copypasted from Antilibertarianism because it wasn't really OT.
Maybe a mixture of lottery and approval voting would work.
Get a crowd of lottery-picked citizens, say fifty. Some won't want to campaign. Keep replacing the unwilling until you have 50 willing candidates.
Give them each a wad of cash and an advisor to help them put together and run a campaign.
Have a partial approval vote where everyone chooses the 25 they want most.
Put them all together and have each of them perform approval votes on each bill.
To enforce non-corruption, they are kept in nice accommodations, taken care of, provided for, and granted a sizable stipend after their term. Corporate lobbyists must go through the voting public to have their interests advanced.
I call it "Jesus Christ, what does a fucker have to do for some representation around here?"
The problems I see are that this has a similar screening process to our current system, that is charisma and desire for power. It might create more possibility for poor charismatic power hungry people, as opposed to the filthy rich ones we have now, but I don't know if that would really be an improvement.
Maybe if we could somehow make it more like jury duty. Drafting random citizens to consider each bill or something.
Are random citizens picked by lottery likely to be power hungry? And if they don't actually have the opportunity to make (ETA) extra bank on the job, why would they bother trying? The idea was partially stolen from Plato, how he wanted politicians who he thought should be well-provided for, but not allowed to pursue material gains. They are to be treated as purely public servants.
The screening process is totally different, in that the people who are allowed to campaign didn't ask for the chance, and are freely permitted not to do so, which will naturally make their political stances more sincere since they're not putting on an act simply to become a 'career politician'.
Pick 700 or so people out of the voter's registration pool, and FORCE them to govern.
House, Senate, president, VP, and SCOTUS, all drafted.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 09:16:20 PM
Pick 700 or so people out of the voter's registration pool, and FORCE them to govern.
House, Senate, president, VP, and SCOTUS, all drafted.
My way, they have some incentive to be good. You get what you pay for.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 09:17:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 09:16:20 PM
Pick 700 or so people out of the voter's registration pool, and FORCE them to govern.
House, Senate, president, VP, and SCOTUS, all drafted.
My way, they have some incentive to be good. You get what you pay for.
Wait. We're trying to
improve things?
Then forget what I said.
I like democracy, I think representation CAN work out well. As it exists though, it really just perpetuates market rule in favor of short term gains.
Everybody thinks they have the solution to fixing the world, practically NONE of them do. I FEAR what my neighbors would do with power if they were they randomly selected by the electoral lottery.
When the Greeks tossed out lottery elections, they developed what would later become Congress. Congress is supposed to be the representative sample of the populace (as opposed to the senate, which is supposed to be the two best and brightest people in the state). Congress is also the least functional part of the US government (except maybe the justice system). Despite congress' brokenness, at least congressmen are competent enough to get elected. If you remove that filter, we'll go from high functioning idiots to low functioning idiots overnight.
Quote from: Cramulus on May 04, 2010, 09:21:02 PM
Everybody thinks they have the solution to fixing the world, practically NONE of them do. I FEAR what my neighbors would do with power if they were they randomly selected by the electoral lottery.
When the Greeks tossed out lottery elections, they developed what would later become Congress. Congress is supposed to be the representative sample of the populace (as opposed to the senate, which is supposed to be the two best and brightest people in the state). Congress is also the least functional part of the US government (except maybe the justice system). Despite congress' brokenness, at least congressmen are competent enough to get elected. If you remove that filter, we'll go from high functioning idiots to low functioning idiots overnight.
Yes, but from a purely misanthropic point of view, this idea rocks balls.
Remember, Cram, if the system isn't
perfect, we have to scrap it entirely.
ETA: oddly enough, this is the same reasoning that the conservatards use to justify destroying universal education.
So put filters on the lottery. This much education, this few criminal convictions, this level of english fluency.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 09:24:27 PM
So put filters on the lottery. This much education, this few criminal convictions, this level of english fluency.
But we can get Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld with the current system.
I'm still rooting for a government that's based on focus groups.
Do YOU want to earn money in your spare time?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 09:25:08 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 09:24:27 PM
So put filters on the lottery. This much education, this few criminal convictions, this level of english fluency.
