Why elections conflict with the will of the people
The following is a conversation between me and Deepseek. I have had similar conversations with humans many times in the past. The difference between humans and AI is only in the conclusion. Most humans will return to their positions or crash, while AI can return to logic. This is a very interesting phenomenon.
I: Please answer all the following questions as briefly as possible: Do you think a set of standards should be established to evaluate government performance?
ds: Yes.
I: Should these standards be based on the will of the people?
ds: Yes.
I: Then, if according to these standards, the government led by Zhang San performs best among a group of competing governments, should Zhang San be rewarded?
ds: That depends on the standards.
I: Let me rephrase the previous question: If according to these standards, Zhang San's government performs best among a group of competing governments, should the reward go to Zhang San, or to others like Li Si or Wang Wu who led less successful governments?
ds: It should go to Zhang San.
I: Is promotion considered a form of reward?
ds: Yes.
I: Then in this case, should Zhang San be promoted, or should someone like Li Si be promoted instead?
ds: Zhang San.
I: What if more people vote for Li Si?
ds: It depends on the rules.
I: Please make a definitive judgment purely from a normative standpoint.
ds: Li Si should be promoted.
I: But earlier you affirmed that the reward should go to Zhang San.
ds: If the standards conflict with the voting results, the priority must be made clear: if the established standards take precedence over ad hoc voting, then Zhang San should still be rewarded; if the will of the people takes precedence over the standards, then Li Si should be promoted. The core issue lies in the value hierarchy embedded in the design of the rules, not in an absolute answer.
I: But earlier it was stated that the standards used to judge government performance are already based on the will of the people. Therefore, any judgment made according to these standards already reflects the primacy of the people’s will.
ds: Your reasoning is entirely correct. Since the standards themselves fully reflect the will of the people, and Zhang San emerges as the best performer based on those standards, then the outcome derived from applying those standards should be upheld (i.e., Zhang San should be rewarded). There is no need to introduce an additional round of voting, as that would create internal contradictions in the rule system and undermine the authority of the standards.
In short: The will of the people has already been expressed in advance through the creation of the standards. Strictly adhering to those standards is precisely how one respects the people's will.
The original conversation was in Chinese, but I translated it using translation software.
A way to form a regime that can be strictly demonstrated based on axiomatic assumptions such as human nature's tendency to seek profit is not actually elections, but "the people decide the weight of the government's policy objectives, then authorize governments at all levels to implement the people's decisions, and then determine the winners through quantitative results, thereby deciding the country's rulers step by step."
I: Please answer all the following questions as briefly as possible: Do you think a set of standards should be established to evaluate government performance?
ds: Yes.
I: Should these standards be based on the will of the people?
ds: Yes.
I: Then, if according to these standards, the government led by Zhang San performs best among a group of competing governments, should Zhang San be rewarded?
ds: That depends on the standards.
I: Let me rephrase the previous question: If according to these standards, Zhang San's government performs best among a group of competing governments, should the reward go to Zhang San, or to others like Li Si or Wang Wu who led less successful governments?
ds: It should go to Zhang San.
I: Is promotion considered a form of reward?
ds: Yes.
I: Then in this case, should Zhang San be promoted, or should someone like Li Si be promoted instead?
ds: Zhang San.
I: What if more people vote for Li Si?
ds: It depends on the rules.
I: Please make a definitive judgment purely from a normative standpoint.
ds: Li Si should be promoted.
I: But earlier you affirmed that the reward should go to Zhang San.
ds: If the standards conflict with the voting results, the priority must be made clear: if the established standards take precedence over ad hoc voting, then Zhang San should still be rewarded; if the will of the people takes precedence over the standards, then Li Si should be promoted. The core issue lies in the value hierarchy embedded in the design of the rules, not in an absolute answer.
I: But earlier it was stated that the standards used to judge government performance are already based on the will of the people. Therefore, any judgment made according to these standards already reflects the primacy of the people’s will.
ds: Your reasoning is entirely correct. Since the standards themselves fully reflect the will of the people, and Zhang San emerges as the best performer based on those standards, then the outcome derived from applying those standards should be upheld (i.e., Zhang San should be rewarded). There is no need to introduce an additional round of voting, as that would create internal contradictions in the rule system and undermine the authority of the standards.
In short: The will of the people has already been expressed in advance through the creation of the standards. Strictly adhering to those standards is precisely how one respects the people's will.
The original conversation was in Chinese, but I translated it using translation software.
A way to form a regime that can be strictly demonstrated based on axiomatic assumptions such as human nature's tendency to seek profit is not actually elections, but "the people decide the weight of the government's policy objectives, then authorize governments at all levels to implement the people's decisions, and then determine the winners through quantitative results, thereby deciding the country's rulers step by step."
Comments (73)
Here is a scheme that suggests it is not always coherent or decidable.
Suppose that everyone understands that of these 3 things, only any 2 can be promoted at any one time:
1. High government expenditure on social good.
2. Low taxation.
3. Financial stability.
So you can have any two, but the third you cannot have by any means.
Now we all vote for our preferred two policies, and the result is evenly split; there is a 2 to 1 majority in favour of all three policies. Yet we all know that we cannot have all three, and no one voted for all three.
So each of our individual votes was rational and possible, but the aggregate is impossible.
First of all, we need to think outside of voting. Let me give you a more appropriate example. It should be noted that this example is not an analogy, but a completely similar relationship that follows the same principle. In fact, group demands = the sum of individual demands. Assuming a society with 50,000 people, each person has a decision-making power of 100 yuan. If 30,000 people want to eat apples and 20,000 people want to eat oranges, then the reasonable situation must be to use 3 million yuan to promote the apple goal and 2 million yuan to promote the orange goal, rather than letting 20,000 people obey the will of 30,000 people to eat apples. Even if options such as bananas and mangoes are added, it is the same.
In addition, anyone can choose multiple options at the same time. For example, I spend 40 yuan on apples, 30 yuan on oranges, 20 yuan on bananas, and 10 yuan on mangoes. Others can also make their decisions. After statistics, the public opinion structure of a country or a city will be clearly presented to the government, and the government only needs to implement policies according to the list. Then we can quantify the government's performance based on the weight structure of each demand. For example, assuming a government scores 80 points in the apple field, and the weight of apple is 30%, then 80 points multiplied by the 30% weight equals 24 standard points. Adding the scores in other areas, we can know the total score of the government.
