Democracy: can we do better?

[brimstoneSalad]

The guide doesn't need to play a role that would allow for any significant bias.

To the contrary, many issues are very complicated. Unless every person there is going to receive the equivalent of university level courses in economics and physics, the information would have to be filtered before being presented to them on important issues like nuclear power.

On each issue that needs addressing, have a bare bones non partisan description of it. Then, hand out the the pro and con pages along with their rebuttals written by the relevant interested parties.

Wherein lies and fear mongering will win, because they don't have enough education or information to distinguish which are true and which are false.

The fear mongering opposition will almost always beat an honest advocate of a bill, or vice versa. The people will almost always fall on the side of their greatest fears or hatred, not on the side of reason because they don't have enough knowledge to evaluate the claims and understand the absurdity of the fear mongering.

Even EquALLity here, far more intelligent and knowledgeable on nuclear power than most people, fell for the union of concerned scientists propaganda when her teacher referenced it. I don't know how much explanation it will take for me to debunk it.

It's like rock-paper-scissors. Fear beats reason, only education beats fear, and that's just not practical for everybody involved to have such comprehensive knowledge of the subject.

If your issue is that the interested parties writing the pros and cons will lie or exaggerate(of course they will), then after getting pointed in the right direction with the rebuttal, this setting with a lot of other people, time, and a guide familiar with navigating the bill will help find the truth.

Not if the guide is biased.

Ideally what is allowed to be written in the pro\con sections would be better regulated to fit the facts of the bill, but maybe it's impossible to exclude value judgement there.

Or lies. Who excludes lies and fear mongering, and how are they defined and proved?

That in itself would require a trial for every point of contention on fact.

Proving a human system is 100% possible is not going to happen until it's currently being done, but that's sort of a silly standard to judge new ideas by. We wouldn't have ever made any progress with that mindset.

It's fine to test things you're unsure of. But when problems come up in thought experiments before even putting them into practice in a test environment, there need to be hypothetical solutions to them.

[Mr. Purple]

To the contrary, many issues are very complicated. Unless every person there is going to receive the equivalent of university level courses in economics and physics, the information would have to be filtered before being presented to them on important issues like nuclear power.

Using the California voter guide as an example, There is a simple version of the pro\con\rebuttal, A complex version of it, and the actual bills in the back. There would be something to follow along with and to voice concerns about for every education level. This isn't something the discussion guide person would need to get involved with. like I said, he could be very clearly limited to what he can actually say.

Wherein lies and fear mongering will win, because they don't have enough education or information to distinguish which are true and which are false.

I think the truth can be found with this process. The rebuttals will make it clear what points the pro\con page is ignoring or lying about, then you just have to check that point against the bill. We could even make it required to have citations after each claim made in the pro\con\rebuttal pages. When the facts are disputed, just ask the guide to show the part of bill is being discussed.

Not if the guide is biased.

It seems really impractical to me that the guide would be crafty enough to quickly come up with another part of the bill that is written in a way that sounds like it answers that specific question but is something else entirely. Especially it risks their job if any of those 20 people notice and point it out to the group.

Worst case scenario for the really paranoid, you can take that job away from the guide and can just teach the people how to navigate the bills themselves. Navigating this myself for a few of California's props makes me think It's really not that difficult. That actually might be just as fast as a guide if citations are required after each claim made in the pro\con\rebuttal pages.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think the truth can be found with this process. The rebuttals will make it clear what points the pro\con page is ignoring or lying about,

How do you know you even have a rebuttal, and not a straw man?
You might not be able to allow every opinion to be shared with your panel, and then you'd have to filter them. A biased filter could remove good arguments from one side.

then you just have to check that point against the bill. We could even make it required to have citations after each claim made in the pro\con\rebuttal pages. When the facts are disputed, just ask the guide to show the part of bill is being discussed.

The bill is easy, reality is the issue.
What if somebody claims that a power plant is vulnerable to a terrorist attack and could kill hundreds of millions of people. It's a bullshit claim, but how do you check this claim against reality?

There are issues of empirical fact that are relevant to bills, not just the bills' content itself.

Worst case scenario for the really paranoid, you can take that job away from the guide and can just teach the people how to navigate the bills themselves. Navigating this myself for a few of California's props makes me think It's really not that difficult. That actually might be just as fast as a guide if citations are required after each claim made in the pro\con\rebuttal pages.

That's fine, but there's more to it than just that. Somebody has to curate the information they are receiving, and even fact check claims.

[Mr. Purple]

What if somebody claims that a power plant is vulnerable to a terrorist attack and could kill hundreds of millions of people. It's a bullshit claim, but how do you check this claim against reality?

