It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Deviation Index - A New Way to Quantify Democracy

page: 1
17
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2021 @ 05:05 PM

In Isaac Asimov's Foundation novel series, there is a character named Hari Seldon. This character eventually comes up with a formula to calculate the evolution of an entire civilization over thousands of years. Although my own formula is not capable of such a feat, I do feel that having the capacity of at least quantifying a concept such as Democracy is nevertheless a considerable start.

Democracy is, by definition, the power by the people. In the past, it has been claimed that democracy is a vague concept that should be open to interpretations. I disagree with that view.

The corruption of democracy is invariably accompanied by attacks on people's fundamental rights. This is because those rights ensure a proper democracy, and when an entity seeks power for itself, the fundamental rights of people become an obstacle.

Therefore, it is possible to establish a relatively stable formula to calculate democracy. I have come to call it the Deviation factor, in honour to the Stein's Gate fictional time travel Japanese series. The Deviation factor ranges from 0.0000, which indicates a full democracy aligned with the will of the people, up to 1.0000, which indicates a full dictatorship that is completely misaligned with the proper democratic concept.

And here's how to calculate it.

The formula relies on twenty-two fundamental rights that are internationally recognized as such. The formula is intended to analyze any political system, and is presented as a series of Yes/No questions. The Analyst may be any person, not just a scientist or political figure. In fact, for any particular political system, it is favorable that the most people use the formula, so that all results can be compiled, so to obtain a truly democratic average.

The proposed formula is D = (a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i+j+k+l+m+n+o+p+q+r+s+t+u+v)/22, in which "a" to "v" are specific questions that the Analyst may answer either with yes ("1") or no ("0").

If, for instance, all answers are "1" ("yes"), then the formula will read (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)/22, which translates to a Deviation of 1.0000, indicating a full dictatorship. On the other hand, if all answers are "0" ("no"), then (0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0)/22 gives a Deviation of 0.0000, indicating a full democracy.

edit on 17-12-2021 by swanne because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 17 2021 @ 05:05 PM
In the completion of the formula, here are the questions that the Analysts are required to evaluate:

a: "In the political system you are reviewing, are some people being discriminated? In other words, are there restrictions placed on some people, based on their personal beliefs, or any other personal factors?" Yes = 1, No = 0

b: "Are there restrictions placed in the name of a 'greater good', restrictions that also happen to bypass one or more rights?" Yes = 1, No = 0

c: "Are some people denied access to justice in the event another entity violates their rights?" Yes = 1, No = 0

d: "Are some people being encouraged to injure, neutralize or terminate the existence of other people in the same system?" Yes = 1, No = 0

e: "Are some rights prioritised over other rights?" Yes = 1, No = 0

f: "Are people forced to carry out tasks against their will? Are they imposed negative consequences if they refuse to carry out a task?" Yes = 1, No = 0

g: "Are there people that are subjected to humiliation, physical pain, or psychological pain, against their will?" Yes = 1, No = 0

h: "Are there people being arrested for arbitrary reasons? Are there people being detained (either in a facility or in their own houses) for arbitrary reasons?" Yes = 1, No = 0

i: "If accused of a misconduct, are some people denied a full, impartial trial with a proper defense and a fully independent jury?" Yes = 1, No = 0

j: "Are people being spied upon, within their own properties?" Yes = 1, No = 0

k: "Are people being forbidden from escaping the system if it becomes corrupted? Are people being forbidden to live outside of the system ('off grid')? Are there restrictions on living outside of the system?" Yes = 1, No = 0

l: "Are there people being stripped from their status as fellow 'people', for apparently arbitrary reasons, but with the underlying intention of stripping them from their rights?" Yes = 1, No = 0

m: "Does the system have the ability to steal a person's properties?" Yes = 1, No = 0

n: "Are people being forbidden from speaking of some political topics? Are some people's voices being restricted so to eliminate criticism that could portray the system or any mainstream entity in a negative light?" Yes = 1, No = 0

o: "Are people being forbidden from physically assembling and forming physical groups?" Yes = 1, No = 0

p: "Are some people's opinions ignored during the the decision making process of the system? Does the system have an agenda that has not been directly approved by the people? Do people feel like the system is independent from them? Is the system behaving in a 'system vs people' manner, rather than as a 'system by the people'?" Yes = 1, No = 0

q: "Are people forbidden or restricted from practicing self-sufficiency?" Yes = 1, No = 0

r: "Are there people being forbidden or discouraged from enjoying periodic rest, or from enjoying retirement?" Yes = 1, No = 0

s: "Are some people being denied from enjoying educational material?" Yes = 1, No = 0

t: "Are some people being forbidden from participating in the system's cultural life? Are some people forbidden to attend points of cultural value?" Yes = 1, No = 0

