joe1776
Well-Known Member
The creation of the Internet made possible a new and more effective system of governing. This new system holds the potential to upgrade the quality of life for the entire global community. My idea was inspired by the brain trusts used in an advisory capacity on economic problems and wartime strategy during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency.
The first problem: Human societies are cooperative endeavors. Their goal is to increase the chances that cooperative citizens will survive and thrive. To reach that goal, societies must be governed competently. Unfortunately, we humans have yet to invent a competent government (an efficient decision-making process to manage a nation). The best we can say is that some existing governments are less incompetent than others. The first problem is that we do a poor job of selecting the people who will make decisions for us.
The second problem: A mechanical system, like the family car, can easily be fixed or replaced because the system does not resist change. Governments in power resist change because the power-holders are people who want to hold onto it.
The online global expert advisory panels decision-making process holds the potential to solve both problems.
The basic idea of the expert panel model can be tested in any classroom. Imagine a class of 33 very bright third-grade students taking a math exam on long division. Instead of grading them individually, imagine them voting on the correct answers as a group. On any test where the correct answers are certain, as they are in Math, the answers given by the majority of the class will, with near certainty, result in a perfect score. While we can imagine even the smartest student making an occasional error, we can't imagine the majority of the class making what would need to be the very same error.
If we trust the majority vote of a bright, well-trained group when the answers are certain, as they are in math, then we should logically have the same trust that the decisions of such a group will likely be our best options based on the evidence available at the time -- and that is the best we can hope for when decision-makers lack crystal balls to see the future. In the global advisory panel concept, a panel of 33 very intelligent experts on any issue will make decisions after an online, written discussion-debate session.
Why 33 panel members? A number much larger would encumber the online written discussion-debate session. A number much smaller lowers the combined total experience level and increases the risk of a bias sending the decision off course. 33 members seems about right, but the number isn't critical to the model.
Efficient government decision-making involves selecting decision-makers based on three factors:
• Maximizing the decision-makers native talent for reasoning
• Maximizing the relevant experience of the decision-makers
• Minimizing the relevant bias of the decision-makers
The current governing models of the world, mostly democracies, using elections and appointments to select decision-makers, are weak on all three factors.
Maximum intelligence: Most decision-making requires the skilled use of reason. The expert panel process would maximize the native intelligence of the decision-makers by choosing panel members from a list of the highest scorers on a well-accepted, standard test of intelligence.
Maximum experience: The panels would maximize relevant experience by assuring that the candidates are qualified in training and experience. Some examples:
• 33 experts on food safety will advise governments on food safety policy
• 33 experts on the climate will advise governments on climate policy
• 33 experts on the economy will advise governments on economic policy
• 33 experts on civil rights will advise governments on civil rights cases
Minimum bias: Bias is the arch enemy of truth and justice. Elections and appointments of decision-makers in current governments almost guarantee partisan biases that will hinder the decision process. In the expert panel model, bias will be minimized in four ways:
1) The expert panels will not have leaders trying to emotionally influence the panelists. Members would be persuaded by reason alone.
2) Expert panelists will be selected randomly by computer from a list of qualified candidates. This avoids the biases inherent in elections and appointments.
3) Members of the panels might live anywhere in the world if they have access to the Internet. The panels would not have built-in cultural and national biases.
4) Collusion among the members could be made nearly impossible.
The Executive Panel: Only members of the top-ranked executive panel will have no specific expertise. Its members will rank among the highest in native intelligence. Their responsibility will be to see the Big Picture and identify the objectives of the sub-panels. They might then transfer their vision to lower ranking panels using brief mission statements as guidance.
Assuming success: If the decision-making of expert panels is obviously better than offered by their current government, citizens of democracies, in ever-increasing numbers, will vote for political candidates who promise to take the advice of the expert panels.
Solving disputes between individuals or nations: When negotiation fails to settle disputes, the expert panel method, when combined with binding arbitration, has the potential to solve them. For example, the United Nations might authorize a 33-member binding arbitration panel on the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The panel members would be selected randomly by computer from a list of highly intelligent people unbiased on the issue. Their online, written discussion-debate could be followed by a world-wide audience.
