Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
currentaffairs.org
Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
1–10 of 97 posts
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#2Or like the Canadian Senate, members need to be independent
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#3Do we want the statistical average of us to create laws that stick around for years? If so, we need to raise the average significantly.
Also, this would put enormous power in the hands of lobbyists and bureaucrats; a demographic that is not exactly brimming with the diversity that this 'solution' attempts to put in place.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#4Do we want the statistical average of us to create laws that stick around for years? If so, we need to raise the average significantly. Also, this would put enormous power in the hands of lobbyists and bureaucrats; a demographic that is not exactly brimming with the diversity that this 'solution' attempts to put in place.
Lobbyists already have enormous power. I think one thing we've learned over the past 20 years is that career politicians are just as susceptible to bribes as everyone else.
Though I do agree, this concept is pointless beyond a thought experiment.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#5Or teach people to become leaders who can govern. What does it take to have a specialized field of studies to prepare people? The more the qualified experts compete each other in getting elected, the better.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#6Maybe. Maaaayyyyybe this could work. Or it could spell the end of the world's largest economy as we know it.
I have in the past toyed with ideas like randomly selecting the Senate from a pool of outstanding civil service exam scores, or by instituting a third legislative house to be randomly selected, but in any case to do so is to jump headfirst into an uncertain pool of chaos.
The system set up by our founding fathers is, for the most part, a good system. A large republic was supposed to be impossible. It has lasted nearly 250 years. It has survived a bloody civil war (1864 marked the first national election conducted during a civil war in history). It has expanded liberties to abolish slavery and grant the vote for all citizens (with some exceptions).
Right now, the system has been hijacked and rigged by the rich and powerful. Change them, change their influence, by all means, but upending the system for the sake of "trying something new" or god forbid "drain the swamp," will be akin to using a sledgehammer for a problem that requires a screwdriver.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#7Do we want the statistical average of us to create laws that stick around for years? If so, we need to raise the average significantly. Also, this would put enormous power in the hands of lobbyists and bureaucrats; a demographic that is not exactly brimming with the diversity that this 'solution' attempts to put in place.
> If so, we need to raise the average significantly.
Bingo.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#8Or like the Canadian Senate, members need to be independent
How does that work? What does "Independent" mean in this context?
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#9This is such and outstanding idea and I would love to see it implemented for some seats in the UK House of Lords - a low risk way to trial it.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#10Do we want the statistical average of us to create laws that stick around for years? If so, we need to raise the average significantly. Also, this would put enormous power in the hands of lobbyists and bureaucrats; a demographic that is not exactly brimming with the diversity that this 'solution' attempts to put in place.
Lobbyists already have enormous power. I think one thing we've learned over the past 20 years is that career politicians are just as susceptible to bribes as everyone else. Though I do agree, this concept is pointless beyond a thought experiment.
Under sortition individuals would serve a short term before returning to their original role, making them less susceptible to 'revolving door' type bribery and mutual back scratching.
It would also make sense to treat them like a jury - while you are working lobbyists would be asked not to meet with you.