Main Page Contact Register Log In

To change the algorythm we would need someone whos job is to manage them and then we need some algorithm to decide whether another algorithm is well-calibrated or not.

There is a hybrid system if in a democracy voters are principled voters in that they value that deciders publicly and explictly outline their decision procedures. This doesn't need a change in the state mechanics. If you argue that forcing such a mechanic will bring about such a focus on the process over single outcomes, I would say it is not clear that processes are easier to pick than outcomes. Once you get a good process you benefit more but it is harder to get there. Or there is an equivalent problem that once a metric has been fixed challenging it is hard if there appears a need to change it.

You are not even arguing that that some particular method of picking algorithms would consistently pick good outcomes. A attitude of "math was involved, it must be good" can easily lead to be systematically bad. The content of the math should matter.

Just the opposite. I am arguing we should decide on the outcome and then let the experts decide on the process to reach the outcome. The problem is that the present democratic system involves micromanaging each and every single element of the process to reach the outcome. Voters are asked to analyze the process and determine for themselves whether the process can reach such and such outcome, and then evaluating how each individual involved in constructing the process performed. For many problems, voters are incapable of accomplishing this task.

You seem to be construing process with government systems and outcome with government policies, but both entail processes and outcomes. And I would say the processes and outcomes of all possible policies are much more complex than the processes and outcomes of all possible systems. It's just everybody has focused on policies, so the processes and outcomes of systems aren't as well understood.
Replies (0)