People will just have to debate it. The Pro\Con\Rebuttal could give people official sources and expert opinion to help with the debate, and they could be provided with the relevant major studies. They can also bring this question to the expert panel I suppose. I can't imagine a better antidote to fear mongering than having prolonged exposure to contradictory ideas and debate. The original question was "can we do better?", not "can we achieve perfection?"

You might not be able to allow every opinion to be shared with your panel, and then you'd have to filter them

The interests in charge of drafting that side of the issue can work out among themselves what they want to put on their page.

[brimstoneSalad]

People will just have to debate it. The Pro\Con\Rebuttal could give people official sources and expert opinion to help with the debate, and they could be provided with the relevant major studies.

People can't debate what they don't understand. How would they know to ask for it? How would they even understand it if they did?
The science would go over their heads.
And there are even some things so difficult to understand that nobody under a 115 IQ is going to be capable.

They can also bring this question to the expert panel I suppose.

If we had an unbiased expert panel, I'd say just let them decide.
Pure meritocracy.

The problem is, how do we trust the expert panel? Who assembles it?

The interests in charge of drafting that side of the issue can work out among themselves what they want to put on their page.

What if they aren't actually interested in drafting that side of the issue well and want the other side to win?
Or they're led by fundamentalist of some sort, and thus incompetent at including secular arguments to support their cases because they think their religious arguments are sufficient and an attempt at a scientific argument would be an insult to their god (and they don't believe in science anyway).
It's easy for one side -- even the right side -- to be co-opted by malice or incompetence to foil it.

I can't imagine a better antidote to fear mongering than having prolonged exposure to contradictory ideas and debate. The original question was "can we do better?", not "can we achieve perfection?"

I think that would only be the case if you could guarantee that the other side would be present and properly represented, and there was some reliable means to fact-check.
The trouble is that when facts are outright fabricated -- let's say the opposition claims Fukushima killed a million people -- how can that be corrected if the expert panel is corrupted? Then it just becomes the word of one advocate against everybody else.

[Mr. Purple]

People can't debate what they don't understand. How would they know to ask for it? How would they even understand it if they did?
The science would go over their heads.
And there are even some things so difficult to understand that nobody under a 115 IQ is going to be capable.

If it's anything like the props in my state, people shouldn't have that big an issue wrapping their mind around the main disputed parts of it. Scientific papers have pretty simple conclusion sections as well. Most confusion about science happens at the reporting level. If people had to sit in a room for a few days and grapple with actual scientific papers, I don't think that miscommunication would occur.

If we had an unbiased expert panel, I'd say just let them decide.
Pure meritocracy.

We have talked about all this before. No matter what system you pick, You need the public to be informed and to believe the government is legitimate. I think deliberative democracy gives sustainable legitimacy to government, while also informing the public through a concentrated learning process, and a greater incentive to participate in that learning. In a meritocracy, with everyone on board from the start, people would just continue to be uninformed, making it easy to spark the idea that the government doesn't represent or care about the people. (Especially in a place like america.) Maybe for good reason too if it's a government full of privileged, high IQ individuals that likely have different values than the general public. Dictatorships\Meritocracies would also have the added disadvantage of easily becoming corrupt with less recourse I imagine.

Even with the system we have now where we elect our officials, we are on the border of people questioning the government's legitimacy. This is basically what caused the current issue of a completely incompetent man with repulsive moral character becoming president because the only credentials needed was not being perceived as part of the government.

I think that would only be the case if you could guarantee that the other side would be present and properly represented, and there was some reliable means to fact-check.
The trouble is that when facts are outright fabricated -- let's say the opposition claims Fukushima killed a million people -- how can that be corrected if the expert panel is corrupted?

Yeah, just make sure experts from both sides are represented on the panel. I imagine the interest group wouldn't invite that expert back if he was saying things that seemed contrary to the position he is taking on the stand. What sort of corruption are you imagining? The direct bribery kind would be sort of hard to get away with on a large scale without being exposed.

[brimstoneSalad]

Even with the system we have now where we elect our officials, we are on the border of people questioning the government's legitimacy. This is basically what caused the current issue of a completely incompetent man with repulsive moral character becoming president because the only credentials needed was not being perceived as part of the government.

It's true (and unfortunate) that the illusion of popular control is needed.
Maybe a meritocratic panel that approves candidates.

But as you said, it might be a step in the right direction. What we have now is pretty bad. But we should be naive in assuming it can't get worse.

Yeah, just make sure experts from both sides are represented on the panel.

My concern is that's bias will crop up and make that not the case. That kind of bias is harder to express in a broader democracy than it is on a small panel.

Done right, I think deliberative democracy is better... but done poorly, it could be worse. I don't want to assume the consequences. I think it should be tested, though.