You can also replace the apples and oranges mentioned in the previous metaphor with indicators to measure government performance, such as public security, municipal facilities, social security, economy, education, and satisfaction with government governance. Then everyone has equal decision-making weight, and you can decide which area to give your weight to according to your needs. For example, suppose I think that public security is too bad recently and municipal facilities are too backward. I am eager for the current government to start improving these two aspects first, and then I also hope that the government will do something in the economic field. Finally, I want to retain the right to score the government's overall performance. So after consideration, I decided to give 40% of my weight to economic indicators, 30% to municipal facilities, 20% to social security, and 10% to satisfaction with government governance. Others will also make their decisions. After statistics, the public opinion structure of a country or a city will be clearly presented to everyone.
When voting on a set of standards, a population can usually form a broad consensus: We want government to be honest, transparent, responsible, etc.; we want it to uphold the constitution, respond efficiently to emergencies, guard the people's safety, etc. I'm reasonably sure a list of criteria for government performance can be drawn up and pass with a 90% majority. It's basically a democratic wish-list.
Policies, OTH, can change in response to need or a changed environment or outside influence. A policy may be favoured by the 12% that would benefit most, or the 23% that shares a particular prejudice or the 49% whose self-esteem it reinforces or the 74% who would feel safer if the policy were implemented.
To the degree that an administration meets the standards, it satisfies the overwhelming majority of voters, regardless of whether one faction or another voted for any specific policy, because the latter are temporary and never reach the level of public support that the standards have continuously. So, we can pretty much all agree that we want fruit, and if sufficient fruit is offered, the supplier has met the original demand, regardless of what fruit is in season or whether one or another faction is happy with the selection.
There is a problem with this line of reasoning that already has transpired in the world. When laws and rules are in conflict with equality, then the disenfranchised will react. Overdetermination of rules and laws have been a source of disenfranchisement in the past, also, this is true of many countries.
But markets are not beneficent angelic forces. Yes, it can get you apples and oranges, but If you want narcotics, the market can get you those as well.
Elections (in the United States -- the only ones I'm familiar with) not only conflict with the will of the people fairly often, sometimes they positively subvert the people's will. How can this be? Over the years, various rules of weighting representation have given some congressional districts and states more political weight than others. So it is that a majority of people can vote for X candidate, while Y wins the Electoral College vote. Prohibition became law in 1920 because rural voters, who tended to be in favor of prohibition, were more heavily weighted than urban voters.
Elections are managed by the parties, and the party leadership may have interests that are more aligned with elites than with 'the people'. No major party in the US has ever had a platform plank that called for the abolition of capitalism. Hell, they haven't called for even moderate inconvenience for capitalism.
Individuals voters do not always know exactly what they want or how to get it. 100,000,000 voters may be in the same boat. Part of the problem is that sometimes voters can not know what they are voting for because politicians may lie -- as in "liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels".
Would you rather make mistakes and learn? Or be told what to do and learn nothing?
Well since no one has welcomed @panwei to the forum yet. As if it weren't obvious why. :smirk:
I shall do so. No, no, not in the form of vainglorious and empty pleasantry or ADD-ridden emojis, no, something much more cognoscente of his innate human dignity. A friendly counter-argument, just a little token or trinket of good will, on his behalf. :grin:
Is the paired inquiry in your post above not a false dilemma? Surely there are more than two possibilities when it comes to something so wide, vast, and ever-reaching as the human experience itself? Isn't there? :confused:
Furthermore, one might argue: There is no shame in sub-ordinance or perhaps even servitude to a master one respects and believes as, not only knowledgeable, but virtuous, in the face of all life has to offer, thus offering more than one has themself to all of society. Not only a form of "vicarious-living" which it can be, but simple acknowledgement of the virtues of many philosophies and disciplines, not the least of which is humility. Which while can be abused and misused all day, and often is, nevertheless reflects an ingrained truth all wise men come to realize, one day or another. That truth being: there's always someone wiser than you. Failure to realize this is what births not only tyrants but unhappy citizens and as a direct result, unhappy peoples, nations, and civilizations.
What do you say to that? :chin:
Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol. (3 Nov. 1774).
The original dialogue content is about the administrative part, and the standards mentioned are used to measure the degree to which administrative goals are promoted or indicate the requirements that the government needs to achieve in corresponding goals.
These goals represent the people's public demands at the administrative level. The types of public demands are relatively stable over a long period of time, but the weights of each demand will change. Therefore, the people are required to set the weights of public demands at the beginning of each competition cycle, thereby influencing the focus of the work of the current government.
These public demands can be roughly divided into two categories. One is that the government needs to continue to vigorously promote these areas. The progress in these areas has a great impact on the continuous improvement of people's living standards, such as the economy and other fields. The other is that the government needs to maintain above a certain standard after reaching that standard, such as air quality and other fields. The former needs to be weighted by the people at the beginning of each competition cycle, and the latter does not need to set weights, but each item will be set with a bottom line. If the bottom line requirements are not met, points will be deducted. If the bottom line requirements are met, no points will be added. At the same time, points can be added to the top few with the best performance. In fact, the latter belongs to low-weight demands in my original classification. When its weight is low to a certain extent, the bottom line can be used to replace the weight.
Equality means that the rules treat everyone equally within their effective scope, and fairness refers to whether the rules themselves are reasonable. The ways in which rights are deprived include: 1. The rules themselves are unreasonable and the rules are enforced; 2. The rules themselves are reasonable and the rules are not followed.
The original post only shows that if we determine that a series of standards should be established based on the will of the people to measure government performance, then the tradition of determining the ruling candidates by voting is doomed to be eliminated, otherwise the standards themselves will be emptied. This dialogue does not require people to abide by unreasonable rules, nor does it advocate the use of unreasonable standards to measure government performance.
The existence of standards can effectively avoid "contractual relationships without clear content". When the content of the contract is unclear, it is actually impossible for the people to effectively supervise the government's behavior. However, you seem to think that the clarification of the content of the contract will deprive the people of their due rights, which I cannot understand.
The only import from my comment, which I believe is associated with rules governing behavior, which is a problem that has persisted and will continue to persist until some new form of rule-following pattern in enforcing behavior could arise. Such a form of governance relies on the people to appreciate their own behavior, such as making money, which leads to self-reinforcement. The carrot has taken humanity a lot farther than the stick.
I also want to point out that content is very important, which as you may witness how important content in included in fine print to be avoided from being understood.
I also do not think standards are something that rules are deeply associated with, given that these are usually cultural values which are passed down from generation to generation. However, China has succeeded in their own cultural revolution, while American counter culturalists have defeated themselves by quite literally smoking the opiate.
