5 ms·

To be honest I think actually direct meritocracy would be beneficial - you build up a page rank as a human being based on your contribution to society and that

To be honest I think actually direct meritocracy would be beneficial - you build up a page rank as a human being based on your contribution to society and that reflects your ability to vote in the system. It would essentially remove the career politician and allow people to actually understand things like what their politicians/highest value contributors did rather than now what we have. No-one would ever go for it, but I actually think it'd be great if nurses, doctors, social workers, environmentalists, and yes entrepreneurs who had done well, charity founders, bin men etc. all got more voting rights than me who types into a computer all day for no real societal improvements. The rich get a disproportionate amount of say anyway, it'd be more even than it is currently. All public good works would obviously have to be recorded through the system and you might eventually be able to do away with money based upon this. I think it could definitely be worth building and doing away with local government as a starter ;-)

fenaer 10y ago
"Contributing to society" is a very broad and ill-defined subject. What I may consider beneficial, others might not see it that way. It is very subjective.
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  Pagerank solves this though right? Everyone can choose to rank certain professions/people every few years, better than we have now.
  - thwarted 10y ago
    That isn't an appropriate description of how PageRank works.
    - andy_ppp 10y ago
      Do I have to provide a link for you? I'm genuinely serious about everyone ranking (linking = rating) each other for positive contribution to society and then allowing them to have more of a vote. Maybe rankings would be a bit more like chess than PageRank but I'm convinced we could come up with something fairer than it is now.
      - thwarted 10y ago
        Do I have to provide a link for you? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Here are some links I'm providing to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie
SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
Who picks the ranking algorithm? What we have now is basically what you propose, except with an ensemble of ranking algorithms based on algorithm selection and execution from the public. Without a better source of algorithm selection, why would it end up any better?
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  Everyone picks the rankings via pagerank-for-people algorithm...
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    If everyone has a personal algorithm for ranking the people, then you have the same system with the same problems. Everyone already has a personal measure of value for the people they're voting on and a system for computing that value. Ed: If you don't have personalized algorithms, the algorithm selection process will be co-opted to create an autocracy. We actually see a blend of those problems in the modern system, where voters have disengaged from the primary process and allow the aggregate ranking algorithm to go unchecked. Of course, more ranking algorithms doesn't resolve how you mediate conflicting outputs (which you've failed to address) and why that would produce better outcomes than elections.
macawfish 10y ago
Value just isn't one dimensional like that. One man's junk is another man's treasure!
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  Well currently we only have money as a measure so my system providing an alternative valuation of merit isn't a terrible idea...
  - macawfish 10y ago
    There are many ways to give positive feedback. Money is only one system. Sure, it's prevelant, but it's not the only way people measure or indicate appreciation. For example, there are situations where a sincere gesture of gratitude means a lot more than money ever could. Reminds me of the trap I often get into of thinking that if something isn't on google, it must not exist. People often get caught thinking that something's common monetary value is equivalent to its worth, to its potential. That's just not true!
    - andy_ppp 10y ago
      Why is my scoring system so much worse than the current ones? They can exist in parallel, no need to participate if you don't like it.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
booleandilemma 10y ago
But I like how my vote counts as much as the votes of Bill Gates and the Walmart Greeter. Your system wouldn't work for entire classes of people: coal miners, welders, fishermen, and yes, software engineers, to name a few. Not everyone can work in a job that provides "real societal improvements", whatever that means. And not everyone wants to. Yes, the rich get a disproportionate amount of say, but that's because they can just afford to spend money on advertising and lobbying. Their vote isn't actually worth more than mine or yours. No one's is, and that's great, in my opinion.
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  You can vote and contribute as much or as little as you like to the functioning of society. That would be the point - but it is a fun experiment to think about the world in a different way. I'm pretty certain we shouldn't give people who are rich such excessive influence. Probably what would really happen is the exact opposite of what I want the system to do and everyone would vote for fascism for a laugh.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
I've only seen the movie, but this sounds like the type of society espoused by Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers where "service guarantees citizenship"

fenaer 10y ago

"Contributing to society" is a very broad and ill-defined subject. What I may consider beneficial, others might not see it that way. It is very subjective.

andy_ppp 10y ago
Pagerank solves this though right? Everyone can choose to rank certain professions/people every few years, better than we have now.
- thwarted 10y ago
  That isn't an appropriate description of how PageRank works.
  - andy_ppp 10y ago
    Do I have to provide a link for you? I'm genuinely serious about everyone ranking (linking = rating) each other for positive contribution to society and then allowing them to have more of a vote. Maybe rankings would be a bit more like chess than PageRank but I'm convinced we could come up with something fairer than it is now.
    - thwarted 10y ago
      Do I have to provide a link for you? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Here are some links I'm providing to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

Who picks the ranking algorithm? What we have now is basically what you propose, except with an ensemble of ranking algorithms based on algorithm selection and execution from the public. Without a better source of algorithm selection, why would it end up any better?

andy_ppp 10y ago
Everyone picks the rankings via pagerank-for-people algorithm...
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  If everyone has a personal algorithm for ranking the people, then you have the same system with the same problems. Everyone already has a personal measure of value for the people they're voting on and a system for computing that value. Ed: If you don't have personalized algorithms, the algorithm selection process will be co-opted to create an autocracy. We actually see a blend of those problems in the modern system, where voters have disengaged from the primary process and allow the aggregate ranking algorithm to go unchecked. Of course, more ranking algorithms doesn't resolve how you mediate conflicting outputs (which you've failed to address) and why that would produce better outcomes than elections.

macawfish 10y ago

Value just isn't one dimensional like that. One man's junk is another man's treasure!

andy_ppp 10y ago
Well currently we only have money as a measure so my system providing an alternative valuation of merit isn't a terrible idea...
- macawfish 10y ago
  There are many ways to give positive feedback. Money is only one system. Sure, it's prevelant, but it's not the only way people measure or indicate appreciation. For example, there are situations where a sincere gesture of gratitude means a lot more than money ever could. Reminds me of the trap I often get into of thinking that if something isn't on google, it must not exist. People often get caught thinking that something's common monetary value is equivalent to its worth, to its potential. That's just not true!
  - andy_ppp 10y ago
    Why is my scoring system so much worse than the current ones? They can exist in parallel, no need to participate if you don't like it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

booleandilemma 10y ago

But I like how my vote counts as much as the votes of Bill Gates and the Walmart Greeter. Your system wouldn't work for entire classes of people: coal miners, welders, fishermen, and yes, software engineers, to name a few. Not everyone can work in a job that provides "real societal improvements", whatever that means. And not everyone wants to. Yes, the rich get a disproportionate amount of say, but that's because they can just afford to spend money on advertising and lobbying. Their vote isn't actually worth more than mine or yours. No one's is, and that's great, in my opinion.

andy_ppp 10y ago
You can vote and contribute as much or as little as you like to the functioning of society. That would be the point - but it is a fun experiment to think about the world in a different way. I'm pretty certain we shouldn't give people who are rich such excessive influence. Probably what would really happen is the exact opposite of what I want the system to do and everyone would vote for fascism for a laugh.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

I've only seen the movie, but this sounds like the type of society espoused by Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers where "service guarantees citizenship"