Geniocracy Party (proposal)

[Hairyloon]

There has been some talk on various threads about how this country has lost its way because the politicians are almost completely out of touch and some fundamental change is needed.

A traditional way of instituting change is to form a political party and try to get it elected. I am not convinced that this mechanism has any great chance of success, but we should at least explore the idea, and that is the purpose of this thread.

 

If the fundamental problem is the disconnect between the representatives and the people they represent, then perhaps the answer is to build the foundations of the party structure around a connection to the people.

This forum is connected to a good many people, in many ways, it is the best connection to the most people I can think of. It is not ideal, but it makes a good starting point, and we all here know how it works and where it doesn't.

If the party was to actually take off, then it would presumably move to a dedicated forum elsewhere, unless SF actually want to host it.

 

Most members would point to something like the "Brexit" thread as an example of the forum's failure as a decision making engine: it has been running for months, is somewhere near a thousand pages and seems no closer now to a resolution than it was at the beginning.

However, if you were minded to you could quite easily refine it: there are really only a few clear arguments, repeated endlessly interspersed with a load of bickering.

Consider also, if it were a dedicated forum, ultimately intended to guide the MP in his representation, then the discussion would be more actively chaired: the MP (or his delegate) could, for example, ask for evidence or close down dead end discussions.

And where he makes a decision on a point, we can see why: which arguments were persuasive, and if the decision is wrong, then we can look at how those arguments might be overturned.

 

A party needs a name, and some time back I happened upon the term "geniocracy":

Geniocracy is the framework for a system of government which was first proposed by Raël (leader of the International Raëlian Movement) in 1977 and which advocates problem-solving and creative intelligence as criteria for governance.

 

Further research suggests that Raël was a nut-job cultist, and his trials of the idea were a complete flop, but based upon the above definition, I think the principle is sound, and we now have the technology to make it work.

 

I am open to better ideas, but I think it will do as a working title.

[Cyclone]

So are you talking about a mandate that sets out to govern by using evidence lead policy? Rather than rhetoric, popular appeal and whatever they think will win them the most votes?

[NigelFargate]

The assumption is that the MP would be an objective arbiter of the discussions, leading to 'sound' policy based on the weighing up of evidence.

 

The flaw in this assumption is that judgements will always be based on value preferences and subjective interpretations of the 'evidence'.

 

as for the Brexit discussions on this forum, there will never be a mutually agreed conclusion for the reasons mentioned above. I doubt whether many posts on this forum have resulted in people changing their minds about Brexit.

[Hairyloon]

The assumption is that the MP would be an objective arbiter of the discussions, leading to 'sound' policy based on the weighing up of evidence.

No, the assumption is that the party members will choose the candidate with the greatest ability to independently arbitrate. Nobody is perfect, all we ask is that they do their best.

 

The flaw in this assumption is that judgements will always be based on value preferences and subjective interpretations of the 'evidence'.

Whereas at the moment, judgements are based upon the party line, and relevant donations to party (and individual) coffers.

The question is not one of whether the proposal is flawed, rather of whether it offers improvements over what we have now.

 

---------- Post added 07-05-2017 at 17:44 ----------

 

So are you talking about a mandate that sets out to govern by using evidence lead policy?

 

I generally find that arguments supported by evidence are more persuasive...

 

---------- Post added 07-05-2017 at 18:24 ----------

 

Rather than rhetoric, popular appeal and whatever they think will win them the most votes?

 

Ah, I just twigged: you think nobody would vote for it?

[NigelFargate]

I generally find that arguments supported by evidence are more persuasive...

 

 

But whose evidence? There is no such thing as entirely objective evidence. 'evidence' requires selection and interpretation.

[Hairyloon]

But whose evidence? There is no such thing as entirely objective evidence. 'evidence' requires selection and interpretation.

 

Your question has almost no proper meaning.

Evidence is what it is, it should all be weighed and given due consideration, and a decision made on the balance of probabilities.

[NigelFargate]

Your question has almost no proper meaning.

Evidence is what it is, it should all be weighed and given due consideration, and a decision made on the balance of probabilities.

 

You assume that 'evidence' exists independent of the observer. Who decides what is 'evidence' in the first place. I could weigh and give due consideration to evidence in a very different way to you, particularly if that evidence involves interpretation of the behaviour or actions of human beings.

[Hairyloon]

I could weigh and give due consideration to evidence in a very different way to you...

 

Indeed you could. And having done so, you could present your case and I would present mine.

Others would dissect both cases and subject them to scrutiny. Some parts will stand up to scrutiny, others will fall.

[Cyclone]

But whose evidence? There is no such thing as entirely objective evidence. 'evidence' requires selection and interpretation.

 

Not really, in some cases there is overwhelming evidence, and the only reason to ignore it is ideological.

For example, our current policies on drug prohibition are entirely ideologically driven and not evidence based.

Other things, particularly where they pertain to the economy are much less open to objective measurement. Predicting the future of the economy isn't really a science and so it comes down to personal opinion ultimately, even if that's the opinion of experts.

[Hairyloon]

For example, our current policies on drug prohibition are entirely ideologically driven and not evidence based.

 

Chuck an "almost" in there before entirely and you have it bang on.

But perhaps let us not turn this thread into another drugs debate?