Measured governing practices and positions

Measured governing practices

Measured governing practices are explicitly defined methodologies used by governments which are designed to measure their governing decisions. They are a collection of variable driven formulas used to quantify outputs like, when to intervene, how to intervene, and the degree of the intervention in question. Measured governing practices produce dynamic strategies and policies that change and adapt to context in principally consistent ways. 

For example when it comes to pandemic related mandates and determining which ones, how far they should be enacted, and when, a measured governing practice would define or reference formulas that quantify these recommendations. A responsibly measured approach would also make sure to take into account all the pertinent and essential key contextual variables.

Measured governing positions

A measured governing position is one held by voters, political annalists, organizations, politicians or governments themselves which references a measured governing practice. Such positions can be considered nonpartisan because they can potentially quantify results reflecting all possible sides of any controversy. It is the context driven variables that determine the timing, type and scope of a government action.

For example: “I advocate for pandemic related mandates informed by the following methodology: [methodology referenced here].

For Another example: "I advocate for pandemic related mandates informed by methodologies compliant to the following quality standard: [example quality criteria]"

Non-Measured governing positions

In many instances, governing positions are expressed in society in ways that do not define or even reference any such methodology. People's and organisation's positions are often based on other things like partisan politics, philosophical ideals, social trends, governing trends, lobbying, democratic pressure, a perceived sense of consensus, or are simply based on an unspecified basis. 

For example, the following are common positions on pandemic related mandates which are not based on measurements. They also reflect both ends across the spectrum of the controversy.

• “We should stop pandemic related mandates because I believe the current pandemic risk is not high enough, although I have no referenced position on how this line should be drawn.”
• “We should add more pandemic related mandates because I believe the current pandemic risk is high enough to do so, although I have no referenced position on how this line should be drawn.”
• “We should refuse pandemic related mandates no matter what the context and risks are or ever will be.”
• “The pandemic related mandates currently enforced are exactly perfect everywhere and at all times, no matter whose expertise was involved in drafting them; it’s therefor a waste of time to have conversations seeking to adjust and perfect the methods of governance on this issue.”
• Etc.

Measured governing practices and positions are a socially responsibility

Measured governing practices and positions are often the only way to ensure that our decisions as a society remain consistently proportionate across contexts. They are also often the only way to communicate openly concrete information to voters rather than have them base their vote on vague claims, misguided promises or blind populism. They are also the key to nonpartisan politics and partnerships as the positions revolve around the methodology rather than their results. Measured governing practices can be in and of themselves principled political positions. They can also provide moral high ground, especially in contrast to positions based on arbitrary inconsistent factors. Additionally, measured governing practices are often the only way as a society to arrive at results precise enough to be successful.

For example, pandemics are a key example of why a high level of nuance and precision is absolutely essential to our political practices and discord. Many experts consider specific strains as being dangerous enough to justify mandates that also cause their own measure of sociological damage. Given such a context, if the extent of the applied regulations were even slightly underestimated or slightly overestimated, it would guarantee additional damages to society in one way or the other that could have been avoided given more concise and measured practices. To not have a completely thorough measured approach when it comes to this issue practically guarantees that we will always either be missing additional mandates that should be enacted, or have additional mandates that are not necessary. This is why it is our social duty to make sure we do our best in getting pandemic related policies as close as possible on that right balanced line.