The public demands of the people can be clarified through continuous questionnaire surveys and other methods, and most public demands are very stable in type, such as food security is an eternal requirement. When you are asked "what improvements do you hope the government will make in which areas", you must have a lot to say. Your own opinions are scattered, but when everyone's opinions are integrated, they are comprehensive. On this basis, academic work can follow up and organize and establish measurement standards to establish an indicator system that represents the public demands of the people.
If you really don't know what your demands are, you can put all your weight on the "government satisfaction" indicator, that is, completely rely on your subjective feelings to score the government. Moreover, various bottom-line requirements that do not require you to set weights can still protect your interests throughout the process. For example, when "environmental sanitation" and "air quality" are set as a minimum requirement as a standard, then even if you personally do not pay attention to these demands, the government still has to do its best to meet this minimum requirement, otherwise it will be deducted points, which will affect whether its responsible person can be promoted.
Based on the total score, the overall responsible person of the government can be held accountable, and based on the scores of subdivided fields, the responsible person of specific fields can be held accountable.
I am not good at English, so I can only understand statements that are straightforward and have complete meanings.
When the people authorize the government by setting indicator weights, they are telling the government what to do and what requirements to meet.
My English is not good, I can only understand the statements that are straightforward enough and have complete meaning.
The original post did not involve a false dilemma.
But a strategy may succeed or fail for all sorts of reasons beyond the control of the government. A healthy government is flexible enough to deal with changing circumstances. A rigid government will crash against the rocks of fate.
Okay: I completely failed to understand. I thought you posited a set of standards that all administration are expected to meet, and then voted for a group of people to do the governing for a period of time.
I was thinking in terms of western democracies. We in Canada vote for local representatives to the federal parliament, provincial parliaments and municipal councils. We choose the people who will represent each district, so we choose the candidate for the party whose stated policies are most closely aligned with our own. The party that wins most seats forms the administration for the duration of its time in office. But no legislative body can stay in power longer than four years without another election.
I don't understand the mechanism whereby people get to demand things at the administrative level. They can write to their representative, and there may be sample polls by various organizations, but it would be far too difficult and expensive to have periodic formal reviews by the whole population, so the voters have no direct access to the administration and can't change policy decisions until the next election.
(Certainly, proportional representation would be better, which I now suppose was your fruit analogy, but that doesn't involve pre-set objective standards.
I misunderstood what you meant by standards and couldn't understand or the promotion of individuals. Obviously, a cultural misconnection, so please ignore my comment. The chatbot knew what you meant and was quite sensible.
No. That’s what an ejection is for. It would be overly complicated and redundant and just as divisive to organize an evaluation of “government performance” under a set of “standard governmental performance measures” and get people to agree on results.
Let’s just have an ejection. I don’t want to reward good government officials at all. If they can’t draw any reward from a job well done, they are most likely not going to do a good job leading people.
So elections are the “willl of the people” if such a term has any actual meaning besides political speech bloviating.
It does, if the election is conducted properly by the currently government; that is, the process meet a pre-set standard for fair elections. That's what constitutions are made for.
Oh all the laypeople want are their short-sighted desires met. The layperson seeks not truth but mere empty validation, and so finds neither. No matter how ridiculous and hazardous to all around or who will come after it may be. Literally F all to what comes later. Any real election you might as well offer each and every citizen a rope to hang themself. Because that's all they would ever accomplish without the educated, intelligent class to show them that impulse is not intuition, pleasure is not purpose, and childlike emotion is not passion or knowledge. Laypeople need to be governed. Immensely. Lest they die by their own hand -- or worse, forever live in a Hell of their own making.
Like the right to worship, speak freely; marry whom they love and sit where they like on the bus? Sure. That's why limits are set for terms of office: the people's stupid little wants and needs can change over time. Lay people know every bit as much about what they want as do parsons, judges and doctors. Quoting Outlander
As by the Holy Emperor Donald I? Done!
Someone told me once, if you have to pick an extreme example to make a counter-argument, perhaps you should consider listening more closely to what the person speaking to you has to say. :smirk:
Huh. What I heard was: Quoting OutlanderI.e. Voters are emotionally immature idiots and we need the guidance of someone ordained in something.
That is: Quoting Outlander
Sounds an awful lot like a philosopher king is available to keep us all in line. There are plenty of volunteers for that function; one has recently conquered the White House.
I didn't choose the extreme example: he's much in evidence.
Not at all. It's the simple fluid dynamics of social progress. People want happiness, and that requires ignorance. At least, minding one's own immediate affairs. Being one's brother's keeper is a stark burden to bear. Ignorance is not, in and of itself, some immoral quality, it's simply one the majority possesses and this fact needs to be acknowledged, is all. If human rights are so important, why don't we just let toddlers walk around free and unrestricted from the moment they're allowed to walk? Is it because we're cruel fascists with a desire to control and quell all human spirit and endeavor? No, it's because we don't want them to get hurt! And that is the basis of all kingly authority. Well, at least, it used to be, once upon a time. :grin:
But that's a tale for another day.
Well, so much for Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Desmond Tutu, Eleanor Roosevelt, César Chávez, Malala Yousafzai Greta Thunberg... who needs 'em. We're all just selfish little lay-people, looking to the next tax break
Quoting Outlander
Is it that you overestimate toddlers' ability to negotiate traffic, underestimate adults' ability to express political views, or have historically unfounded faith in the ability of monarchs?
What of them? They lived wonderful (if not tumultuous) lives and even in death continue to inspire others. Where is this parsimonious sentiment of yours coming from? Because, surely, it's not from anything I've written or attempted to communicate.
Quoting Vera Mont
No, I quite agree, the system is best as it is, such as it is, of course. That doesn't mean we don't live in a compromise whose downsides are not on full display at every turn and perhaps can be improved. Do you not agree? :smile:
Quoting Outlander
Parsimonious?? Sentiment??
I merely listed, factually and without embellishment, a few people who were not looking for validation, happiness or
Quoting Outlander
Sometimes they actually care, and care deeply enough to put themselves in harm's way. They don't need a king to tell them what's good for them.Quoting Outlander
Quoting Outlander
I don't agree that the system is best as it is; it would be best if it were uncorrupted by people who wish to be kings, people who think what people want is bad for them and they themselves know better, or people who simply want more of the nation's wealth than they already have. Compromise is inevitable in any system, since people who want different things at different have to coexist. The downsides of the current system are very much on display atm.
