Online Advisory Panels: In the Near Future for Governing?

[Koldo]

Franklin Roosevelt used brain trusts to advise him during his administration. After WW2, one of those brain trusts became the Rand Corporation which still advises the government for a fee. This idea was inspired by FDR's brain trusts.

The primary problem:
Human societies are cooperative endeavors which must be governed. Governing involves two phases: planning and implementation. Both phases involve decision-making. And, while some are better than others, all the governments of the world can be described as inefficient decision making systems.

The secondary problem: Once a government gains power, it's hard to change of remove it. Violent overthrows have been the most common method. However, that is a high price to pay when there is uncertainly about the efficiency of a replacement system.

The global advisory panels model is a promising, possible solution for both problems.
Online experts discuss, debate and vote to advise the governments of the world. This model can be built and tested online without the support of existing governments. If, over time, the nations that follow the advice fare better than those that do not, the influence of the advisory panels will increase over time and eventually render the existing governing models obsolete.

Why do the current governments fail?
Efficient government decision-making involves selecting decision-makers based on three main factors:

1. Maximizing the inherited intelligence of the decision-makers.
2. Maximizing the relevant experience of the decision-makers.
3. Minimizing the relevant bias of the decision-makers.

The current governments of the world, democracies mostly, using elections and appointments to select decision-makers, are weak on all three factors.

The basic structure of the expert panel model can be demonstrated in an elementary school classroom. Imagine a class of 33 very bright third-grade students being tested on long division. Instead of grading them individually, they will be voting as a panel on the correct answers. On any test where the correct answers are certain, as they are in Math, the answers given by the class's majority will, almost surely, result in a perfect score.

From the classroom to the Internet: A panel of 33 very intelligent experts on any issue will make decisions after an online, written discussion-debate session. These experts might live anywhere in the world if they have Internet access. Even though the correct answers, unlike math problems, will be unknown, we can be confident that the decisions of the expert panel's majority will be the best answer based on the evidence currently available. We can also expert panels to advise on a way to test their advised plan before full implementation. Anyone with Internet access will be able to follow the discussion.

Maximum intelligence: The expert panel process would maximize the inherited 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. For example, 33 experts on food safety would advise governments on food safety policy. 33 experts on the climate would advise governments on climate policy.

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 progress. In the expert panel model, bias will be minimized mainly in two ways:

1. Expert panelists will be selected randomly by computer from a list of qualified candidates. This avoids the biases inherent in elections and appointments. For example, in existing governments, corporations and wealthy people can use their money to influence election campaigns. That won't be a problem for the online expert panels.

2. The panels will not have leaders. The historical evidence is persuasive that, even when they mean well, individuals who are very ambitious for the power to lead are likely to abuse the power if they attain it. Abuses of power are biases in the decision process. No individual on the expert panels will have more influence over the decision than any other.

The executive panel: Only the top-ranked executive panel, with its members being among the highest tested on intelligence, will have no specific expertise. They will be charged with the responsibility of seeing the Big Picture. After organizing itself, the executive panel will create sub-panels organized into a hierarchy. It will probably choose to guide those sub-panels using simple mission statements.

I would support this.
I think the most important point, that no else is dealing with is:
How is this any worse than what we have right now?
If it is not and if it can actually bring about some improvements, why not?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Of course I understand that trust has to be earned.

and how has trust been earned so far, on covid, and other vaccinations, on climate change, on environmental regulation of pollution and land use, on public health issues such as the current STD epidemic or lead in drinking water? "The experts" try to earn trust, but are constantly undermined by other "experts" who disagree...even bringing them together on a panel won't resolve the disagreement and will make coming to any sort of a recommendation virtually impossible...at best, they might come to have a 'majority' and a 'minority' recommendation...

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I would support this.
I think the most important point, that no else is dealing with is:
How is this any worse than what we have right now?
If it is not and if it can actually bring about some improvements, why not?

Personally, I don't see how it brings any improvements to how decisions are made now. Yes the current system sucks; this proposal, as far as I see it, simply rearranges SOME of the deck chairs while the ship continues to sink. I don't see it solving any of the problems rooted in massive inequity in distribution and availability of resources, poor to non-existent education and healthcare and other vital services, and the vagaries of what must be human nature or a natural consequence of our cultural-technical society and its institutions.

 

[PureX]

Of course, they are doing that now. I'm suggesting a source that the public will learn to trust and follow because it can be trusted.

