A better form of democracy

[Tahuti]

That's true. Fortunately, kind of like the value of the system I am forwarding/proposing, the more books you read and the more lectures you attend, the more places you go and people you meet, the greater your chance of escape the brainwash.

It's why the liberal arts are so important.

I don't dispute your points. However, the problem with the Liberal Arts is that increasingly it has become centres for filter bubbles instead. And I don't think the majority of Liberal Arts professors are acting from bad faith, yet they do not seem what are doing themselves and becoming authorities that cannot be criticised.

PS, I got my phone back ;D

Eindelijk!

 

[Zack]

Could be. But it's no more simplistic than "congressmen know more than most people, so they should get to make the decision", which seems to be the alternative.

Well, I think the ideal situation is somewhere in between the current system and what Hygro is suggesting. I like the idea of people focusing on one issue (or several related ones, as opposed to voting on all of them), but I also like the idea of elected representatives. I'd rather see a reform of the current system than a complete overthrow.

Experts perform better when there's more specific technical knowledge required. When dealing with amorphous social phenomena, crowds (but not mobs) outperform most experts, and few experts are consistently better.

Which is kind of what I said originally:

This might work for social issues, but it seems ruinous for the economy.

 

[Hygro]

I don't dispute your points. However, the problem with the Liberal Arts is that increasingly it has become centres for filter bubbles instead. And I don't think the majority of Liberal Arts professors are acting from bad faith, yet they do not seem what are doing themselves and becoming authorities that cannot be criticised.

I'm not so sure. I get the idea, but I'm not sure that's actually prevalent. And in aggregate, given how much they often disagree with one another—particularly the less bland ones—more exposure means less of one skewed bias. It's pretty obvious most professors have gone down their own academic rabbit holes. Ideally you would get a real mix of some real different rabbit holes. I'm sure it also depends on the school.

Well, I think the ideal situation is somewhere in between the current system and what Hygro is suggesting. I like the idea of people focusing on one issue (or several related ones, as opposed to voting on all of them), but I also like the idea of elected representatives. I'd rather see a reform of the current system than a complete overthrow.

It could be cool to have two houses: elected persons to direct the process and then the legislative juries to make the full decision (and maybe edits, too?)

Which is kind of what I said originally:

Ah, but the economy is an amorphous social phenomenon tied deeply into everything. It is an expression of power, connection, community, etc. I can go all day about how we can improve our current form with macroeconomic social science, but in the end, it's a small lens for a big topic. Quite frequently economists dismiss real phenomena because it doesn't fit the theory and so either must not exist or must have a different explanation. While economists can contribute a ton, they need to be mediated by the eyes and ears of the people living the economy.



One thing that would actually matter is that when citizens get their topics, they don't all meet and debate. Rather, they do their own thing, maybe reach out to each other and maybe not.

 

[Smote]

It sounds like you'd still need a group of representatives that make the laws to be voted on. What would be the requirement for a law to reach the public polls? A single representative puts it forward?

Would there still be an executive/judicial branch?

 

[Mise]

Hygro, your entire idea rests on the assumption that, if people are told "you are responsible for <this> area of government", then they will be both willing and able to educate themselves to a greater degree than the current crop of politicians would. Do you have any evidence for that? Or is it just a hunch? I mean, it sounds plausible, but it sounds a lot more plausible that this would end in tears. I admire your seemingly bottomless faith in humanity, that they would take time out of their busy lives -- work, family, socialising, relaxing, sleep -- to educate themselves on a topic that they have literally no prior interest in and have been forced to "take ownership of" by the government. Personally, I think it requires quite a leap of faith to believe that people would actually become better educated in, say, agricultural policy or fisheries or some other boringass government department that nobody has heretofore given two hoots about.

Secondly, you mentioned that even if this system was only a little bit better than the existing one, you would count that as a win. But this sort of marginal, incremental improvement is much more easily achieved through marginal, incremental improvements to the current system. Why bother scrapping the entire system for merely "better than now", when we can make small, easy changes to the way the current system works, which would still achieve "better than now" results? Not only is the risk/reward of your plan rather unfavourable, it is also far less realistic or achievable than marginal, incremental improvements to the current system.

Thirdly, what would happen to e.g. the civil service? What role would they play in the process? At the moment, the civil service often acts as a brake on "top down" change, by saying to government ministers, "err, actually, we can't just do that, because XYZ depends on that and so we'd have to change XYZ too". They provide input from the operational side, and also remind government of why things are the way they are. I'm not a conservative, risk averse guy, but that's exactly why I value these sort of people and this sort of advice. How would this interaction happen if a random selection of people from all over the country are in charge of voting on these decisions?

Finally, do you believe in leadership?

 

[Borachio]

I don't get it. Isn't it just like Switzerland?

 

[Zack]

Once again, Mise articulates what I was trying to say much better than I ever could. One thing I'd like to note is how actively engaged are people in jury duty? That might be a decent indicator the level of engagement we could expect in such a system as Hygro proposed.

