming and artificial intelligence to students in Nigeria, Steele Archer’s Debt Nation and Archer Report programs, and many others. The hundreds of conversations, interviews, meetings, forums, and posts exchanged among our organizations are truly enabling a distributed, worldwide network of transhumanist and futurist thought to emerge. The resulting proliferation of rational discourse and innovation is greater than any one organization can contain – and indeed, ideally, can transform humankind as a whole significantly for the better.

Of course, no analysis of 2020 can be complete without commentary on the election season in the United States and its outcomes. While the 2020 election has shown that American politics has a long way to go in order to climb out of its abyss, it also featured several noteworthy accomplishments and reasons for hope.

Vote Results – 2020 Elections

Kam-Parrish 2020 Presidential Campaign

Thus far we are aware of 51 write-in votes having been cast for Charlie Kam and Liz Parrish. Preliminary member-reported totals are found here and will be updated as additional information is received, including when any state which counts write-in votes publishes its results. We are pleased by the dedication of our members who chose to vote their consciences in the states that allowed write-ins, and who moreover proactively reported those votes to us per our request. Anyone who still has not done so can contact us at ustranshumanistparty@protonmail.com in order to be counted as having voted for Charlie Kam and Liz Parrish. We want every write-in vote for our candidates to be recognized!

Considering the turn of events that led Charlie Kam to become our candidate in June 2020, at quite a late stage in the election season, the U.S. Transhumanist Party appreciates what has been achieved in the subsequent 4.5 months. Despite the detailed ballot-access plan that the USTP developed internally in January 2020, the ravages and risks of the COVID-19 pandemic made any petitioning for ballot access and in-person campaigning impractical (we are life-extensionists, after all, and preservation of healthy longevity is our foremost priority). Notwithstanding this pandemic-imposed constraint, both Charlie Kam and his Vice-Presidential running mate, Liz Parrish, served as outstanding ambassadors for the USTP and were indeed our best candidates yet. In the course of many external interviews as well as appearances at the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s weekly Virtual Enlightenment Salons, Charlie Kam and Liz Parrish illustrated a new approach to politics – one based on substantive discussion of issues and policies, a focus on the need for technological innovation to improve the lives of all, and an appeal to the aspirations that unite us rather than the mainstream politicians’ focus on division. As we have emphasized time and again, the primary purpose of Transhumanist campaigns at this stage of our evolution is one of educating the public about the ideas and goals of transhumanism. In this regard, the Kam-Parrish 2020 campaign succeeded, and I am proud to have contributed my time and support to its activities. Charlie Kam and Liz Parrish will remain prominent and eloquent ambassadors for the USTP, and we hope that our future candidates will be able to live up to the examples that they set of high-mindedness, civility, integrity, techno-optimism, and dedication to longevity advocacy.

For a wonderful illustration of the tone of the Kam-Parrish 2020 campaign and the hopeful outlook with which it concluded, watch the final joint interview of Charlie Kam, Liz Parrish, and myself by our ally in Malaysia, Sharif Uddin Ahmed Rana of the World Talent Economy Forum, conducted on November 2, 2020, the day before the U.S. general election.

A glimpse into a parallel universe, courtesy of Charlie Kam
A glimpse into a wondrous parallel universe, courtesy of Charlie Kam

Local Campaigns

Daniel Twedt – City Council, Thousand Oaks, California

U.S. Transhumanist Party member Dan Twedt ran for City Council in Thousand Oaks, California, and gained 3.437 votes, or 3% of the total. During his campaign, he spread awareness of the U.S. Transhumanist Party in local newspapers. An excerpt from the Acorn Newspaper in Thousand Oaks characterized Mr. Twedt as “a member of the Transhumanist Party” with “a platform tied to technology and the environment.” Mr. Twedt was cited as expressing the view that “government needs be way more open-source, way more transparent”. Mr. Twedt plans to run again in 2022, and we encourage his continued activities within the USTP, such as his regular participation in our weekly Virtual Enlightenment Salons, and his public outreach when campaigning.

