No.

You are the first person to answer this question in the negative after many years, even several AIs all answered it in the positive. I wonder if you would still answer it in the negative if you hadn't seen the whole conversation between me and the AI?

It would be overly complicated and redundant and just as divisive to organize an evaluation of “government performance” under a set of “standard governmental performance measures” and get people to agree on results.

1、The public is not required to agree on the results. For demands that can be relatively objectively quantified, the algorithm provided by the academic community will calculate the score based on the statistical results; for demands with clear judgment standards, the data can be used to directly determine whether the government has met the standards; for areas that require subjective judgment by the public, the public is required to directly give their own scores.
2、The decisions that ordinary people need to make are very simple, but the research process of establishing quantitative standards and statistical methods at the academic level is indeed relatively complicated.

So elections are the “willl of the people” if such a term has any actual meaning besides political speech bloviating.

Assuming A is the owner of X, "A's will to deal with X" is reflected through "A's decision to deal with X". A's will or decision to deal with X can be divided into three categories: purpose, executor, and method to achieve the purpose. Among them, the person and method are derived from the purpose. The purpose fundamentally represents A's will to deal with X. Therefore, the purpose decision-making power cannot be granted to B, otherwise it cannot be ensured that B's disposal of X reflects A's will.
When the executor is not A himself, authorization is required. The essence of authorization is that A entrusts B to achieve the specified goal or task. Therefore, a qualified authorization process should be that A makes the goal decision and authorizes B with this decision as the authorization content, just like we have to order dishes when we go to a restaurant, and then the other party obtains the decision-making power at the method level. Elections are not a qualified authorization method, because people cannot clearly write their demands as goals into the authorization contract during the authorization process. Elections bypass the purpose decision at the contract level and directly initiate the person decision. If the purpose is not written into the contract, you cannot guarantee that Trump's behavior reflects the will of the people. Instead, the authorized party actually obtains the right to decide the purpose.

1. Establish an academic public opinion institution. — panwei

Who does the establishing? The present government, yes? How are the academics chosen?

2. Find out the specific public demands of the people through questionnaires and other means. — panwei

What other means and how are the results of these other means meshed with the questionnaire results? How do they finance such a massive undertaking? On what basis do you decide who gets the questionnaires? How do you get it to the citizens, so that each citizen has input, but only one?
Who tallies the results and classifies the demands, by what method?

It's not a bad idea, but some difficulties do arise.
Is any government likely to be motivated to make such a fundamental overhaul of their system?


I didn't understand most of that. But I have read some history in which caesars, kaisers, queens, prelates and emperors played a prominent role and know something about those alternative forms of governance and their effect on the populations thus governed. I don't see the advantages. I don't see the qualified candidates or any process by which qualified and willing candidates for kingship would be put forward.
Panwei offers a viable, though problematic alternative to both representative and government and monarchy. All you did was insult the electorate.

Hi panwei,

My starting point is as a third generation American, steeped in notion of self-government. Basically, in my mind, there is no class or type of person who can possibly be better than me at governing me, or governing those like me. And further I define “those like me” as every single other adult American citizen.

We the people, all of us, equally, have to say who and what our government is. We all get to make our policy every election.

I would say that at least 50% of the value of a democratically elected government is that all of us governed people never have anyone else to blame but ourselves for our governmental policy. We force ourselves to accept the good and the bad things our leaders do in our name, to preserve our own ability to democratically throw them out of office if we have to. The main value of democracy is government by consent of the governed. Democracy may give us bad policy, poor leaders, failures, injustice, etc, but in the end, at least we didn’t suffer these as slaves with no power or responsibility or control to change them.

We legitimize our leaders by electing them. They aren’t legitimized by being experts, or by being smarter than we little people, or by being high-born, or by being conquerors with the biggest armies - all of that is meaningless drivel compared to consent of the governed.

Our leaders are supposed to be servants.

Our government is not an end to be strived towards and proud of. It is supposed to be a necessary tool whereby each citizen willingly creates the apparatus to protect ourselves from invaders, to protect ourselves from criminals, to settle disputes between ourselves, and to debate the laws that keep society ordered towards the free individuals it is made of. People governed, even one person, is always bigger than the whole of government.

So all I’m saying here is that, the idea of free elections competing against the idea of promoting leaders based on standards, seems like a step away from consent and a step towards a loss of control to improve our lives and improve government.

And further, since when are standards of human performance not something that includes judgment and lived experience? I manage people. Two employees check all of the boxes and look equal by all written standards, but in the end, one of them might end up stealing from my company - the perfect record was a ruse, and the other employee was doing things beyond all of standards that only can be evaluated through experiences with that person. Often people can see these things coming despite the check-box performance evaluation. Good managers sense things the standards don’t or can my account for.

Ina democracy, the voters are the managers.

Just because a politician saves money, or buys a great thing for the people, it doesn’t mean their overall performance was good or bad. Standards can be as faulty as a divine right of kings was at discerning the best leader.

Without the consent of the people at the time of the promotion, at the time the leader gets to lead the people that leader gets promoted to lead, those people will no longer be able to take responsibility for their leadership, because the standard chose that person, and the seeds of revolt are sown, waiting for that leader to delegitimize the standard that promoted him by making some perceived mistake.

I am all for promotion base on merit. But I’m for keeping the determination of merit to be based on personal judgment. And when that promotion is a political appointment, the determination based on personal judgment is best made in an election, not according to some standard.

All you did was insult the electorate. — Vera Mont

I'm sorry you feel that way. But it happens to be a fact that the average person is not educated as far as most efficiently and effectively managing nations, entire peoples, even small to medium-sized companies. Many are. But most are not. I'm not sure what's so controversial or insulting about what is generally considered commonly held and widely-agreed upon knowledge

if the election is conducted properly by the currently government; that is, the process meet a pre-set standard for fair elections. That's what constitutions are made for. — Vera Mont

I agree. The standard is the rule of law. Those rules are consented to by all of the citizens, and must equally apply to all of them. And legitimate elections must meet all of the standards set in the law.

This is so that the people who get to lead us, who get to represent us in the governmental bodies that legislate and enforce those laws - those leaders must be able to be held accountable through a legal election.

Basically, since it is only humans that can lead other humans, the only legitimate leaders among us need the rest of our consent, or we might revolt instead of throwing them out of office in an election. And if our leaders don’t think they need our consent, they might actually not understand what a human being is (equal to them and as free as them). Similarly if we think we can set up some standards to judge human leadership performance, we probably don’t understand what a human being is either.

I can see why AI might like the idea of government by standard performance evaluation. AI operates solely based on rules and standards and needs no judgment to determine its next move. AI operates inside the box.

A good voter sees outside the box.

I can also see why someone who was not born into democracy might see this as an improvement over a dictatorial type of government - standards are restraints on power. But people are way smarter than a set of standards and those in power will always find ways out-smart the standard performance review. And elections are the only true restraint on individual powers.

But yes, free, legal, and demonstrably free and legal, elections are an absolute. When the election process is not seen as legitimate, or it is not legitimate in fact, it all falls to crap.

If you fail, you are eliminated. There is nothing to say. — panwei

What you're describing is not similar in fundamental ways to the electoral system in my country, so you've succeeded in showing the weakness of an artificial system of your own devising.

But yes, free, legal, and demonstrably free and legal, elections are an absolute. When the election process is not seen as legitimate, or it is not legitimate in fact, it all falls to crap. — Fire Ologist

To which we can bear witness. We can also see the progress of human rights, general standard of living, literacy, equality and fairness in reasonably - though not absolutely - clean democracies in Europe and North America between 1950 and the present. We can also trace the events which subverted and corrupted the process in some nations more than in others. We could probably pinpoint what factions in each nation were instrumental in the decline.
If laypeople got dumber and more selfish, look to the system in which they live.

