That is all policies and political structures are testable and tested to see their effect on those three (or other suggested) factors. If a policy doesn’t reasonably work then it’s simply not continually employed. I’m curious to see what factors others think ought to be used.
It seems most political systems now were built without science in mind and utilize it as an afterthought to help develop legitimacy for policies individuals want. Generally politics across countries seems deeply emotionally driven and not fact driven. That is people have a feeling that an idea is a good idea and then they cobble together whatever they can to support that point without any unified measure of good or better. Ideally it ought to be the other way around, fact or evidence informed policy generation.
If you start tracking performance (of whichever system) via a graph, then people will start pushing the graph up, at the cost of anything else.
Human happiness is multifaceted and not easy to represent in a simple chart.
P hacking is nothing new and well understood by an informed group aka it only works on people who don’t actually know what they are looking at. Ideally a science based political system is accompanied by a science based culture aka the populace is well versed in the scientific process and how data is collected, the different levels in data confidence aka single case study vs a meta analysis of hundreds of studies.
I don’t think they’re talking about p hacking. P hacking is when the statistician keeps adjusting the test to get a significant result. What they meant is probably Goodhart’s Law.