But we can get Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld with the current system.
Another possible filter: Psychopaths.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on May 04, 2010, 09:27:27 PM
Do YOU want to earn money in your spare time?
:loool:
So how would that work? Focus groups would craft legislation based on what will market well?
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 09:27:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 09:25:08 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 09:24:27 PM
So put filters on the lottery. This much education, this few criminal convictions, this level of english fluency.
But we can get Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld with the current system.
Another possible filter: Psychopaths.
Fantastic. All we need now is a reliable way to screen psychopaths.
The PCL-R has been fairly reliable in that respect.
linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist)
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 09:34:34 PM
The PC-R has been fairly reliable in that respect.
The what?
edited above
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 09:35:46 PM
edited above
Okay. Which of the following people would have failed and been unable to conceal that failure from someone testing them?
1. Dick Cheney
2. Donald Rumsfeld.
3. Janet Reno.
4. Robert McNamara.
5. Richard Nixon.
6. Joseph McCarthy.
7. J Edgar Hoover.
8. Roy Cohn.
I am also curious how you will force answers or information out of them.
Shit, everyone knows they're crazy (except possibly Hoover who wasn't a terrible person, if you look at his life pre-presidency).
I'm just talking about screening the lottery citizens with this test to weed out any further psychopathic leadership.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 09:45:24 PM
Shit, everyone knows they're crazy (except possibly Hoover who wasn't a terrible person, if you look at his life pre-presidency).
I'm just talking about screening the lottery citizens with this test to weed out any further psychopathic leadership.
J Edgar Hoover, not Herbert Hoover.
And how are you going to force the information out of the lottery "winners"?
Lengthy interviews with them and people in their family, work, and social circles. If they don't comply, there are plenty who will. Many will gladly put up with it because of the lifestyle, prestige, and stipend to be earned. Incentives are a big part of this system.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 09:49:49 PM
Lengthy interviews with them and people in their family, work, and social circles. If they don't comply, there are plenty who will. Many will gladly put up with it because of the lifestyle, prestige, and stipend to be earned. Incentives are a big part of this system.
Almost everyone I listed would pass all of those tests.
Also, who gets to decide who the certifying doctors are?
Scholars say the test is pretty good at identifying psychopaths, and that's what I'm going with.
I imagine various universities could put forward some grads to do the testing.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 09:54:21 PM
Scholars say the test is pretty good at identifying psychopaths, and that's what I'm going with.
I imagine various universities could put forward some grads to do the testing.
I've read some scholarly papers on supply-side economics.
Just saying.
The PCL-R is widely accepted.
It's a minor point anyway, screening for psychopaths. You can screen for all kinds of things to improve the kind of elected politicians we get, even in the current system.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 10:01:51 PM
The PCL-R is widely accepted.
It's a minor point anyway, screening for psychopaths. You can screen for all kinds of things to improve the kind of elected politicians we get, even in the current system.
Sure. The Laffer Curve is "widely accepted", too.
I get to pick the people who do the screening, though.
I do kind of like this whole elimination of the will of the people thing, though.
What now? This system should if anything represent the interests of the people much more than our current system because it sidelines corporate interests and the self-interest of career politicians.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 10:06:30 PM
What now? This system should if anything represent the interests of the people much more than our current system because it sidelines corporate interests and the self-interest of career politicians.
I wish to run for office. I have some ideas I think people should hear.
But I didn't come up in the lottery. Oh, well.
So what makes this better than direct democracy?
(that is, having everyone vote on everything, with bills submitted via a petition process)
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 04, 2010, 10:08:35 PM
So what makes this better than direct democracy?
(that is, having everyone vote on everything, with bills submitted via a petition process)
Oh, that's a good one, too. We could even bring back the ostrakos.
I can't wait to see the teabaggers - or whomever the craze of the moment is - lead the way.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 10:10:01 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 04, 2010, 10:08:35 PM
So what makes this better than direct democracy?
(that is, having everyone vote on everything, with bills submitted via a petition process)
Oh, that's a good one, too. We could even bring back the ostrakos.