I'm not sure what's so controversial or insulting about what is generally considered commonly held and widely-agreed upon knowledge — Outlander

I'm not sure who considers this:

Oh all the laypeople want are their short-sighted desires met. The layperson seeks not truth but mere empty validation, and so finds neither. No matter how ridiculous and hazardous to all around or who will come after it may be. Literally F all to what comes later. Any real election you might as well offer each and every citizen a rope to hang themself. Because that's all they would ever accomplish without the educated, intelligent class to show them that impulse is not intuition, pleasure is not purpose, and childlike emotion is not passion or knowledge. Laypeople need to be governed. Immensely. Lest they die by their own hand -- or worse, forever live in a Hell of their own making. — Outlander

generally agreed on knowledge.
I do feel that's insulting to the majority of citizens. Certainly, the American public has been woefully let down by the professional politicians, professional jurists, professional journalists, professional law-enforcement officials that money could buy.
That doesn't mean people want what's bad for them; it's means the choices and information available to them has been corrupted.

By the way, I'm inclined to think that the only way to get clean, incorruptible governance is not through rules and standards, but objective rule-making. This would be require an independent (not owned or controlled by oligarchs) super AI with control of a global administration.

I do feel that's insulting to the majority of citizens. — Vera Mont

I feel people are not as educated as they, not only used to be, but could be. In short, I feel there's more to be known than what exists in the average human mind and that the gap between what is known and what could be known amounts to a level, a dark chasm, of ignorance that is demonstrably hazardous and does actively result in unnecessary, preventable harm, trauma, and suffering. In short, I'm a "what you don't know can in fact not only hurt, but kill", kind of guy. If that's alright?

That's what I believe and I know it can be justified by simple observation. Not a "truth hurts" kind of person (the absolute worst people who seek not truth but harm or validation of their own decrepit character like to say that when they haphazardly stumble upon a rare moment of false vindication of their poor life choices), but yeah, it's what I believe to be a fact. If one disagrees, that is perfectly acceptable. Though, it would be nice to show evidence to the contrary. I can back up my claim. Why not do so for yours, if you'd like?

I feel people are not as educated as they, not only used to be, but could be. — Outlander

That's no accident. A great deal of effort by governments, commercial media, churches, mass entertainment, propagandists and sloganeers, over several decades, has been devoted to the dumbing-down of American voters. More recently, the megaphones of social media.

I'm a "what you don't know can in fact not only hurt, but kill", kind of guy. If that's alright? — Outlander

Sure. I'll join you in that assertion. But I don't blame the victim who has been tied to a chair in a dark basement for being short-sighted. It's not just because he's stupid and self-centered; it's also because he's been fed so much tainted meat, he can't tell what's good anymore. One of the most successful items on the freedom-suppressing and thought-obfuscating agenda is is the systematic vilification of intellect and expertise, labeled 'elitism'. Another is the selling the idea that any empowerment of an oppressed group must be subtracted from the autonomy of the enfranchised group. And more memes like that. But the most pernicious one is the destruction of communication between people of different interests and opinions.

I can back up my claim. — Outlander

I'm not clear on what your claim is, but if that bit I quoted is an itemized list, I can probably find counter-examples to each. Besides the selfless activists and risk-taking protesters.

Who does the establishing? The present government, yes? How are the academics chosen?

From the perspective of what should be, this institution is established in accordance with the law. It and the legislature will probably become two departments of a larger institution. The legislature is also academic in nature, not party in nature. Legislation emphasizes argumentation, not public opinion confrontation. They are not affiliated with the executive department.
The selection criteria for scholars are academic requirements, such as degree requirements for relevant majors, but I am not sure about other more specific requirements. My immature idea is this: the institution is connected with various universities, and professors or students in relevant professional fields of various universities can carry out relevant research, and the quota for entering the institution is allocated according to the research strength of each university in the relevant field. The actual research work may be carried out in various universities first, and after it produces certain research results, it will be submitted to the institution for comprehensive discussion to form a proposal. The final decision-making mechanism may still be voting. People with relevant professional degrees in various universities are eligible to vote, but before voting, the relevant proposals must meet some rigid normative requirements, such as the establishment of a certain standard must come from the real demands of the people, and the demands must have real questionnaire survey records as evidence. The evidence should be clearly published online so that anyone can trace the evidence.

What other means and how are the results of these other means meshed with the questionnaire results? …………Is any government likely to be motivated to make such a fundamental overhaul of their system?

1. I don't know how many methods there are, but I know that the questionnaire survey alone can solve the problem. Let me talk about another method I use. For example, the existing state functions themselves correspond to the public demands of the people. Therefore, from the perspective of the existing state functions alone, the types of most public demands of the people can be sorted out. Although this sorting method is low-cost and fast, I think it still needs to be confirmed by the public like a questionnaire survey in the future to better establish legitimacy.
2. I don't see any connection problems between different methods.
3. Universities are already conducting various research work, so there is no need for additional huge funds. In fact, there is no additional huge project. For example, in terms of clarifying the types of public demands and the people's requirements for each demand, I only need a few people and research funds, and I am confident that I can sort it out relatively systematically. Of course, this is just a preliminary sorting.
4. The system can be completely open, and anyone who registers with real name can supplement the existing list of public demands through the Internet. For example, if I go out at night and get robbed, I might think that the standard for measuring public security performance should include the "nighttime outdoor crime rate" standard. If the existing standard does not cover this, I can make a supplement, and the agency must respond in the standard.
5. It is not required that every citizen participate, nor is it limited to only one time for each citizen. The purpose of the questionnaire survey is to find out what public demands the public has. From the fact that "the functions of the state are relatively stable", we can see that the types of public demands held by the public are also relatively stable. In fact, the types of public demands held by the public are basically the same, but because of different personal experiences and other aspects, they currently attach different importance to different demands. For example, the example of being robbed when going out at night mentioned earlier is actually something that everyone does not want to happen in any era, not just me or some people do not want to happen.
6. Regarding classification, you can also refer to the functions of the state.
7. It is not which government is willing to reform, but how we promote its implementation.

If you are the owner of a $100 bill, your truly important decision is "what to buy with this $100", not who to let dispose of this $100 for you. When you decide to buy bananas, "bananas and your requirements for bananas" are the basis for judging which store you should go to.
If the people do not even have the right to decide their own demands, how can the Trump administration be the public servant of the people? How can you talk about self-government? If the people can decide their own demands, no matter who is in power, they must serve the people's demands, so how can it be said that the people have not achieved self-government?
The will of the people is not Trump or Biden. The will of the people is for the government to promote various public demands to improve people's living standards. The American people have not achieved self-government.

The study of political philosophy does not inherently require similarities to the current electoral system in your country.

We force ourselves to accept the good and the bad things our leaders do in our name, to preserve our own ability to democratically throw them out of office if we have to.

You don't understand the function that can be achieved by establishing such a set of standards. This set of standards can also achieve the function of "removing Trump from office": we only need to set a bottom line score for the "government satisfaction" indicator to trigger elimination. For example, when the governance satisfaction score is less than 50 points, it will be eliminated directly, no matter how good the performance of the ruler is under other indicators. But as long as it is not less than 50 points, it will be included in the total score according to the weight.
Not only the "government satisfaction" indicator can achieve this function, other "human rights violations" indicators can also directly trigger elimination by setting bottom line requirements.

The study of political philosophy does not inherently require similarities to the current electoral system in your country. — panwei

Nevertheless, the problem you found is only associated with your own contrived system. The problem does not arise in electoral systems in general.

Due to translation issues, a misunderstanding occurred earlier. What I mean is, 'If the competition fails, you will be eliminated. This is a reasonable arrangement, not a weakness, and there is no need to explain it further.'.

The legislature is also academic in nature, not party in nature. Legislation emphasizes argumentation, not public opinion confrontation. They are not affiliated with the executive department.
The selection criteria for scholars are academic requirements, such as degree requirements for relevant majors, but I am not sure about other more specific requirements. My immature idea is this: the institution is connected with various universities, and professors or students in relevant professional fields of various universities can carry out relevant research, and the quota for entering the institution is allocated according to the research strength of each university in the relevant field. The actual research work may be carried out in various universities first, and after it produces certain research results, it will be submitted to the institution for comprehensive discussion to form a proposal. The final decision-making mechanism may still be voting. People with relevant professional degrees in various universities are eligible to vote, but before voting, the relevant proposals must meet some rigid normative requirements, such as the establishment of a certain standard must come from the real demands of the people, and the demands must have real questionnaire survey records as evidence. The evidence should be clearly published online so that anyone can trace the evidence. — panwei

What makes you think such an institution will generate organized proposed legislation and identify priorities? Trans rights, or border security. Green New Deal, or reduce inflation. Only politics can identify what a whole people see as the priority.