The first problem: Human societies are cooperative endeavors. Their goal is to increase the chances that cooperative citizens will survive and thrive. To reach that goal, societies must be governed competently. Unfortunately, we humans have yet to invent a competent government (an efficient decision-making process to manage a nation). The best we can say is that some existing governments are less incompetent than others. The first problem is that we do a poor job of selecting the people who will make decisions for us.
The second problem: A mechanical system, like the family car, can easily be fixed or replaced because the system does not resist change. Governments in power resist change because the power-holders are people who want to hold onto it.
The online global expert advisory panels decision-making process holds the potential to solve both problems.
The basic idea of the expert panel model can be tested in any classroom. Imagine a class of 33 very bright third-grade students taking a math exam on long division. Instead of grading them individually, imagine them voting on the correct answers as a group. On any test where the correct answers are certain, as they are in Math, the answers given by the majority of the class will, with near certainty, result in a perfect score. While we can imagine even the smartest student making an occasional error, we can't imagine the majority of the class making what would need to be the very same error.
If we trust the majority vote of a bright, well-trained group when the answers are certain, as they are in math, then we should logically have the same trust that the decisions of such a group will likely be our best options based on the evidence available at the time -- and that is the best we can hope for when decision-makers lack crystal balls to see the future. In the global advisory panel concept, a panel of 33 very intelligent experts on any issue will make decisions after an online, written discussion-debate session.
Why 33 panel members? A number much larger would encumber the online written discussion-debate session. A number much smaller lowers the combined total experience level and increases the risk of a bias sending the decision off course. 33 members seems about right, but the number isn't critical to the model.
Efficient government decision-making involves selecting decision-makers based on three factors:
• Maximizing the decision-makers native talent for reasoning
• Maximizing the relevant experience of the decision-makers
• Minimizing the relevant bias of the decision-makers
The current governing models of the world, mostly democracies, using elections and appointments to select decision-makers, are weak on all three factors.
Maximum intelligence: Most decision-making requires the skilled use of reason. The expert panel process would maximize the native intelligence of the decision-makers by choosing panel members from a list of the highest scorers on a well-accepted, standard test of intelligence.
Maximum experience: The panels would maximize relevant experience by assuring that the candidates are qualified in training and experience. Some examples:
• 33 experts on food safety will advise governments on food safety policy
• 33 experts on the climate will advise governments on climate policy
• 33 experts on the economy will advise governments on economic policy
• 33 experts on civil rights will advise governments on civil rights cases
Minimum bias: Bias is the arch enemy of truth and justice. Elections and appointments of decision-makers in current governments almost guarantee partisan biases that will hinder the decision process. In the expert panel model, bias will be minimized in four ways:
1) The expert panels will not have leaders trying to emotionally influence the panelists. Members would be persuaded by reason alone.
2) Expert panelists will be selected randomly by computer from a list of qualified candidates. This avoids the biases inherent in elections and appointments.
3) Members of the panels might live anywhere in the world if they have access to the Internet. The panels would not have built-in cultural and national biases.
4) Collusion among the members could be made nearly impossible.
The Executive Panel: Only members of the top-ranked executive panel will have no specific expertise. Its members will rank among the highest in native intelligence. Their responsibility will be to see the Big Picture and identify the objectives of the sub-panels. They might then transfer their vision to lower ranking panels using brief mission statements as guidance.
Assuming success: If the decision-making of expert panels is obviously better than offered by their current government, citizens of democracies, in ever-increasing numbers, will vote for political candidates who promise to take the advice of the expert panels.
Solving disputes between individuals or nations: When negotiation fails to settle disputes, the expert panel method, when combined with binding arbitration, has the potential to solve them. For example, the United Nations might authorize a 33-member binding arbitration panel on the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The panel members would be selected randomly by computer from a list of highly intelligent people unbiased on the issue. Their online, written discussion-debate could be followed by a world-wide audience.
Last edited:
