Is the United States of America a stupid country? It is according a recent article in the Huffington Post by comedian/political commentator Bill Maher. After going through a litany of depressing factoids about the state of of knowledge of the average American he admits to being an elitist and claims "Yes, I want decisions made by an elite group of people who know what they're talking about." That seems like a good idea, but how do you find this elite group of people, and once you have found them, how do you keep them making good decisions for everybody. Ikanocracy to the rescue.
...and that's all I have to say about that.
Thursday, 24 November 2011
Tuesday, 22 November 2011
Why you should support Ikanocracy!
If I was in charge, things would be running so much better!
I could make much better decisions than those idiots in (insert government seat here)!
If you agree with the above statements, then Ikanocracy is for you. In the long term, it gives all you, and other good decision makers, a chance to accumulate vote share and have a real effect on government decisions.
Perhaps you don't have that much confidence in your decision making capability. Here are two reasons why you should still support Ikanocracy. First is the completely selfless reason that while you may not have confidence in your own decision making, you can be confident that people who do make good decisions will have more say in Ikanocracy. Second, you may actually still be a good decision maker but have fallen prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon, where persons of low competence are unable to assess their own competence level relative to their peers and so often have an unwarranted and erroneously high level of confidence in their ability, while persons of high competence tend to assume a high competence level in their peers, and so often have a erroneously low level of confidence in their ability. This leads to a general inverse relation between competence and confidence.
This worries me a bit, since I created Ikanocracy partly as a "release valve" for my frustrations with our current political system. Too many times I saw politicians (municipal, provincial or national) making what I considered to be hare-brained decisions, and too many times I thought that I could do better. Perhaps I am on the wrong side of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Well, I am willing to take my chances. If someday Ikanocracy is adopted and my voting share erodes, I will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that good decisions are being made.
I could make much better decisions than those idiots in (insert government seat here)!
If you agree with the above statements, then Ikanocracy is for you. In the long term, it gives all you, and other good decision makers, a chance to accumulate vote share and have a real effect on government decisions.
Perhaps you don't have that much confidence in your decision making capability. Here are two reasons why you should still support Ikanocracy. First is the completely selfless reason that while you may not have confidence in your own decision making, you can be confident that people who do make good decisions will have more say in Ikanocracy. Second, you may actually still be a good decision maker but have fallen prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon, where persons of low competence are unable to assess their own competence level relative to their peers and so often have an unwarranted and erroneously high level of confidence in their ability, while persons of high competence tend to assume a high competence level in their peers, and so often have a erroneously low level of confidence in their ability. This leads to a general inverse relation between competence and confidence.
This worries me a bit, since I created Ikanocracy partly as a "release valve" for my frustrations with our current political system. Too many times I saw politicians (municipal, provincial or national) making what I considered to be hare-brained decisions, and too many times I thought that I could do better. Perhaps I am on the wrong side of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Well, I am willing to take my chances. If someday Ikanocracy is adopted and my voting share erodes, I will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that good decisions are being made.
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
The cost of a trained seal
According to an article by the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) the Conservative government's proposal to add 30 new Members to Parliament (MPs) will cost over $15 million per year, over $500,000 per Member. This is the marginal cost. According to The Hill Times, it cost $561 million to run Parliament last year. However you crunch the numbers, that is a lot to pay for trained seals ( as Prime Minister Trudeau once called MPs) or a Sham (as the House of Commons was called in a recent MacLean's article ). MPs have become even more irrelevant since Trudeau's time, as successive Prime Ministers concentrated more and more power in the Prime Minister's Office. Party leaders have become more powerful and MPs have been reduced to being counters; in Ikanocracy terms, physical representations of the voting shares of each political party in the House of Commons.
This is a lot of money to pay for counters. In an Ikanocracy, none of these MPs would be needed (and of course the Senate would go as well), and all that money saved could be either returned to the taxpayers, or spent on something worthwhile, like upgrades to our Education or Healthcare Systems.
Perhaps we could keep some of the money to turn Parliament into a Museum. We could even invite citizens with large voting shares to come to Ottawa periodically and perhaps again have some intelligent debate in those chambers.
This is a lot of money to pay for counters. In an Ikanocracy, none of these MPs would be needed (and of course the Senate would go as well), and all that money saved could be either returned to the taxpayers, or spent on something worthwhile, like upgrades to our Education or Healthcare Systems.
Perhaps we could keep some of the money to turn Parliament into a Museum. We could even invite citizens with large voting shares to come to Ottawa periodically and perhaps again have some intelligent debate in those chambers.
Tuesday, 15 November 2011
A natural governance system for a technological society
For tens of thousands of years, humans lived as scavengers or hunter/gatherers in relatively small social groups (estimates range from 30 to 150 people) and pre-humans lived similar existences for hundreds of thousands of years before that. This background has left an evolutionary stamp on modern humans. For example, according to British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, it is hardwired into humans to be able to maintain stable social relationships with a maximum of 150 people (Dunbar's Number). Evidence suggests that these hunter/gatherer social groups were non-hierarchical, with decisions made by the group as a whole. It is likely that some persons ( e.g. the wise elders) in the social group would have had higher status and would have had greater influence on any decision. How did they achieve the status of wise elder? By having a track record of making good decisions.
Ikanocracy is a natural technological evolution of this hunter/gatherer governance system to a technological society. We no longer live in small groups where we can have social interactions with all members of society to determine who has been a good decision maker. Ikanocracy formalizes the informal social process of deciding whose opinions should be given greater weight in decision making.
Ikanocracy is a natural technological evolution of this hunter/gatherer governance system to a technological society. We no longer live in small groups where we can have social interactions with all members of society to determine who has been a good decision maker. Ikanocracy formalizes the informal social process of deciding whose opinions should be given greater weight in decision making.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