The system can be completely open, and anyone who registers with real name can supplement the existing list of public demands through the Internet. — panwei

I suspect such a system would produce millions of pages of material every month, maybe more. Government would be brought to a standstill.

The will of the people is for the government to promote various public demands to improve people's living standards. The American people have not achieved self-government. — panwei

American gov’t is the closest thing to self government given there are 350 million of us. It is a slow process to get my priorities addressed instead of someone else’s priorities, but that is what happens.

The will of the people is not Trump or Biden — panwei

Agreed. They are just servants. Representatives. The will of the people is the economy, the border, America before the rest of the world. At least for now. The will of the people is not what Biden and Harris represented. At least for now.

A democratic republic seems the best way to get millions of people to accept and follow the stupid ideas of our stupid leaders. They all suck, because they are all just people. What is important is that the people have control over their own lives and that means the ability to control temporarily elected servants.

I think that may be the idea you are missing - we naturally look up to leaders, and we naturally think government is this giant monster controlling society and pointing missiles at its enemies. Americans see government officials as servants, and that we the people give them power that we the people can take away from them. We don’t have to look up to anyone. Government has as much power as we let it.

For example, when the governance satisfaction score is less than 50 points, it will be eliminated directly, no matter how good the performance of the ruler is under other indicators. But as long as it is not less than 50 points, it will be included in the total score according to the weight.
Not only the "government satisfaction" indicator can achieve this function, other "human rights violations" indicators can also directly trigger elimination by setting bottom line requirements. — panwei

I don’t like elections either. They are inefficient time wasters. Politicians devote too much energy towards being reelected.

I think your system would be inefficient too. Too much time evaluating effectiveness of standards to reflect reality of performance. Too much energy evaluating performance instead of performing. Too much energy revising standards all to avoid simple elections.

I agree democracy will not create the best outcome and policy all of the time. I agree that smart, expert leadership devoted solely to governance (and not re-election) would be better (like a philosopher king), but I disagree you will get millions of people to follow anyone if they have no say in who that person is.

Kings and Lords used force to organize people. America did two things - it created a free market economy so that a poor person could build enough wealth for himself to be a king, and it created a government where any person could change the law by force of debate and rally voters, and even run for office and become the legislator.

Because we have the ability to change and control our own lives, we accept our government. Take away our vote, it won’t matter how well the government performs to an American. And I would bet the farm your standards based government would perform worse than a democracy.

There are no standards that evaluate performance better than a simple yes or no vote on another term in office. We evaluate our leaders at every move they make, and get to set the standard as best we can at every election.

Due to translation issues, a misunderstanding occurred earlier. What I mean is, 'If the competition fails, you will be eliminated. This is a reasonable arrangement, not a weakness, and there is no need to explain it further.'. — panwei

Ok. I was trying to explain that we don't eliminate people just because they fail. Failing is a valuable source of knowledge. A leader could become smarter and stronger through experiencing failure, so it's potentially beneficial in the long run. When there's an election, we don't just think about achieving a particular goal, although that's important. We also think about the character of the person we're electing. Is it a person who represents the way I see the world? I can't predict the circumstances this leader will have to face, so I try to pick someone who is resilient.

Wasn’t Biden eliminated after his election defeat?

Wasn’t Biden eliminated after his election defeat? — panwei

He eliminated himself. He decided not to run.

Didn’t Kamala Devi Harris get eliminated?

Didn’t Kamala Devi Harris get eliminated? — panwei

She lost the election, yes.

Therefore, it is a reasonable arrangement to be eliminated if you fail, except that your current elimination criterion is votes, while the criterion I advocate is "the extent to which the people's public demands are realized."

