Why not have random jurors like we do in the UK?
Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
31–40 of 97 posts
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#32Do 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.
I think the solution is just to ban lobbying as it currently exists. I ran across an interesting argument about a month ago basically saying that, legally, there are things we can own but not sell, like a spleen, because the societal consequences of allowing people to sell their organs are so disastrous. They made the point that maybe you should similarly have the right to lobby your congressman but that you wouldn't…
I think we can get more benefit just by making all lobbying communications public.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#33If your job is to create laws, then you must be an expert in that field. So the pool of candidates should be meritocratic in its nature, like a Law School degree and at least 10 years of experience plus 2 in public domains.
Then you can randomize.
Most countries in the world allow any bus driver to be a congressman and we know how great their understanding of laws and human rights are, none.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#34As 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.
It's also similar to the Slashdot moderation system.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#35If your job is to create laws, then you must be an expert in that field. So the pool of candidates should be meritocratic in its nature, like a Law School degree and at least 10 years of experience plus 2 in public domains. Then you can randomize. Most countries in the world allow any bus driver to be a congressman and we know how great their understanding of laws and human rights are, none.
Bias towards those whose profession benefits from a growing abundance of laws?
Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#36I think there would need to be some minimal filter on those who would govern. Age, for one, but maybe also a high school diploma or equivalent and a "citizenship test" that everyone would have to pass to graduate high school.
China has something like this: bureaucrats have to pass the civil service exam, which is like a souped up IQ/SAT style test. The former president, Hu Jintao, apparently had a photographic memory. Make of that what you will.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#37If your job is to create laws, then you must be an expert in that field. So the pool of candidates should be meritocratic in its nature, like a Law School degree and at least 10 years of experience plus 2 in public domains. Then you can randomize. Most countries in the world allow any bus driver to be a congressman and we know how great their understanding of laws and human rights are, none.
Yeah, the last time I got on a bus the driver beat me and then killed me.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#38If your job is to create laws, then you must be an expert in that field. So the pool of candidates should be meritocratic in its nature, like a Law School degree and at least 10 years of experience plus 2 in public domains. Then you can randomize. Most countries in the world allow any bus driver to be a congressman and we know how great their understanding of laws and human rights are, none.
Bias towards those whose profession benefits from a growing abundance of laws? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
If you are going to build a bridge are you going to hire an engineer or a cook? Now if you're going to create laws would you hire someone who has studied roman, germanic, sharia law since the times of Hammurabi, philosophy, sociology, politics and everything necessary to understand human interaction and association, or a bus driver?
We get the government we deserve, proportional to our level of ignorance.
There is a big difference between picking from a pool of politicians (crooks who climb the ladder by manipulation, backstabbing and deceit) and the best lawyers according to market forces and meritocracy then randomized.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#39I m interested by this topics and I recommend a book by David van Reybrouck that speaks about this topic: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jul/18/against-electi...
I think the way we produce new legislation and control the government is not satisfactory as it is. My favorite approach would be to have a sortition (based on a quota method maybe) then some intensive training (law, constitution ... ) before the one term and after that training of the member of the assembly that go back to the civil life.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#40Do 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.
> Do we want the statistical average of us to create laws that stick around for years?
Yes. The alternative is to open the door for systemic abuse. Randomness ensures perfect balance between all social classes and it makes it difficult for special interests to lobby the legislators. Such a system can dispense with elections and reduce the power of big media trusts. I think common people selected to serve for a short term would have much more decency than career politicians.