Gennady Stolyarov II – Board of Trustees, Indian Hills General Improvement District, Douglas County, Nevada

My second attempt to run for the Board of Trustees of the Indian Hills General Improvement District was unfortunately thwarted by the occurrence of a primary in June 2020, in the midst of a pandemic. Because of physical-distancing restrictions as well as general concern for health and safety, I decided to campaign using solely virtual means, including holding a Virtual Town Hall via Zoom on May 9, 2020. Nonetheless, there remains a technological gap in the area, and it appears that many residents simply do not get their local news or gain awareness of candidates and issues via electronic means. Moreover, a wave of anti-development sentiment has unfortunately swept Douglas County, resulting in the election of three anti-growth Republican County Commissioners who have vowed to put limits on new construction and residential housing in the name of “keeping Douglas County rural” – which essentially means keeping it unaffordable for those who did not purchase homes there a long time ago. Perhaps these sentiments also translated into voters’ choices for the Board of Trustees of the General Improvement District, and my open and unabashed advocacy of more residential development and more technological utilization certainly clashed with this reactionary mentality. However, I will never apologize for standing on principle and supporting progress in material standards of living, even if it clashes with some people’s attempts to freeze a particular status quo in place. I also remain hopeful that ongoing new construction in the area will continue and help reduce the cost of housing and improve the quality of the infrastructure despite the anti-development partisans’ objections.

The presence of five candidates on the ballot triggered the primary, and one of the candidates who advanced finished with only 17 votes ahead of me (270 votes to my 253). Subsequently, that candidate indicated that he would not accept the office of Board Member if he were elected, effectively leaving three candidates to compete in the general election. This turn of events underscores the importance of candidates being committed to the responsibilities involved in the offices for which they run. Candidates should run only if they are determined to follow through all the way and carry out the duties of the office if they are elected to it. Had the aforementioned candidate decided against running for office to begin with, given his uncertainty about accepting it, then there would not have been a primary, and I would have had about 4.5 additional months to campaign and communicate a rational, transpartisan, and future-friendly approach to the residents.  Still, receiving 253 votes out of 1216 ballots cast during a low-turnout primary means that I have successfully reached 20.8% or more than one-fifth of the voting residents. The challenge for future campaigns will be to determine by what channels information spreads in these local elections. There had not been any significant media coverage of the other candidates, and extremely little information was discoverable about them online prior to the primary. Therefore, how were they able to gain recognition and votes during a pandemic in which physical distancing was mandated for the vast majority of the campaign season? Discovering how information can effectively propagate through “offline” channels may lead to insights regarding how more generally to communicate awareness of transhumanist ideas to the broader public.

Ballot Initiatives in Nevada and California – Outcomes as Compared to USTP Recommendations

In Nevada, the recommendations of the USTP and Nevada Transhumanist Party (NTP) prevailed among voters on Ballot Question 2, the Marriage Regardless of Gender Amendment, which passed with a vote of 62.4% in favor, and Ballot Question 3, the State Board of Pardons Commissioners Amendment, which passed with a vote of 61.2% in favor. However, Nevada voters also chose to adopt the two ballot questions that were opposed by the USTP and NTP – Ballot Question 4 (64.1% of voters in favor), which would enshrine in the Nevada Constitution a list of voter rights based on the current, soon-to-be-obsolete paper-based voting system, and Ballot Question 5 – the Renewable Energy Standards Initiative (57.9% of voters in favor). Although the USTP and NTP hope that more than 50 percent of energy sold to consumers could indeed come from renewable sources by 2030, the USTP and NTP wish for this to be achieved through voluntary methods of technical progress and increasing affordability of renewable energy, not through mandates that (if they supersede the pace of technological advancement) would simply raise energy costs for ordinary consumers. Still, the USTP and NTP do not consider the passage of Ballot Questions 4 and 5 to be significant obstacles to the progress of transhumanism and emerging technologies as such; we would have preferred different outcomes, but our efforts will not be materially affected by the results of these votes.

In California, the outcome of the ballot propositions was even more aligned with the USTP’s recommendations, illustrating that on many issues, the USTP has tapped into the outlooks and priorities of many voters who do not strictly adhere to partisan ideologies. On eight out of ten or 80% of ballot propositions on which the USTP made a recommendation in a particular direction, the majority of California voters also favored that course of action.

California Proposition 14 – Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative

USTP Position: Support

Outcome: Passed with 51.09% in favor

The passage of California Proposition 14 is perhaps the most significant victory for transhumanists, as it makes available $5.5 billion in new funds for potentially life-saving stem-cell research initiatives.

California Proposition 15 – Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative

USTP Position: Oppose

Outcome: Failed with 51.97% in opposition

Most California voters agreed with the USTP on the undesirability of further increases of property taxes – one of the least equitable and least convenient forms of taxation.

