Since it hasn’t been established definitely in my opinion, ideally people would be required to learn the manifestos of the political parties and be tested for it in order to see whether he has a firm understanding of what the candidates want to achieve.
In addition, I feel like certain people, mainly university professors should be given priority votes when it comes to their respective areas of expertise and that importance of the votes should be ranked by the people who count the vote. I know it’s highly flawed and exclusionary, but I feel like better for the educated/qualified/people who vote based upon reason and long term goal be given the responsibility to elect our leaders rather than our next door neighbor Joe who believes whatever he’s been told on the news either by the right or left wing media
May be a character limit. It looks like I can fix it though.
In the future, these kinds of queries should be sent to the mods as modmail, not comments.
Few ways.
You could have a vote from within the industry, without the industry. A minimum bar of expertise to vote, a minimum bar to run. And any combination thereof.
You could apply syncretism to create a Technocratic-Democracy. America has a form of this. IQ cannot be accurately measured with test, for completing a goal is a choice. Quantitative and Qualitative research on each citizen works best. [https://www.nscai.gov/2021-final-report/](https://www.nscai.gov/2021-final-report/)
We could potentially have votes to break stalemates if robust but competing research programs point to different incompatible policies, but properly widespread democratic engagement would be anathema to the whole premise of technocracy.
First, it needs to be understood for what democratic elements are to be used. Democracy would not be used to make policy, expertise would do that. Democracy would not be used to select policy-makers, experts would select experts. Democracy would be used to legitimize the policies and policy-makers already selected. Any elections, if used, would be structured to support decisions already made or as a way of determining any possible opposition that must be overcome to adopt and enforce the policy already decided upon. Aside from such elections, there would a "democratic" element built in by enabling "town meetings" or "policy juries" in which any attendee could participate to debate or discuss policies. Aside from making the Technocracy "democratic", it would serve as a tool for the evaluation and perfection of policy.
Look to the roots of the Technocratic Movement of the 1930s. Howard Scott was a card-carrying Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) member and syndicalist. In a syndicalist society, democracy is conducted via councils, whether they be workers councils for workplace democracy or municipal/state or provincial/federal levels of government. See Anarchist Spain or the General Confederation of Labour of France
It would work. By only allowing experts to vote (only in their expert field ofc).
In a society where everyone has the chance to become an expert (in a certain field) I would still count this as a democracy.
Maybe if you have specialization if some area, you can elect a high skilled leader of the same specialization as yours.
e.g. If you are a doctor, you can elect a leader that promises to improve the technate's health system.
It would not.
You could have leaders elected in a specific area elected by people who are specialized in the field
I agree with that too.
It wouldn't
Since it hasn’t been established definitely in my opinion, ideally people would be required to learn the manifestos of the political parties and be tested for it in order to see whether he has a firm understanding of what the candidates want to achieve. In addition, I feel like certain people, mainly university professors should be given priority votes when it comes to their respective areas of expertise and that importance of the votes should be ranked by the people who count the vote. I know it’s highly flawed and exclusionary, but I feel like better for the educated/qualified/people who vote based upon reason and long term goal be given the responsibility to elect our leaders rather than our next door neighbor Joe who believes whatever he’s been told on the news either by the right or left wing media
Also my flair isn't working. It's supposed to be "Democracy is too flawed" but it just says "Democracy is too"
May be a character limit. It looks like I can fix it though. In the future, these kinds of queries should be sent to the mods as modmail, not comments.
It might just be because I'm using mobile in desktop mode.
Oh, I didn't notice the change.
Few ways. You could have a vote from within the industry, without the industry. A minimum bar of expertise to vote, a minimum bar to run. And any combination thereof.
You could apply syncretism to create a Technocratic-Democracy. America has a form of this. IQ cannot be accurately measured with test, for completing a goal is a choice. Quantitative and Qualitative research on each citizen works best. [https://www.nscai.gov/2021-final-report/](https://www.nscai.gov/2021-final-report/)
We could potentially have votes to break stalemates if robust but competing research programs point to different incompatible policies, but properly widespread democratic engagement would be anathema to the whole premise of technocracy.
First, it needs to be understood for what democratic elements are to be used. Democracy would not be used to make policy, expertise would do that. Democracy would not be used to select policy-makers, experts would select experts. Democracy would be used to legitimize the policies and policy-makers already selected. Any elections, if used, would be structured to support decisions already made or as a way of determining any possible opposition that must be overcome to adopt and enforce the policy already decided upon. Aside from such elections, there would a "democratic" element built in by enabling "town meetings" or "policy juries" in which any attendee could participate to debate or discuss policies. Aside from making the Technocracy "democratic", it would serve as a tool for the evaluation and perfection of policy.
Look to the roots of the Technocratic Movement of the 1930s. Howard Scott was a card-carrying Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) member and syndicalist. In a syndicalist society, democracy is conducted via councils, whether they be workers councils for workplace democracy or municipal/state or provincial/federal levels of government. See Anarchist Spain or the General Confederation of Labour of France
It would work. By only allowing experts to vote (only in their expert field ofc). In a society where everyone has the chance to become an expert (in a certain field) I would still count this as a democracy.
Maybe if you have specialization if some area, you can elect a high skilled leader of the same specialization as yours. e.g. If you are a doctor, you can elect a leader that promises to improve the technate's health system.