5 ms·

> I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in jurie

> 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
  > 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) Overall, the problem is that the system bends to accommodate the judges and lawyers, who get paid very well to be there, and abuses the jurors, who do not. Why do I have get up at 6:00 AM just to sit around for three days while you idiots figure out if you need me or not? This isn't rocket science, and you all already have scheduled dockets. The bigger problem with jury selection is that everything is trying to screen out people who bring in outside knowledge. This actively screens for the ignorant. I don't know if this is a good or bad thing, though. I suspect that it's a good thing overall as the number of times you get someone smart who recognizes a fault is probably far exceeded by the ignorant who think they know something false.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    "Why do I have get up at 6:00 AM just to sit around for three days while you idiots figure out if you need me or not?" My wife was called for jury duty a couple years back. It was a drunk driving case. During the preceding 12 months, she'd lost family in one accident involving a drunk driver, and a close friend of hers was hit (thankfully, not terribly injured) by a drunk driver in a separate accident. There was no way they were going to let her on that jury - they were dismissing people for far less. And she had to go back three days. Neither she nor I try to get out of jury duty - we view it as important and want to do our part - but yeah it can get abusive in pretty stupid ways.
- jgroszko 11y ago
  Agree that it's a pretty naive argument. There's probably a lot more to be said about how it would give even more influence to lobbyists and staffers that would stick around in DC for years and be far more knowledgeable about how to get things done.
MaysonL 11y ago
Easy potential fix: make the pay reasonably attractive (say 150% of median wage), and allow people to buy themselves out of it by paying their replacement's salary (and if the first 100 people picked all opt out to pay, then that's about 99x pure government profit).

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
> 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) Overall, the problem is that the system bends to accommodate the judges and lawyers, who get paid very well to be there, and abuses the jurors, who do not. Why do I have get up at 6:00 AM just to sit around for three days while you idiots figure out if you need me or not? This isn't rocket science, and you all already have scheduled dockets. The bigger problem with jury selection is that everything is trying to screen out people who bring in outside knowledge. This actively screens for the ignorant. I don't know if this is a good or bad thing, though. I suspect that it's a good thing overall as the number of times you get someone smart who recognizes a fault is probably far exceeded by the ignorant who think they know something false.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  "Why do I have get up at 6:00 AM just to sit around for three days while you idiots figure out if you need me or not?" My wife was called for jury duty a couple years back. It was a drunk driving case. During the preceding 12 months, she'd lost family in one accident involving a drunk driver, and a close friend of hers was hit (thankfully, not terribly injured) by a drunk driver in a separate accident. There was no way they were going to let her on that jury - they were dismissing people for far less. And she had to go back three days. Neither she nor I try to get out of jury duty - we view it as important and want to do our part - but yeah it can get abusive in pretty stupid ways.
jgroszko 11y ago
Agree that it's a pretty naive argument. There's probably a lot more to be said about how it would give even more influence to lobbyists and staffers that would stick around in DC for years and be far more knowledgeable about how to get things done.

MaysonL 11y ago

Easy potential fix: make the pay reasonably attractive (say 150% of median wage), and allow people to buy themselves out of it by paying their replacement's salary (and if the first 100 people picked all opt out to pay, then that's about 99x pure government profit).