California Proposition 16 – Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment

USTP Position: Oppose

Outcome: Failed with 57.19% in opposition

Most California voters agreed with the USTP that the imposition of racial preferences in public employment and education is inherently unjust and anathema to a society that values individual rights and individual attributes of character over people’s circumstances of birth.

California Proposition 17 – Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment

USTP Position: Support

Outcome: Passed with 58.57% in favor

Most California voters agreed with the USTP that there is no reason to deprive the essential right to vote from individuals who have completed their prison sentences.

California Proposition 18 – Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment

USTP Position: Support

Outcome: Failed with 56.01% in opposition

This was an issue on which the majority of California voters differed from the USTP’s recommendations. Perhaps the attitudinal climate has not yet matured to the point of accepting that a person’s individual understanding of the political system and the issues involved should be the determinant of eligibility to vote – rather than an arbitrary dividing line such as that of age. However, there will be opportunities to continue articulating these principles in the years to come.

California Proposition 20 – Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative

USTP Position: Oppose

Outcome: Failed with 61.73% in opposition

Most California voters agreed with the USTP regarding the undesirability of measures that would significantly increase the population in prison for relatively minor criminal offenses, such as petty thefts and various nonviolent crimes. Such crimes are better addressed through restitution than through imprisonment.

California Proposition 21 – Local Rent Control Initiative

USTP Position: Oppose

Outcome: Failed with 59.84% in opposition

Most California voters agreed with the USTP in rejecting rent control. In the absence of new construction, rent control creates undesirable incentives that harm tenants of rent-controlled buildings directly and indirectly. Everyone should hope that California will instead loosen the many onerous restrictions on new housing development, which have contributed to a dire shortage of available housing and an essentially complete lack of housing affordability in that state.

California Proposition 22 – App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative

USTP Position: Support

Outcome: Passed with 58.59% in favor

The USTP is relieved that most California voters supported saving the ridesharing business model on transportation network companies by rejecting the presumptive classification of their drivers as employees – a classification that the drivers themselves would find onerous and restrictive. As the USTP stated in its analysis, “It is clear that classifying ridesharing services’ drivers as employees is intended as protectionism for legacy taxicab companies, whose business model has often resulted in sub-optimal treatment of consumers and thus led to widespread consumer frustration. On the other hand, most consumers have expressed overwhelming satisfaction with ridesharing services. California Ballot Proposition 22 restores the more reasonable classification of ridesharing services’ drivers as independent contractors while affording them basic protections regarding their earnings, healthcare, and vehicle insurance.”

California Proposition 23 – Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative

USTP Position: Oppose

Outcome: Failed with 63.45% in opposition

Most California voters agreed with the USTP in opposing the requirement for at least one licensed physician be on site during treatment at outpatient kidney dialysis clinics. Voters recognized that, because of the dire shortage of available physicians, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, this requirement would mean that many dialysis clinics would be unable to operate or offer life-serving services to patients who require dialysis.

California Proposition 25 – Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum          

USTP Position: Support

Outcome: Failed with 56.40% in opposition

This was another issue on which the majority of California voters differed from the USTP recommendation. The failure of Ballot Proposition 25 likely means that California will keep its previous system of cash bail instead of abolishing the requirement of cash bail and replacing it with a system of risk assessments for each accused individual. Per the USTP’s position statement, “A person who goes to trial and is exonerated for the alleged offense should not be made any poorer as a result, yet the system of cash bail channels many people in already precarious financial situations into arrangements which lead exactly to such impoverishment.” Unfortunately, it appears that the cash bail system will still persist in California for some time. Nonetheless, this situation is not expected to pose a material obstacle to the attainment of the vast majority of transhumanist goals.

Future Initiatives

With the 2020 election behind us, the U.S. Transhumanist Party’s focus will be on effectively scaling up its operations, maintaining broad unity of purpose and constructive conduct within the transhumanist movement, and participating in wider public discourse on the issues where science and technology can positively affect outcomes.

Working Groups: The USTP is beginning to set up small, focused, project-oriented working groups, each of which will produce a particular set of deliverables – be it a white paper on a policy topic, a computer game on life extension, a survey of members, upgrades to the USTP’s voting system, new graphical assets, or a variety of other possibilities. Some working groups may have an ongoing role, such as providing responses to current events or emerging issues within the transhumanist community. In particular, it will be important to form a working group on legislative tracking and advocacy in order to be able to effectively monitor and respond to proposed legislation at both state and federal levels. Volunteers for future working groups will be welcomed and actively solicited, as long as they exhibit integrity and sincerity of intention.