I can't wait to see the teabaggers - or whomever the craze of the moment is - lead the way.
I'm not arguing for direct democracy, I'm just saying, how is a random subsample of the population any better than the whole population?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 10:08:08 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 10:06:30 PM
What now? This system should if anything represent the interests of the people much more than our current system because it sidelines corporate interests and the self-interest of career politicians.
I wish to run for office. I have some ideas I think people should hear.
But I didn't come up in the lottery. Oh, well.
Yeah, there's that.
Maybe if you were able to spread your ideas to the voting public, you could affect change.
I like the idea of a direct democracy. Maybe my system could incorporate a direct vote as a check against the 25 elected citizens' representativeness of the public. You'd see how many citizens were in favor, and be able to compare how much the public agrees with them. If the two are in too much disagreement, the bill would be debated and revised or scrapped.
As you can see, this isn't a fully finished idea. I'm still glad to get further criticisms so I can maybe make a better idea.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 10:20:50 PM
I like the idea of a direct democracy.
So do I. I mean, wouldn't it be GREAT if the general public was allowed to make the decisions involving Iran in 2005?
It would be like having Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity as our rulers forever!
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 10:20:50 PM
As you can see, this isn't a fully finished idea. I'm still glad to get further criticisms so I can maybe make a better idea.
I am glad you're taking this the right way, I'd like to add.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 04, 2010, 10:16:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 10:10:01 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 04, 2010, 10:08:35 PM
So what makes this better than direct democracy?
(that is, having everyone vote on everything, with bills submitted via a petition process)
Oh, that's a good one, too. We could even bring back the ostrakos.
I can't wait to see the teabaggers - or whomever the craze of the moment is - lead the way.
I'm not arguing for direct democracy, I'm just saying, how is a random subsample of the population any better than the whole population?
It isn't.
Another triumph of direct democracy: California's Proposition 8.
Small suggestion for improving democracy:
Abolishing the tactic whereby bills have irrelevant crap tacked onto the end of them in order to sneak them through.
Congressman 1: Here's my proposed Agricultural Bill. Now we can help American farmers be more competitive in a global market place and create hundreds of jobs!
Congressman 2: Booo! Your bill sucks!
[much arguing later]
Congressman 1: Here's the revised bill which sort of helps some farmers....a bit.
Congressman 2: Oh...and by the way, we can also tap your phones and torture your ass.
If an agricultural (or health or defence) bill is being written, then it should not contain anything that doesn't relate directly to the subject matter.
For instance, the Health Care bill contained $250 million for stupid abstinence education!! :argh!:
Quote from: Mangrove on May 04, 2010, 10:58:50 PM
Small suggestion for improving democracy:
Abolishing the tactic whereby bills have irrelevant crap tacked onto the end of them in order to sneak them through.
Congressman 1: Here's my proposed Agricultural Bill. Now we can help American farmers be more competitive in a global market place and create hundreds of jobs!
Congressman 2: Booo! Your bill sucks!
[much arguing later]
Congressman 1: Here's the revised bill which sort of helps some farmers....a bit.
Congressman 2: Oh...and by the way, we can also tap your phones and torture your ass.
If an agricultural (or health or defence) bill is being written, then it should not contain anything that doesn't relate directly to the subject matter.
For instance, the Health Care bill contained $250 million for stupid abstinence education!! :argh!:
Hmm...outlaw riders and irrelevant bill amendments? That could actually work.
Now we just have to get congress to pass it. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 11:01:42 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on May 04, 2010, 10:58:50 PM
Small suggestion for improving democracy:
Abolishing the tactic whereby bills have irrelevant crap tacked onto the end of them in order to sneak them through.
Congressman 1: Here's my proposed Agricultural Bill. Now we can help American farmers be more competitive in a global market place and create hundreds of jobs!
Congressman 2: Booo! Your bill sucks!
[much arguing later]
Congressman 1: Here's the revised bill which sort of helps some farmers....a bit.
Congressman 2: Oh...and by the way, we can also tap your phones and torture your ass.
If an agricultural (or health or defence) bill is being written, then it should not contain anything that doesn't relate directly to the subject matter.
For instance, the Health Care bill contained $250 million for stupid abstinence education!! :argh!:
Hmm...outlaw riders and irrelevant bill amendments? That could actually work.
Now we just have to get congress to pass it. :lulz:
Well this might be where my plan theory falls down. :lol:
Other suggestions: Cut the campaign time way down & cap campaign spending.
Ok Senators - you've got 4 days and $100 to make your case. Go!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 11:01:42 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on May 04, 2010, 10:58:50 PM
Small suggestion for improving democracy:
Abolishing the tactic whereby bills have irrelevant crap tacked onto the end of them in order to sneak them through.
Congressman 1: Here's my proposed Agricultural Bill. Now we can help American farmers be more competitive in a global market place and create hundreds of jobs!
Congressman 2: Booo! Your bill sucks!
[much arguing later]
Congressman 1: Here's the revised bill which sort of helps some farmers....a bit.
Congressman 2: Oh...and by the way, we can also tap your phones and torture your ass.
If an agricultural (or health or defence) bill is being written, then it should not contain anything that doesn't relate directly to the subject matter.
For instance, the Health Care bill contained $250 million for stupid abstinence education!! :argh!:
Hmm...outlaw riders and irrelevant bill amendments? That could actually work.
Now we just have to get congress to pass it. :lulz:
I like this idea. Except the part where we have to get Congress to pass it. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Mangrove on May 04, 2010, 11:10:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 11:01:42 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on May 04, 2010, 10:58:50 PM
Small suggestion for improving democracy:
Abolishing the tactic whereby bills have irrelevant crap tacked onto the end of them in order to sneak them through.
Congressman 1: Here's my proposed Agricultural Bill. Now we can help American farmers be more competitive in a global market place and create hundreds of jobs!
Congressman 2: Booo! Your bill sucks!
[much arguing later]
Congressman 1: Here's the revised bill which sort of helps some farmers....a bit.
Congressman 2: Oh...and by the way, we can also tap your phones and torture your ass.
If an agricultural (or health or defence) bill is being written, then it should not contain anything that doesn't relate directly to the subject matter.
For instance, the Health Care bill contained $250 million for stupid abstinence education!! :argh!:
Hmm...outlaw riders and irrelevant bill amendments? That could actually work.
Now we just have to get congress to pass it. :lulz:
Well this might be where my plan theory falls down. :lol:
Other suggestions: Cut the campaign time way down & cap campaign spending.
Ok Senators - you've got 4 days and $100 to make your case. Go!
4 days is definitely not long enough; college students get longer than that to research and write a paper. I would like to see a cap on campaign spending, but that would be hard to enforce.
I was joking about 4 days. But I am serious about shorter, cheaper campaigns as well as getting rid of sneaky shit tacked on to the end of bills.
As I understand, the UK election season is 6 weeks and I think they have capped spending.
Seriously, is it just me or is Palin's '12 campaign sticking it's ass into Obama's second year? Jeez.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 05, 2010, 01:21:19 AM
Seriously, is it just me or is Palin's '12 campaign sticking it's ass into Obama's second year? Jeez.
PLEASE RUN SARAH PALIN PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
John Oliver and John Stewart made an interesting comment on the Daily Show a few days ago. Something about how in our (American) voting system, as soon as one campaign ends, the politician has to immediately begin the next campaign, just to stay competitive with the other yokels. So anyone voted into office, and who wants to stay there for more than one term has to govern _and_ campaign at the same time, all the time.
Never whistle while you're pissing and all that jazz.
So, I'm pretty sure there's something terribly wrong with the line-item veto, but I can't remember what it was.
Because right now, it seems like a pretty good way of dealing with omnibus bills, riders, and the other stuff Mang was talking about.
Quote from: LMNO on May 05, 2010, 01:23:55 PM
So, I'm pretty sure there's something terribly wrong with the line-item veto, but I can't remember what it was.
Because right now, it seems like a pretty good way of dealing with omnibus bills, riders, and the other stuff Mang was talking about.