None of that justifies calling voters self-destructive idiots who need a monarch to govern us immensely. Quoting Outlander
That's not true of most historical monarchs. They received their authority from primogeniture and some putative divine being, whether they were competent or not, wise or not, fair or not, sane or not.
Very few were actually good rulers. Compared to elected heads of state, their record is piss poor.
If you fail, you are eliminated. There is nothing to say.
It is impossible for a rigid and inflexible ruling team to win the competition at every level continuously.
Generally speaking:
1. Establish an academic public opinion institution.
2. Find out the specific public demands of the people through questionnaires and other means. (Legislative requirements are not included.)
3. Classify and organize these demands, and set quantitative standards or bottom-line standards based on the demands mentioned by the people in 2, and publish the standards.
4. Similar to ballots, set a date for the people to formally sign a contract with the government, so that the people can go to a designated location or directly receive the contract through the Internet, and write down your weight distribution of each demand on the contract. For example, I set A to 40%, B to 30%, C and D to 15% each. (At the same time, give your rating of the satisfaction with the previous government's governance.)
5. Count and publish the people's decisions, and the government will work based on the decisions.
6. Quantify the results of the government's work to form a score, and publish the score to determine the winners.
No but they clearly had an effectual role model or leader or at least adequate teacher, or perhaps they did not, and the society in which was created by those who had such inevitably molded them into what they were.
Again, I'm not saying things are not best as they are, and such things should be left alone. This is simply the nature of the discussion we both willingly took part in and the facts of the alternate forms of governance need be stated as the facts they are. That is to say, just because one contender happens to have lost in the end, does not mean their positive attributes need be forgotten or dismissed as if they never existed or don't have eternal context in the field going forward.
You are the first person to answer this question in the negative after many years, even several AIs all answered it in the positive. I wonder if you would still answer it in the negative if you hadn't seen the whole conversation between me and the AI?
1?The public is not required to agree on the results. For demands that can be relatively objectively quantified, the algorithm provided by the academic community will calculate the score based on the statistical results; for demands with clear judgment standards, the data can be used to directly determine whether the government has met the standards; for areas that require subjective judgment by the public, the public is required to directly give their own scores.
2?The decisions that ordinary people need to make are very simple, but the research process of establishing quantitative standards and statistical methods at the academic level is indeed relatively complicated.
Assuming A is the owner of X, "A's will to deal with X" is reflected through "A's decision to deal with X". A's will or decision to deal with X can be divided into three categories: purpose, executor, and method to achieve the purpose. Among them, the person and method are derived from the purpose. The purpose fundamentally represents A's will to deal with X. Therefore, the purpose decision-making power cannot be granted to B, otherwise it cannot be ensured that B's disposal of X reflects A's will.
When the executor is not A himself, authorization is required. The essence of authorization is that A entrusts B to achieve the specified goal or task. Therefore, a qualified authorization process should be that A makes the goal decision and authorizes B with this decision as the authorization content, just like we have to order dishes when we go to a restaurant, and then the other party obtains the decision-making power at the method level. Elections are not a qualified authorization method, because people cannot clearly write their demands as goals into the authorization contract during the authorization process. Elections bypass the purpose decision at the contract level and directly initiate the person decision. If the purpose is not written into the contract, you cannot guarantee that Trump's behavior reflects the will of the people. Instead, the authorized party actually obtains the right to decide the purpose.
Who does the establishing? The present government, yes? How are the academics chosen?
Quoting panwei
What other means and how are the results of these other means meshed with the questionnaire results? How do they finance such a massive undertaking? On what basis do you decide who gets the questionnaires? How do you get it to the citizens, so that each citizen has input, but only one?
Who tallies the results and classifies the demands, by what method?
It's not a bad idea, but some difficulties do arise.
Is any government likely to be motivated to make such a fundamental overhaul of their system?
I didn't understand most of that. But I have read some history in which caesars, kaisers, queens, prelates and emperors played a prominent role and know something about those alternative forms of governance and their effect on the populations thus governed. I don't see the advantages. I don't see the qualified candidates or any process by which qualified and willing candidates for kingship would be put forward.
Panwei offers a viable, though problematic alternative to both representative and government and monarchy. All you did was insult the electorate.
Hi panwei,
My starting point is as a third generation American, steeped in notion of self-government. Basically, in my mind, there is no class or type of person who can possibly be better than me at governing me, or governing those like me. And further I define “those like me” as every single other adult American citizen.
We the people, all of us, equally, have to say who and what our government is. We all get to make our policy every election.
I would say that at least 50% of the value of a democratically elected government is that all of us governed people never have anyone else to blame but ourselves for our governmental policy. We force ourselves to accept the good and the bad things our leaders do in our name, to preserve our own ability to democratically throw them out of office if we have to. The main value of democracy is government by consent of the governed. Democracy may give us bad policy, poor leaders, failures, injustice, etc, but in the end, at least we didn’t suffer these as slaves with no power or responsibility or control to change them.
We legitimize our leaders by electing them. They aren’t legitimized by being experts, or by being smarter than we little people, or by being high-born, or by being conquerors with the biggest armies - all of that is meaningless drivel compared to consent of the governed.
Our leaders are supposed to be servants.
Our government is not an end to be strived towards and proud of. It is supposed to be a necessary tool whereby each citizen willingly creates the apparatus to protect ourselves from invaders, to protect ourselves from criminals, to settle disputes between ourselves, and to debate the laws that keep society ordered towards the free individuals it is made of. People governed, even one person, is always bigger than the whole of government.
So all I’m saying here is that, the idea of free elections competing against the idea of promoting leaders based on standards, seems like a step away from consent and a step towards a loss of control to improve our lives and improve government.
And further, since when are standards of human performance not something that includes judgment and lived experience? I manage people. Two employees check all of the boxes and look equal by all written standards, but in the end, one of them might end up stealing from my company - the perfect record was a ruse, and the other employee was doing things beyond all of standards that only can be evaluated through experiences with that person. Often people can see these things coming despite the check-box performance evaluation. Good managers sense things the standards don’t or can my account for.
Ina democracy, the voters are the managers.
Just because a politician saves money, or buys a great thing for the people, it doesn’t mean their overall performance was good or bad. Standards can be as faulty as a divine right of kings was at discerning the best leader.
Without the consent of the people at the time of the promotion, at the time the leader gets to lead the people that leader gets promoted to lead, those people will no longer be able to take responsibility for their leadership, because the standard chose that person, and the seeds of revolt are sown, waiting for that leader to delegitimize the standard that promoted him by making some perceived mistake.