Moreover, it's providing a test for a new decision-making model for governing to replace the 18th century model still in use in the USA.

Why would we trust it? The professional liars will be all over it. They will do everything in their considerable power to control it or eliminate it. They've already successfully subjugated the news media in this country, what would stop them from subjugating your info-panels? Every internet apparatus that was originally set up to be a free public benefit has since been co-opted by the greedsters and turned into a for-profit money pump. Everything, it seems, succumbs to our greed sooner or later. I just don't see how this would not, when it would immediately be a MAJOR target.

 

[joe1776]

and how has trust been earned so far, on covid, and other vaccinations, on climate change, on environmental regulation of pollution and land use, on public health issues such as the current STD epidemic or lead in drinking water? "The experts" try to earn trust, but are constantly undermined by other "experts" who disagree...even bringing them together on a panel won't resolve the disagreement and will make coming to any sort of a recommendation virtually impossible...at best, they might come to have a 'majority' and a 'minority' recommendation...

Disagreement among the 33 experts would be expected. They would argue their positions online in plain language so that you would understand their differences. Then they would vote.

If the majority vote on a particular climate issue was 17-16, you would be aware that the issue is a close call for the experts on climate.

If the vote was 28-5, you would know that the experts see it as one-sided.

Since neither the politicians or the oil industry was involved, you could trust that the decision was unbiased..

 

[joe1776]

Why would we trust it? The professional liars will be all over it. They will do everything in their considerable power to control it or eliminate it. They've already successfully subjugated the news media in this country, what would stop them from subjugating your info-panels? Every internet apparatus that was originally set up to be a free public benefit has since been co-opted by the greedsters and turned into a for-profit money pump. Everything, it seems, succumbs to our greed sooner or later. I just don't see how this would not, when it would immediately be a MAJOR target.

If you can come up with a specific way the opposition could undermine it, we might debate that. But I don't share your pessimism that greed will win out in the long run.

I think people are generally dissatisfied with the governing in the USA and elsewhere. They just don't know what to do about it. I think we need a better decision-making model but I don't want to blow up the system we have until we test some new ideas.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Disagreement among the 33 experts would be expected. They would argue their positions online in plain language so that you would understand their differences. Then they would vote.

If the majority vote on a particular climate issue was 17-16, you would be aware that the issue is a close call for the experts on climate.

If the vote was 28-5, you would know that the experts see it as one-sided.

Since neither the politicians or the oil industry was involved, you could trust that the decision was unbiased..

I do not share your optimistic expectations, for the reasons I have already provided, and many that others have provided. Thank you for having raised this interesting proposal.

 

[PureX]

If you can come up with a specific way the opposition could undermine it, we might debate that.

That's easy. All they have to do is start accusing your panels of already being what they want them to be: paid shills for their own personal profit. And they don't have to even prove it because all they really need to do is sow reasonable doubt. And they can easily plant people on your panels that would later claim they were paid to lie. In fact, they could simply pay members to lie.

I think you're really not grasping that the problem, here, is willful corruption, not incompetence or "inefficiency".

But I don't share your pessimism that greed will win out in the long run.

So far, it has taken control of our entire culture. So I'd say it has a hell of a track record in the regard.

I think people are generally dissatisfied with the governing in the USA and elsewhere. They just don't know what to do about it.

Well, one would think it might occur to them to STOP VOTING FOR IT. And yet it never does. Because they vote based on their own selfishness and greed. Every time. But I don't see any of us owning up to this, do you? Everyone is convinced that it's those "other guys" that keep voting out of selfishness and greed; and willful ignorance. Never US!

I think we need a better decision-making model but I don't want to blow up the system we have until we test some new ideas.

I empathize, sincerely. But the problem begins with us. We have the government we voted for. And because we keep voting for liars, cheats, and thieves we have a government full of liars, cheats, and thieves. And soon they will eliminate our ability to vote them out of power even if we wanted to. And so far, we still don't want to.

The fact is that we are doomed. And we've done it to ourselves, voluntarily, by continually voting for criminals based on our own greed, selfishness, and stupidity.

 

[joe1776]

That's easy. All they have to do is start accusing your panels of already being what they want them to be: paid shills for their own personal profit. And they don't have to even prove it because all they really need to do is sow reasonable doubt. And they can easily plant people on your panels that would later claim they were paid to lie. In fact, they could simply pay members to lie.

I think you're really not grasping that the problem, here, is willful corruption, not incompetence or "inefficiency".
So far, it has taken control of our entire culture. So I'd say it has a hell of a track record in the regard.
Well, one would think it might occur to them to STOP VOTING FOR IT. And yet it never does. Because they vote based on their own selfishness and greed. Every time. But I don't see any of us owning up to this, do you? Everyone is convinced that it's those "other guys" that keep voting out of selfishness and greed; and willful ignorance. Never US!
I empathize, sincerely. But the problem begins with us. We have the government we voted for. And because we keep voting for liars, cheats, and thieves we have a government full of liars, cheats, and thieves. And soon they will eliminate our ability to vote them out of power even if we wanted to. And so far, we still don't want to.

The fact is that we are doomed. And we've done it to ourselves, voluntarily, by continually voting for criminals based on our own greed, selfishness, and stupidity.

We agree on the problem of Greed. However, based on trend-evidence from the past, I'm a long-term optimist. We humans are making moral progress. We treat each other better now than at any time in the distant past.

We are also learning from our mistakes although that happens at an agonizingly slow pace. Democracy, a government for the people was a good idea. Government by the people so far is a comedy of errors. It needs a lot of improvement to make it work.

 

[Koldo]

Personally, I don't see how it brings any improvements to how decisions are made now. Yes the current system sucks; this proposal, as far as I see it, simply rearranges SOME of the deck chairs while the ship continues to sink. I don't see it solving any of the problems rooted in massive inequity in distribution and availability of resources, poor to non-existent education and healthcare and other vital services, and the vagaries of what must be human nature or a natural consequence of our cultural-technical society and its institutions.

The experts would advise on how to deal with all of that. Whether the people would follow their lead and pressure politicians at doing likewise is on the people's shoulders. It is easy to criticize whatever system we have in place for...anything... finding a better solution not quite so easy though.

 

[Koldo]

The fact is that we are doomed. And we've done it to ourselves, voluntarily, by continually voting for criminals based on our own greed, selfishness, and stupidity.

If we are doomed, then why not try something different? What do we have to lose?

 

[PureX]

If we are doomed, then why not try something different? What do we have to lose?

By all means, try ANYTHING!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The experts would advise on how to deal with all of that. Whether the people would follow their lead and pressure politicians at doing likewise is on the people's shoulders. It is easy to criticize whatever system we have in place for...anything... finding a better solution not quite so easy though.

that is what I've been saying, or so I thought...

what you're proposing would be one change to one fairly small part of the policymaking process, the selection of alternatives. That does not change the problem that our system is dominated by entrenched interests who are increasingly able to buy political decisionmakers, while they also dominate private decisionmaking and the methods for collecting and analyzing the data needed to inform good decisions.

Once a policy has been selected (remembering that even if the experts made a recommendation, the decisionmakers are not obliged to adopt all or even any of it, and in fact will likely compromise between that recommendation and any alternative viewpoints that have support among the decisionmakers), it still must be implemented, which requires the allocation of the proper resources in the proper way...

 

[Koldo]

That does not change the problem that our system is dominated by entrenched interests who are increasingly able to buy political decisionmakers, while they also dominate private decisionmaking and the methods for collecting and analyzing the data needed to inform good decisions.

One can't buy politicians to do things that would throw them out of office though, or at least one can't count on that.
If the experts can influence the public opinion that would have an impact on the policies enacted. The political ground will be changed accordingly. Perfection is not a reasonable expectation though.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

One can't buy politicians to do things that would throw them out of office though, or at least one can't count on that.
If the experts can influence the public opinion that would have an impact on the policies enacted. The political ground will be changed accordingly. Perfection is not a reasonable expectation though.

No, perfection is not a reasonable expectation, and I'm not advocating for having the perfect be the enemy of the good. What I am saying is that I don't see that your proposed modification does anything significant to improve the policymaking process, as you seem to believe it would.

 

[Koldo]

No, perfection is not a reasonable expectation, and I'm not advocating for having the perfect be the enemy of the good. What I am saying is that I don't see that your proposed modification does anything significant to improve the policymaking process, as you seem to believe it would.

It is not mine specifically (I am not the OP), but I support it. It gives alternative policies from an competent source and unbound from party lines.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It is not mine specifically (I am not the OP), but I support it. It gives alternative policies from an competent source and unbound from party lines.

Ooops! Sorry about that, my attention wavered and was placing you as the OP...my bad!

Good discussion, though!