I think “intelligibility” is a vastly underrated concept, possibly because it’s not intelligible for most people.
When you combine the complexity of the modern world with the the vast scope of government, perhaps the only plausible strategy to use is sound bites and oversimplifications.
If a person is never heard, how would he get popular in the first place?
Rather than give time to a speaker, take time away because of disagreement, not because of a speaker but because of a policy point that the user resonates with, but the speaker does not?
Three small thoughts:
1. For the words spoken vs polling average graph, if there are more data points, draw an L shaped graph similar to the data. reasoning: to see the minimum effective dose of communication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_curve https://en.chessbase.com/post/do-chess-players-and-scientists-need-intelligence
2. In the graph it is only for the more verbal tilted party. Imagine a similar graph but for the performance tilted party, there might be a divergence. reasoning: differences in discipline are tied to social affiliation. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2020/05/the-verbal-tilt-model/ https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2022/04/iqs-by-university-degrees/
3. Does intelligibility change the situation of "just talk more"? Short and easy vs long and jargon? https://kottke.org/14/10/the-reading-level-of-presidential-speeches
I think “intelligibility” is a vastly underrated concept, possibly because it’s not intelligible for most people.
When you combine the complexity of the modern world with the the vast scope of government, perhaps the only plausible strategy to use is sound bites and oversimplifications.
On making democracy work better, consider Swiss-style governance: https://250bpm.com/blog:161/.
It seems to work because the majority of citizens are well-versed in consensus decisionmaking because lots of people run clubs and associations
If a person is never heard, how would he get popular in the first place?
Rather than give time to a speaker, take time away because of disagreement, not because of a speaker but because of a policy point that the user resonates with, but the speaker does not?