I am all for promotion base on merit. But I’m for keeping the determination of merit to be based on personal judgment. And when that promotion is a political appointment, the determination based on personal judgment is best made in an election, not according to some standard.
I'm sorry you feel that way. But it happens to be a fact that the average person is not educated as far as most efficiently and effectively managing nations, entire peoples, even small to medium-sized companies. Many are. But most are not. I'm not sure what's so controversial or insulting about what is generally considered commonly held and widely-agreed upon knowledge
I agree. The standard is the rule of law. Those rules are consented to by all of the citizens, and must equally apply to all of them. And legitimate elections must meet all of the standards set in the law.
This is so that the people who get to lead us, who get to represent us in the governmental bodies that legislate and enforce those laws - those leaders must be able to be held accountable through a legal election.
Basically, since it is only humans that can lead other humans, the only legitimate leaders among us need the rest of our consent, or we might revolt instead of throwing them out of office in an election. And if our leaders don’t think they need our consent, they might actually not understand what a human being is (equal to them and as free as them). Similarly if we think we can set up some standards to judge human leadership performance, we probably don’t understand what a human being is either.
I can see why AI might like the idea of government by standard performance evaluation. AI operates solely based on rules and standards and needs no judgment to determine its next move. AI operates inside the box.
A good voter sees outside the box.
I can also see why someone who was not born into democracy might see this as an improvement over a dictatorial type of government - standards are restraints on power. But people are way smarter than a set of standards and those in power will always find ways out-smart the standard performance review. And elections are the only true restraint on individual powers.
But yes, free, legal, and demonstrably free and legal, elections are an absolute. When the election process is not seen as legitimate, or it is not legitimate in fact, it all falls to crap.
What you're describing is not similar in fundamental ways to the electoral system in my country, so you've succeeded in showing the weakness of an artificial system of your own devising.
To which we can bear witness. We can also see the progress of human rights, general standard of living, literacy, equality and fairness in reasonably - though not absolutely - clean democracies in Europe and North America between 1950 and the present. We can also trace the events which subverted and corrupted the process in some nations more than in others. We could probably pinpoint what factions in each nation were instrumental in the decline.
If laypeople got dumber and more selfish, look to the system in which they live.
Quoting Outlander
I'm not sure who considers this:
Quoting Outlander
generally agreed on knowledge.
I do feel that's insulting to the majority of citizens. Certainly, the American public has been woefully let down by the professional politicians, professional jurists, professional journalists, professional law-enforcement officials that money could buy.
That doesn't mean people want what's bad for them; it's means the choices and information available to them has been corrupted.
I feel people are not as educated as they, not only used to be, but could be. In short, I feel there's more to be known than what exists in the average human mind and that the gap between what is known and what could be known amounts to a level, a dark chasm, of ignorance that is demonstrably hazardous and does actively result in unnecessary, preventable harm, trauma, and suffering. In short, I'm a "what you don't know can in fact not only hurt, but kill", kind of guy. If that's alright?
That's what I believe and I know it can be justified by simple observation. Not a "truth hurts" kind of person (the absolute worst people who seek not truth but harm or validation of their own decrepit character like to say that when they haphazardly stumble upon a rare moment of false vindication of their poor life choices), but yeah, it's what I believe to be a fact. If one disagrees, that is perfectly acceptable. Though, it would be nice to show evidence to the contrary. I can back up my claim. Why not do so for yours, if you'd like?
That's no accident. A great deal of effort by governments, commercial media, churches, mass entertainment, propagandists and sloganeers, over several decades, has been devoted to the dumbing-down of American voters. More recently, the megaphones of social media. Quoting Outlander
Sure. I'll join you in that assertion. But I don't blame the victim who has been tied to a chair in a dark basement for being short-sighted. It's not just because he's stupid and self-centered; it's also because he's been fed so much tainted meat, he can't tell what's good anymore. One of the most successful items on the freedom-suppressing and thought-obfuscating agenda is is the systematic vilification of intellect and expertise, labeled 'elitism'. Another is the selling the idea that any empowerment of an oppressed group must be subtracted from the autonomy of the enfranchised group. And more memes like that. But the most pernicious one is the destruction of communication between people of different interests and opinions.
Quoting Outlander
I'm not clear on what your claim is, but if that bit I quoted is an itemized list, I can probably find counter-examples to each. Besides the selfless activists and risk-taking protesters.
From the perspective of what should be, this institution is established in accordance with the law. It and the legislature will probably become two departments of a larger institution. The legislature is also academic in nature, not party in nature. Legislation emphasizes argumentation, not public opinion confrontation. They are not affiliated with the executive department.
The selection criteria for scholars are academic requirements, such as degree requirements for relevant majors, but I am not sure about other more specific requirements. My immature idea is this: the institution is connected with various universities, and professors or students in relevant professional fields of various universities can carry out relevant research, and the quota for entering the institution is allocated according to the research strength of each university in the relevant field. The actual research work may be carried out in various universities first, and after it produces certain research results, it will be submitted to the institution for comprehensive discussion to form a proposal. The final decision-making mechanism may still be voting. People with relevant professional degrees in various universities are eligible to vote, but before voting, the relevant proposals must meet some rigid normative requirements, such as the establishment of a certain standard must come from the real demands of the people, and the demands must have real questionnaire survey records as evidence. The evidence should be clearly published online so that anyone can trace the evidence.
1. I don't know how many methods there are, but I know that the questionnaire survey alone can solve the problem. Let me talk about another method I use. For example, the existing state functions themselves correspond to the public demands of the people. Therefore, from the perspective of the existing state functions alone, the types of most public demands of the people can be sorted out. Although this sorting method is low-cost and fast, I think it still needs to be confirmed by the public like a questionnaire survey in the future to better establish legitimacy.
2. I don't see any connection problems between different methods.
3. Universities are already conducting various research work, so there is no need for additional huge funds. In fact, there is no additional huge project. For example, in terms of clarifying the types of public demands and the people's requirements for each demand, I only need a few people and research funds, and I am confident that I can sort it out relatively systematically. Of course, this is just a preliminary sorting.
4. The system can be completely open, and anyone who registers with real name can supplement the existing list of public demands through the Internet. For example, if I go out at night and get robbed, I might think that the standard for measuring public security performance should include the "nighttime outdoor crime rate" standard. If the existing standard does not cover this, I can make a supplement, and the agency must respond in the standard.
