FabSwingers.com forum: Democracy Vs. Meritocracy of Ideas

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Stemming from the ted talk by Ray Dalio where he discusses a system of decision making within his company - which has been key to the company outperforming.

Democracy = a vote for all (including the misinformed and ignorant)

Meritocracy = the strength of your vote is weighted by your experience, expertise and importantly your track record of being correct in the past.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados

Great in theory, but I would suggest near impossible to actually implement in a general population.

Many software development communities are meritocracies. But in then there is generally a much clearer metric you can use to establish merit.

-Matt

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Governing isn't all that complicated.

How to divide up and spend the cash?

How to earn it?

What laws to make?

To fight or to defend?

It could also eliminate the popularity contest and the distracting constant changeover of who is in charge.

Great companies don't switch, swap and carve up the leadership so often or have huge ideological swings.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"Governing isn't all that complicated.

How to divide up and spend the cash?

How to earn it?

What laws to make?

To fight or to defend?

It could also eliminate the popularity contest and the distracting constant changeover of who is in charge.

Great companies don't switch, swap and carve up the leadership so often or have huge ideological swings.

But companies will happily do what's wrong for them as a business in the long term, what's bad for their employees, what's bad for society, what's bad for the environment etc. As long as it provides short term gain for shareholders.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Stemming from the ted talk by Ray Dalio where he discusses a system of decision making within his company - which has been key to the company outperforming.

Democracy = a vote for all (including the misinformed and ignorant)

Meritocracy = the strength of your vote is weighted by your experience, expertise and importantly your track record of being correct in the past.

Very hard to implement and would need a lot of computer power to work out but if it could be made work it sounds more reasonable to me than the turkeys voting for christmas effect of common democracy as we have it. "
However would it make any difference in practice. The people whom ( to use your terminology ) you describe as being misinformed and ignorant are probably attracted to all parties in equal proportions so their votes simply cancel out.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You could take influence from the original format of democracy in Ancient Athens and redesign it for a modern nation;, have candidates from parties use rhetoric and evidence of ability to get endorcements for certain positions - partisan so you could have a labour candidate winning for secretary dfor education despite a tory governmemt.

Follow this up with annual reviews which give the viters a chance to replace candidates uif they are incompetant - it would be brutal of the political candidates we have atm but I think it would cut the parties of the dead weight.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Governing isn't all that complicated.

How to divide up and spend the cash?

How to earn it?

What laws to make?

To fight or to defend?

It could also eliminate the popularity contest and the distracting constant changeover of who is in charge.

Great companies don't switch, swap and carve up the leadership so often or have huge ideological swings.

I said "great companies" for a reason.

You are describing what shit companies do.

The list of what bad governments get up to is just as long.

Are you happy with the current democratic setup - the results you get from it rather than the lofty principle itself?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Stemming from the ted talk by Ray Dalio where he discusses a system of decision making within his company - which has been key to the company outperforming.

Democracy = a vote for all (including the misinformed and ignorant)

Meritocracy = the strength of your vote is weighted by your experience, expertise and importantly your track record of being correct in the past.

Very hard to implement and would need a lot of computer power to work out but if it could be made work it sounds more reasonable to me than the turkeys voting for christmas effect of common democracy as we have it. However would it make any difference in practice. The people whom ( to use your terminology ) you describe as being misinformed and ignorant are probably attracted to all parties in equal proportions so their votes simply cancel out. "

The idea of "parties" as we know them, centred around a core ideology would be replaced with a single team of competent decision makers - they get there by being qualified, not by being popular.

I suppose I'm talking about taking the best of evidence based management and applying it to government.

Each major decision would be dealt with on its merits and naturally a decision can be revisited and adjusted if the outcome departs drastically from the original plan behind it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Stemming from the ted talk by Ray Dalio where he discusses a system of decision making within his company - which has been key to the company outperforming.

Democracy = a vote for all (including the misinformed and ignorant)

Meritocracy = the strength of your vote is weighted by your experience, expertise and importantly your track record of being correct in the past.

Very hard to implement and would need a lot of computer power to work out but if it could be made work it sounds more reasonable to me than the turkeys voting for christmas effect of common democracy as we have it. However would it make any difference in practice. The people whom ( to use your terminology ) you describe as being misinformed and ignorant are probably attracted to all parties in equal proportions so their votes simply cancel out.

The idea of "parties" as we know them, centred around a core ideology would be replaced with a single team of competent decision makers - they get there by being qualified, not by being popular.

I suppose I'm talking about taking the best of evidence based management and applying it to government.

Each major decision would be dealt with on its merits and naturally a decision can be revisited and adjusted if the outcome departs drastically from the original plan behind it. "

Have you ever had one original thought? Dictators have been talking the same bullocks for donkeys years

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'd prefer technocrats rather than democrats . A Technocracy is my preferred choice

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"Governing isn't all that complicated.

How to divide up and spend the cash?

How to earn it?

What laws to make?

To fight or to defend?

It could also eliminate the popularity contest and the distracting constant changeover of who is in charge.

Great companies don't switch, swap and carve up the leadership so often or have huge ideological swings.

I said "great companies" for a reason.

You are describing what shit companies do.

The list of what bad governments get up to is just as long.

Are you happy with the current democratic setup - the results you get from it rather than the lofty principle itself?"

But by definition, a "great" company is going to be pretty good, if we had "great" democracies, then we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Yeah but we rarely do so it's time for a change.

I think you'd argue black is white _lcc.

You aren't satisfied with the current government, I think that's fair to say from your posts here.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Have you ever had one original thought? Dictators have been talking the same bullocks for donkeys years "

I must have touched a nerve!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Have you ever had one original thought? Dictators have been talking the same bullocks for donkeys years

I must have touched a nerve! "

I know, let’s go back to 1831 eh?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

What happened then?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What happened then?"

Nowt. Representation Of The People Act was in 1832

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"Yeah but we rarely do so it's time for a change.

I think you'd argue black is white _lcc.

You aren't satisfied with the current government, I think that's fair to say from your posts here. "

You are right, I don't support the current government, but that doesn't mean that I want to change the system.

Your arguement is akin to that of nationalists, 'I don't like the government over there, I want one over here, they'll understand me' then when they get that they say 'Oh shit, I don't like these either!'

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

No it's not....

It's about designing a system that would work better than the current system.

We've been bred with the concept that democracy is fair for all. It hasn't proven itself fully.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Stemming from the ted talk by Ray Dalio where he discusses a system of decision making within his company - which has been key to the company outperforming.

Democracy = a vote for all (including the misinformed and ignorant)

Meritocracy = the strength of your vote is weighted by your experience, expertise and importantly your track record of being correct in the past.

Very hard to implement and would need a lot of computer power to work out but if it could be made work it sounds more reasonable to me than the turkeys voting for christmas effect of common democracy as we have it. However would it make any difference in practice. The people whom ( to use your terminology ) you describe as being misinformed and ignorant are probably attracted to all parties in equal proportions so their votes simply cancel out.

The idea of "parties" as we know them, centred around a core ideology would be replaced with a single team of competent decision makers - they get there by being qualified, not by being popular.

I suppose I'm talking about taking the best of evidence based management and applying it to government.

Each major decision would be dealt with on its merits and naturally a decision can be revisited and adjusted if the outcome departs drastically from the original plan behind it. "

So effectively your ideal would be to have the Civil Service run by people trained in scientific method.

So that when a minister says that "during my term my objective is to do 'X', how do I do this?" A team can advise them on the most effective ways ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread