ShowerThoughts09 – AI elects president?

The recent US presidential election has once again become incredibly contentious, and just like four years ago, the two candidates have deterred a large portion of independent voters from casting their ballots. In this electoral system, voters are largely forced to receive information and then make a choice. Aside from the staunch supporters on both sides who don't need to think, making a choice is quite a mentally taxing process for everyone else.

There's a general consensus that universal suffrage cannot determine the optimal option; it's merely a compromise. This is because there will inevitably be "fools" among the population, and given the composition of society, they will likely constitute the majority; otherwise, society would be highly unstable. However, universal suffrage is a safer method than drastic measures; at least if problems arise, there's an opportunity to rectify them. The core development of the United States doesn't rely on its political system, but rather on its stable environment. This provides opportunities for businesses to thrive, and coupled with its ability to attract top talent from around the world, it perpetuates its inherent advantages.

On the other hand, a centralized leadership team can propel a country forward rapidly because centralized power can address key issues and drive overall progress. However, problems are also prominent and often hidden. A real-world example is a company. For a company to grow rapidly, it needs a strong leader; if the leader is incompetent, even the best project will fail. Conversely, a very good project is unlikely to succeed without good company leadership. Furthermore, the departure or replacement of a company's core leaders can lead to significant instability. And a series of flawed decisions by leadership can also cause the company to close down.

For progress to occur, humanity must choose relatively centralized power, but how can we ensure that this centralized power is not flawed? I thought of using objective data. On the one hand, this can prevent irrational, fanatical voters from being misled. On the other hand, objective data can ensure the reliability of candidates.

The specific model needs to be built on a digital society, meaning everyone has a database where their abilities and weaknesses can be objectively presented through data, much like a football manager showcasing player capabilities. Next, people, like a parliament, would negotiate and compromise to decide what needs to be accomplished within the next four years (this doesn't need to be overly detailed; a computer could also handle this, but since computers lack interpersonal skills, human negotiation is preferable). Once all decisions are made, they would be submitted to a computer, which would calculate a list of the most suitable people to accomplish these tasks. Each candidate would then be invited to be president, ranked from highest to lowest, or a general election would be held among these individuals. Since all candidates are reliable, regardless of their rhetoric, choosing anyone is a safe bet.

This process still requires a lot of optimization, as it is far more complex in reality. Moreover, the various vested interests involved mean that without major reforms, it's unlikely to be implemented. However, it can be used in environments with fewer conflicts of interest, such as families, or temporarily as a supplementary system, like in the current US presidential election, where the digital society makes all the information about both candidates public, then scores them, presenting the results to voters without drawing conclusions.