The "no one can stay long enough to stick/be bought" has already been tried in state legislatures with strict term limits, and you end up with people who don't know how to write laws or govern surrounded by paid lobbyists who do.
Why do you advocate this over calls to change the voting system from first past the post to some form of ranked choice voting or elections that are only financed by public money?
We have a system in which candidates have to convince a preponderance of voters that they're both capable and honest. Yes, it's imperfect, and some people suck, but it gives us the control over whether or not they keep their jobs.
You would rather trade that for a system in which any random moron has the power to influence laws? Are you nuts? Do you honestly think that system wouldn't become more corrupt, more quickly, than the one we have now?
In his continuing efforts to prove not one functioning brain cell remains in his head, Mudede offers this.
Parents whose kids have this brainless jerk for a teacher? You're paying for this idiot to pull things out of his rear end and call it education. Good money which (and Mudede wouldn't understand this concept) you worked for. Ask for a refund for any credits his classes accrue. Ask that the school discharge the fool and find someone sentient to teach your children. Your kids deserve real education rather than mindless hatred of the US and all it stands for combined with meaningless drivel.
Despite their shortcomings, at least career politicians know how to play the game with the lobbyists and don't give away the farm for a bag of magic beans. Throw a bunch of novices in there and the big corporations would be running this country even more than they already do.
You're so close to the right answer. We need a hybrid between voting and lottery. Votes should be placed in a drum and one pulled out. Then we have the correct odds of the right person being chosen, but with a chance that someone unexpected will get into power. To filter out the crazys, have a minimum number of votes to get in the game.
And reading @1 and @4, whom I agree with, having this vote-based lottery system does keep career politicians. If you're doing a good job and get 80% of the vote, then there's an 80% chance you'll stay in office. If you get kicked out but people liked you, there's a good chance you'll get another position.
Charles,
You ride public transportation enough to have a feel for how many people can't even figure out how to get on & off a fucking bus. You frequent enough restaurants to see how many people can't figure out how to order & eat food. These are the people you want in the legislature?
Instead of a lottery, how about a serious test of knowledge regarding the government position sought? If you want to be a WA legislator, you need to demonstrate extensive knowledge of the state constitution, history and the RCW. Not necessarily to the detail of a lawyer, but at least know enough about the job to warrant having it. If you're too fucking stupid to know how many counties there are in Washington, you have no business making decisions for those counties.
And suppose you could double the size of the house of representatives and draft reps from randomized pools of qualified (high school diploma, no felony convictions, etc) candidates. They do one three year stint.
Conceptually, totes awesome…or, maybe, if this was Sweden, awesome. However, I don't trust at least 50% of my fellow citizens to make anywhere near a smart decision. This country is a sad mix of extreme inequity and the movie Idiocracy.
Regarding Mudede's version of this and not trusting fellow citizens: That's what public education is for. Don't trust them to lead the country? Then why do you trust them to vote?
A lottery would work fine for local government but would fail miserably at the national level. Like it or not, we need trained and qualified leaders to manage something as big as the USA.
@3: You're no better. I'll refer vaguely to the list of your repeated lies because I CBA to write it all out.
Actually I owe Mudede an apology. Being bone stupid is a misfortune, not a character flaw. And I should have treated it as such.
But to fully show the harm a system such as this could cause- Even MUDEDE
could have a voice that mattered, if his number were drawn. Too horrible to contemplate.....
An interesting thought experiment. As several others have pointed out, there does appear to be some scaling and other problems doing this legislatively. What about using a lottery as an ombudsman role? Give them access to specialists and to politicians, and tweak the organization to minimize the politicalization of topics/legislation. Yes, it would hold little to no hard powers, so you would have to maximize the soft power of direct contact of legislators with lottery drawn citizens. I like the idea of short circuiting Citizens United with a lottery, but I'm afraid it'll be just as open, if not more so to abuse.
As a side note, here's an article that interviewed 90 members of congress to ask their viewpoints on the current breakdowns. It strengthens my belief that although there are structural issues of living under a republic, it's the outside factors that are trying to stop any dialog for proactive solutions that are having a disproportionate impact on our current politic.
Good Afternoon Charles,
Your post piqued my curiosity but that's about it. Upon reflection nope, I wouldn't want a deGrasse Tyson as President. I like this system warts and all. As @13 mentioned "Like it or not, we need trained and qualified leaders to manage something as big as the USA."
@11
Nixon, Reagan and the two Bushes "crazy freaks"? Um, a bit of stretch. All were elected and all relinquished power according to their will and/or the Constitution. You may not like them but the system Charles criticizes worked. It will happen with Obama as well.