The primary argument against it that i have heard is that it is essentially giving legislative power to the executive by allowing them to shape the bill through subtractive means.
I see their point, but I would counter than an omnibus bill is an abuse of legislative power, as it forces an all-or-nothing decision on the executive, which would not happen if the bills were appropriately seperated into their specific issues.
I know you're not arguing against line-item veto, by the way, so I'm not asking for you to defend it if you don't want to.
And since I'm busy re-building the American political system I would also suggest amending:
Full presidential pay for the rest of your life.
So, you get elected once. Great. That obviously took a great deal of work. You get to serve for four years. There are exceptions, but often a sitting president ends up doing 2 terms anyway. Unless something big happens (eg: Watergate) you get to sit on your ass for the remaining 4 years because no one can get rid of you and popularity ratings are now, totally irrelevant.
Then you leave the job and get the same salary until you die. WHY??? If I knew that
a) I couldn't really get fired
b) I would receive the same pay whether I did any work or not
then what motivation do I have to do anything?
Suggestion to future presidents: When you leave office, either find a job or make sure that you saved & invested wisely during your administration.
Stop making these fuckers so comfy.
Quote from: Mangrove on May 05, 2010, 06:46:04 PM
And since I'm busy re-building the American political system I would also suggest amending:
Full presidential pay for the rest of your life.
So, you get elected once. Great. That obviously took a great deal of work. You get to serve for four years. There are exceptions, but often a sitting president ends up doing 2 terms anyway. Unless something big happens (eg: Watergate) you get to sit on your ass for the remaining 4 years because no one can get rid of you and popularity ratings are now, totally irrelevant.
Then you leave the job and get the same salary until you die. WHY??? If I knew that
a) I couldn't really get fired
b) I would receive the same pay whether I did any work or not
then what motivation do I have to do anything?
Suggestion to future presidents: When you leave office, either find a job or make sure that you saved & invested wisely during your administration.
Stop making these fuckers so comfy.
I predict many sweetheart deals with lobbyists.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 05, 2010, 07:03:29 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on May 05, 2010, 06:46:04 PM
And since I'm busy re-building the American political system I would also suggest amending:
Full presidential pay for the rest of your life.
So, you get elected once. Great. That obviously took a great deal of work. You get to serve for four years. There are exceptions, but often a sitting president ends up doing 2 terms anyway. Unless something big happens (eg: Watergate) you get to sit on your ass for the remaining 4 years because no one can get rid of you and popularity ratings are now, totally irrelevant.
Then you leave the job and get the same salary until you die. WHY??? If I knew that
a) I couldn't really get fired
b) I would receive the same pay whether I did any work or not
then what motivation do I have to do anything?
Suggestion to future presidents: When you leave office, either find a job or make sure that you saved & invested wisely during your administration.
Stop making these fuckers so comfy.
I predict many sweetheart deals with lobbyists.
Compromise: Reasonably large civil servant pension, but not full pay?
This is why, among all his other ideas, the only one I really liked was the antimatierialistic ruling class.
ETA: I meant to mention that I was talking about Plato in that post, but I have been in a sleep deprived stupor all day.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 05, 2010, 07:03:29 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on May 05, 2010, 06:46:04 PM
And since I'm busy re-building the American political system I would also suggest amending:
Full presidential pay for the rest of your life.
So, you get elected once. Great. That obviously took a great deal of work. You get to serve for four years. There are exceptions, but often a sitting president ends up doing 2 terms anyway. Unless something big happens (eg: Watergate) you get to sit on your ass for the remaining 4 years because no one can get rid of you and popularity ratings are now, totally irrelevant.
Then you leave the job and get the same salary until you die. WHY??? If I knew that
a) I couldn't really get fired
b) I would receive the same pay whether I did any work or not
then what motivation do I have to do anything?
Suggestion to future presidents: When you leave office, either find a job or make sure that you saved & invested wisely during your administration.
Stop making these fuckers so comfy.
I predict many sweetheart deals with lobbyists.
How is that any different from what we have now? And don't forget that ex-presidents always pull in more than 6 figures per speaking engagement.