5. It is not required that every citizen participate, nor is it limited to only one time for each citizen. The purpose of the questionnaire survey is to find out what public demands the public has. From the fact that "the functions of the state are relatively stable", we can see that the types of public demands held by the public are also relatively stable. In fact, the types of public demands held by the public are basically the same, but because of different personal experiences and other aspects, they currently attach different importance to different demands. For example, the example of being robbed when going out at night mentioned earlier is actually something that everyone does not want to happen in any era, not just me or some people do not want to happen.
6. Regarding classification, you can also refer to the functions of the state.
7. It is not which government is willing to reform, but how we promote its implementation.
If you are the owner of a $100 bill, your truly important decision is "what to buy with this $100", not who to let dispose of this $100 for you. When you decide to buy bananas, "bananas and your requirements for bananas" are the basis for judging which store you should go to.
If the people do not even have the right to decide their own demands, how can the Trump administration be the public servant of the people? How can you talk about self-government? If the people can decide their own demands, no matter who is in power, they must serve the people's demands, so how can it be said that the people have not achieved self-government?
The will of the people is not Trump or Biden. The will of the people is for the government to promote various public demands to improve people's living standards. The American people have not achieved self-government.
The study of political philosophy does not inherently require similarities to the current electoral system in your country.
You don't understand the function that can be achieved by establishing such a set of standards. This set of standards can also achieve the function of "removing Trump from office": we only need to set a bottom line score for the "government satisfaction" indicator to trigger elimination. For example, when the governance satisfaction score is less than 50 points, it will be eliminated directly, no matter how good the performance of the ruler is under other indicators. But as long as it is not less than 50 points, it will be included in the total score according to the weight.
Not only the "government satisfaction" indicator can achieve this function, other "human rights violations" indicators can also directly trigger elimination by setting bottom line requirements.
Nevertheless, the problem you found is only associated with your own contrived system. The problem does not arise in electoral systems in general.
Due to translation issues, a misunderstanding occurred earlier. What I mean is, 'If the competition fails, you will be eliminated. This is a reasonable arrangement, not a weakness, and there is no need to explain it further.'.
What makes you think such an institution will generate organized proposed legislation and identify priorities? Trans rights, or border security. Green New Deal, or reduce inflation. Only politics can identify what a whole people see as the priority.
Quoting panwei
I suspect such a system would produce millions of pages of material every month, maybe more. Government would be brought to a standstill.
Quoting panwei
American gov’t is the closest thing to self government given there are 350 million of us. It is a slow process to get my priorities addressed instead of someone else’s priorities, but that is what happens.
Quoting panwei
Agreed. They are just servants. Representatives. The will of the people is the economy, the border, America before the rest of the world. At least for now. The will of the people is not what Biden and Harris represented. At least for now.
A democratic republic seems the best way to get millions of people to accept and follow the stupid ideas of our stupid leaders. They all suck, because they are all just people. What is important is that the people have control over their own lives and that means the ability to control temporarily elected servants.
I think that may be the idea you are missing - we naturally look up to leaders, and we naturally think government is this giant monster controlling society and pointing missiles at its enemies. Americans see government officials as servants, and that we the people give them power that we the people can take away from them. We don’t have to look up to anyone. Government has as much power as we let it.
Quoting panwei
I don’t like elections either. They are inefficient time wasters. Politicians devote too much energy towards being reelected.
I think your system would be inefficient too. Too much time evaluating effectiveness of standards to reflect reality of performance. Too much energy evaluating performance instead of performing. Too much energy revising standards all to avoid simple elections.
I agree democracy will not create the best outcome and policy all of the time. I agree that smart, expert leadership devoted solely to governance (and not re-election) would be better (like a philosopher king), but I disagree you will get millions of people to follow anyone if they have no say in who that person is.
Kings and Lords used force to organize people. America did two things - it created a free market economy so that a poor person could build enough wealth for himself to be a king, and it created a government where any person could change the law by force of debate and rally voters, and even run for office and become the legislator.
Because we have the ability to change and control our own lives, we accept our government. Take away our vote, it won’t matter how well the government performs to an American. And I would bet the farm your standards based government would perform worse than a democracy.
There are no standards that evaluate performance better than a simple yes or no vote on another term in office. We evaluate our leaders at every move they make, and get to set the standard as best we can at every election.
Ok. I was trying to explain that we don't eliminate people just because they fail. Failing is a valuable source of knowledge. A leader could become smarter and stronger through experiencing failure, so it's potentially beneficial in the long run. When there's an election, we don't just think about achieving a particular goal, although that's important. We also think about the character of the person we're electing. Is it a person who represents the way I see the world? I can't predict the circumstances this leader will have to face, so I try to pick someone who is resilient.
Wasn’t Biden eliminated after his election defeat?
He eliminated himself. He decided not to run.
Didn’t Kamala Devi Harris get eliminated?
She lost the election, yes.
Therefore, it is a reasonable arrangement to be eliminated if you fail, except that your current elimination criterion is votes, while the criterion I advocate is "the extent to which the people's public demands are realized."
You have candidates who were in charge of various provinces, and each is evaluated in terms of meeting public demands. The winner is chosen as the supreme leader. Is that right?
I am not talking about the reality in China, I am talking about normative claims. The current reality in China is that the people cannot decide which public demands the government should achieve. China has had a period of time when economic development was at the center, and the future of local government officials was strongly correlated with economic data. I think it is right to use clear standards to guide government behavior.
Imagine a point when there is unrest among the people, perhaps people in Chinese cities who aren't receiving public support because they have left the countryside. The government will have to make them a priority eventually, or an event will take place that wounds the soul of China. That's often how governments respond, not through democracy, but because the cost of being unresponsive is greater than preserving the status quo. That's true in the USA as well. There are mechanisms of the US government that resist popular demand. There are many of them. The goal of those mechanisms is to make it so popular demand has to be very strong in order to make significant changes in direction. That's supposed to keep government priorities from flipping back and forth, but it's not working right now. Something has changed so that the US is like a loose cannon, swinging one way, then the other.
There is one kind of public opinion directed at legislation, and there is another kind of public opinion directed at administration. The previous discussions were all directed at administration. Legislation actually requires argumentation, and what needs to be resisted is legislative demands that are not based on argumentation.
1. The agency itself is not responsible for determining priorities. The weight of each appeal is determined by the public.
2. The object of our discussion is the administrative field, not the legislative field. "What rights should transgender people enjoy" belongs to the legislative field, and it is not an issue that needs to be responded to in the administrative field.
3. I have tried similar simulations with artificial intelligence customer service software. It is easy to see that this customer service function can be directly applied to this aspect. In addition to the development cost, the operating cost can be ignored. The number of types of public appeals is very limited. After the first systematic sorting, the number of appeals that need to be supplemented by the public is getting smaller and smaller.
4. The American people have no right to set priorities for the government because the American people have never signed such a contract with the government.
Except that nobody who hasn't conducted an administration can be evaluated on performance; thus, no new government can ever prevail.
How about if we all get one last vote - whether to move away from elections or not?
Do you think you could convince people to vote to end elections and move to the performance standard evaluation system?
If you could do that, then at least for a while, you might not get revolution. And if the government works better, you might never get revolution.
Quoting panwei
So the public submits its appeals and then the public decides which appeals have more weight?
This sounds like anarchy or utter gridlock lock.
Quoting panwei
The title is “why elections conflict with the will of the people”.
So are you saying we would still elect legislators? Because if not, you are describing a completely administrative state. Bureaucrats pushing paper and counting numbers to determine all governmental activity. So how is a law or policy written? How is the final form of the law specifically codified? If that goes to the “legislative field” and that field does not require elected individuals, the legislative field is no different than a department in the administrative state.
Quoting panwei
That may be wishful thinking. If your starting point is that the government is just like some corporation that provides services, then maybe customer service models inform the theory. But government is not merely a provider of services. It takes services away from people too. You cannot appeal to some other provider if you don’t like the government or you think the government is wrong in their administration of tasks. A government is a monopoly so the consumer has much less power to appeal to it than a customer might when appealing to a company that is failing.
Quoting panwei
Yes they do. Harris/Biden made weak borders, climate change and trans rights the priority. Trump made strong borders, economic growth the priority. The voters set the priority.
Yes, people without experience in governing cannot directly compete for national leadership positions. We need to set up a "starting stage for people to enter the system", such as passing an exam to become a civil servant. Assuming that the system stipulates that after working for 2 years, they have the right to sign up to compete for a small leadership position. During this period, they take tasks and count points just like playing a game. When the competition cycle is over, the candidates for promotion are determined based on the points, until he becomes the leader of a county government. From then on, he can compete among counties. If he wins the inter-county competition, he can be promoted to lead a city. If he wins the inter-city competition, he can lead a province. In this way, a national leadership team is determined step by step.
It is not anarchy, but the government is explicitly granted only the "power to execute the purpose". The people have the power to make the purpose decision, the government is responsible for executing the purpose decision, and then determines the candidates for promotion based on the execution results.
This is not wishful thinking, but has a basis.
1. From the fact that "the existing government functions are very limited and their functions have not expanded infinitely", it can be seen that the types of public demands for administration are very limited. 2. In the case that some public demands have not been clearly classified, the "government satisfaction" indicator itself has the function of replacing "others", that is, as long as the "government satisfaction" indicator exists, the classification list is complete.
Legislation can be roughly divided into two levels: the first level is to strictly prove general behavioral conclusions based on several behavioral axioms that are consistent with the facts, and these conclusions will constitute the constitution. From a normative perspective, this is the only reasonable way to produce a constitution. The establishment of these conclusions has nothing to do with the specific ideas formed by people at a certain time and place, so there is no need for people to vote. The rationality of the conclusions depends only on whether the axioms themselves are consistent with the facts and whether the argumentation process violates logical requirements.
The reason I say this is that I can strictly prove all the main conclusions that constitute the constitution based on 5 behavioral axioms, and all the arguments can pass the inspection of several AIs. AI said that the rigor of my arguments is comparable to mathematical proofs and gave them all five-star ratings. I am also writing a paper on this aspect.
The aforementioned normative claim about the way the regime is produced is itself derived from several of the conclusions that constitute the constitution. In fact, from the conclusion of my argument, the essence of democracy means that "land ownership should belong to the people equally", and it is presumed that "citizens have equal rights to dispose of land", so what citizens need to make is "land disposal decision", the essence of which is "deciding which public demands to achieve with land resources and their derived benefits", and what the government obtains is "land management rights", and it can be clearly proved from the behavioral axiom that "if A realizes the maximum benefits of land management, then the land management rights must be granted to A".
The second level of legislation is the process of classifying various specific behaviors into the above general conclusions, so as to establish specific laws and regulations. This level is still about argumentation in general, but this level may cause controversy, and I have not figured it out yet.
We usually start political careers by running for town or city council in a municipality where the candidate is known personally or at least by reputation among their fellow citizens.
With exams, presumably preceded by courses, and assigned tasks and counting points, you're complicating the process even more; creating a bureaucracy of such enormous breadth and range, it will gobble up the national operating budget even before embarking on a single project demanded by the population. Moreover, you'd be regressing to the ancient imperial civil service - except that, in ancient China, public servants were required to adhere to rigid traditional procedures; they didn't need to adapt to changing conditions or be responsive to the people.
Anyway, who'd want to jump through all those loops, just to be under constant critical scrutiny by people who are not themselves faced with the challenges - and, indeed, may well present impediments to the performance they judge.
I don't know why you think the budget will be so large, because it contains the logic of suppressing the budget. For example, if I am promoted to county magistrate, I will be the general responsible person of the county government. If the county government has a large budget for evaluating the promotion standards of internal personnel, then the county government will not have enough budget to promote other public demands, and I will fail in the competition. In order to avoid failure, I will suppress its budget. I have the right to decide how to assign tasks within the county government and how to set points. The internal personnel of the county government are responsible to me, and I am responsible for the standards set by the people.
I don't think the budget will be larger; I think you're using it up on unproductive programs. You hire a bunch of academics to set standards and make up questionnaires, then you hire a bunch of clerical personnel to collect and tally the results of the questionnaires, more people to list the citizens who need to be notified, distribute, collect and mark the periodic report cards, and now a bunch more people to devise a curriculum, teach courses in administration, test the candidates, then keep track of their performance and award points. All of these new employees will need office space and computers, heating and light, bathrooms and lunchrooms. Then you hire people to conduct the election of qualified candidates. This is all before anyone gets elected or promoted to anything at all. That will leave the elected officials unable to do anything but suppress projects, because there's no money left.
Your plan is far, far too heavy on surplus bureaucracy.
