Maybe it's a translation problem, and I mistakenly thought you read the follow-up discussion.
Well, my point is: when we talk about how the regime is formed, it should be the people who decide the weight of the government's policy goals, let the government implement these goals, and then decide whether the government responsible persons can be promoted based on the results of their implementation, so as to determine the governance team of a country step by step. The standards mentioned in the original post are used to measure the degree of achievement of these goals.

votes reflect the will of people in regard to those standards (expected);

1. In this case, elections are superfluous.

people vote against their own interest due to things like idol worship and single-issue blinders at voting time.

2. This is just as you said, the election results go against their own interests.
1+2=In the case where the standards can represent the will of the people, elections are either superfluous or go against their own interests.
In fact, the possibility of situation 1 is extremely small, because if we use these standards to screen the rulers, then the successive presidents of the United States are not even qualified to participate in the competition.So there is almost no chance of overlap.

Those standards and the 'will' is an illusion.

3.
1) The people and the government are in an authorization relationship and follow the norms of the authorization relationship.
2) In an authorization relationship, when the decision of the authorizer is not illegal, the authorizer has the right to decide the entrusted matters. For example, when we go to a restaurant to eat, we need to order dishes first. By ordering dishes to complete the authorization, we can clearly express our needs.
3) In an authorization relationship, the needs of the authorizer are subject to the content of the contract. For example, if I want to eat roast chicken, but I actually ordered roast duck, then the restaurant is only responsible for the roast duck, but not the roast chicken. And these standards are exactly the content of the contract.

4. Let us first assume that elections and standards each represent a certain kind of public opinion. When these two kinds of public opinion conflict, only the purposeful public opinion can fundamentally represent the interests of the people, so adjustments should be made to the executive candidates. For example, suppose you want to eat roast chicken, but A does not know how to make roast chicken. If you choose A, you will not be able to eat roast chicken. If only B can make roast chicken, then you should choose B instead.

1. The research involved here is not to respond to a fashion trend, but to establish judgment standards and quantitative standards based on public demands. Before finding a more appropriate standard, the existing research results do not need to be abandoned.
2. This is not technically difficult and does not require much investment.
3-1) People's opinions have been expressed through standards, and customers do not need to pay attention to the promotion of personnel within Apple. 3-2) The reason why it is like an election is that elections are also a form of authorization. All forms of authorization are very similar, but elections are not a qualified form of authorization, because the essence of authorization is that A entrusts B to execute a specified goal or task.
4. Artificial intelligence cannot replace the decision of the people. Because from a normative perspective, land ownership does not belong to artificial intelligence, but to the people, so even if artificial intelligence is in power, it still needs to be authorized by the people.That is, the people still have the right to decide the weight and demands of various demands.

Universities have been conducting research in political science, statistics, etc. for a long time. Whether this system exists or not, the relevant inputs have always existed. This system only gives them a research direction and incorporates existing research results into the system.
Tasks can be integrated. For example, questionnaires can be directly integrated into the contract signed between the people and the government. The questionnaire only has this question: What public demands do you think need to be promoted by the government at present, and what are your requirements for these demands?
Chinese civil servants themselves need to pass exams, and their promotions themselves need to go through internal examinations. Various statistical work has been going on, but there is no clear standard based on the people's decision and incorporated into the system.
Most of what you think of as budgets or expenses have always existed; this system simply reorganizes the logic behind how they work.

I don't know why you think the budget will be so large, because it contains the logic of suppressing the budget. For example, if I am promoted to county magistrate, I will be the general responsible person of the county government. If the county government has a large budget for evaluating the promotion standards of internal personnel, then the county government will not have enough budget to promote other public demands, and I will fail in the competition. In order to avoid failure, I will suppress its budget. I have the right to decide how to assign tasks within the county government and how to set points. The internal personnel of the county government are responsible to me, and I am responsible for the standards set by the people.

This sounds like anarchy or utter gridlock lock.

It is not anarchy, but the government is explicitly granted only the "power to execute the purpose". The people have the power to make the purpose decision, the government is responsible for executing the purpose decision, and then determines the candidates for promotion based on the execution results.

That may be wishful thinking.

This is not wishful thinking, but has a basis.
1. From the fact that "the existing government functions are very limited and their functions have not expanded infinitely", it can be seen that the types of public demands for administration are very limited. 2. In the case that some public demands have not been clearly classified, the "government satisfaction" indicator itself has the function of replacing "others", that is, as long as the "government satisfaction" indicator exists, the classification list is complete.

