National Lottery-esk Democractic Meritocracy
Reading up on the BBC's world news this morning, I was outsanded by the amount of articles that were about governmental corruption. It seems like every government is corrupt and I have no doubt that includes ours.
I believe that we should use a National Lottery-esk system of government;
Every citizen's name is collated and thirty-six names are picked "at random" each week. I say "at random" because each name should be given a scoring, determining the chance that they are picked. Part of that scoring should be determined by how long it has been since they were past picked.
The first twelve names picked should be "Experts". For these, the scorings for everyone should be determined by our knowledge, education, and experienced in the expert field. E.g. someone might be given a high score for a "Science Expert" picking if they have a PhD in Physics, etc. People should have a right to know what Expert scoring they have been given & should even be given opportunity to influence that scoring (positively or negatively).
This first selection should be public, i.e. announced on public television & on a web-page, with a brief profile of everyone who is picked and which role they have been picked for.
The remaining twenty-four names picked should be "Auditors". For these the scorings for everyone should be equal, i.e. entirely determined by how long it has been since you last were picked. The identities of the people picked should be completely secret until after they have finished their service, at which point their names and profiles should be publically announced.
The Experts should serve on governing boards for six months each. Each board should normally have 6, 12 or 24 members, depending on the range or importance of issues which it discusses. Rather than pick the whole board at once, members should be picked one at a time, staggering the process over six months. There should be a two week hand-over period when any member is changed; i.e. the successor should be selected two weeks before their predecessor leaves.
(A board with 6 members would need to pick a new member every four weeks, a board with 12 members would need to pick a new member every two weeks, whilst a board with 24 members would need to pick a new member every week.)
Each board should vote and decide on a specific range of issues, e.g. Science. There should be 16 boards of 6 members each, plus 8 boards of 12 members each, plus 4 boards of 24 members each.
Board members should meet virtually, via television and computer displays, speakers and microphones. Their voting should be confidential and the results of each vote should only become known after the process has been audited first...
The Auditors should serve as invisible shadows to the Experts. Each should serve for six months also, so therefore each Expert should be audited by two different people at the same time. The Auditors should be presented with all of the material given to their Expert, all of their dialogues from board meetings, and finally with their vote. Each Auditor's role is very simple; they should flag up if they believe that their Expert has voted in a manner that appears corrupt.
Only if both Auditors flag the same vote should that Expert's vote be neutralised, in which case it is discounted from the total vote. No effect should occur to the remaining service time for either the Auditors or the Expert. The Expert should never know if either Auditor has flagged their vote.
The scoring for an Expert should also be negatively affected by how many votes were flagged (by either Auditor). For each time that both of the auditors flagged a vote, both Auditors should have their scorings positively affected. However; for each time that only one of the two Auditors flagged a vote, both Auditors should have their scorings negatively affected.
Therefore if both Auditors tended to agree with each other, they will both be used as Auditors again sooner. If they tended to disagree with each other, however, then they will not be used as Auditors as soon. If either of the Auditors tended to flag the Expert then the Expert will not be used as an Expert as soon.
Neither Auditor should ever meet each other or ever know each other's names. The Experts should never know who audited them, either. When the identities of Auditors are made public, it should never be revealed about which Experts they were shadowing. The scoring that is based upon flagging should never be revealed to the Experts or Auditors.
I believe that we should use a National Lottery-esk system of government;
Every citizen's name is collated and thirty-six names are picked "at random" each week. I say "at random" because each name should be given a scoring, determining the chance that they are picked. Part of that scoring should be determined by how long it has been since they were past picked.
The first twelve names picked should be "Experts". For these, the scorings for everyone should be determined by our knowledge, education, and experienced in the expert field. E.g. someone might be given a high score for a "Science Expert" picking if they have a PhD in Physics, etc. People should have a right to know what Expert scoring they have been given & should even be given opportunity to influence that scoring (positively or negatively).
This first selection should be public, i.e. announced on public television & on a web-page, with a brief profile of everyone who is picked and which role they have been picked for.
The remaining twenty-four names picked should be "Auditors". For these the scorings for everyone should be equal, i.e. entirely determined by how long it has been since you last were picked. The identities of the people picked should be completely secret until after they have finished their service, at which point their names and profiles should be publically announced.
The Experts should serve on governing boards for six months each. Each board should normally have 6, 12 or 24 members, depending on the range or importance of issues which it discusses. Rather than pick the whole board at once, members should be picked one at a time, staggering the process over six months. There should be a two week hand-over period when any member is changed; i.e. the successor should be selected two weeks before their predecessor leaves.
(A board with 6 members would need to pick a new member every four weeks, a board with 12 members would need to pick a new member every two weeks, whilst a board with 24 members would need to pick a new member every week.)
Each board should vote and decide on a specific range of issues, e.g. Science. There should be 16 boards of 6 members each, plus 8 boards of 12 members each, plus 4 boards of 24 members each.
Board members should meet virtually, via television and computer displays, speakers and microphones. Their voting should be confidential and the results of each vote should only become known after the process has been audited first...
The Auditors should serve as invisible shadows to the Experts. Each should serve for six months also, so therefore each Expert should be audited by two different people at the same time. The Auditors should be presented with all of the material given to their Expert, all of their dialogues from board meetings, and finally with their vote. Each Auditor's role is very simple; they should flag up if they believe that their Expert has voted in a manner that appears corrupt.
Only if both Auditors flag the same vote should that Expert's vote be neutralised, in which case it is discounted from the total vote. No effect should occur to the remaining service time for either the Auditors or the Expert. The Expert should never know if either Auditor has flagged their vote.
The scoring for an Expert should also be negatively affected by how many votes were flagged (by either Auditor). For each time that both of the auditors flagged a vote, both Auditors should have their scorings positively affected. However; for each time that only one of the two Auditors flagged a vote, both Auditors should have their scorings negatively affected.
Therefore if both Auditors tended to agree with each other, they will both be used as Auditors again sooner. If they tended to disagree with each other, however, then they will not be used as Auditors as soon. If either of the Auditors tended to flag the Expert then the Expert will not be used as an Expert as soon.
Neither Auditor should ever meet each other or ever know each other's names. The Experts should never know who audited them, either. When the identities of Auditors are made public, it should never be revealed about which Experts they were shadowing. The scoring that is based upon flagging should never be revealed to the Experts or Auditors.