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

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?

#91

Post by abiox »

eli wrote: post #27
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #22

Earlier 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?

imo, eff and nrdc (and the rest) should 'lobby' the public. not congress.

Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?

#93

Post by visarga »

cirgue wrote: post #57
visarga wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> makes it difficult for special interests to lobby the legislators. It makes it considerably easier for lobbyists to lobby legislators because it sets up an even greater information and power asymmetry than it does now. Lobbyists can stick around as long as they want, will know the pressure points in the legislative system, and will have the resources available to draft legislation that works in their favor. How man…

On the other hand Congress passes laws with thousands of pages of text they never read. How does that work better than having enough people assigned to each section?

People don't need to actually write the text, just decide on the important points. They will have professional assistance and instruction. I think we could use the same random system to select professional assistance for legislators (by random selection of domain-specific graduates).

Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?

#94

Post by Zigurd »

Entangled wrote: post #77
Zigurd wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law-drafting isn't the entire job of representation. Also, current performance, such as using legislation written by consortia of corporations with lobbying interests, doesn't speak highly for such specialization. You might as well require representatives be CPAs, or MBAs, since budget allocation and oversight of spending is at least as important as making laws.

Absolutely, the executive needs CPAs and MBAs, the legislative needs lawyers, the judiciary needs judges and to be honest that's the only one where meritocracy permeates, just add a little randomization instead of handpicking, that's all.

That's not what I wrote. Elected representatives get away with not being accountants by hiring accountants to staff the CBO. Similarly lawyers could be hired for drafting unambiguous legislation based on position papers.

Re: Why Not Have a Randomly Selected Congress?

#97

Post by dredmorbius »

clavalle wrote: post #32
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #22

Earlier 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…

I think we can get more benefit just by making all lobbying communications public.

Defence contractors on matters of national security?

Advocates for refugees or political asylees?

I'm not saying I don't like your suggestion. I'm trying to find examples where the transparency might not be likely or a positive development. And then ask: how would you handle those cases? Specific carveouts? Time-delayed disclosures?

Post reply on HN