 

[warpus]

Aw crap, I have to fill out a jury duty form.. thanks for reminding me.

I hope it's for something interesting.

 

[Hygro]

Hygro, your entire idea rests on the assumption that, if people are told "you are responsible for <this> area of government", then they will be both willing and able to educate themselves to a greater degree than the current crop of politicians would.

No, Mise, it doesn't. Start over. That was icing.

Secondly, you mentioned that even if this system was only a little bit better than the existing one, you would count that as a win. But this sort of marginal, incremental improvement is much more easily achieved through marginal, incremental improvements to the current system. Why bother scrapping the entire system for merely "better than now", when we can make small, easy changes to the way the current system works, which would still achieve "better than now" results? Not only is the risk/reward of your plan rather unfavourable, it is also far less realistic or achievable than marginal, incremental improvements to the current system.

The current system has been increasingly gamed over the past forty years. It is following a clear and logical sequence that doesn't show any signs of slowing or stopping. With post-modern hyper rationality in place, there's no reason to hope that the consistent devolution of representative democracy in the face of relativistic-reactionaries (i.e. Nihilists) is going to magically turn around. Maybe when the baby boomers die off, but Gen X isn't much better and they're not dying any time soon with their yoga and healthier diets and superior medicine.

So while things can look optimistic in the shortrun, we are on a downward sawtooth of policy. And the longer this goes, the further the courts will be dragged into it, as we have already been seeing.

Still, I don't think the changes would be incremental and small. I'm saying that an improvement is an improvement. Given the wide gap in issues-based opinion polls and congressional results, I'd say the starting point is rather dramatic.

Thirdly, what would happen to e.g. the civil service? What role would they play in the process? At the moment, the civil service often acts as a brake on "top down" change, by saying to government ministers, "err, actually, we can't just do that, because XYZ depends on that and so we'd have to change XYZ too". They provide input from the operational side, and also remind government of why things are the way they are. I'm not a conservative, risk averse guy, but that's exactly why I value these sort of people and this sort of advice. How would this interaction happen if a random selection of people from all over the country are in charge of voting on these decisions?

I live in a country where one party appoints the top civil service positions to industry cronies while seeking to dismantle them, and the other cuts their funding due to budgetary orthodoxy. It would not surprise me if the very civil service tasked with running the voting process did a better job pointing people towards relevant voices and informational resources than we get out of hearings today, which are a platform for talking points rather than listening sessions.

Finally, do you believe in leadership?

Sure. You don't think with ten thousand people assigned to an issue some leadership and organization won't emerge?

 

[Mise]

No, Mise, it doesn't. Start over. That was icing.

So, wait, the "cake" is actually just making opinion polls legally binding? How does this differ from that, if not due to the "icing"?

The current system has been increasingly gamed over the past forty years. It is following a clear and logical sequence that doesn't show any signs of slowing or stopping. With post-modern hyper rationality in place, there's no reason to hope that the consistent devolution of representative democracy in the face of relativistic-reactionaries (i.e. Nihilists) is going to magically turn around. Maybe when the baby boomers die off, but Gen X isn't much better and they're not dying any time soon with their yoga and healthier diets and superior medicine.

So while things can look optimistic in the shortrun, we are on a downward sawtooth of policy. And the longer this goes, the further the courts will be dragged into it, as we have already been seeing.

Still, I don't think the changes would be incremental and small. I'm saying that an improvement is an improvement. Given the wide gap in issues-based opinion polls and congressional results, I'd say the starting point is rather dramatic.

I live in a country where one party appoints the top civil service positions to industry cronies while seeking to dismantle them, and the other cuts their funding due to budgetary orthodoxy. It would not surprise me if the very civil service tasked with running the voting process did a better job pointing people towards relevant voices and informational resources than we get out of hearings today, which are a platform for talking points rather than listening sessions.

Do you think it works better in other countries? Are there any other countries where democracy is less dysfunctional than it is in the US, whilst still using the same basic system?

Also, are you separating the broken system from its outcomes? I.e. are you saying that the system is broken, and separately, it produces crappy policies? Or are you saying that the crappy policies are caused by the broken system? There are different responses to this depending on whether you are linking the system with its outcomes, or separating the two causally.

Sure. You don't think with ten thousand people assigned to an issue some leadership and organization won't emerge?

Yeah, absolutely. It will be funded by political parties and lobbyists, and descend into the same cronyism, nepotism and dysfunction that plagues the current system. I mean, what's to stop that from happening?

 

[luiz]

I think the idea of representative democracy is that the people who are in charge of, say, economic policy explicitly aren't representative -- they're specifically chosen by government/voted for by voters because of their expertise in that particular subject. More generally, the people in charge of government functions are specifically chosen because of their expertise in government, as demonstrated by, and subsequently voted in based on, their records in government (or otherwise).