So are you saying we would still elect legislators? ……the legislative field is no different than a department in the administrative state.

Legislation can be roughly divided into two levels: the first level is to strictly prove general behavioral conclusions based on several behavioral axioms that are consistent with the facts, and these conclusions will constitute the constitution. From a normative perspective, this is the only reasonable way to produce a constitution. The establishment of these conclusions has nothing to do with the specific ideas formed by people at a certain time and place, so there is no need for people to vote. The rationality of the conclusions depends only on whether the axioms themselves are consistent with the facts and whether the argumentation process violates logical requirements.
The reason I say this is that I can strictly prove all the main conclusions that constitute the constitution based on 5 behavioral axioms, and all the arguments can pass the inspection of several AIs. AI said that the rigor of my arguments is comparable to mathematical proofs and gave them all five-star ratings. I am also writing a paper on this aspect.
The aforementioned normative claim about the way the regime is produced is itself derived from several of the conclusions that constitute the constitution. In fact, from the conclusion of my argument, the essence of democracy means that "land ownership should belong to the people equally", and it is presumed that "citizens have equal rights to dispose of land", so what citizens need to make is "land disposal decision", the essence of which is "deciding which public demands to achieve with land resources and their derived benefits", and what the government obtains is "land management rights", and it can be clearly proved from the behavioral axiom that "if A realizes the maximum benefits of land management, then the land management rights must be granted to A".

The second level of legislation is the process of classifying various specific behaviors into the above general conclusions, so as to establish specific laws and regulations. This level is still about argumentation in general, but this level may cause controversy, and I have not figured it out yet.

Yes, people without experience in governing cannot directly compete for national leadership positions. We need to set up a "starting stage for people to enter the system", such as passing an exam to become a civil servant. Assuming that the system stipulates that after working for 2 years, they have the right to sign up to compete for a small leadership position. During this period, they take tasks and count points just like playing a game. When the competition cycle is over, the candidates for promotion are determined based on the points, until he becomes the leader of a county government. From then on, he can compete among counties. If he wins the inter-county competition, he can be promoted to lead a city. If he wins the inter-city competition, he can lead a province. In this way, a national leadership team is determined step by step.

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.

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.

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.

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."

Didn’t Kamala Devi Harris get eliminated?

Wasn’t Biden eliminated after his election defeat?

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.'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't understand the mechanism whereby people get to demand things at the administrative level.

Generally speaking:
1. Establish an academic public opinion institution.
2. Find out the specific public demands of the people through questionnaires and other means. (Legislative requirements are not included.)
3. Classify and organize these demands, and set quantitative standards or bottom-line standards based on the demands mentioned by the people in 2, and publish the standards.
4. Similar to ballots, set a date for the people to formally sign a contract with the government, so that the people can go to a designated location or directly receive the contract through the Internet, and write down your weight distribution of each demand on the contract. For example, I set A to 40%, B to 30%, C and D to 15% each. (At the same time, give your rating of the satisfaction with the previous government's governance.)
5. Count and publish the people's decisions, and the government will work based on the decisions.
6. Quantify the results of the government's work to form a score, and publish the score to determine the winners.

But a strategy may succeed or fail for all sorts of reasons beyond the control of the government.

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

A healthy government is flexible enough to deal with changing circumstances. A rigid government will crash against the rocks of fate.

It is impossible for a rigid and inflexible ruling team to win the competition at every level continuously.

My English is not good, I can only understand the statements that are straightforward enough and have complete meaning.
The original post did not involve a false dilemma.

I am not good at English, so I can only understand statements that are straightforward and have complete meanings.
When the people authorize the government by setting indicator weights, they are telling the government what to do and what requirements to meet.