What about crazy people? What if the lottery selects a freak? Anyone who does not believe in climate change is plain nuts, and the voting system puts such people into power by the hundreds.
The goal of democracy is to represent its citizens. If its citizens are crazy in regard to climate change, then their representatives should be the same kind of crazy. That's democracy working.
A crazy person elected by lottery wouldn't represent its citizens, so that's a completely different kind of crazy.
Whether crazy or not, a lottery system is undemocratic, because it elects politicians who don't represent their constituents.
(And it would never work in practical terms, because it is too vulnerable to fraud in making that random choice. And a result would never be accepted as legitimate, because fraud would always be claimed.)
Maybe the answer is to require voters to take exams every couple of years testing their actual political opinions on the whole scope of social, educational, economical, etc. concerns. And then make the results public, with statistical results as to which party their opinions support. I have always considered myself a liberal or democrat. But after voluntarily taking three different free on-line political opinion tests, I find I am actually about 80% Libertarian, about 10% Democrat, 5% Green Party, and 5% other. This was a real eye opener. Now, I have to ask myself: "Do I really want to come out of the closet?"
Why do you advocate this over calls to change the voting system from first past the post to some form of ranked choice voting or elections that are only financed by public money?
You would rather trade that for a system in which any random moron has the power to influence laws? Are you nuts? Do you honestly think that system wouldn't become more corrupt, more quickly, than the one we have now?
In his continuing efforts to prove not one functioning brain cell remains in his head, Mudede offers this.
Parents whose kids have this brainless jerk for a teacher? You're paying for this idiot to pull things out of his rear end and call it education. Good money which (and Mudede wouldn't understand this concept) you worked for. Ask for a refund for any credits his classes accrue. Ask that the school discharge the fool and find someone sentient to teach your children. Your kids deserve real education rather than mindless hatred of the US and all it stands for combined with meaningless drivel.
Despite their shortcomings, at least career politicians know how to play the game with the lobbyists and don't give away the farm for a bag of magic beans. Throw a bunch of novices in there and the big corporations would be running this country even more than they already do.
You're so close to the right answer. We need a hybrid between voting and lottery. Votes should be placed in a drum and one pulled out. Then we have the correct odds of the right person being chosen, but with a chance that someone unexpected will get into power. To filter out the crazys, have a minimum number of votes to get in the game.
Please see this idea. Also from 2003.
You ride public transportation enough to have a feel for how many people can't even figure out how to get on & off a fucking bus. You frequent enough restaurants to see how many people can't figure out how to order & eat food. These are the people you want in the legislature?
Instead of a lottery, how about a serious test of knowledge regarding the government position sought? If you want to be a WA legislator, you need to demonstrate extensive knowledge of the state constitution, history and the RCW. Not necessarily to the detail of a lawyer, but at least know enough about the job to warrant having it. If you're too fucking stupid to know how many counties there are in Washington, you have no business making decisions for those counties.
And suppose you could double the size of the house of representatives and draft reps from randomized pools of qualified (high school diploma, no felony convictions, etc) candidates. They do one three year stint.
Maybe. Maybe not that dumb.
Better education for all = more informed voting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCI…
@3: You're no better. I'll refer vaguely to the list of your repeated lies because I CBA to write it all out.
You beat me to it.
As much as Charles wants to posit himself as an advocate for the working man, he doesn't seem to actually talk to regular people.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
But to fully show the harm a system such as this could cause- Even MUDEDE
could have a voice that mattered, if his number were drawn. Too horrible to contemplate.....
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lotte…
As a side note, here's an article that interviewed 90 members of congress to ask their viewpoints on the current breakdowns. It strengthens my belief that although there are structural issues of living under a republic, it's the outside factors that are trying to stop any dialog for proactive solutions that are having a disproportionate impact on our current politic.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/co…
Your post piqued my curiosity but that's about it. Upon reflection nope, I wouldn't want a deGrasse Tyson as President. I like this system warts and all. As @13 mentioned "Like it or not, we need trained and qualified leaders to manage something as big as the USA."
@11
Nixon, Reagan and the two Bushes "crazy freaks"? Um, a bit of stretch. All were elected and all relinquished power according to their will and/or the Constitution. You may not like them but the system Charles criticizes worked. It will happen with Obama as well.
The goal of democracy is to represent its citizens. If its citizens are crazy in regard to climate change, then their representatives should be the same kind of crazy. That's democracy working.
A crazy person elected by lottery wouldn't represent its citizens, so that's a completely different kind of crazy.
Whether crazy or not, a lottery system is undemocratic, because it elects politicians who don't represent their constituents.
(And it would never work in practical terms, because it is too vulnerable to fraud in making that random choice. And a result would never be accepted as legitimate, because fraud would always be claimed.)