A Proposal to Move the Swamp Online

[joe1776]

In my view, the US government is an 18th Century stagecoach, up to its hubs in the swamp (the lobbying and money of Big Business). Trump drove the stagecoach slugging through the swamp in one direction. Now Biden will drive it back again in the opposite direction.

In previous OPs in this forum I've predicted the future of governing: With the exception of national security policies, which must be kept secret, important government policy decisions sometime in the future will be made online and in writing by an online, leaderless panel of unbiased experts.

Lee Drutman of the Brookings think tank has an idea that might be a first step toward those online panels that I envision. His proposal would move the swamp online for transparency. I've linked a PDF on his proposal at the bottom of this post.

He begins by acknowledging that lobbyists play a useful role in the political process because they provide valuable policy-related information and expertise. This lack of expertise is made worse by the high turnover rates among congressional staffers. However, these lobbyists, backed by Big Money, who champion the interests of Big Business, don't have the public interest in mind. And the public interest is what governing ought to be about.

He proposes what he calls "a simple, cost-effective solution:" He asserts that the Library of Congress should create a website that will become the de facto online forum and clearinghouse for all public policy advocacy.

If his idea were to become a successful reality, the advantages of online expert panels would be easier to appreciate.

A Better Way to Fix Lobbying

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_lobbying_drutman.pdf

 

[sun rise]

Full disclosure - I only read parts of it and skimmed the rest.

But one thing stood out like a bolder on a highway: What’s missing is the kind of information that would allow citizens to respond meaningfully

The article correctly noted that some legislation is incredibly complex. The odds that any large group of voters could meaningfully analyze the implications of "how changing the allocation adjustment allowance spelled out in regulation F, subsection 15(g) of the proposed Make America Better Act from 12 percent to 20 percent is a good and fair way to help hard-working Americans" is vanishingly close to zero.

The idea of having a "JAMES" seems like a good one, but it won't solve the basic problem.

 

[joe1776]

...But one thing stood out like a bolder on a highway: What’s missing is the kind of information that would allow citizens to respond meaningfully.

I can't think of any way that could be successfully done. The citizen's only meaningful response is that they can vote against legislators who don't serve their interests. However, putting the legislature's policy issues online would make for a better-informed citizenry.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There's no such thing as an "unbiased expert". You might as well be asking to be governed by automatons, and that's just as realistic a proposal.

 

[joe1776]

There's no such thing as an "unbiased expert". You might as well be asking to be governed by automatons, and that's just as realistic a proposal.

You must be using a different definition for the word "bias" than I am. I refer to prejudgment capable of sending judgement off its correct course. An unbiased expert on climate control would probably affirm the decision of the panel's majority. That's what we should want.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's no such thing as an "unbiased expert". You might as well be asking to be governed by automatons, and that's just as realistic a proposal.

Better to let biased experts battle it out with each other,
& let presumably less biased ones weigh in.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You must be using a different definition for the word "bias" than I am. I refer to prejudgment capable of sending judgement off its correct course. An unbiased expert on climate control would probably affirm the decision of the panel's majority. That's what we should want.

This isn't sounding very democratic.

 

[joe1776]

This isn't sounding very democratic.

A method of making better policy decisions in the public interest sounds purely democratic to me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A method of making better policy decisions in the public interest sounds purely democratic to me.

Are these people going to be elected and will the public have a say in these policy decisions, in your vision?

 

[joe1776]

Better to let biased experts battle it out with each other,
& let presumably less biased ones weigh in.

The task is to sentence a convicted rapist fairly.

We know better than to leave it to the mother of the rapist or the father of the victim because they're both biased. Only unbiased minds are capable of fairness.

 

[Revoltingest]

The task is to sentence a convicted rapist fairly.

We know better than to leave it to the mother of the rapist or the father of the victim because they're both biased. Only unbiased minds are capable of fairness.

We also have the defendant's lawyer & the prosecutor weighing in.
Unbiased minds tend to have less interest in ferreting out all info
than opposing parties.

 

[joe1776]

Are these people going to be elected and will the public have a say in these policy decisions, in your vision?

The Future of International Expert Advisory Panels

 

[joe1776]

We also have the defendant's lawyer & the prosecutor weighing in.
Unbiased minds tend to have less interest in ferreting out all info
than opposing parties.

You are missing the point that only unbiased minds can be trusted to achieve fairness and justice.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The Future of International Expert Advisory Panels

So, no. It's not democratic at all. What you're describing is a form of authoritarianism with eugenics undertones. Garbage.

 

[MNoBody]

how can one be a functional participant in a contractual arrangement they do not have full disclosure regarding?
[hint, that would be logically, impossible to fulfill..... transparency built on mutual trust...which has eroded is the cure, but people look in vain for other "solutions"...as if]

 

[joe1776]

So, no. It's not democratic at all. What you're describing is a form of authoritarianism with eugenics undertones. Garbage.

Oh my. how did I go so wrong?!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh my. how did I go so wrong?!

You tell me.

 

[joe1776]

You tell me.

I can't because you offered no reasons to support your opinions. I have no idea how you got there.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I can't because you offered no reasons to support your opinions. I have no idea how you got there.

You're proposing that we be governed by a panel of "unbiased experts" that are unelected and chosen by a computer. One of the requirements is that they have a high IQ (the eugenics aspect). The public will apparently have no say in these policies they shape. You seem to be proposing a sort of world government, as well.

All I did was sum up the above.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are missing the point that only unbiased minds can be trusted to achieve fairness and justice.

Perhaps you're don't value the adversarial element's
value, ie, interested parties having more motive to
pursue evidence, & develop arguments.