Scientific Consensus Democracy

97 out of 100 climate experts agree that humans are responsible for
global warming, so why is the ratio of politicians who do so vastly less?

For rather obvious reasons, the government shutdown has me considering representative democracy. I have previously blogged about better compromise methods to avoid gridlock, but that is a minor modification to the existing paradigm rather than a complete redesign. There are three things a democracy needs to determine as far as policy: what our society's priorities are, what specific policies to pursue to attain those, and who should implement them. To limit the scope of this post, I shall only deal with the first two, leaving the third for further entries. I also will not delve into details too deeply, not only for the sake of brevity but because a single person would be hard pressed to work out every aspect of such an enormous undertaking.

I shall start with the second requirement as it sheds light on the first. More and more frequently there have been distortions of the state of scientific evidence by our political figures. This is unacceptable on questions of fact, which is why I propose a model based on scientific consensus. Citizens can become certified in various policy areas by passing an exam. They could then rate the feasibility of the aspects they are qualified in for the various policy options. This is a key point: they cannot weigh in on parts they are not verified to be knowledgeable about. The experts could cede their evaluation to another qualified individual, but should be able to do so on an issue by issue basis. The best option would be the one officially pursued. As transition costs would be included, revision of the assessments could occur continuously and only if a new policy ranked significantly better than the current one would an actual policy shift occur. Anyone could suggest a policy and as they garner more feasible appraisals, they would rise in prominence, similar to other online peer evaluated systems.

That brief summary raises many issues. Tests would need to be transparent and provided free of charge. Our education system would of course need to be improved, but that is a good notion in any event. To increase inclusiveness, partial accreditation should be possible, with a partial vote being awarded although not necessarily in a strictly linear fashion. This would also be a good way to handle out of date expertise: it would slowly lose influence over time, requiring periodic re-certification. The frequency of such exams is a detail beyond the scope of this post, but would obviously be related to the rate of advances in the field.

The voting system would have to be online for practical reasons, so security would be crucial. Each expert should be provided with a review period to approve any votes they have ceded to others before they lead to policy changes, with automated trend detection systems possibly provided to call attention to outcomes they likely wouldn't agree with. Additionally, measures of uncertainty in ratings could also be incorporated to accurately reflect incomplete information and also to highlight where more research is required.

With that as a policy selection method, the nation's priorities must also be considered. This is where the role of general opinion can legitimately factor in. I envision something more along the lines of a periodic census, rather than issue by issue involvement, where citizens can choose what matters to them. To force people to make trade offs rather than emphasizing everything, they would have a set number of points they must distribute between various competing priorities. These measures would be the things the expert evaluation bottom line would be phrased in terms of, along with an assessment of the existing state of those goals, as a high priority that has already been well satisfied may wind up with less influence than a lower one that is as yet poorly attained. Most likely, automated methods of striking the necessary compromises would be the most efficient way to identify the best set of policy solutions.

In the name of conciseness, I have deliberately omitted details and no doubt failed to consider many more. My larger point is that there are other ways to approach governance in a democratic society; ones that leverage newer technology and the mechanisms of our most successful institutions.