Independent Thinking May Round Out Edges and Improve Decision Making (The hypothetical Feather Party)

 Let's discuss the hypothetical Feather Party. The Feather Party is a learning-oriented thought experiment about what a third party might look like. It would include affiliated free thinkers, intellectuals, and other independents who make decisions based on a decision-making matrix but remain free to choose whatever they believe is best. In other words, they would not be strongly tied to a particular party platform but instead belong to a loosely affiliated party that encourages independent thinking.

(Illustrative Only)

One way to protect decision
making is to include
enough independent votes
to foster some level of
discussion and compromise. 
Sometimes new paths
 can form where others
were not willing to look.
It works to increase innovation, 
business, and government.

If you improve decision making
even 5 o 10% what
might that mean
compounded into the future?

The Feather Party could also act as a vote tipper. For example, if 15–20 percent of society were independent, particularly among representatives in any decision making body (i.e. Congress, Senate, etc.), and other positions of authority, we could ask whether this would create additional chaos in a highly poloar environment or  lead to greasing the wheels for better decision-making? (There is no right or wrong answer.)

In management teams, we often find that relying too heavily on certain personalities or information networks can distort decision-making. Some individuals may exert more influence, while information becomes concentrated within particular networks, often creating greater conflict. This can be even more chaotic where ideologies, big money, and rigid party adherence can lead to forced votes (i.e. not independent enough to fully explore options to serve the ultimate stakeholders which are our social contracts, generational values, communities, and society in general.)

Currently, Conservative and Liberal parties generally have different views and frequently vote according to their party positions. A pressure that limits independent thought and its commitment to communities versus the parties themselves (No right or wrong perspective.) The Feather Party thought experiment asks what might happen if 15–20 percent of representatives were genuinely independent. In that situation, legislation might require both major parties to appeal to independent decision-makers rather than relying primarily on straight-line party votes. Not in every case but many cases on big decision making where deadlock occurs. 

This could change the dynamics of decision-making and ultimately the outcomes. Instead of simply counting on party loyalty, policymakers would have to present stronger arguments and use logic to persuade people who are not directly connected to either party. Indepenents that vote they way they wan't and won't be thrown out of the party or targeted by (domestic, foreign or corporate) money for doing so. 

The research discussed below suggests that greater inclusivity in decision-making can lead to more effective decisions and less conflict. From this perspective, increasing the number of independent decision-makers could potentially improve the overall quality of political decision-making (We can only say potentially.). It may reduce partisanship by rounding out the edges by bringing in a middle of the road perspective (We can only say may). 

The hypothetical Feather Party is therefore simply something to think about: What would happen if we included more independent thinkers in political positions, encouraged them to move into positions of authority, and gave them greater influence over important decisions? Consider the potential value of independent decision-making to the overall quality of governance and its impact on economic and social life.

*Philosphical in nature so feel free to accept, rejection, or proposal alternatives. Just don't put each other on lists. Freedom of speech and thought go together. 

Mutual Inclusivity Improves Decision-Making by Smoothing Out Choice’s Competitive Edge

• Inclusive choices can make decision-making faster and easier.
• Exclusive choices create more conflict between options.
• Participants experienced less decision difficulty with inclusive choices.
• The effect remained even without time pressure.
• Inclusive decision-making may reduce the stress of choosing between competing options.
• The findings suggest flexibility can improve decision efficiency.

Leng, X., Frömer, R., Summe, T., & Shenhav, A. (2024). Mutual inclusivity improves decision-making by smoothing out choice’s competitive edge. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.12.540529