I think this is the key argument against direct democracy, right here. It's not that Congressmen are super knowledgeable on the economy, or in agriculture, or energy. It's that they appoint people who are. It's not Obama who is deciding when to end QE. Does anyone really think the interest rate should be decided by popular vote?

 

[Smote]

Yeah, absolutely. It will be funded by political parties and lobbyists, and descend into the same cronyism, nepotism and dysfunction that plagues the current system. I mean, what's to stop that from happening?

This is my concern as well.

 

[Hygro]

This is my concern as well.

They can try, and they certainly do in California with our ballot initiatives, but tbh, it's pretty hard to grease a diffused population. Mass advertising campaigns only go so far.

So, wait, the "cake" is actually just making opinion polls legally binding? How does this differ from that, if not due to the "icing"?

If you're being serious I'm not wasting my time with the rest. I've addressed this in previous posts, and again, I'm surprised it isn't obvious to you of all people.

 

[Mise]

So, essentially the proposal is to make opinion polls legally binding?

Opinion polls are where someone calls someone up and asks them to choose one of a few options with no inherent ramifications. This would be folks getting an assigned topic for a set time period (a year? three months? two years?) to come to a conclusion to make a decision in which they are fairly responsible. Ownership changes performance.

Sorry, am I missing something? You responded to the criticism that the proposal simply makes opinion polls legally binding by making the argument that ownership changes performance. I don't doubt that ownership changes performance, but while I find it plausible that millions of people will voluntarily take time out of their busy lives to change their performance, I find it much more plausible that they won't. I find it more plausible that the civil servants and politicians whose entire job it is to take ownership over their particular area of policy will do a better job of it than random people who have a multitude of other things that they'd rather be doing with their lives.

It actually isn't obvious to me how this would differ from opinion polls. The only way I can see is indeed "ownership changes performance". But if this is merely the icing, then what's the cake?

 

[Hygro]

Sorry, am I missing something? You responded to the criticism that the proposal simply makes opinion polls legally binding by making the argument that ownership changes performance. I don't doubt that ownership changes performance, but while I find it plausible that millions of people will voluntarily take time out of their busy lives to change their performance, I find it much more plausible that they won't. I find it more plausible that the civil servants and politicians whose entire job it is to take ownership over their particular area of policy will do a better job of it than random people who have a multitude of other things that they'd rather be doing with their lives.

It actually isn't obvious to me how this would differ from opinion polls. The only way I can see is indeed "ownership changes performance". But if this is merely the icing, then what's the cake?

It's a mater of knowledge, or of interest? The masses support policies which are broadly perceived to favour the interests of the masses, and Hygro believes that this perception is more or less on the money, while Congress favour policies which favour the interests of a very small elite. When Hygro says that the masses are "better on economic issues" than Congress, he doesn't mean that they're more learned, he means that they support policies which will produce preferable outcomes.

Aye, so: On one axis, the people have vastly superior interests than congresspersons regardless of knowledge or expertise.

But on the other axis, it would be superior theory-wise. Congress suffers from a large degree of group-think that is both a) being congesspersons b) being the type of person who seeks and wins elections.

Coloring in this second dimension, Congress is small. You just don't have enough crowd wisdom when it's a few hundred. Especially given that half of what they do is based on parliamentary procedure rather than the shared will of Congress anyway.

Crowd wisdom is a powerful and real thing. The biggest impediments are aggregation and group-think. I think we improve aggregation and decrease group-think by divvying out political responsibilities in the way I suggest.

Further, maybe you mean opinion polls as in, there is a vote so it would function as some kind of poll, and people are using their opinions to decide to therefore it's an opinion poll. In that case, I guess, sure. But when I think of an opinion poll, I think of what opinion polls they actually are and how they play out. A few people get called up at random by a motivated 3rd party and get asked to decide on the spot with no time to think and no concrete consequence of their actions on what are frequently leading questions. uppi's post is a clever line and it made me chuckle but it's pretty far removed from the same process.

I guess I'm getting annoyed because annoyance is a type of motivating energy and I'm not used to having a debating partner that would require as much energy to handle as you, and I haven't quite committed to the task. Meanwhile I want you to agree with me. A bit of a catch-22 there innit.

 

[Mise]

Well that's the thing, when asked how you know that the public are better than congress at economic issues, you cited their response to opinion polls as evidence: the public appear to make better economic decisions than politicians, based on their responses to opinion polls. But I can point to a bunch of other opinion polls that result in absolutely terrible decisions. So you seem willing to accept that people's response to opinion polls are reliable enough to use as evidence in favour of your system, but not against it. I understand that there's a mechanism (ownership changes performance) via which opinion polls are the worst case scenario: that this system cannot possibly get any worse than what an opinion poll will tell you. But I still find it entirely plausible that this worst case scenario is also the most likely scenario, and I haven't seen much evidence against that. To me it still comes down to whether or not ownership really does change performance to such an extent that it would produce better results than the current system. (And then we can get into risk/reward and cost/benefit.)