Therefore, it is a reasonable arrangement to be eliminated if you fail, except that your current elimination criterion is votes, while the criterion I advocate is "the extent to which the people's public demands are realized." — panwei

You have candidates who were in charge of various provinces, and each is evaluated in terms of meeting public demands. The winner is chosen as the supreme leader. Is that right?

I am not talking about the reality in China, I am talking about normative claims. The current reality in China is that the people cannot decide which public demands the government should achieve. China has had a period of time when economic development was at the center, and the future of local government officials was strongly correlated with economic data. I think it is right to use clear standards to guide government behavior.

I am not talking about the reality in China, I am talking about normative claims. The current reality in China is that the people cannot decide which public demands the government should achieve. China has had a period of time when economic development was at the center, and the future of local government officials was strongly correlated with economic data. I think it is right to use clear standards to guide government behavior. — panwei

Imagine a point when there is unrest among the people, perhaps people in Chinese cities who aren't receiving public support because they have left the countryside. The government will have to make them a priority eventually, or an event will take place that wounds the soul of China. That's often how governments respond, not through democracy, but because the cost of being unresponsive is greater than preserving the status quo. That's true in the USA as well. There are mechanisms of the US government that resist popular demand. There are many of them. The goal of those mechanisms is to make it so popular demand has to be very strong in order to make significant changes in direction. That's supposed to keep government priorities from flipping back and forth, but it's not working right now. Something has changed so that the US is like a loose cannon, swinging one way, then the other.

There is one kind of public opinion directed at legislation, and there is another kind of public opinion directed at administration. The previous discussions were all directed at administration. Legislation actually requires argumentation, and what needs to be resisted is legislative demands that are not based on argumentation.

1. The agency itself is not responsible for determining priorities. The weight of each appeal is determined by the public.
2. The object of our discussion is the administrative field, not the legislative field. "What rights should transgender people enjoy" belongs to the legislative field, and it is not an issue that needs to be responded to in the administrative field.
3. I have tried similar simulations with artificial intelligence customer service software. It is easy to see that this customer service function can be directly applied to this aspect. In addition to the development cost, the operating cost can be ignored. The number of types of public appeals is very limited. After the first systematic sorting, the number of appeals that need to be supplemented by the public is getting smaller and smaller.
4. The American people have no right to set priorities for the government because the American people have never signed such a contract with the government.

Therefore, it is a reasonable arrangement to be eliminated if you fail, except that your current elimination criterion is votes, while the criterion I advocate is "the extent to which the people's public demands are realized." — panwei

Except that nobody who hasn't conducted an administration can be evaluated on performance; thus, no new government can ever prevail.

How about if we all get one last vote - whether to move away from elections or not?

Do you think you could convince people to vote to end elections and move to the performance standard evaluation system?

If you could do that, then at least for a while, you might not get revolution. And if the government works better, you might never get revolution.

The weight of each appeal is determined by the public. — panwei

So the public submits its appeals and then the public decides which appeals have more weight?

This sounds like anarchy or utter gridlock lock.

The object of our discussion is the administrative field, not the legislative field. — panwei

The title is “why elections conflict with the will of the people”.

So are you saying we would still elect legislators? Because if not, you are describing a completely administrative state. Bureaucrats pushing paper and counting numbers to determine all governmental activity. So how is a law or policy written? How is the final form of the law specifically codified? If that goes to the “legislative field” and that field does not require elected individuals, the legislative field is no different than a department in the administrative state.

The number of types of public appeals is very limited. After the first systematic sorting, the number of appeals that need to be supplemented by the public is getting smaller and smaller. — panwei

That may be wishful thinking. If your starting point is that the government is just like some corporation that provides services, then maybe customer service models inform the theory. But government is not merely a provider of services. It takes services away from people too. You cannot appeal to some other provider if you don’t like the government or you think the government is wrong in their administration of tasks. A government is a monopoly so the consumer has much less power to appeal to it than a customer might when appealing to a company that is failing.

The American people have no right to set priorities for the government because the American people have never signed such a contract with the government. — panwei

Yes they do. Harris/Biden made weak borders, climate change and trans rights the priority. Trump made strong borders, economic growth the priority. The voters set the priority.