Scott Raney
2018-04-16 21:07:16 UTC
Finally getting back to working on the Matchism Manifesto. Here's my
"new and improved" manager selection process design. Anything I
missed?
Regards,
Scott
==================================
Any adult-certified candidate may apply for Locality Manager by
filling out an application which will include biographical information
and links to social media and other informational pages. A nominal
filing fee should be required to discourage those seeking just to
disrupt the system.
Compensation packages for Locality and Globality Managers (salary,
housing, etc.) shall by specified by ordinance (no negotiation).
Compensation should be high by existing government standards (they
should be paid more like CEOs of comparably-sized companies than
mayors).
Organizations may publicly endorse a Candidate, but neither they nor
the candidate may pay for any promotion or advertising in support of
the candidate (no campaigning).
Each voter can express a preference for each Candidate (approve,
disapprove, abstain) as well as for the current Locality and Globality
Managers. Candidates are shown in The System ranked by approval
margins (number who approve minus the number who disapprove) averaged
daily over the month.
Candidates with a negative margin approval at the end of each month
will be deleted. They may reapply after a three month waiting period.
On the first of each month if the average daily margin of approval of
the top-ranked Candidate for the previous month was more than 10%
higher than current Manager, that Candidate will have 48 hours to
declare that they will accept the position as Manager. If they do,
they will be considered "Primed" to take over the job. If they refuse,
they will be removed from the candidate list and prohibited from
reapplying for one year and the process restarted for any additional
candidates who exceed the 10% threshold.
A Primed Candidate will contest to maintain daily average margin at
least a 10% above the existing Manager for a period of one month. If
this margin is maintained, the Primed Candidate becomes Manager
effective the 1st of the following month.
The transition period shall be one month. The incoming Manager
immediately gains ultimate authority on each decision, but may
delegate as necessary. Both managers are paid for the full month
regardless of hours put in. No new primed candidate can be announced
for the transition month thereby guaranteeing a new manager at least 3
months as a "trial period" before they can be replaced.
For Global Manager position, the Candidates are the Locality Managers
who have served at least one year, but the procedure is otherwise the
same. A separate tally of *global* approval ratings shall be
maintained for this list (i.e., each voter can make an approval
assessment for any Locality Manager, but only local votes count when
comparing the Locality Manager with the Candidates seeking to replace
them).
Any Locality Manager or the Globality Manager can be removed from
office effective immediately by a majority vote of the Locality
Managers. The replacement will come from the current sorted list of
Candidates, with one-month transition period starting immediately
after the vote to remove.
==================================
To provide a real-world simulation, Trump (average -13 margin) would
have been replaced by Charlie Baker (governor of Massachusetts,
average 55 margin) months ago. Of course Trump never would have been
put in office at all under this system as he never would even have
ever been able to become a Locality Manager.
A few features/benefits:
1) Because Manager selection is based margin rather than ratio
(approve divided by disapprove) it favors more well-known candidates
and for the Globality Manager, candidates from larger Localities.
Which is as it should be.
2) Candidates are "on" all the time: Their behavior should improve in
their existing positions because they can't afford to risk creating
dissatisfied customers in anything they do. This will do wonders to
eliminate bad actors even from non-government positions. This feature
may encourage risk-avoidance, but because ratings are in some sense
cumulative (human memory being a long-term thing) conservatism will
come with its own risks.
3) In hard times there will probably be a lot of turnover, which again
is as it should be: Worst thing is to elect someone who's "big words,
little action" and have to wait 4 years to get rid of them.
4) The "contest month" allows for debates and other informational
events, but is short enough that people won't get burned out on them
like they do in e.g., the US presidential campaign system.
5) The specified 10% margin is of course arbitrary: You want to set it
high enough to prevent churn, but low enough that there will be
turnover when there is a real difference between contenders.
The primary disadvantage I see of this system is that it would be
relatively difficult and rare for someone to replace the Local Manager
while being employed in the executive branch of that Locality (imagine
the working conditions!). I would therefore expect the majority of
Candidates to hold high-level positions in non-government
organizations or to come from neighboring Localities. But this seems
to me already to be the most common transition in our current system,
so I don't see it as a serious problem. A less-serious disadvantage is
Localities that find a really good Manager will probably lose them at
some point, but at least that person will continue to represent them
albeit at a more diluted level if the promotion is to Globality
Manager.
