@skieswanne so, you're describing politics? This is exactly what already happens, my friend! Do you know what happens when a group of politicians does this? They lose influence, they lose power, and eventually fade into the background. That is democracy, and that can easily be applied to technocratic ideals. You are working under the assumption that it is impossible for a technocratic leader to lose power. You are also working under the assumption that this can't happen in our current systems. It can happen, and has happened.

Yes, it can happen - through a revolution. 

The elite, if its power is threatened, will simply modify laws to discourage any political leverage against them. Which ultimately leaves the people with only one tool - armed revolution. 

But is "armed revolution" truly the only tool we'll leave to our children? Will they inherit of a nation that just keeps on going through various civil wars, with long periods of increasing Elitist autocratism in between? 

I propose, instead, that we cull the possibility of an "Elite" at its root. Check the power of elected officials, and in the event the elected officials form an elite that divorces from the people's will, then elect replacements that don't have to be approved by the elite. 

Many people have already voiced their displeasure at the idea of a Constitutional Monarchy, so I'll just skip over that. My other main criticism is the Head of State having tremendous power, that is relatively unchecked. Specifically, the power to dissolve parliament, the ability to veto candidates for politcal station, and the decrees of the Head of State being law. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind these powers? Because they seem to give the HoS signficant power over the people and the rest of the governement.

I agree. In fact, a whole lot of people have expressed similar suggestions. This is why me and my teammate have removed, from our constitution draft, the power to veto and the power to dissolve the Parliament. 

Our Skieswanne-Ghodrati constitution can be found here: https://asgardia.space/en/forum/forum/constitution-132/topic/which-constitution-would-you-want-if-you-had-to-choose-today-5452/

@Xaphyr
As this is a democracy, I would not be surprised if the draft constitution is amended (...)

Where in the website or in the forum (or in the Constitutional draft) have you read this is a democracy?
This is the forum of a company, and we're "just users": as you can see admins/mods can ban us without having to justify their actions nor passing into a trial, is this what you call "democracy"?

While I understand your point of view, and widely agree with what you wrote in the next posts about technocracy, I've to remember you that I was just trying to tell you "what's going on" from my point of view, not what we would like to see happening.

We made a ton of proposals, people here gave even whole constitutional drafts, we commented and amended the Document of Unity as well, for over a month... and was those "contributions" took in count, at the time to write the constitutional draft? It doesn't seem to me.
The Constitutional draft itself, published on 18 may, was mostly "something to read" than "something to work on", from my point of view. Non english readers had their drafts translated even after 28 may, just to tell how much is important their contribution to the constitution's development.
But it's just to wait and see, now: I bet we'll have to vote on the official draft "as is", but let's see if they'll amend it and will present a second draft in time for us to read it and understand if to approve it or reject.

Technocracy all the way, I will probably refrain from joining a nation that aims to be revolutionary and modern, yet chooses a government form that is completely backwards.

This is starting to sound like a space dictatorship in the making, with our 'great leader' just a bit too willing to centralize power for his own good. No thanks!

Colleagues, all propose to return to the concept of NOOCRACY, when social and political status of the subject is determined by a combination of his intellect and competence. 

On a possible mechanism for the polling system I wrote in the discussion on the draft Constitution, the more that modern IT technologies allow. 

With the Executive branch more difficult, but here, too, obviously, ceteris paribus, the competitive advantage of the candidate is the product of IQ and "competence factor" (for example, if we were discussing Chinese classical Opera, my chances would be near zero). 

One of the problems that I see - really talented scientist or designer, as a rule, can not always be a good administrator, especially low level. 

It is immediately inherent conflict of interest when the creator constantly have to "step on self throat" in the public interest. 

Although there were exceptions - Sergei Korolev, for example, etc., but this works well in creative teams.

@skieswanne but again, you can literally make that argument about any other system in which a particular group of people hold power. I.e, every system we have today. No, they will have no more ability to keep themselves in power than current politicians. You consistently fail to acknowledge the fact that the ideal technocracy, and the technocracy I am talking about, merely replaces politicians with specialists in various fields. There is no extra risk of elitism or government controversy, it is literally the same. You are getting caught up in this irrational fear that a group of scientists is more susceptible to corruption than a group of politicians. It is definitely arguable that it is, in fact, the other way around.

Why not have a 'required dissident', then, in any technocratic decision?

The premise is when a decision is made, one person who disagreed with the majority is thereby tasked (and minimally funded) with testing the failing view. In essence, regardless of which view is agreed upon as the 'correct' view, the primary alternate view will also be investigated. If the alternate view is determined to be false, then the matter can be settled once and for all. If the alternative view is determined to be true, however, then it should be put forth to a new vote with the new information.

In this manner, no view is completely disregarded, regardless of any elitism among those who decide. It is far more scientific and democratic.

PUB

@phicksur

Hm, smart. This could work, but it would require ideal conditions. It'd require the other party to accept defeat and recognise that it has been proving wrong. Which might not happen in practice. 

Just look at the climate change thing. Countless scientists who won't recognise that AWG is real. 

A way to solve this is to leave the judgement to an impartal party - the people. But in which case it'd basically be equivalent to a direct democracy. 

@skieswanne are you really really sure "the people" is that "impartial" when things are related to ourselves? AFAIK that's the very basis of political parties, which have been made to defend the interests of groups... of people.

In science, the attitude of 'defeat' versus 'success' is misplaced. There are only competing theories, not egos.

When egos get involved, everything goes to shit.

OFE

@phicksur

Oh, I totally agree, this is obvious for you and me. 

But the group of "experts" which would form the technocratic government and to which the power will be bestowed, they will most probably quickly forget this. 

That's fundamentally why no one have to be sure to remain in charge for that long time: 1, 2 mandates at most, then must leave... or the "love for the chair" become prominent.
Mandates themselves have not to last for too long time: 5-7 years, no more.

@Elwe Thor 

"That's fundamentally why no one have to be sure to remain in charge for that long time: 1, 2 mandates at most, then must leave... or the "love for the chair" become prominent.
Mandates themselves have not to last for too long time: 5-7 years, no more."

Precisely. However, in the case of technocracy, there's a problem: the guys who occupy the seat of power are the very same guys who decide who's "qualified" to succession. 

There's a major conflict of interest.