My first reaction to that idea was to scorn it. The next reaction was intense curiosity. The third was thinking that I might actually agree with it, only the technological advances that I'm thinking of are only part of what I think will lead to better decision making and problem solving. I would love know all about what you're thinking. I'm hoping with all my heart that you'll tell me. I've had this idea for many years, and never seen anyone else talking about it before.
In my view, it would be impossible today to create a system of government, or any institution or field of work or study that isn't corrupt, because the corruption is not in the system. It's in how the system is used.
Jim, I have some ideas about how it might happen. Feel free to criticize.
First, I see the concept of leadership as part of the problem because, even when they mean well, people with the ambition to have power over the lives of others can't be trusted. I don't agree that "power corrupts." I think leaders were corrupted with arrogance when conceived in their mother's womb. So, my solution will be leaderless expert panels.
An efficient government decision-making system will satisfy these four criteria:
1) It will maximize the intelligence of the decision-makers;
2) It will maximize the training and experience of the decision-makers;
3) It will maximize the trust of the citizenry;
4) It will minimize the chances of a bias that sends the decision off course.
The system of choosing decision-makers, including a leader, by holding democratic elections satisfies none of the criteria. In contrast, the leaderless expert panel model, with an assist from modern communications technology, can satisfy all four criteria.
1. The panel members would be randomly selected by computer from a list of the highest scorers on a standardized test of reasoning similar to the test given to students who want to apply to law school. (In the examples to follow, the panel will have 33 members but that number is arbitrary)
2. The 33 member panels would specialize so that expertise in making specific kinds of decisions can be developed with training and experience. For example, decisions on murder cases would be made by a panel trained to make those decisions.
3. Biases would be kept to a minimum by:
• Not having arrogant leaders with the power to impose their own bias into the decision;
• Having the panel randomly selected by computer from a list of qualified applicants;
• Panel members can reside anywhere in the world making collusion unlikely;
• The bias created by nationalism would be eliminated by having panel members from all nations randomly selected;
• The discussion-debate would be written and, except on issues of national security, it would be published on the Internet.
4. By eliminating leaders, oral debate and face-to-face meetings, most of the problems associated with group decision-making in the past can be eliminated.
The vote of the majority of an unbiased expert panel will always give the correct answer when the correct answer is certain, such as those given on a math exam. Evidence to support this claim is readily available.
The majority vote will always give the right answers on a standardized test. So, a reasonable deduction can be made that, even when the correct answer is in doubt, as it is in most decisions, an expert panel will always make the best decision given the relevant facts available when the decision is made.
The basic theory of the expert panel model can be easily tested and proven even in elementary school classrooms. Citizens will learn to trust the process at an early age. For example, the majority vote of a properly-trained class will always produce a perfect score on a math exam.
All other things being equal, experts will make better decisions. A professional jury, specifically trained for the task will make the right decisions more consistently in murder cases than an amateur jury of citizens with average intelligence getting on-the-job training as they do in the current American criminal justice system.
There will be system monitors who will not make decisions or try to exert influence on decisions. Their task will be limited to collecting feedback and keeping the system running efficiently. Monitors will control a written discussion and debate session using electronic media which, on all but sensitive national security issues, can be followed on the Internet by all citizens.
The right decision based on the evidence available at the time it was made can still produce an unwanted outcome. But, because of the hindsight bias, the decision-makers cannot be fairly criticized if the expected outcome does not happen. The hindsight bias is the tendency to overestimate our own ability to have predicted or foreseen an event after learning about the outcome. Since it is not possible to fairly judge decision-makers after knowing the outcome, the panel's majority vote can be considered the best decision regardless of the outcome.
Once established that the majority vote on an issue will be regarded as correct, a simple merit grading system of the members is possible. When the vote is split 55/45 %, each panel member voting with the majority would receive 55 points while the minority voter would receive 45 points added to a running score. So, voting with the minority on a close vote would have less impact on a member's score than voting with the minority on a one-sided vote. Members with low scores after a long run might then be replaced.
Expert panels will provide stability in governing. With changes in leadership and political parties, there are often major shifts in directions that toss out both good and bad policies. Expert panels would replace only those policies that are not working.
Physical and mental health problems will not affect the decision-making of an expert panel. Unlike leaders, panel members can quickly and easily be replaced. In fact, a panel with the top 33 member-votes counted might actually have 50 members eligible to vote in case some members miss a voting deadline.
Leaders are prone to selfish biases which will corrupt them when they are given power. Biased panel members will not have enough power of their own send the decision off its correct course.
In the past, the oral debate of committees often broke down into argumentative chaos which derailed the decision process. Today, with electronic communication, written, moderated debate can eliminate the problem.
The leaderless expert panel idea can be tried without risk. The concept can be tested in advisory capacity only, standing alongside the existing decision-making system, until it evolves to the point where it earns the trust of the people using it.
The first use of the expert panel governing model might be in a country with a deposed dictator. Dictatorships are a troublesome form of government, but some countries have not been able to sustain a stable democracy with fair elections. Such a country can be governed by a leaderless expert panel comprised of members picked randomly by computer who live anywhere in the world.