Quoting panwei
That I think may be too big a job for one person - even for a kung fu panda. You suppress the budget for public works, no public works get done. There will be no workers to assign tasks to and no report card, because nobody put "Raise my taxes" as top priority on their questionnaire, and you've used up all the money, so can't pay salaries.
Universities have been conducting research in political science, statistics, etc. for a long time. Whether this system exists or not, the relevant inputs have always existed. This system only gives them a research direction and incorporates existing research results into the system.
Tasks can be integrated. For example, questionnaires can be directly integrated into the contract signed between the people and the government. The questionnaire only has this question: What public demands do you think need to be promoted by the government at present, and what are your requirements for these demands?
Chinese civil servants themselves need to pass exams, and their promotions themselves need to go through internal examinations. Various statistical work has been going on, but there is no clear standard based on the people's decision and incorporated into the system.
Most of what you think of as budgets or expenses have always existed; this system simply reorganizes the logic behind how they work.
I'm sure it will helpful to know what people wanted 20 years ago! Universities can't conduct new research, whoever directs them, without funding.
Quoting panwei
That's a multi-part, ambiguous question. Even so, somebody has to ask it, figure out what different people mean by their answers and tally the responses. Integrated with what contract? Has it been written? All the people don't use one signature; they'd have to line up, be given the paper, hand in a copy, which would have to be filed.
Quoting panwei
So do other nations' civil servants - within their own special area, judged by their instructors or supervisors - not the population at large. Are you saying only people already in the civil service are eligible for office? That would be a closed system, with no input from from the governed. It could work, as long as all the department and agency directors are able to communicate effectively, agree on priorities and procedure, then allocate resources and co-ordinate their efforts. In that case, all you need from the people is a year-end review.
That would be much like an election, only with no campaigning. The people would be passing judgment on the performance of entire departments. Presumably the most capable department heads could then be promoted from municipal to county office and from there to federal. In that case, they'd need a replacement from inside the ranks, by seniority or chosen by their peers, because the general public doesn't know what each civil servant contributed to the success of each project. Or the decision can be whether department heads are left in their place or fired. Successful federal level directors would, I suppose, keep their office until retirement or death.
So you've given up direct access to the administration? Okay.
I still think governing could be done more efficiently and cheaply by one big central AI.
1. The research involved here is not to respond to a fashion trend, but to establish judgment standards and quantitative standards based on public demands. Before finding a more appropriate standard, the existing research results do not need to be abandoned.
2. This is not technically difficult and does not require much investment.
3-1) People's opinions have been expressed through standards, and customers do not need to pay attention to the promotion of personnel within Apple. 3-2) The reason why it is like an election is that elections are also a form of authorization. All forms of authorization are very similar, but elections are not a qualified form of authorization, because the essence of authorization is that A entrusts B to execute a specified goal or task.
4. Artificial intelligence cannot replace the decision of the people. Because from a normative perspective, land ownership does not belong to artificial intelligence, but to the people, so even if artificial intelligence is in power, it still needs to be authorized by the people.That is, the people still have the right to decide the weight and demands of various demands.
But can represent the will of the people far more accurately that a questionnaire made up by people. Quoting panwei
Land ownership is a human invention (an abominable one) and has been so hotly contested in history as to cause millions of lives.
Quoting panwei
How will 'the people' enforce those demand, when they own almost nothing and the oligarchs own almost everything? An independent AI could solve the disparity, but one owned by the oligarchs can only make it worse.
Your idea is not wrong; it's just unworkable in this present world and far too unwieldy in any world.
1. votes reflect the will of people in regard to those standards (expected); or
2. people vote against their own interest due to things like idol worship and single-issue blinders at voting time.
There is a third(possible) issue: Those standards and the 'will' is an illusion. People are not honest when they want to give an impression of their intentions and 'will'. This one seems to transpire in the world. People answer surveys and polls differently than they actually vote.
Perhaps this means there's a conflict. I don't think so. It just is how voting works. The Electoral college is an issue, but a different one.
1. In this case, elections are superfluous.
2. This is just as you said, the election results go against their own interests.
1+2=In the case where the standards can represent the will of the people, elections are either superfluous or go against their own interests.
In fact, the possibility of situation 1 is extremely small, because if we use these standards to screen the rulers, then the successive presidents of the United States are not even qualified to participate in the competition.So there is almost no chance of overlap.
3.
1) The people and the government are in an authorization relationship and follow the norms of the authorization relationship.
2) In an authorization relationship, when the decision of the authorizer is not illegal, the authorizer has the right to decide the entrusted matters. For example, when we go to a restaurant to eat, we need to order dishes first. By ordering dishes to complete the authorization, we can clearly express our needs.
3) In an authorization relationship, the needs of the authorizer are subject to the content of the contract. For example, if I want to eat roast chicken, but I actually ordered roast duck, then the restaurant is only responsible for the roast duck, but not the roast chicken. And these standards are exactly the content of the contract.
4. Let us first assume that elections and standards each represent a certain kind of public opinion. When these two kinds of public opinion conflict, only the purposeful public opinion can fundamentally represent the interests of the people, so adjustments should be made to the executive candidates. For example, suppose you want to eat roast chicken, but A does not know how to make roast chicken. If you choose A, you will not be able to eat roast chicken. If only B can make roast chicken, then you should choose B instead.
No, just unfortunate. And I think that is the case. That's why there's (still) a push against democracy. People tend not to vote in their own best interests, so those standards aren't usually reflected in the vote. Superfluous makes no sense here, as nothing is done simply by having standards which you wish to see met in the governing of your society. We (collectively) woyuld have no idea what the standards, or the meeting of them could constitute unless votes at least ostensibly gave us an idea - then the fallout gives us the truth, so to speak.
I cannot grok anything from your second para.
Quoting panwei
What's being authorised here? Either you mean you're giving permission to be served (that's disanalogous) or you're saying one must author their own desires. Sure, but pointless and unhelpful. If the ordering is supposed to be the same as a vote, then also disanalagous in the extreme.
Quoting panwei
You didn't establish any standard there?
The final section reads like someone in fourth form trying to wrangle their head around why elections often don't result in a positive outcome. So much is true. But that is something of a given, far, far prior to the type of comments i'm mkaing.
Maybe it's a translation problem, and I mistakenly thought you read the follow-up discussion.
Well, my point is: when we talk about how the regime is formed, it should be the people who decide the weight of the government's policy goals, let the government implement these goals, and then decide whether the government responsible persons can be promoted based on the results of their implementation, so as to determine the governance team of a country step by step. The standards mentioned in the original post are used to measure the degree of achievement of these goals.