ShowerThoughts04 – Democratic Compromise

I've recently become obsessed with watching Taiwanese political talk shows, watching them every day like a drama series. Taiwan is a place with very extreme politics, and the media's stances are very clear-cut, with blue, green, and even neutral white camps. Even programs that claim to be neutral have obvious biases. Moreover, there are different camps within the blue and green camps, which I find incredibly entertaining.

In my observation, each camp's programs only discuss a portion of the facts, and to see the whole picture, you have to watch several channels. This is also a problem that arises when "democracy" is taken to its extreme—everyone acts in their own self-interest.

A system is a set of inanimate rules, like the rules of a game. Once the rules are set, everyone can openly "manipulate" them, maximizing their own interests within the bounds of the rules. Taiwan seems to be facing this problem now; discussions of democracy and systems have transcended "morality," so as long as the system allows it, morality is irrelevant.

This made me think about the current Western democratic system. Can universal suffrage truly elect a good leader? I think the possibility is very small. More likely, it just elects a "compromiser"—neither too good nor too bad. Because it's impossible for the entire population to learn about and understand the candidate's true character, thoughts, and information through propaganda; such a vote is essentially invalid.

What kind of election is effective? For example, in a small village with only 100 people, everyone interacts daily, has lived together for many years, and knows each other intimately. In this situation, an election allows everyone to comprehensively assess whether a candidate is capable of serving as village chief. In most cases, there won't be many candidates for village chief because everyone knows each other's abilities. Only such an election can produce a truly qualified candidate.

So, is there a solution? Yes, it's data standardization. Assuming our information from birth to the present is recorded, we can calculate each person's numerical values in various aspects, like strength and agility in a game (though much more complex). With this data, we can determine a candidate's suitability directly from the data itself. Therefore, an election system is unnecessary; a hierarchical process is sufficient, with suitable candidates being selected level by level, and each level having a small circle of acquaintances voting to choose the final candidate.

Have you ever seen a rapidly growing company whose CEO, directors, or general manager are elected?

Does this sound like the system in China? Very similar, but different. (End)