Member Education and Tiered Membership: The USTP continues to seek ways to reward its most dedicated and knowledgeable members, who should have a stronger influence over the outcomes of our votes. Membership of a more prestigious tier could be the result of passing a future set of online learning units on the USTP Platform, Transhumanist Bill of Rights, and other key documents.

Candidate Education and Eligibility Criteria: The USTP will endeavor to enhance the respectability and transhumanist alignment of the candidates who seek its endorsement by creating more extensive upfront candidate eligibility criteria which will focus on respectability of conduct, a history of dedication to transhumanist ideas, and a spirit of ambassadorship from the candidates, instead of ulterior non-transhumanist motives or personal political ambition. Candidates should be willing to use their pre-existing personal merits and position to promote the ideas of transhumanism, rather than seeing the USTP as a vessel for any alternative, non-transhumanist agenda or personal motive.

Candidates for Non-Presidential Offices: The USTP continues to seek out promising candidates for local and state-level offices and has already identified several promising individuals who may be able to effectively promote the ideas of transhumanism during the next midterm elections in 2022 or possibly even earlier.  One question that the USTP will place before its members for consideration is the matter of whether or not affiliations with other political parties should restrict the USTP from endorsing a particular candidate if that candidate explicitly expresses support for transhumanism and/or life extension. The USTP welcomes diverse member perspectives regarding where the boundary should be drawn so that we preserve our distinctive organizational identity while recognizing any techno-positive efforts that advance our vision in the U.S. political arena.

Focus on Ballot Initiatives: One of the USTP’s great strengths is the analytical talent present within it. Almost every state places several questions on the ballot for voters to decide upon directly. The impact of these ballot initiatives is often more significant and more accurately foreseeable than the outcomes arising from the identity of a given elected official. If the USTP can provide recommendations on every ballot initiative in a given election, this will greatly enhance its credibility as a source of reliable policy analysis for large numbers of people. Many of our views are already aligned with large populations of independent voters; they just have to discover us and have ample content from the USTP that they could rely upon in regard to policy questions of interest to them.

Ballot-Access Collaboration with Other Political Parties: Lowering barriers to entry in elections at every level is a common aim shared by the USTP and other political parties with the exception of the Democrats and Republicans. As evidenced by our highly constructive Virtual Enlightenment Salon with Spike Cohen on September 13, 2020, there is an opportunity for concerted efforts among representatives of multiple political parties to assist one another in advocating for greatly lowered ballot-access thresholds and perhaps even coordinate the circulation of petitions once the present pandemic is behind us.

Anti-Troll Campaign: The USTP has not forgotten the importance of effectively responding to trolls and detractors within the transhumanist community who inflict a greater toll upon it than any external critic or adversary. We encourage our members to contribute resources to the anti-troll campaigns, such as tasteful images that can be posted to counter comments and crude “memes” that trolls sometimes deploy. Be both creative and dignified! It is possible to do so and also to amuse and entertain well-intentioned audiences. Show that we can be better than the trolls even in their media of choice!

The above-listed areas are not exhaustive of the endeavors that the USTP intends to pursue. Indeed, our Virtual Enlightenment Salon this coming Sunday, November 29, 2020, will be the Public Session of our U.S. Transhumanist Party Reform Summit, where additional ideas will be both presented to and solicited from our members.

Conclusion

As I have often expressed this year, the future can be bright indeed, if only we can overcome the extreme predicament of the present. No set of ideas prevails automatically or inexorably. The key to success is perseverance, even and especially in the face of adversity and doubt from some. Those who waver and continually change course will never reach any particular desirable destination. While this pandemic has been a strenuous period for all – including perhaps the majority of us in the transhumanist movement – it has only fortified my determination to make the U.S. Transhumanist Party a lasting and ever-expanding success. Since becoming Chairman of the USTP more than four years ago, I have come to recognize clearly the indispensability of this organization to the advancement of transhumanism more broadly, as the USTP has become the nexus of conversations, collaborations, and meetings of great minds who might otherwise never have come into contact. Moreover, the USTP openly and proudly embraces transhumanism without downplaying it or giving lip service to techno-pessimist criticisms. Of course, the success of the transhumanist vision is crucial to the success of humanity as a whole – making a key difference in which path our species takes. Do we reach toward the stars, toward indefinite longevity, toward sustainable superabundance – or do we allow the cascade of present crises to plunge us into the abyss of a new Dark Age? These are outcomes over which we can have control, and the locus of control begins with the transhumanist movement itself. This year more than ever, I urge unity and steadfastness of purpose. Do not allow petty personality conflicts, lack of self-control, and factionalism derail potentially the most pivotal ideas, aspirations, and projects in human history. Support the people who build and uplift, rather than those who destroy and tear down. All those who earnestly seek to advance the well-being of humans through the progress of science and technology – and who are willing to behave civilly while doing so – are welcome to contribute to the endeavors of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and help take our organization to the next level.

U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party Positions on 2020 Nevada Ballot Questions

U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party Positions on 2020 Nevada Ballot Questions

Gennady Stolyarov II


The United States Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party offer the following brief statements of position on the ballot questions currently before Nevada voters in the 2020 General Election.

Summary
Nevada State Question 1 – Removal of Constitutional Status of Board of Regents: Neutral
Nevada State Question 2 – Marriage Regardless of Gender Amendment: Support
Nevada State Question 3 – State Board of Pardons Commissioners Amendment: Support
Nevada State Question 4 – State Constitutional Rights of Voters Amendment: Oppose
Nevada State Question 6 – Renewable Energy Standards Initiative: Oppose

Note: There is no substantive Question 5 on the Nevada ballot; Question 5 was intentionally left blank.

Nevada State Ballot Question 1Removal of Constitutional Status of Board of Regents Neutral

Wording of Ballot Question: “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) remove provisions governing the election and duties of the Board of Regents and its control and management of the State University and require the Legislature to provide by law for the State University’s governance, control, and management and the reasonable protection of individual academic freedom at Nevada’s public higher education institutions; and (2) revise the administration of certain federal land grant proceeds dedicated for the benefit of certain departments of the State University?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party are generally neutral as to the structure of oversight over educational institutions and so are indifferent as to whether Nevada universities are overseen by a separately elected Board of Regents or directly by the Legislature. There is a favorable component of Ballot Question 1 which would mandate for the Legislature to provide by law for “the reasonable protection of individual academic freedom at Nevada’s public higher education institutions” – which would be in addition to any such protections for academic freedom that exist at the U.S. federal level. The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party are supportive of strengthening protections for individual academic freedom; however, if Ballot Question 1 passes, it is not clear what form these protections would take or how substantive they would be. The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party do not see any specific harms arising from Ballot Question 1 but would generally consider the issues involved to be outside the purview of specifically transhumanist political advocacy. Therefore, members are encouraged to vote their conscience on this ballot question by consulting their own individual understandings of the relevant matters.

Nevada State Ballot Question 2Marriage Regardless of Gender Amendment – Support

Wording of Ballot Question: “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) remove an existing provision recognizing marriage as only between a male person and a female person and require the State of Nevada and its political subdivisions to recognize marriages of and issue marriage licenses to couples, regardless of gender; (2) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law; and (3) establish a right for religious organizations and clergy members to refuse to perform a marriage and provide that no person is entitled to make any claim against them for exercising that right?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party support Ballot Question 2, which is essentially a recognition of the existing United States law, stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. De facto Nevada already recognizes same-sex marriages, and for the sake of consistency, the Nevada Constitution should also offer this recognition de jure. Moreover, Article XII of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights, Version 3.0, supports the right of marriage for all “sentient entities of full age and competency” – without distinction as to the genders of the sentient entities involved.

Nevada State Ballot Question 3 State Board of Pardons Commissioners Amendment Support

Wording of Ballot Question: “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) require the State Board of Pardons Commissioners—whose members are the Governor, the justices of the Nevada Supreme Court, and the Nevada Attorney General—to meet at least quarterly; (2) authorize each member of the Board to submit matters for consideration by the Board; and (3) authorize the Board to grant pardons and make other clemency decisions by a majority vote of its members without requiring the Governor to be part of the majority of the Board that votes in favor of such decisions?” (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party support Ballot Question 3 due to the provisions in Article VI, Section XIV, of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform and Article I, Section X, of the Nevada Transhumanist Party Platform: The United States Transhumanist Party [or Nevada Transhumanist Party] supports efforts to significantly reduce the massive incarcerated population in America by using innovative technologies to monitor criminals outside of prison. All mandatory sentencing laws should be abolished, and each individual should be sentenced based solely on the consideration of the nature of that individual’s crime, its context, and its severity.” More frequent meetings of the State Board of Pardons Commissioners would allow more frequent consideration of circumstances that genuinely justify releasing an individual from prison. This would allow opportunities to lower the excessive incarcerated population in Nevada. Furthermore, the ability to make clemency decisions by a majority of the votes of the State Board of Pardons Commissioners would also enable individuals to be released when the prevailing opinion of the Commissioners is that the facts of the situation justify such release – again contributing to the reduction of needless incarcerations.