The public demands of the people can be clarified through continuous questionnaire surveys and other methods, and most public demands are very stable in type, such as food security is an eternal requirement. When you are asked "what improvements do you hope the government will make in which areas", you must have a lot to say. Your own opinions are scattered, but when everyone's opinions are integrated, they are comprehensive. On this basis, academic work can follow up and organize and establish measurement standards to establish an indicator system that represents the public demands of the people.
If you really don't know what your demands are, you can put all your weight on the "government satisfaction" indicator, that is, completely rely on your subjective feelings to score the government. Moreover, various bottom-line requirements that do not require you to set weights can still protect your interests throughout the process. For example, when "environmental sanitation" and "air quality" are set as a minimum requirement as a standard, then even if you personally do not pay attention to these demands, the government still has to do its best to meet this minimum requirement, otherwise it will be deducted points, which will affect whether its responsible person can be promoted.
Based on the total score, the overall responsible person of the government can be held accountable, and based on the scores of subdivided fields, the responsible person of specific fields can be held accountable.

Equality means that the rules treat everyone equally within their effective scope, and fairness refers to whether the rules themselves are reasonable. The ways in which rights are deprived include: 1. The rules themselves are unreasonable and the rules are enforced; 2. The rules themselves are reasonable and the rules are not followed.
The original post only shows that if we determine that a series of standards should be established based on the will of the people to measure government performance, then the tradition of determining the ruling candidates by voting is doomed to be eliminated, otherwise the standards themselves will be emptied. This dialogue does not require people to abide by unreasonable rules, nor does it advocate the use of unreasonable standards to measure government performance.
The existence of standards can effectively avoid "contractual relationships without clear content". When the content of the contract is unclear, it is actually impossible for the people to effectively supervise the government's behavior. However, you seem to think that the clarification of the content of the contract will deprive the people of their due rights, which I cannot understand.

The original dialogue content is about the administrative part, and the standards mentioned are used to measure the degree to which administrative goals are promoted or indicate the requirements that the government needs to achieve in corresponding goals.
These goals represent the people's public demands at the administrative level. The types of public demands are relatively stable over a long period of time, but the weights of each demand will change. Therefore, the people are required to set the weights of public demands at the beginning of each competition cycle, thereby influencing the focus of the work of the current government.
These public demands can be roughly divided into two categories. One is that the government needs to continue to vigorously promote these areas. The progress in these areas has a great impact on the continuous improvement of people's living standards, such as the economy and other fields. The other is that the government needs to maintain above a certain standard after reaching that standard, such as air quality and other fields. The former needs to be weighted by the people at the beginning of each competition cycle, and the latter does not need to set weights, but each item will be set with a bottom line. If the bottom line requirements are not met, points will be deducted. If the bottom line requirements are met, no points will be added. At the same time, points can be added to the top few with the best performance. In fact, the latter belongs to low-weight demands in my original classification. When its weight is low to a certain extent, the bottom line can be used to replace the weight.

First of all, we need to think outside of voting. Let me give you a more appropriate example. It should be noted that this example is not an analogy, but a completely similar relationship that follows the same principle. In fact, group demands = the sum of individual demands. Assuming a society with 50,000 people, each person has a decision-making power of 100 yuan. If 30,000 people want to eat apples and 20,000 people want to eat oranges, then the reasonable situation must be to use 3 million yuan to promote the apple goal and 2 million yuan to promote the orange goal, rather than letting 20,000 people obey the will of 30,000 people to eat apples. Even if options such as bananas and mangoes are added, it is the same.
In addition, anyone can choose multiple options at the same time. For example, I spend 40 yuan on apples, 30 yuan on oranges, 20 yuan on bananas, and 10 yuan on mangoes. Others can also make their decisions. After statistics, the public opinion structure of a country or a city will be clearly presented to the government, and the government only needs to implement policies according to the list. Then we can quantify the government's performance based on the weight structure of each demand. For example, assuming a government scores 80 points in the apple field, and the weight of apple is 30%, then 80 points multiplied by the 30% weight equals 24 standard points. Adding the scores in other areas, we can know the total score of the government.

You can also replace the apples and oranges mentioned in the previous metaphor with indicators to measure government performance, such as public security, municipal facilities, social security, economy, education, and satisfaction with government governance. Then everyone has equal decision-making weight, and you can decide which area to give your weight to according to your needs. For example, suppose I think that public security is too bad recently and municipal facilities are too backward. I am eager for the current government to start improving these two aspects first, and then I also hope that the government will do something in the economic field. Finally, I want to retain the right to score the government's overall performance. So after consideration, I decided to give 40% of my weight to economic indicators, 30% to municipal facilities, 20% to social security, and 10% to satisfaction with government governance. Others will also make their decisions. After statistics, the public opinion structure of a country or a city will be clearly presented to everyone.