Objective

A key question for New Demarchy is which democratic variant produces the better decisions:

• election of professional politicians Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician as long-term political representatives
• expertise-weighted sortition Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition of citizens as atomistic decision makers

For the time being, before New Demarchy has achieved formal decision power, a proxy indicator is the direct comparison of the average error of politicians' and demarchic predictions.

Link: /mediadb/image/b7e96bffdb55478294f61663bbafe3d5/

Professional politicians may announce their policy decisions concurrently with a statement of their expected its desirable impact. There may be statements about undesirable effects too, and how these outweigh are outweighed by the positive ones. There may be also no mention of negative effects.

Evidence-based approach

Irrespective of whether bad forecasts cause bad decisions, or ideological decisions are just being rationalised with bad forecasts: forecasts are empirically falsifiable Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability in the sense of Austrian philosopher Karl Popper Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper . They such forecasts should be tracked and compared with final results to improve political accountability.

Professional politicians vs. demarchic decision makers

New Demarchy does not need professional politicians holding on to an office. All citizens appointed by expertise-weighted sortition continue their (non-political) profession once a decision is made.

All questions regarding the foundation decision:

• Pilot project
• Better forecasts
• Number of members