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.