"new and improved" manager selection process design. Anything I
missed?
Regards,
Scott
==================================
Any adult-certified candidate may apply for Locality Manager by
filling out an application which will include biographical information
and links to social media and other informational pages. A nominal
filing fee should be required to discourage those seeking just to
disrupt the system.
Compensation packages for Locality and Globality Managers (salary,
housing, etc.) shall by specified by ordinance (no negotiation).
Compensation should be high by existing government standards (they
should be paid more like CEOs of comparably-sized companies than
mayors).
Organizations may publicly endorse a Candidate, but neither they nor
the candidate may pay for any promotion or advertising in support of
the candidate (no campaigning).
Each voter can express a preference for each Candidate (approve,
disapprove, abstain) as well as for the current Locality and Globality
Managers. Candidates are shown in The System ranked by approval
margins (number who approve minus the number who disapprove) averaged
daily over the month.
Candidates with a negative margin approval at the end of each month
will be deleted. They may reapply after a three month waiting period.
On the first of each month if the average daily margin of approval of
the top-ranked Candidate for the previous month was more than 10%
higher than current Manager, that Candidate will have 48 hours to
declare that they will accept the position as Manager. If they do,
they will be considered "Primed" to take over the job. If they refuse,
they will be removed from the candidate list and prohibited from
reapplying for one year and the process restarted for any additional
candidates who exceed the 10% threshold.
A Primed Candidate will contest to maintain daily average margin at
least a 10% above the existing Manager for a period of one month. If
this margin is maintained, the Primed Candidate becomes Manager
effective the 1st of the following month.
The transition period shall be one month. The incoming Manager
immediately gains ultimate authority on each decision, but may
delegate as necessary. Both managers are paid for the full month
regardless of hours put in. No new primed candidate can be announced
for the transition month thereby guaranteeing a new manager at least 3
months as a "trial period" before they can be replaced.
For Global Manager position, the Candidates are the Locality Managers
who have served at least one year, but the procedure is otherwise the
same. A separate tally of *global* approval ratings shall be
maintained for this list (i.e., each voter can make an approval
assessment for any Locality Manager, but only local votes count when
comparing the Locality Manager with the Candidates seeking to replace
them).
Any Locality Manager or the Globality Manager can be removed from
office effective immediately by a majority vote of the Locality
Managers. The replacement will come from the current sorted list of
Candidates, with one-month transition period starting immediately
after the vote to remove.
==================================
To provide a real-world simulation, Trump (average -13 margin) would
have been replaced by Charlie Baker (governor of Massachusetts,
average 55 margin) months ago. Of course Trump never would have been
put in office at all under this system as he never would even have
ever been able to become a Locality Manager.
A few features/benefits:
1) Because Manager selection is based margin rather than ratio
(approve divided by disapprove) it favors more well-known candidates
and for the Globality Manager, candidates from larger Localities.
Which is as it should be.
2) Candidates are "on" all the time: Their behavior should improve in
their existing positions because they can't afford to risk creating
dissatisfied customers in anything they do. This will do wonders to
eliminate bad actors even from non-government positions. This feature
may encourage risk-avoidance, but because ratings are in some sense
cumulative (human memory being a long-term thing) conservatism will
come with its own risks.
3) In hard times there will probably be a lot of turnover, which again
is as it should be: Worst thing is to elect someone who's "big words,
little action" and have to wait 4 years to get rid of them.
4) The "contest month" allows for debates and other informational
events, but is short enough that people won't get burned out on them
like they do in e.g., the US presidential campaign system.
5) The specified 10% margin is of course arbitrary: You want to set it
high enough to prevent churn, but low enough that there will be
turnover when there is a real difference between contenders.
The primary disadvantage I see of this system is that it would be
relatively difficult and rare for someone to replace the Local Manager
while being employed in the executive branch of that Locality (imagine
the working conditions!). I would therefore expect the majority of
Candidates to hold high-level positions in non-government
organizations or to come from neighboring Localities. But this seems
to me already to be the most common transition in our current system,
so I don't see it as a serious problem. A less-serious disadvantage is
Localities that find a really good Manager will probably lose them at
some point, but at least that person will continue to represent them
albeit at a more diluted level if the promotion is to Globality
Manager.