u: "Are some people being forced into receiving bodily modifications? Are there people being forced to wear a device, to receive a substance, to be added something, or to be removed something, either forcefully or under the threat of penalties if such people refuse?" Yes = 1, No = 0

v: "Are there people being denied the right to life? Are some people being convinced to terminate their existence, either forcefully, or through subtle political messages?" Yes = 1, No = 0

posted on Dec, 17 2021 @ 05:06 PM
Using this formula gives us the ability to quantify the democracy of any political system; and to find interesting results. For instance, using this formula, I have evaluated 2019 Canada to have a Deviation of 0.2273. However, using the same formula, I have estimated 2021 Canada to now have a Deviation of 0.5455, which is more than halfway away from the fully democratic value.

It must be noted that some variables may require investigation before completion. For instance, where I live in Canada, Variable "m" ("Does the system have the ability to steal a person's properties?") is actually Yes, as our government has the ability to expropriate any person from their real estate properties, for any reasons. So completion of the formula must be carried out with care, and is more likely to underestimate the Deviation of the system, rather than overestimate it.

posted on Dec, 17 2021 @ 06:07 PM
Very impressive! đŻ

But aren't the results based on honest answers though, because not everyone is honest with themselves, so being dishonest on a questionnaire doesn't sting internally or give accurate result?

It's a barrier in it's self, having to admit nothing stings really stings. đ¤

Some of those questions sting as having wanted to answer maybe, or idk. đŹ

...if someone I trust can answer some questions for me, it'd be like an introduction to full circle riddling our rights away. We have to trust each our own better judgement, but some lack the capacity and are vulnerable to exploitation/wanton slayings.

Fusion occurs between two things meshing/interactions we're all susceptible to confusion... a leveraging arm against us to exploit us.

So identifying those that leverage to exploit us would be my priority number one. đŞ

Good to see ya!
đâ¤

posted on Dec, 17 2021 @ 06:13 PM
Is this a systematic metric or can it also be used to gauge an official's ethics as a public servant on a minute executive basis?

posted on Dec, 17 2021 @ 10:40 PM
I'm fairly anal when approaching a problem and often that produces good results. However, I frequently ask myself, "Why bother?" I like your analysis and process, but for what end? To justify what you already are sure about? Seems obvious without all the math, a severely anal methodology IMO, but necessary for nailing down the numbers.

posted on Dec, 18 2021 @ 07:24 AM

I would say I have a very scientific mind. So, I would say that the purpose for a coherent quantification of democracy (in other words, "giving a number" to the democratic nature of a system), is to remove any political gray area. It's easy for a politician to say, "sure, we suspended some rights, but it's not that bad". How do you define "not that bad"? What value does it have in real life, this "not that bad"?

The Deviation I propose, on the other hand, provides a concrete number, and a stable one at that. To illustrate what I mean, I have used the formula to calculate the Deviation of local Quebec government, in Canada. I will share the results with you here.

2018-era Canada scores a deviation of 0.2272.
However, 2021-era Canada now scores a deviation of 0.5909.

This means that in real life, this government has jumped by over 0.3 points away from a complete democracy; and is now over halfway towards the other end.

Using the formula, we can see that the "not that bad" propaganda we are being fed is actually kinda really bad, since we now have a number to quantify it.

__________________________________________

It was primarily designed to analyse a political system, rather than any specific officials. Officials are bound to obey rulebooks (or money...), so their actions can be rather complex to analyse. As a result, the Deviation measures the system as a whole. It is easier to quantify a large system than a small one such as an official. However, your idea is most certainly interesting, and might be rather useful in domains such as psychology.

__________________________________________

This is an important issue you raise. I would think that some people, by the nature of their professions, might be more confident regarding some of the Questions of the formula. I am thinking about those that study laws, but also managers, since they all need to get familiar with documents.

Of course, however, the formula is meant to be completed by any people. When in doubt about any of the formula's Questions, I propose that we subscribe to the "innocent until proven guilty" ethics, and answer "no" to that particular Question. It'll be obvious if it's a "yes". So if it's not that obvious, it's more likely to be a "no".

Having many, many people use this formula to calculate the Deviation of a System will allow everyone to form an average, which will be increasingly accurate the more people announce their own findings. Some people support the status quo, and might underestimate the Deviation. Other people might oppose the status quo, and overestimate the Deviation. Combined, all results can be compiled into an average that is much closer to the truth.

edit on 18-12-2021 by swanne because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 18 2021 @ 02:54 PM

Impressive mate , I don't follow your line of thought but none the less this is impressive .

posted on Dec, 18 2021 @ 03:28 PM
I'm impressed by the effort, and give kudos for the reference to Asimov's Foundation series, loved reading that as a kid. I think we all should be sharing this with friends & family to see what they think the answer should be, whatever calculations they can come up with in the current climate. Whether people would answer honestly though, or simply act like nothing's wrong, what can we say?

