12 ms·

The best quote of the paper (pg 23): >Interestingly, the reason we uncover such striking misperceptions does not appear to be that politicians are reluctant to

The best quote of the paper (pg 23): >Interestingly, the reason we uncover such striking misperceptions does not appear to be that politicians are reluctant to admit a belief that public opinion is not on their side – many do. Rather, it seems that the reality of where the public stands on these issues has such a weak influence on politicians’ perceptions of public opinion that two candidates coming to judgments about the same constituents largely fail to have much more in common than would two candidates picked entirely at random Basically, it is not that politicians intentionally mis-believe what their constituents support (willful ignorance, etc), the problem is that politicians are a poor representation of their constituents in general. I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in juries.

gizmo686 11y ago
>I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 term. This is the way government worked in ancient Greece (or rather, Athens, but other Greece city-states copied the model).
- HLRoku 11y ago
  I'm not too well educated on their gov'ts, but how effective was it? Any signs or indicators that it worked out for the better? Call me intolerant or ignorant, but I personally fear seeing what the general populus would try to get passed in America if such a system were established. Perhaps a naive` worry, but a worry nonetheless.
  - gizmo686 11y ago
    Disclaimer, my knowledge on this subject consists of an undergraduate course on world history. It worked relatively well. The role of government was considerably smaller than it is today. Also, during their term, serving on the council was a citizens full time job [0]. Additionally, their were still career politicians who advised the council; they just did not get a vote. Notably, among the politicians were generals, who were elected and did not have term limits. In addition to being influential with military and foreign policy, they tended to be influential for domestic matters as well. [0] Rather, It was their full-time job for one month out of their one year term. For the rest of their term, they attended monthly meetings.
jgroszko 11y ago
> I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in juries. And like jurors in juries, wouldn't we then be governed by people not smart enough to get out of their congressional term?
- WillyF 11y ago
  Make it pay really well and people won't try to get out of it.
  - sp332 11y ago
    It does pay really well.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > > I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in juries. > And like jurors in juries, wouldn't we then be governed by people not smart enough to get out of their congressional term? Now, I think that a by-lot Congress is a really bad idea for a variety of reasons, but that's a moderately stupid argument when it comes to juries (given that it assumes that everyone is actively seeking to avoid jury service, so the only people who actual serve are those who fail), and its even stupider applied to Congress -- its relatively common for people to want to have a say in the government of their country (to the point where already wealthy people will sometimes spend many times the salary a member of Congress earns per term on a campaign out of their own money), and shifting from an elected to a by-lot Congress would reduce the political power of voters as voters, increasing the delta represented by serving in Congress. And that's even before considering that members of Congress are paid substantially more than most workers; changing nothing besides the selection method would make being selected for Congress not much different than winning the lottery for most citizens -- only those who are both already wealthy and politically disinterested would have rational, self-interested reason to avoid service.
  - bsder 11y ago
ypeterholmes 11y ago
Interestingly? Seems this undermines the entire paper, because it's not that they don't know, but rather that they don't care. Most don't serve us anymore- they serve the people that put them there.
- dbroockman 11y ago
  This is my personal favorite interpretation of our results -- they could know if they cared to know, and so the fact that they don't know suggests that they don't care. With that said, this paper is at odds with that: https://www3.nd.edu/~dnickers/files/papers/Butler_Nickerson.QJPS11.pdf https://www3.nd.edu/~dnickers/files/papers/Butler_Nickerson....
intopieces 11y ago
>I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in juries. I think electing unqualified, easily-persuaded people into office is not a good idea. Jurors are the weakest part of our judicial system -- why do we pay professionals to convince unpaid non-professionals about the law? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just pay professionals to argue about it?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
huherto 11y ago
Following the juror model... Step 1 - From the district lists randomly select a small number of electors. Step 2 - Sequester the electors. Step 3 - The candidates present their proposals, background, arguments, counter arguments. Step 4 - Electors listen, meditate and cast a secret vote. Step 5 - Eliminate the candidate with the lowest number of votes. Step 6 - Repeat from Step 3 until one candidate has more than 51%. Step 7 - Dismiss the electors. Some advantages: - No need for expensive campaigns. Takes money out of politics. - The "Trial" can be televised. People would get involved on what is going on. - It reduces the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote. - Lesser-known candidates would have better odds of winning.
- MaysonL 11y ago
  Slightly better, and works well in practice[0], replace step 6 with "Repeat from step 3 until one candidate has more than 2/3 the votes, and possibly chage step 5 to cut candidate list down more quickly (imagine how long it would take to eliminate 1 at a time with 100 candidates). If after 2 candidates remain neither gets more than 2/3 the vote, flip a coin. [0] Search "AA 3d Legacy Election"

gizmo686 11y ago

>I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 term. This is the way government worked in ancient Greece (or rather, Athens, but other Greece city-states copied the model).