Nevada State Ballot Question 4 – State Constitutional Rights of Voters Amendment – Oppose

Wording of Ballot Question: “Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended by adding a new section guaranteeing specific voting rights to all qualified and registered voters in the State?”

Per BallotPedia, “The amendment would provide qualified persons who are registered to vote with a constitutional right to receive and cast a ballot that is written in a ‘format that allows the clear identification of candidates’ and ‘accurately records the voter’s preference in the selection of candidates.’ It also would provide registered voters with other constitutional rights, including:

(a) to have questions about voting procedures answered and have voting procedures posted in a visible location at the polling place;

(b) to vote without intimidation, threats, or coercion;

(c) to vote during any early-voting period or on election day if the voter is in line at the time polls close;

(d) to return a spoiled ballot and receive a replacement ballot;

(e) to request assistance in voting if necessary;

(f) to a sample ballot ‘which is accurate, informative and delivered in a timely manner;’

(g) to receive instruction on how to use voting equipment;

(h) to equal access to the elections system without discrimination, including on the basis of ‘race, age, disability, military service, employment or overseas residence;’

(i) to a ‘uniform, statewide standard for counting and recounting all votes accurately;’ and

(j) to have ‘complaints about elections and election contests resolved fairly, accurately and efficiently.’”

Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: While the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party consider the intentions of Ballot Question 4 to be laudable – who could oppose transparency, clarity and freedom from intimidation? – some of the proposed constitutional protections could, as an unintended consequence, entrench an already-obsolete paper-based voting system which should, as soon as the technology is viable and deployable at scale, be replaced with an electronic, blockchain-based system using which people could securely verify their identities and vote from the comfort of their homes. The above-listed protections already exist in Nevada statute, which is adequate to the circumstances and would be more readily open to amendments as the technological possibilities would suggest to be proper, as contrasted with a Constitutional provision which would be extremely difficult to amend once enacted.

The argument of the opponents of Ballot Question 4, as published in the sample ballot provided to Nevada voters, is persuasive: “There is a reason that the voting rights listed in Question 4 exist in statute and have not been added to the Nevada Constitution: these voting rights, while vitally important, are not timeless in their structure or application, and the forms they take may change substantially as the ways in which we vote and conduct elections evolve. Future advances in technology will likely make several of the voting matters addressed by Question 4 – such as written ballots, polling places, and even in-person voting – obsolete.”

Nevada State Ballot Question 6Renewable Energy Standards Initiative Oppose

Wording of Ballot Question: “Shall Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require, beginning in calendar year 2022, that all providers of electric utility services who sell electricity to retail customers for consumption in Nevada generate or acquire incrementally larger percentages of electricity from renewable energy resources so that by calendar year 2030 not less than 50 percent of the total amount of electricity sold by each provider to its retail customers in Nevada comes from renewable energy resources?“ (More information on BallotPedia.)

Position of the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party: The U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party opposes Ballot Question 6. While the U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party support economical renewable energy and the acceleration of efforts to develop technologies to render as much of our energy supply renewable as possible, the ability to affordably generate 50 percent of the total electricity through renewable energy resources is ultimately a technological challenge, not a political one. If the technology is ready, and the market is robust and competitive enough to deploy it to consumers at more attractive prices than fossil-fuel energy, then a 50-percent or greater renewable proportion of electricity will be achieved by 2030 without the need for a mandate. If, however, the technology cannot yet render renewable energy competitive with fossil fuels, then the only effect of the mandate would be to push up costs and constrict supply of electricity to consumers. The surest way to bring about a future of greater renewable energy in Nevada is to repeal the NV Energy monopoly which has been standing in its way. Through competition, both technological and marketing innovations will thrive and will deliver renewable energy solutions to consumers.

Gennady Stolyarov II is the Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party and the Chief Executive of the Nevada Transhumanist Party.

This post may be freely reproduced using the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike International 4.0 License, which requires that credit be given to the author, Gennady Stolyarov II. Find out about Mr. Stolyarov here.

