We could also bring back ostracism (not from society, but from government, at least). We wouldn't be able to select our representatives, but we would be able to rule out those we definitely don't want.
Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
41–50 of 97 posts
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do we want the statistical average of us to create laws that stick around for years? People are judged everyday by their "statistical average" with consequences that can stick around for many years (long jail terms) or be permanent (death sentences). While the criminal jury system is not perfect, it appears vastly more functional than Congress at present. The article also mentions Aristotle, and he identified three…
The difference being that the justice system generally affects one person at a time. What Congress does affects 300 million to 7 billion.
The justice system is not just one jury.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
So no lobbying from EFF or Natural Resources Defense Council?
The EFF wouldn't need to lobby if Comcast/Google/etc. didn't lobby
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#44Because it leads to tyranny of the majority.
The original idea was congress would be intelligent people supporting decisions for the good of the nation. That doesn't work so well anymore now that the only decisions remaining are split between party lines.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
So no lobbying from EFF or Natural Resources Defense Council?
No. Also, no lobbying from RIAA or Exxon.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#46Do 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…
The societal consequences of an organ market might not be so bad: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/12/or...
Lawyers, salespeople, and lobbyists are all good things when used well. I'd be in support of more transparency, but lobbyists are working for causes you believe in and would not be if there weren't some method in place for organizations to speak with their political representation.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#47I 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.
I would like this, but the anti-SAT / whiteboarding group would complain about a system like this to no end.
And to be fair, there is a huge potential for a system like this to be abused or to codify massive inequality in representation across racial / socio-economic lines. So complaints would definitely not be without merit. Usually additional barriers to participate in government only end up hurting those who are most marginalized already, even if they are supposedly well-intentioned. So while a system like this might sound good to your typical hacker news browser, consider that a system like this would also mostly exclude poor and uneducated people from government even more than they are already
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#48Get 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 cas…
You have a clear definition for "bad people" as part of your religion. Whether or not that process works, adding a rigid morality does not improve simple plurality voting for most populations.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I think sortition would work better if the legislators would first learn a bit about the issue they are assigned to (assuming the random selection is repeated for each individual law). It could be done as a short course where the instructors would also be selected by random from a pool of experts (people holding degrees in the field). Legislators could be tested to see if they have a grasp of the basic concepts. Only after that, they would deliberate and vote. This would make the process slower, but fortunately it can be parallelized on multiple unrelated issues. Each legislative group could act for a short period and disband.
Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference being that the justice system generally affects one person at a time. What Congress does affects 300 million to 7 billion.
The justice system is not just one jury.
Obviously. But each official decision by a particular randomly selected jury within the justice system that carries legal weight affects one person, usually.
Each official decision by Congress that carries legal weight affects millions to billions of people.
Which is exactly I said that before more succinctly for those that cared to think about it.