HLRoku 11y ago
I'm not too well educated on their gov'ts, but how effective was it? Any signs or indicators that it worked out for the better? Call me intolerant or ignorant, but I personally fear seeing what the general populus would try to get passed in America if such a system were established. Perhaps a naive` worry, but a worry nonetheless.
- gizmo686 11y ago
  Disclaimer, my knowledge on this subject consists of an undergraduate course on world history. It worked relatively well. The role of government was considerably smaller than it is today. Also, during their term, serving on the council was a citizens full time job [0]. Additionally, their were still career politicians who advised the council; they just did not get a vote. Notably, among the politicians were generals, who were elected and did not have term limits. In addition to being influential with military and foreign policy, they tended to be influential for domestic matters as well. [0] Rather, It was their full-time job for one month out of their one year term. For the rest of their term, they attended monthly meetings.

jgroszko 11y ago

> I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in juries. And like jurors in juries, wouldn't we then be governed by people not smart enough to get out of their congressional term?

WillyF 11y ago
Make it pay really well and people won't try to get out of it.
- sp332 11y ago
  It does pay really well.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> > I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in juries. > And like jurors in juries, wouldn't we then be governed by people not smart enough to get out of their congressional term? Now, I think that a by-lot Congress is a really bad idea for a variety of reasons, but that's a moderately stupid argument when it comes to juries (given that it assumes that everyone is actively seeking to avoid jury service, so the only people who actual serve are those who fail), and its even stupider applied to Congress -- its relatively common for people to want to have a say in the government of their country (to the point where already wealthy people will sometimes spend many times the salary a member of Congress earns per term on a campaign out of their own money), and shifting from an elected to a by-lot Congress would reduce the political power of voters as voters, increasing the delta represented by serving in Congress. And that's even before considering that members of Congress are paid substantially more than most workers; changing nothing besides the selection method would make being selected for Congress not much different than winning the lottery for most citizens -- only those who are both already wealthy and politically disinterested would have rational, self-interested reason to avoid service.
- bsder 11y ago

ypeterholmes 11y ago

Interestingly? Seems this undermines the entire paper, because it's not that they don't know, but rather that they don't care. Most don't serve us anymore- they serve the people that put them there.

dbroockman 11y ago
This is my personal favorite interpretation of our results -- they could know if they cared to know, and so the fact that they don't know suggests that they don't care. With that said, this paper is at odds with that: https://www3.nd.edu/~dnickers/files/papers/Butler_Nickerson.QJPS11.pdf https://www3.nd.edu/~dnickers/files/papers/Butler_Nickerson....

intopieces 11y ago

>I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in juries. I think electing unqualified, easily-persuaded people into office is not a good idea. Jurors are the weakest part of our judicial system -- why do we pay professionals to convince unpaid non-professionals about the law? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just pay professionals to argue about it?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

huherto 11y ago

Following the juror model... Step 1 - From the district lists randomly select a small number of electors. Step 2 - Sequester the electors. Step 3 - The candidates present their proposals, background, arguments, counter arguments. Step 4 - Electors listen, meditate and cast a secret vote. Step 5 - Eliminate the candidate with the lowest number of votes. Step 6 - Repeat from Step 3 until one candidate has more than 51%. Step 7 - Dismiss the electors. Some advantages: - No need for expensive campaigns. Takes money out of politics. - The "Trial" can be televised. People would get involved on what is going on. - It reduces the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote. - Lesser-known candidates would have better odds of winning.

MaysonL 11y ago
Slightly better, and works well in practice[0], replace step 6 with "Repeat from step 3 until one candidate has more than 2/3 the votes, and possibly chage step 5 to cut candidate list down more quickly (imagine how long it would take to eliminate 1 at a time with 100 candidates). If after 2 candidates remain neither gets more than 2/3 the vote, flip a coin. [0] Search "AA 3d Legacy Election"