Transhumanist Political Developments in the United States – Gennady Stolyarov II Presents at the VSIM-2019 Conference

Transhumanist Political Developments in the United States – Gennady Stolyarov II Presents at the VSIM-2019 Conference

logo_bg

Gennady Stolyarov II


On September 6, 2019, Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman of the U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party (USTP), presented virtually to the Vanguard Scientific Instruments in Management (VSIM-2019) Conference in Ravda, Bulgaria, on the subject of recent transhumanist political developments in the United States. Watch Mr. Stolyarov’s presentation here.

See Mr. Stolyarov’s presentation slides (with interactive hyperlinks) here.

Subjects covered during the presentation included the following:

– Version 3.0 of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights
– The #IAmTranshuman Global Campaign – (See the two video compilations here and here)
– The USTP’s first legislative success in Nevada in hosting the Cyborg and Transhumanist Forum and achieving an amendment to Assembly Bill 226
– The USTP’s project to create an abundance of free transhumanist symbols, available for anyone to use –
– The forthcoming USTP Presidential Primary Election (see the candidate profiles)

Join the USTP for free, no matter where you reside, here. Those who join by September 21, 2019, will be eligible to vote in the Electronic Primary which will begin on the next day.

Become a Foreign Ambassador for the U.S. Transhumanist Party. Apply here.

Progress in the Politics of Abundance – Presentation by Gennady Stolyarov II

Progress in the Politics of Abundance – Presentation by Gennady Stolyarov II

Gennady Stolyarov II


Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party (USTP), delivered this presentation, entitled “Progress in the Politics of Abundance“, during the August 24, 2019, Wellness and Longevity Seminar in Burbank, California, to commemorate the publication of The Transhumanism Handbook. Mr. Stolyarov spoke to update the audience on recent USTP activities in 2019 since the writing of his chapter, entitled “The United States Transhumanist Party and the Politics of Abundance” which is available for free download.

Some of the subjects addressed in Mr. Stolyarov’s presentation are the necessity and challenges of overcoming the evolved mindset of scarcity – the zero-sum mentality – in politics, the USTP’s #IAmTranshuman campaign, its successful effort to amend Nevada Assembly Bill 226 to remove the prohibition against voluntary microchip implantation, and its Transhumanist Symbols project, of which the products are freely available here.

The presentation slides are not fully visible in the video but can be accessed and downloaded here.

Find out more about The Transhumanism Handbook.

Join the U.S. Transhumanist Party for free, no matter where you reside. Those who join by September 22, 2019, will be eligible to vote in the upcoming USTP Presidential Primary.

Video of Cyborg and Transhumanist Forum at the Nevada State Legislature – May 15, 2019

Video of Cyborg and Transhumanist Forum at the Nevada State Legislature – May 15, 2019

Gennady Stolyarov II
Anastasia Synn
R. Nicholas Starr


Watch the video containing 73 minutes of excerpts from the Cyborg and Transhumanist Forum, held on May 15, 2019, at the Nevada State Legislature Building.

The Cyborg and Transhumanist Forum at the Nevada Legislature on May 15, 2019, marked a milestone for the U.S. Transhumanist Party and the Nevada Transhumanist Party. This was the first time that an official transhumanist event was held within the halls of a State Legislature, in one of the busiest areas of the building, within sight of the rooms where legislative committees met. The presenters were approached by tens of individuals – a few legislators and many lobbyists and staff members. The reaction was predominantly either positive or at least curious; there was no hostility and only mild disagreement from a few individuals. Generally, the outlook within the Legislative Building seems to be in favor of individual autonomy to pursue truly voluntary microchip implants. The testimony of Anastasia Synn at the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 26, 2019, in opposition to Assembly Bill 226, is one of the most memorable episodes of the 2019 Legislative Session for many who heard it. It has certainly affected the outcome for Assembly Bill 226, which was subsequently further amended to restore the original scope of the bill and only apply the prohibition to coercive microchip implants, while specifically exempting microchip implants voluntarily received by an individual from the prohibition. The scope of the prohibition was also narrowed by removing the reference to “any other person” and applying the prohibition to an enumerated list of entities who may not require others to be microchipped: state officers and employees, employers as a condition of employment, and persons in the business of insurance or bail. These changes alleviated the vast majority of the concerns within the transhumanist and cyborg communities about Assembly Bill 226.

