4 ms·

Elect the parliament by lottery. 4 years of service if you get drafted, replace 25% of seats per year. Would be far more representative of the people than curr

Elect the parliament by lottery. 4 years of service if you get drafted, replace 25% of seats per year. Would be far more representative of the people than current way and less susceptible to populism. People often think I'm joking when I propose this but I haven't heard a good argument against it yet.

walterbell 9y ago
See the Ekklesia (Ancient Greece) for pro/con: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9817173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9817173
igravious 9y ago
If jury duty is random why not political duty? I think your idea (is it your idea?) deserves a lot of attention. Maybe 2 years of service. 4 is a lot. That combined with Swiss-style direct democracy would go a long way I feel. And universal basic income.
- tzs 9y ago
  > If jury duty is random why not political duty? Jurors are asked to do a couple fairly common tasks that most people do frequently throughout their lives: (1) listen to different sides of a story and decide which side to believe, and (2) decide the motives for a person's acts. A legislator is asked to judge complex policy questions often requiring extensive specialized knowledge. The arguments for and against are often long and complex. It's not a job you can expect to take some random adult off the street for and have them do it competently.
  - KSteffensen 9y ago
    Why should a career in party politics improve your ability to make these decisions? Do current law makers have to pass some kind of knowledge based test to be allowed to make the decisions?
ethbro 9y ago
As someone who agrees with the idea, here's some arguments against it. 1) By taking the average, you are risking compounding educational decreases in the populace. Bad public education policy is enacted, chosen politicians become less educated, worse public policy is enacted, etc etc. 2) By using less experienced politians, you lessen the efficiency of the entire political process. 3) By not having the possibility of re-election, you remove any responsibility of the elected after they're elected.
- KSteffensen 9y ago
  1) This mechanism is already present in the current electoral system and is very evident in the election of Trump. 2) This is the reason to only replace 25% if the parliament per year so that not all experience is lost. It gives more power to non-elected public officials which can be good or bad. 3) By removing reelection you also remove career politicians and reduce corruption. No need for campaign contributions or campaigning promises. Also, the drafted people would go back to their social circles to be judged by their peers after ended term of office where they would have to own their decisions.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    1) Not nearly to the extent it would be. Unless you'd like to take the viewpoint that the upper class don't buy better educations than the rest of the country. 2) You still have a maximum 4 year experience level. As someone who grew up in a college town, I'd estimate having to explain the basics to 1/4 of the elected body every year would require significant resources. Additionally, handled incorrectly, you imperil the stability of the legislature. Imagine if every year were Trump election year: Mr. John and Ms. Jane Doe go to Washington intent on toppling the system as it stands because they're unhappy with the way things are. 3) Fair, but the social censure of being judged is a few orders of magnitude smaller than the power these people would wield while in office. If you think politicians are corrupt now, imagine if Exxon offered $x million in bribes to an average person off the street to approve oil drilling in wilderness refuges. There is a lot wrong with the wealthy monopolizing political power, but at least it semi-insulates them against outright financial persuasion.
EGreg 9y ago
Similar idea: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=212 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=212

walterbell 9y ago

See the Ekklesia (Ancient Greece) for pro/con: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9817173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9817173

igravious 9y ago

If jury duty is random why not political duty? I think your idea (is it your idea?) deserves a lot of attention. Maybe 2 years of service. 4 is a lot. That combined with Swiss-style direct democracy would go a long way I feel. And universal basic income.

tzs 9y ago
> If jury duty is random why not political duty? Jurors are asked to do a couple fairly common tasks that most people do frequently throughout their lives: (1) listen to different sides of a story and decide which side to believe, and (2) decide the motives for a person's acts. A legislator is asked to judge complex policy questions often requiring extensive specialized knowledge. The arguments for and against are often long and complex. It's not a job you can expect to take some random adult off the street for and have them do it competently.
- KSteffensen 9y ago
  Why should a career in party politics improve your ability to make these decisions? Do current law makers have to pass some kind of knowledge based test to be allowed to make the decisions?

ethbro 9y ago

As someone who agrees with the idea, here's some arguments against it. 1) By taking the average, you are risking compounding educational decreases in the populace. Bad public education policy is enacted, chosen politicians become less educated, worse public policy is enacted, etc etc. 2) By using less experienced politians, you lessen the efficiency of the entire political process. 3) By not having the possibility of re-election, you remove any responsibility of the elected after they're elected.

KSteffensen 9y ago
1) This mechanism is already present in the current electoral system and is very evident in the election of Trump. 2) This is the reason to only replace 25% if the parliament per year so that not all experience is lost. It gives more power to non-elected public officials which can be good or bad. 3) By removing reelection you also remove career politicians and reduce corruption. No need for campaign contributions or campaigning promises. Also, the drafted people would go back to their social circles to be judged by their peers after ended term of office where they would have to own their decisions.
- ethbro 9y ago
  1) Not nearly to the extent it would be. Unless you'd like to take the viewpoint that the upper class don't buy better educations than the rest of the country. 2) You still have a maximum 4 year experience level. As someone who grew up in a college town, I'd estimate having to explain the basics to 1/4 of the elected body every year would require significant resources. Additionally, handled incorrectly, you imperil the stability of the legislature. Imagine if every year were Trump election year: Mr. John and Ms. Jane Doe go to Washington intent on toppling the system as it stands because they're unhappy with the way things are. 3) Fair, but the social censure of being judged is a few orders of magnitude smaller than the power these people would wield while in office. If you think politicians are corrupt now, imagine if Exxon offered $x million in bribes to an average person off the street to approve oil drilling in wilderness refuges. There is a lot wrong with the wealthy monopolizing political power, but at least it semi-insulates them against outright financial persuasion.

EGreg 9y ago

Similar idea: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=212 http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=212