I want to see a polity in which experts selected through merit-based examinations create policies, and then these policies are consolidated into concrete plans by means of prediction markets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market Since the prediction market will almost always rate one single plan the most attractive at any given point in time, there will be no crippling hesitation from this government. Finally and most importantly, juries selected from the entire body of citizens through sortition will have strong and vigorously enforced veto powers over the plans pinpointed by the joint efforts of the experts and financial speculators. So ideally, experts, financial speculators and the public will all contribute their unique talents and perspectives to form a smart, highly responsive administration. This is inspired by theorists of creativity like Henri Poincare who point out that the process of discovering solutions involves enumerating a whole lot of likely approaches on the basis of expert knowledge, and then selecting ones that are likely to work the best. Hopefully the money motive will keep the speculators on track in the latter respect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb-6ikXdOzE&feature=player_detailpage#t=2392 In politics, we need a way to prevent the system from breaking down into tyranny, so the input of the untutored public is crucial to success. We have secure systems for casting lots these days: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3797 Chinese meritocracy is another source of inspiration, but notice that my scholar-officials are not directly in control of things. No one is. Moreover, in China, control over the scholar-officials was exercised by the hereditary aristocracy rather than speculators who just want to make money by being right about whether the plans will work out or not and the public had no veto power. Since there is a highly active veto system, no one will bother making plans that will obviously end up being vetoed by the public. Confucian ideology has no place in my system either, so there's no built-in reverence for the head of state or other figures of power and no eight-legged essay. The experts will be tested for competence in accordance with recognized modern academic standards rather than aptitude in prose composition and poetry. But if it turns out that the public vetos every single plan that the experts and the speculators come up with, then I don't think we should switch to some kind of a vote from among the highest rated plans because I'm not sure we can trust financial speculators with the power to directly set the agenda for a non-open-ended election. OTOH, courts of law would never have functioned at all if juries had that kind of attitude, right? Or maybe juries might take a while to get used to the new system or something before they stop vetoing every plan? In any case, my gut instinct says that won't happen in a non-failed state if the public takes these events seriously, which they should since the alternative would wreck the country. Where do you think this system is most likely to fail?
I like the Sortition lower house. If you give all eligible people a number of 1 to the number in their demographic, portioned equally, and represent that in base 2, 0's and 1's, you can select someone just by flipping a coin. As for the upper house, that is debatable. The powers that be will not let academics make the decisions. They will want their money to pay campaign costs so they can control the upper house. I think having the popular veto lower house is the only compromise that is viable. You need a powerful governor to take control. You get to choose between two powerful ones, at least those made to sound good by the moneyed interests paying their campaign costs. If you put that kind of power in the hands of academics, a way will be found to control who wins. I do think the house of popular veto weakens the government just enough that it removes incentive to take over the system.
Chinese meritocracy is certainly superior to how we operate, but I see your qualms with the associated reverence of the state. This country isn't smart enough to understand that some are more qualified than others, hence our obsession with democracy. Every one in this country is raised to believe they are a genius, so you can kiss any reasonable proposals goodbye. I like the way you think, but it's a pointless exercise that will NEVER gain any ground in a western society.
I agree the meritocracy will never gain ground. Big campaign donors won't like it. Many commoners won't like it. Even academics like myself will ask, "Who gets to decide who is smart? Is the person with a PhD in women's studies smarter than the wealthy small business owner who lacks a high school education?" However, I think my lottery selected lower house that is a scale replica of the electorate would be acceptable to common voters. It also would appeal to women who want gender parity, and men who are afraid of the 56% female electorate. If it is just the lower house, the rich might go a long with it too. Academics will think the best good comes from 2 houses with different sources. The problem is it might have more gridlock, unless we get rid of governor veto. That is a tougher sell, since everyone worships the founders. I say the governor has too much power.