 

From left to right: Gennady Stolyarov II, Anastasia Synn, and Ryan Starr (R. Nicholas Starr)

This Cyborg and Transhumanist Forum comes at the beginning of an era of transhumanist political engagement with policymakers and those who advise them. It was widely accepted by the visitors to the demonstration tables that technological advances are accelerating, and that policy decisions regarding technology should only be made with adequate knowledge about the technology itself – working on the basis of facts and not fears or misconceptions that arise from popular culture and dystopian fiction. Ryan Starr shared his expertise on the workings and limitations of both NFC/RFID microchips and GPS technology and who explained that cell phones are already far more trackable than microchips ever could be (based on their technical specifications and how those specifications could potentially be improved in the future). U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II introduced visitors to the world of transhumanist literature by bringing books for display – including writings by Aubrey de Grey, Bill Andrews, Ray Kurzweil, Jose Cordeiro, Ben Goertzel, Phil Bowermaster, and Mr. Stolyarov’s own book “Death is Wrong” in five languages. It appears that there is more sympathy for transhumanism within contemporary political circles than might appear at first glance; it is often transhumanists themselves who overestimate the negativity of the reaction they expect to receive. But nobody picketed the event or even called the presenters names; transhumanist ideas, expressed in a civil and engaging way – with an emphasis on practical applications that are here today or due to arrive in the near future – will be taken seriously when there is an opening to articulate them.

The graphics for the Cyborg and Transhumanist Forum were created by Tom Ross, the U.S. Transhumanist Party Director of Media Production.

Become a member of the U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party free of charge, no matter where you reside.

References

Gennady Stolyarov II Interviews Ray Kurzweil at RAAD Fest 2018

• “A Word on Implanted NFC Tags” – Article by Ryan Starr

Assembly Bill 226, Second Reprint – This is the version of the bill that passed the Senate on May 23, 2019.

Amendment to Assembly Bill 226 to essentially remove the prohibition against voluntary microchip implants

Future Grind Podcast

Synnister – Website of Anastasia Synn

Cyborg and Transhumanist Forum at the Nevada State Legislature – Scheduled for May 15, 2019

Cyborg and Transhumanist Forum at the Nevada State Legislature – Scheduled for May 15, 2019


If you are interested in transhumanism, life extension, biohacking, prosthetics, implantable technologies, advances to help the disabled, and the political and philosophical implications of all of these areas, then you are encouraged to come to the Cyborg and Transhumanist Forum at the Nevada State Legislature in Carson City, Nevada, on Wednesday, May 15, 2019. This promises to be the first event of its kind – a great opportunity for advocates of emerging technologies to communicate with legislators, lobbyists, media, and the general public, and educate them about transhumanism and its technological dimensions while also dispelling common fears and myths.

The Cyborg and Transhumanist Forum will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on May 15.

Address:

Nevada State Legislature Building

401 S Carson St, Carson City, NV 89701

Second Floor Atrium (See the Second Floor Map)

Co-organized by the Future Grind podcast, the Nevada Transhumanist Party, and magician Anastasia Synn (who testified against Assembly Bill 226 at the Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee), and supported by the Nevada Technology Association, the Cyborg and Transhumanist Forum will feature practical demonstrations of emerging technologies, such as implantable microchips, in order to dispel common fears and myths about those technologies and educate the public about their capabilities and limitations. Also, the event will feature a discussion of technological augmentations, transhumanist philosophy, the uses of technology to overcome disabilities and extend longevity and health, the directions of technological evolution in the coming decades, and the policy implications stemming from these developments.

Most of the event will be in a conversational format as participants will interact with visitors and answer their questions.

If you could either travel to Carson City, Nevada, on Wednesday, May 15, 2019, or share this event with other transhumanists and life-extensionists who you think might be able to do so, it would be greatly appreciated. Even if you cannot attend yourself, you can help by spreading information about this event to others who might be in a position to attend – especially if they live in Northern Nevada or Northern California (but we welcome others who would have to travel farther!).

We need more transhumanists in attendance at this event! Please send an e-mail to U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman and Nevada Transhumanist Party Chief Executive Gennady Stolyarov II if you wish to participate as one of the speakers educating people about transhumanism and emerging technologies. The more representation we have, the better! No matter what your areas of expertise or what flavor of transhumanism you espouse – whether you seek to pursue biological life extension, mechanical/electronic augmentations, policy reforms, or all of the above – your involvement and perspectives will be welcome. This is a unique opportunity for transhumanists to access policymakers and render them aware of the imperative of protecting the rights of technological innovators and creating an environment conducive to an acceleration of beneficial technological progress.