Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?

currentaffairs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 97 posts

Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?

#11

Post by majewsky »

As far as I can see, they advocate for a Randomly Selected Congress that still operates on a term basis (i.e. new members are randomly chosen at fixed time intervals, e.g. every two years).

An alternative approach that I've found quite interesting is to assemble a new Randomly Selected Congress for every single bill. The idea is that certain parties (e.g. government offices or public petitions with a sufficient amount of backers) gain the right to identify problems. For each problem thusly identified, a Randomly Selected Congress is formed, who can either vote that no action is required, or who can enact a bill with the intention of solving that problem.

The appeal is that every legislator will only be involved in exactly one law over their lifetime (maybe two or three, but the chance of one person being selected multiple times is excessively slim). So horse trades cannot work anymore, and every legislator knows that whatever they sign into law will be the single one impact they can ever have on the political system. Like: "This may only be a zoning law for small villages, and I don't care because I live in the city. But everyone will judge me by this law forever, so I better make sure it's the best fucking zoning law ever."

Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?

#13

Post by jimmytidey »

iamcurious wrote: post #7
clavalle wrote: post #3

Do 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.

The problem with good decision making here is not that it's too cognitively demanding, it's that there are perverse incentives.

Also, it is simply impossible for someone successful - like a politician - to understand the world view of those less well off.

So even if the mental abilities go down, the quality of decision making could easily go up - indeed it would be likely to.

James Fishkin is a Stanford professor who has pioneered this type of work. His approach gives decisions makers structured access to experts to help improve the quality of decision.

Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?

#14

Post by tpeo »

>Limits the likelihood of Congress being dominated by rich white guys

>There is no downside to this

I guess that whoever wrote this piece didn't consider that it also increases the likelihood that some poor white guys whose political positions are way farther to the right from the author's own than Ted Cruz's positions are get into Congress.

Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?

#15

Post by madcaptenor »

majewsky wrote: post #11

As far as I can see, they advocate for a Randomly Selected Congress that still operates on a term basis (i.e. new members are randomly chosen at fixed time intervals, e.g. every two years). An alternative approach that I've found quite interesting is to assemble a new Randomly Selected Congress for every single bill. The idea is that certain parties (e.g. government offices or public petitions with a sufficient amoun…

This sounds a lot like jury duty. I'm not sure what to make of that similarity.

Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?

#16

Post by geff82 »

Get some information on the internal democracy of the Bahai faith. They have candidateless elections - essentially you vote for any member of the faith you personally think is very capable and the ones who have the most votes is elected. And to avoid any cult of person, you elect councils of 9 people that have to decide with absolute majority about their topics. This Bahai system is almost impossible to game - in case you do bad as an elected person, they will not vote for you the next time. This system also is multilevel: the elected persons of a city do the same candidateless approach on the national level, then those elected in all countries come together and vote for the international "House of Justice" as they call it, which is located in Haifa, Israel. This election process serves really as the perfect sieve for bad people.

Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?

#17

Post by corpMaverick »

In my opinion. Instead of randomly selected congress, we should have a randomly selected electors. You select them randomly. They are sequestered like a jury for a few days. They listen to the candidates and at the end they chose one. Their power only lasts until they make a choice.

Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?

#18

Post by clavalle »

jimmytidey wrote: post #10
_uhtu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lobbyists /do/ serve a valuable function (theoretically); they offer expert advice.

Sequestering the ignorant and expecting good laws to come from that is ... optimistic.

And while serving a short term might cut out certain bribery there will be a lot more 'get while the getting is good' type bribery. Perhaps that's easier to catch? But there will be a lot more of it.

Not only that: the rest of us have our own stuff to do. How many people can put their life on pause long enough to learn everythhing they need to know to craft good laws?

Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?

#19

Post by [deleted] »

_uhtu wrote: post #4
clavalle wrote: post #3

Do 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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN