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.