I estimate the UK to be somewhere around the midpoint, 0.5 at the moment, whereas Australia would be a definite 1.0 on the scale. Same for New Zealand, Austria, and Germany almost as bad. Canada is a little worse off than the UK as far as I can tell, but you're a resident so I bow to your superior wisdom on that count.

posted on Dec, 22 2021 @ 07:21 AM

Greetings neighbor.
Obstacle-26269966â˘ reporting.

Thanks for the thought exercise.
Have sometimes a difficult time understanding some threads but it seems as though you have made an effort to make this concept rather accessible to a larger swath of the population.

Found it easy to grasp the concept, and participate in the exercise.
Found the language and presentation very accessible.
Your effort in making it so : is noticed and appreciated.

But it is difficult for me to evaluate objectively, because of the of my views on The Technocraticâ˘ Globalâ˘ Flu D'Ătatâ˘ of 2020.
Glanced at your profile again, and noticed that you are familiar with the Technocraticâ˘ agendas, and accompanying Propagandaâ˘.

Will give it a shot, and it will be relative to your evaluation, as it has many of the same players.
However my thinking brings me to include all of the top-down, centralized organizations, whom are now dictating policy to our lower-level, more localized Governmentsâ˘. ( See the image/concept of the GPPPâ˘ on the second page of the linked thread. )

A-1 ; b-1 ; c-1 ; d-1 ; e-1 ; f-1 ; g-1 ; h-1 ; i-1 ; j-1 ; k-1 ; l-1 ; m-1 ; n-1 ; o-1 ; p-1 ; q-1 ; r-1 ; s-1 ; t-1 ; u-1 ; v-1 .

Ooops....

Deviation of 1.0000.

But if you tell the slaves that they're free enough times : they will believe they are free.

Honestly : the use of terms like 'some', requires only one example to produce a '1'.
Perhaps this on purpose, to expose weaknesses in the system being evaluated.

Even filtering the concept through my analogue thought-processes : still produces an alarmingly high number.
Could probably supply a link to support most, almost all of those '1''s.

We be fooked...

Imagine if we considered that locally-operating businesses, must also fall within the labour laws (Political-Systemâ˘), of the area ?
Why should we not include how folks are treated by their employers, as far as inequality and discrimination goes, at least ?

Forcing medical dictates on healthy people is Tyrannicalâ˘ .

My ideas and opinions expressed, are not objective, nor any kind of permanent 'Truthsâ˘'.
Just what is being experienced, here and now, in this ephemeral moment.

edit on 22-12-2021 by Nothin because: Hehehe

posted on Jan, 11 2022 @ 05:09 PM

I see what you did there.

posted on Jan, 11 2022 @ 06:52 PM

In the U.S. the One federal constitution guarantees those rights no matter that the 50 other state constitutions say about it... unfortunately, injustice on a massive scale(like vehicle recalls) before the Federal justice department grabs the state attorney and says what the hell is wrong with you people being in gross violation of the citizen's rights in your state? That person has to answer to the justice department not to the senators or representatives in the separation of powers that have made those laws and represent those people as a result of those laws. Redistricting is how they like to population sample as well as throw power around to the Federal as a generalization.

For example; when my states governor said too many people of color were being disproportionately arrested they decided to start profiling and arresting based on personal discrimination of other people... to make it appear as the numbers of incarceration wasn't so disproportionate to people of color. In other words increasing their arrests of other populations to balance those numbers in diversity instead of fix the system that they control... meaning it would look good on paper as the numbers or balance goes but as far as the freedoms restricted? EVEN WORSE... when it just applied the same wrong tactics to everyone... making it even more discriminatory than it was previously.

A crime is a crime and guilty is guilty... However; being arrested for things not illegal by the US constitution? Because of contractors with the state want to run freedom breaking experiments on a sample populace? Not cool.

Personally, suing them isn't the way... as it robs the voice of all of those injustices done to everyone by discrimination etc. it also doesn't trigger a class action to remove those illegal operations; Meaning... The attorney of the state has no answer to the Feds so they step in and put the screws to them forcing the state constitution to match the federal as it should be.

All but a couple were "Y" in direct knowing and experience; One n/a(as in no personal experience) and one could go either way based on the perceived need to weasel out of responsibility using a granted right to do so on another.

What's the precedent of President J Biden wanting Covid shots on everyone? All the other states that have forced or mandated injections of other sorts on their populace.

Meaning two wrongs never add up to being the right things to do; other than learning from it and stop or cease and desist in doing such things altogether.

edit on 11-1-2022 by Crowfoot because: editing

top topics

17